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

[Dennis Bonvie]

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.

Considering the last 15 Vezina's have been won by 13 different goalies, that makes sense.

 

[VanIslander]

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.

 

[carjackmalone]

My top 5

Hasek
Hall
Roy
Plante
Sawchuk

 

[Michael Farkas]

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.

That Durnan’s feat is far greater than Connell’s goes without saying. If a goaler in the roaring 20’s was ever caught in an avalanche of rubber, as Durnan was during his last game in Boston, he would have hung up his skates forever. In those days they didn’t have to contend with four and five-man rushes, scrambles and screen shots as they do today. Although it is often boasted that goalers in the old days used to stop some 50 or 60 pucks per game, to this day nobody knows what constituted a shot on the net in those hectic games.

Frank Carlin, a pretty good hockey player in his day, and now the dean of amateur coaches in Canada, was talking about Durnan’s feat and comparing him with goalers of his day.

“I doubt very much that goalers of my time could stand up to the rubber that’s shot at goalees of today,” said Carlin, who now coaches the Montreal Royals. “In my day a defenseman never moved off his blueline to make rushes as they do today. All the goalers had to do was stand in their net and catch pucks and Durnan could do that anytime. No sir, a goaler today gets a lot more work than those oldies ever got.”

"The old players weren't trained to play at such speed as we see today," says Frank Boucher. "The old goalies had a cinch compared with the boys in the nets now. The modern goalie spends more time on the back of his neck than he does on his skates."

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.

 

[nabby12]

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.

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]

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.

 

[DN28]

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.

Summit Series 1972
1. Vladislav Tretiak (USSR): 8 games / 31 goals allowed / 236 saves / 3.88 GAA / 0.8839
2. Tony Esposito (CAN): 4 games / 13 goals allowed / 97 saves / 3.25 GAA / 0.8818
3. Ken Dryden (CAN): 4 games / 19 goals allowed / 98 saves / 4.75 GAA / 0.8376
Source

World Championship 1973
1. Jiří Crha (CSSR): 2 games / 3 goals allowed / 51 saves / 0.9444
2. Antti Leppänen (FIN): 6 games / 10 goals allowed / 149 saves / 0.9371
3. William Löfqvist (SWE): 7 games / 13 goals allowed / 182 saves / 0.9333
4. Jiří Holeček (CSSR): 8 games / 17 goals allowed / 212 saves / 0.9258
5. Alexander Sidelnikov (USSR): 3 games / 4 goals allowed / 48 saves / 0.9231
6. Vladislav Tretiak (USSR): 7 games / 14 goals allowed / 163 saves / 0.9209
7. Christer Abrahamsson (SWE): 4 games / 10 goals allowed / 89 saves / 0.8990
8. Walery Kosyl (POL): 10 games / 58 goals allowed / 344 saves / 0.8557
9. Robert Merkle (W. GER): 4 games / 27 goals allowed / 158 saves / 0.8541
10. Anton Kehle (W. GER): 9 games / 55 goals allowed / 314 saves / 0.8509
11. Jorma Valtonen (FIN): 4 games / 29 goals allowed / 151 saves / 0.8389
12. Henryk Wojtynek (POL): 2 games / 18 goals allowed / 38 saves / 0.6786
Source
IIHF Directoriate´s Best Goaltender: Jiří Holeček
1st All-Star Team: Jiří Holeček

World Championship 1974
1. Curt Larsson (SWE): 4 games / 4 goals allowed / 137 saves / 0.9716
2. Stig Wetzel (FIN): 2 games / 2 goals allowed / 54 saves / 0.9643
3. Christer Abrahamsson (SWE): 6 games / 16 goals allowed / 248 saves / 0.9394
4. Vladislav Tretiak (USSR): 8 games / 12 goals allowed / 157 saves / 0.9290
5. Alexander Sidelnikov (USSR): 3 games / 6 goals allowed / 64 saves / 0.9143
6. Jiří Holeček (CSSR): 6 games / 14 goals allowed / 139 saves / 0.9085
7. Jorma Valtonen (FIN): 5 games / 19 goals allowed / 163 saves / 0.8956
8. Jiří Crha (CSSR): 5 games / 11 goals allowed / 92 saves / 0.8932
9. Anti Leppänen (FIN): 4 games / 15 goals allowed / 113 saves / 0.8828
10. Walery Kosyl (POL): 10 games / 48 goals allowed / 353 saves / 0.8803
11. Joachim Hurbanek (E. GER): 5 games / 26 goals allowed / 136 saves / 0.8395
12. Wolfgang Fisher (E. GER): 8 games / 45 goals allowed / 214 saves / 0.8263
13. Andrzej Tkacz (POL): 4 games / 20 goals allowed / 50 saves / 0.7143
Source
IIHF Directoriate´s Best Goaltender: Vladislav Tretiak
All-Star Team Voting: 1. Curt Larsson (43 votes), 2. Vladislav Tretiak (38 votes), 3. Jiří Holeček (23 votes), 4. Christer Abrahamsson (14 votes), 5. Stig Wetzel (2 votes), 6. Anti Leppänen, Jorma Valtonen (1 vote)

Summit Series 1974
1. Alexander Sidelnikov (USSR): 1 game / 2 goals allowed / 24 saves / 0.9231
2. Gerry Cheevers (CAN): 7 games / 24 goals allowed / 215 saves / 0.8996
3. Vladislav Tretiak (USSR): 7 games / 25 goals allowed / 213 saves / 0.8950
4. Don McLeod (CAN): 1 game / 8 goals allowed / 40 saves / 0.8333

World Championship 1975
1. Jiří Holeček (CSSR): 9 games / 14 goals allowed / 212 saves / 0.9381
2. Anti Leppänen (FIN): 7 games / 15 goals allowed / 214 saves / 0.9345
3. Viktor Krivolapov (USSR): 2 games / 3 goals allowed / 40 saves / 0.9302
4. Vladislav Tretiak (USSR): 8 games / 18 goals allowed / 221 saves / 0.9247
5. Leif Holmqvist (SWE): 7 games / 22 goals allowed / 200 saves / 0.9009
6. Göran Högosta (SWE): 4 games / 12 goals allowed / 89 saves / 0.8812
7. Jorma Valtonen (FIN): 3 games / 19 goals allowed / 124 saves / 0.8671
8. Andrzej Tkacz (POL): 9 games / 41 goals allowed / 263 saves / 0.8651
9. Blaine Comstock (USA): 4 games / 32 goals allowed / 187 saves / 0.8539
10. Tadeusz Slowakiewicz (POL): 5 games / 24 goals allowed / 127 saves / 0.8411
11. Jim Warden (USA): 7 games / 52 goals allowed / 253 saves / 0.8295
12. Jiří Crha (CSSR): 2 games / 5 goals allowed / 20 saves / 0.8000

- Report of the game USSR vs. Poland (13:2) does not show the number of saves that each goalie recorded. Therefore statistics of Krivolapov (+2 goal allowed), Tkacz (+8 goals allowed) and Slowakiewicz (+5 goals allowed) are incomplete. The game is not counted in this table so these 3 goalies played in fact one more game each than the number presented above.

Source
IIHF Directoriate´s Best Goaltender: Jiří Holeček
1st All-Star Team: Vladislav Tretiak (42 votes out of 92 ballots)

Olympic Games 1976
1. Alexander Sidelnikov (USSR): 1 game / 1 goal allowed / 25 saves / 0.9615
2. Jiří Holeček (CSSR): 5 games / 9 goals allowed / 129 saves / 0.9348
3. Vladislav Tretiak (CSSR): 4 games / 10 goals allowed / 127 saves / 0.9270
4. Jiří Crha (CSSR): 1 game / 1 goal allowed / 12 saves / 0.9231
5. Anti Leppänen (FIN): 2 games / 7 goals allowed / 77 saves / 0.9167
6. Anton Kehle (W. GER): 3 games / 8 goals allowed / 80 saves / 0.9091
7. Jim Warden (USA): 5 games / 21 goals allowed / 197 saves / 0.9037
8. Urpo Ylönen (FIN): 3 games / 11 goals allowed / 98 saves / 0.8991
9. Erich Weishaupt (W. GER): 3 games / 16 goals allowed / 95 saves / 0.8559
10. Walery Kosyl (POL): 3 games / 18 goals allowed / 97 saves / 0.8435
11. Andrzej Tkacz (POL): 3 games / 26 goals allowed / 104 saves / 0.8000
Source

World Championship 1976
1. Vladimír Dzurilla (CSSR): 2 games / 1 goal allowed / 41 saves / 0.9762
2. Jiří Holeček (CSSR): 8 games / 13 goals allowed / 214 saves / 0.9427
3. Vladislav Tretiak (USSR): 10 games / 19 goals allowed / 257 saves / 0.9312
4. Mike Curran (USA): 5 games / 15 goals allowed / 177 saves / 0.9219
5. William Löfqvist (SWE): 4 games / 9 goals allowed / 102 saves / 0.9189
6. Erich Weishaupt (W. GER): 8 games / 24 goals allowed / 235 saves / 0.9073
7. Göran Högosta (SWE): 6 games / 20 goals allowed / 188 saves / 0.9038
8. Andrzej Tkacz (POL): 10 games / 39 goals allowed / 339 saves / 0.8968
9. Jorma Valtonen (FIN): 10 games / 41 goals allowed / 326 saves / 0.8883
10. Peter LoPresti (USA): 5 games / 27 goals allowed / 177 saves / 0.8676
11. Wolfgang Kraske (E. GER): 6 games / 27 goals allowed / 156 saves / 0.8525
12. Roland Herzig (E. GER): 6 games / 25 goals allowed / 124 saves / 0.8322
13. Anton Kehle (W. GER): 2 games / 17 goals allowed / 76 saves / 0.8172
14. Henryk Wojtynek (POL): 1 game / 8 goals allowed / 25 saves / 0.7576
15. Alexander Sidelnikov (USSR): 1 game / 4 goals allowed / 8 saves / 0.6667
Source
IIHF Directoriate´s Best Goaltender: Jiří Holeček
1st All-Star Team: Jiří Holeček (159 votes out of 192 ballots)

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%:

Olympic Games 1980
1. William Löfqvist (SWE): 2 games / 1 goal allowed / 53 saves / 0.50 GAA / 0.9815
2. Karel Lang (CSSR): 1 game / 2 goals allowed / 27 saves / 2.00 GAA / 0.9310
3. Jim Craig (USA): 7 games / 15 goals allowed / 163 saves / 2.14 GAA / 0.9157
4. Antero Kivelä (FIN): 3 games / 10 goals allowed / 90 saves / 3.33 GAA / 0.9000
5. Vladimir Myshkin (USSR): 5 games / 9 goals allowed / 77 saves / 2.08 GAA / 0.8953
6. Valerian Netedu (ROM): 4 games / 12 goals allowed / 93 saves / 5.21 GAA / 0.8857
7. Paul Pageau (CAN): 4 games / 11 goals allowed / 82 saves / 2.79 GAA / 0.8817
8. Henryk Wojtynek (POL): 5 games / 16 goals allowed / 114 saves / 4.10 GAA / 0.8769
9. Bob Dupuis (CAN): 3 games / 7 goals allowed / 49 saves / 3.44 GAA / 0.8750
10. Minoru Misawa (JAP): 3 games / 14 goals allowed / 97 saves / 6.50 GAA / 0.8739
11. Pelle Lindbergh (SWE): 5 games / 18 goals allowed / 124 saves / 3.60 GAA / 0.8732
12. Jim Marthinsen (NOR): 3 games / 14 goals allowed / 88 saves / 4.93 GAA / 0.8627
13. Jiří Králík (CSSR): 5 games / 15 goals allowed / 83 saves / 3.00 GAA / 0.8469
14. Jorma Valtonen (FIN): 4 games / 15 goals allowed / 82 saves / 3.93 GAA / 0.8454
15. Vladislav Tretiak (USSR): 4 games / 8 goals allowed / 42 saves / 3.00 GAA / 0.8400
16. Pawel Lukaszka (POL): 2 games / 7 goals allowed / 31 saves / 6.36 GAA / 0.8158
17. Takeshi Iwamoto (JAP): 3 games / 22 goals allowed / 97 saves / 7.73 GAA / 0.8151
18. Gheorghe Hutan (ROM): 4 games / 17 goals allowed / 73 saves / 6.31 GAA / 0.8111
19. Sigmund Suttner (W. GER): 4 games / 20 goals allowed / 78 saves / 6.23 GAA / 0.7959
20. Bernhard Englbrecht (W. GER): 3 games / 10 goals allowed / 39 saves / 5.59 GAA / 0.7959
21. Ted Lenssen (NET): 5 games / 30 goals allowed / 116 saves / 6.88 GAA / 0.7945
22. Tore Walberg (NOR): 3 games / 22 goals allowed / 55 saves / 10.19 GAA / 0.7143
23. John de Bruyn (NET): 2 games / 13 goals allowed / 8 saves / 20.33 GAA / 0.3810
Source 1, p. 103, 117-118; Source 2

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:

1980/81
1) Vladislav Tretyak 462 (119-51-3)
2) Aleksandr Maltsev 453 (115-54-0)
3) Jiří Lála 160 (27-31-17)
4) Sergey Makarov 151 (25-27-22)
5) Peter Lindmark 142 (25-24-9)
6) ?
7) Vladimír Martinec
8) Valery Vasilyev

1981/82
1) Vladislav Tretyak 224 (61-11-19)
2) Milan Nový 217 (46-31-17)
3) Viktor Shalimov 191 (58-7-3)
4) Jiří Lála 175 (56-2-3)
5) Miroslav Dvořák 160 (24-27-34)
6) Sergey Makarov
7) Jiří Králik (or 9th)?
8) Valery Vasilyev
9) ?

1982/83
1) Vladislav Tretyak 346 (82-43-14)
2) Vladimir Krutov 214 (49-29-9)
3) Jiří Lála 195 (52-18-2)
4) Sergey Makarov 123 (26-19-7)
5) Jiří Králik 109
6) Igor Larionov
7) František Černík 76
8) ?
9) Aleksey Kasatonov
10) Vyacheslav Fetisov
11) Dušan Pašek 49

1983/84
1) Vyacheslav Fetisov 316 (96-10-8)
2) Vladislav Tretyak 182 (45-21-5)
3) Dominik Hašek 163 (28-36-7)
4) Sergey Makarov 124 (32-12-4)
5) Vladimir Krutov 86 (23-2-13)
6) Jaromír Šindel 81 (18-11-5)
7) Peter Gradin 66 (19-4-1)
8) Aleksandr Kozhevnikov 52 (8-11-6)
9) Erich Kühnhackl 51 (14-4-1)
10) Nikolay Drozdetsky 38 (9-1-9)
11) Milan Chalupa 36 (11-0-3)
12) Igor Liba 34 (8-5-0)
13) Petri Skriko 28 (0-13-2)
14) Thomas Rundqvist 24 (6-3-0)
15) Raimo Summanen 16 (0-7-2)

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:

1981: Tretyak won and Yuri Tsybanyov did the laudatory write-up. It's not very intersting throughout. You get the impression that the Soviet journalists were running out of idea what to say about Tretyak beyond the usual canticles on his character, work attitude, etc. Only a few points strike me as noteworthy:

• Tsybanyov says Tretyak's last season (1979-1980) was "not exactly successful" and that it had triggered speculation whether he, turning 28, was beginning to decline. The 1980-1981 season proved otherwise.
• Tretyak had to (and managed to) overcome an injury during the 1980-1981 season – his first injury in 12 years, which highlights his durability.
• Tsybanyov spotted a "novelty" in Tretyak's game in 1980-1981: shots that came his way were not always caught – and not because he let them through or gave up rebounds. Instead he cleared and deflected them out of the danger zone in a controlled manner, making life easier for his skating teammates. He did that even on strong shots by the opponents, Tsybanyov says.

Tarasov noticed another progress in Tretiak's game. This was published after 1983 SPOTY announcement:

1983: Tretyak won the poll again and since the Soviets had run out of ideas what to say about him by 1981, it didn't get better two years later. Футбол Хоккей let Anatoli Tarasov write the laudatory piece and the raving about Tretyak's attitude and performances is getting rather tiresome. The few interesting points:

• "About two years ago, when the national team returned from Canada after difficult games" (referring to the 1981 Canada Cup, I assume), Tarasov had a disagreement with Tretyak. The goaltender was complaining that the defencemen "did not always play carefully" and that their unsteady game had allowed the Canadians to create scoring chances. Tarasov countered: he thought Tikhonov was wise to transfer "part of the functions of the defencemen" to Tretyak.
• Tarasov says that Tretyak's abilities created a "margin of safety" for the Soviets team, allowing them "to take measured risks and to take risks in many ways." Examples Tarasov gives: it allowed the coaches to "expand the offensive functions of the defencemen, which you see in the example of Kasatonov and Fetisov", and it also allowed them to "remove part of the defensive duties of the forwards", enabling the unit "to defend with small forces".
• Tarasov: "I don't like a defensive system where the goaltender stands idle behind a concrete wall of defensive bulwarks." He says such a defence would not include "unpleasant surprises" for the opponent and it would rob the goaltender of his practice and development.

______________________

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.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Interesting quote at the end by Tarasov..."I don't like a defensive system where the goaltender stands idle behind a concrete wall of defensive bulwarks." He says such a defence would not include "unpleasant surprises" for the opponent and it would rob the goaltender of his practice and development.

@DN28 First, thanks for that. Secondly, that's not the most flattering rundown of Tretiak - at least the way I read it. Do you have him near the top of this round in terms of voting?

 

[DN28]

I have estimations of several elite non-NHL European goalies and defensemen in terms of how would their seasons translate in a global league with concentrated talent pool from both sides of the Atlantic.

They’re nothing more than my subjective views, so feel free to ignore it / disagree with it. Although estimations are based on my own careful, detail-oriented study of goalies of Europe and NA, so some people might find it useful. My Tretiak career projection in a global league derived from his season-to-season results are:

1970: Domestic league player
1971: Domestic league player
1972: Irregular NHL player (not an established starter on NHL team)
1973: 5th best goalie (established starter on NHL team, getting meaningful amount of AS votes)
1974: 4th best goalie
1975: 3rd best goalie
1976: 3rd best goalie
1977: 7th best goalie
1978: 6th best goalie
1979: 4th best goalie
1980: Regular NHL player (average NHL starter with no AST votes by the end)
1981: 1st best goalie
1982: 2nd best goalie
1983: 1st best goalie
1984: 2nd best goalie

 

[DN28]

Interesting quote at the end by Tarasov..."I don't like a defensive system where the goaltender stands idle behind a concrete wall of defensive bulwarks." He says such a defence would not include "unpleasant surprises" for the opponent and it would rob the goaltender of his practice and development.

@DN28 First, thanks for that. Secondly, that's not the most flattering rundown of Tretiak - at least the way I read it. Do you have him near the top of this round in terms of voting?

Yeah, I actually have Tretiak near the top of this round.

It comes down to what each voter prefers but I see both longevity and high peak in Tretiak.
I do think that we'd be looking differently at the first half of 1980s goaltending quality with Tretiak and Billy Smith both playing in the same league. I view them similarly. Above average, consistent and reliable goalies through the 1970s, who brought their game to the next level in the early 1980s... until they got old/retired.

 

[CuuuJooo]

Vezina's Canadiens weren't the best team of the era. If we look at the season-by-season.

Canadiens
1911 - Second in regular season to LeSeuer's Senators
1912 - Last of four in the league. Vezina still leads in GAA
1913 - Fourth of seven in the league. Finished second to Paddy Moran amongst starters
1914 - Second of seven in the league. Tied Holmes for GAA lead
1915 - Finished last in the league. Finished a distant second to Benedict in GAA
1916 - Finished first in the league. Pitre and Lalonde have strong years. Second to Benedict in GAA. Team wins the Cup
1917 - Split schedule, but finished second overall to Sens. Canadiens beat Sens in playoffs largely on the back of Vezina's stellar goaltending. Second amongst starters in GAA
1918 - Finished first in the league. Lead in GAA. Lost in playoffs as Vezina gets shelled.
1919 - Finished second of three in league. Distant second to Benedict in GAA. Montreal beats Sens 4-1 in playoffs largely on the back of Vezina's play.
1920 - Distant second to Sens of four teams in the league.
1921 - Finished third of four in the league
1922 - Finished third of four in the league
1923 - Finished close second of four in the league.
1924 - Finished second in the league. Wins the NHL championship bouyed by a Vezina shutout. Vezina allows four goals in four games against the western teams to win the Cup.
1925 - Finished third of six in the league. Loses to Victoria in the SC Finals. Vezina lead the league in GAA

Vezina's Canadiens win two Cups and lose two more. They also made the 1919 Final. 5 appearances in the 1915-1925 period. There are so some periods where the team finishes poorly.

Benedict's Senators win three Cups in four years. The two years they don't win in that stretch (1919 and 1922) they lead the league in points. But in that peak period where Benedict is running away with the GAA title, he's doing it on teams that win the league championship year after year after year.

I think the Senators are the clear best team of the era. Vezina's Canadiens and Lehman's Millionaires contend for second, but none have the top to bottom depth of the late 10s/early 20s Sens.

The Senators also win Cups just before and just after Benedict's tenure.

Interesting!

I obviously didn't look too closely at the teams' overall records. I knew that the Habs weren't all that successful pre-1916, but, for some reason, I thought they dominated after that. I knew that, economically, the Sens started to decline and figured that translated to the ice. Guess not!

 

[Michael Farkas]

Yeah, I actually have Tretiak near the top of this round.

It comes down to what each voter prefers but I see both longevity and high peak in Tretiak.
I do think that we'd be looking differently at the first half of 1980s goaltending quality with Tretiak and Billy Smith both playing in the same league. I view them similarly. Above average, consistent and reliable goalies through the 1970s, who brought their game to the next level in the early 1980s... until they got old/retired.

I see, interesting. Don't feel compelled to respond to these questions directly, as I'm just trying to keep the conversation going...

Do you have concerns about the level of competition for Tretiak? Now, we saw him, right? So, we know that he was very good (at least, in my opinion - I prefer Tretiak to Dryden). But what I found going back was that the position itself is very fragile, historically.

Look at the NHL, it took 20 years to recover from the "you need a backup goalie" rule. You look at some of the guys who did spot duty in the O6 era...Gump is a bit of sacred cow here so I'll leave him alone, but like, Hank Bassen.......? Snore. The same thing in the 30's and 40's...you can see something with the top guys, but right below the top end, it really bottoms out fast in terms of ability.

Tretiak was facing what competition domestically in terms of scoring talent and then competing for awards against what goalies? How much of these "below the national team" level guys do we really know well?

And then internationally, obviously countries grew their programs at different rates, but is it worth (or has it been done?) digging in to filter out Poland or East Germany or whatever games and then compare to other goalies internationally? (And I don't mean filter for Tretiak and leave the easy games for all others, of course).

I don't even know if that tells us anything, because it could be the Bobby Orr Effect, so to speak...on one hand, the third best d-man in the league was several tiers below him...but also Bobby Orr is the best player I've ever seen haha - I wonder if there's something directionally similar here with Tretiak...

 

[jigglysquishy]

Playoff performances are going to come up a lot. Let's look at our two early goalies. I won't go through season by season, but I'll try to cover as much as possible. Here's Vezina

1916 Finals
The Canadiens lose to Portland 2-0. Vezina lets in a goal in the first and in the second.
Canadiens 0 - Rosebuds 1
The Saskatoon Phoenix - March 21, 1916
Vezina is specific is not mentioned

Smothering the National Hockey Association champions with speed and outplaying in all departments, Portland, Pacific Coast Hockey League champions, easily mastered Canadiens tonight.

The Canadiens defeat Portland 2-1. Hab stars Lalonde and Laviolette do not play. All goals in first period
Canadiens 1 - Rosebuds 1
The Saskatoon Phoenix - March 23, 1916

Vezina Played Well. Canadiens played a better defence than was shown on Monday, but Vezina, in goal for the locals, was the mainstay. Vezina shoved aside numerous shots that appeared likely to be sure coutners.

The Canadiens defeat Portland 6 -3. A big brawl between Lalonde and Moose Johnson causes the police to interrupt.
Portland opened scoring, but were tied by Montreal. 1-1 after 1. 4-2 Montreal after 2. Game falls apart after the brawl. Vezina is not mentioned in specific
Canadiens 2 - Rosebuds 1
The Saskatoon Phoenix - March 23, 1916

"Newsy" Lalonde, probably the best known professional hockey player in Eastern Canada and who played two seasons at the coast, was in the centre of the crucial mix-up. Shortly after the final period began, Lalone made an end to end rush, which was terminated by Irvine, the Portland cover-point. Lalodne turned on Irvine, back checking him. Johnson, Portland's poiint, charged Lalonde from behind, knocking him to the ice and then started at the Canadien player with his fists. Lalonde quicjly came to his feet, but he was then attacked by Oatman, who jumped in to help Johnson out. The brought a general mix-up...Referee Pulford and Assisant Brrennan were re-enforced by Chief of Police Moffat and a constable and order restored. Oatman and Johnson were benched.

Portland defeats the Canadiens 6-5. Portland opens up the game 1-0 in the first. Eventualyl it gets to 3-0 in the second, before Montreal makes it 4-3. Portland scored 3 in the third to win 6-5.
Canadiens 2 - Rosebuds 2
Vezina is not mentioned is specifc


Montreal defeats Portland 2-1 to win the Cup.
Canadiens 3 - Rosebuds 2

The Saskatoon Phoenix - March 31, 1916

Goldie Prodgers, who was used as a substitute by the Canadiens throughout the greater part of the NHA season and who has been the sensation of the world's professional championship series, shares with Newsy Lalonde the main credit for tonight's victory.

The Montreal Daily Mail - March 31, 1916

The Canadiens defence held them out in good style and Vezina was only troubled with long shots.

1917 Finals
Montreal defeats Seattle 8-4
Canadiens 1 - Metropolitans 0

The Leader - March 19, 1917

Pitre and Vezina are Real Stars. Vezina was peppered with fives times as many shots as the Seattle goal-tender, but he fended the most difficult shots with ease and saves his goal despite a rapid fire bombardment...... Seattle could not stop Vezina from turning back their own tried for the goal.

Seattle defeats Montreal 6-1
Canadiens 1 - Metropolitans 1
Vezina, clearly, does not have a good game. He let's in a goal 9 minutes in and it just gets more and more out of hand


Seattle defeats Montreal 4-1
Canadiens 1 - Metropolitans 2
The Calgary Daily Herald - March 24, 1917

Marvelous goal-keeping by both Vezina and Holmes.....Setting a dazzling pace from the face off, the coast champions kept up an incessant bombardment on the Canadiens citadel only to be turned back by Vezina. Holmes at the other end frustrated more than one Canadien attack, playing one of the most brilliant games of his career. It was ten minutes after the start that Morris sagged Vezina's net for the first marker and for the next thirty minutes the teams battled without a tally.......Mets won by outgaming the visitors and being able to stand up under the strain of a gruelling struggle. They had more shots on the Canadien net than the visitors were able to plant in Holmes direction and it was only Vezina's wonderful work that baffles description that kept the teams fairly even for the major portion of the night. Vezina's performance has never been equalled in the history of hockey in the west and with anyone else in the Canadien net Seattle score would have been running into double figures..... Montreal owes Vezina a medal for keeping the score down.

Seattle defeats Montreal 9-1
Canadiens 1 - Metropolitans 3
The Saskatoon Phoenix - March 27, 1917

Vezina worked harder than ever as the Mets were satisfied to take chances and to leave their goal open.

The Toronto World - March 27, 1917

Seattle had beautiful comibination at all times and worked in close to the Canadien goal almost at will.... Canadiens were never in it and any attempt they made at the offensive was smothered by the pretty and effective back-checking of the new cup holders.

1919 Finals
Montreal is shelled 9-0
Canadiens 0 - Metropolitans 1

Montreal wins 4-2. Newsy Lalonde is the star with all four goals
Canadiens 1 - Metropolitans 1
The Saskatoon Phoenix - March 24, 1919

Vezina stopped a flock of hard ones while Hall also showed up in spots.

Montreal loses 7-2
Canadiens 1 - Metropolitans 2
Another Montreal shelling


Montreal and Seattle tie 0-0 in double OT. Mets generally outplayed the Habs.
Canadiens 1 - Metropolitans 2
The Leader - March 27, 1919

Vezina proved a brick wall.... Vezina stopped a number of nearly tallies..... Vezina saved Montreal's bacon a number a number of times

Montreal tops Seattle 4-3 in OT.
Canadiens 2 - Metropolitans 2
Vezina is not mentioned

Game 6 is cancelled to influenza


1924 Finals
Habs win 6-1. Rookie Morenz scores a hattrick and Cleghorn is noted for his defensive ability
Canadiens 1 - Tigers 0

Habs win 3-0.
Canadiens 2 - Tigers 0
The Leader - March 26, 1924

Vezina cleared a hot one from Gardiner...Vezina batted the puck into the air...Vezina stopped a sure one from Wilson's clever pass... Vezina batted one out from Wilson ... Crawford gave Vezina a hard one... Vezina made a sparking save from Dutton who went through alone ... Vezina saved two beauties from Oatman and WIlson ... Wilson went through the defence but Vezina saved.... Vezina made a great save.

The Calgary Daily Herald - March 26, 1924

Vezina Impregnable Under Rain of Sizzling Shots.
They were beaten by a worthy title set, a team that fought back gamely with Vezina in the nets as the outstanding star.... Vezina is unbeatable

A few pictures. Vezina is the clear MVP of the game.

1925 Finals
Cougars win 5-2 and are thoroughly outplayed. Morenz takes a while to get going and Coutu makes gaffs.
Canadiens 0 - Cougars 1
The Montreal Gazette - March 23, 1925

At no time did Canadiens show the brand of hockey they were supposed to give.
Vezina was cool and dependable in the Canadien's citadel and was not his fault that the early scores were registered.
Vezina was right on the job.
Fraser was foiled by a one-handed catch by Vezina.
Vezina made two saves in rapid succession.

Cougars win 3-1. Victoria's defence is noted throughout
Canadiens 0 - Cougars 2
The Leader - March 24, 1925

At the outset Victoria forced the play and Vezina was called upon to use all his cunning and keep his net cleared.
The Icelanders parted the Canadien defence and after Vezina made two saves Frederickson wafted the puck into the net for the second goal.

Montreal wins 4-2 on the back of Morenz hattrick
Canadiens 1 – Cougars 2

The Border Cities Star – March 28, 1925

Frederickson made a wonderful play and went in on top of Vezina, but failed

Foyston shot out again, but Vezina saved”

The Leader– March 28, 1925

The Cougars had more success than the Frenchmen at parting the opposing defence, but when it came to outguessing Vezina, they found a master was on the front end of the hemp.

Towards the close of the period, Vezina left his charge three times to smother the efforts of Meeking, Frederickson, and Halderson. His out-guessing of Meeking was a brilliant play

Victoria torches Montreal 6-1
Canadiens 1 – Cougars 3

The Leader – March 31, 1925

Despite the terrific pressure by Victoria, Vezina failed to ease up on any more shots.

The Frenchmen made a number of brilliant openings, but Holmes was in phenomenal form and outshone his rival Vezina

Attack after attack whirled in on top of Vezina and only the miraculous work of the Montrealer kept the puck out

Foyston shot and Vezina got a big hand for his brilliant stop.

Vezina made another fine stop on Hart’s drive

Vezina threw out Loughlin’s liner

Hart lifted a high one to Vezina, who saved.

Foyston went through the defence and sent in another, which Vezina got with his knee.

Vezina kicked out a fast one from Fraser.

So this is every Stanley Cup game Vezina played. He certainly has some misses, but he repeatedly puts up big performances. I think it's important to note when he gets high praise despite letting in a lot of goals. For my money, he's the best money goalie of the era.

Montreal was typically firm defensively, but it's also clear that Coutu was a weak spot. Cleghorn was elite, but being penalized all the time hurt the team.

There is a common thread in all the news reports from ~1913-1925. He's never the clearcut best goalie, but he's always right there. It's Vezina and Lehman. Vezina and Benedict. Vezina and Holmes. Even when the Habs were weak he is getting high praise.

As I've gone through these 15 years of newspapers another thing has jumped out to me. Nighbor is talked about extraordinarily favourably. Even as late as the 1927 Cup he's getting praise. I think it's relevant as Benedict's prime overlaps with Nighbor's AND Gerard's. There's a real argument for #2 premerger goalie between Benedict and Lehman. I don't think it's a 1a/1b thing for Vezina/Benedict. I think it's a 1 for Vezina and 2a/2b for Benedict and Lehman.

After doing all this reading I'm settling into Vezina being the goaltending King pre-Gardiner. I think he should go high this round. I have him neck and neck with Tretiak. He was regarded as the first true goalie superstar and kept that mantle until he got sick.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Ooh, stumbled across some good goalie talk...

Bill Westwick --
...
The observers have got around to comparisons and Brimsek, really one of the great custodians of this or any other era, is being lauded for helping the Bruins out of an early rut and up to their customary position of eminence in the standing.

Doug Vaughan, of the Windsor Star, suggests Brimsek is accumulating enough votes with each appearance to be rated with the greatest goalies of them all. He figures that before the Boston custodian calls it quits he will have achieved a niche alongside the generally acknowledged peer of goalies, the late Georges Vezina.

Not having seen Vezina at his peak, the Windsor writer hesitate to buck the majority and place Brimsek above the Chicoutimi Cucumber...

...

Their styles the same.

Few cities saw more of Vezina in the course of his illustrious hockey career than Ottawa, where fans thrilled to those old duels against Clint Benedict. Yet most who have watched the stylish Brimsek don't underrate this custodian, who plays shots in the same cool fashion and, like Vezina, disdains the sprawling style first used by Percy Lesueur and developed to a high degree of effectiveness by Benedict.

Curiously enough, Brimsek at the time he was making a name for himself as an amateur goalie, had never heard of Vezina.

...

Vaughan marvels at Brimsek's coolness under fire, the style that keeps him on his feet more than any other goalie in hockey today. The Windsor writer claims he has yet to see the Boston goalie out-feinted, make the first move when a puck-carrier moves in on the Boston citadel.

The natural thing.

Young athlete as a rule pattern themselves after stars of the game whom they have watched as youngsters. Brimsek never did that and can't recall anyone giving him pointers.

...

"Lots of people say I take after Vezina", he once told this reporter, "but I never heard of Vezina until after I was in the big time. It just seemed the natural thing for me to stay up as a young goalie..."

Unlike some established stars of the game, Brimsek never advises a young goalie to adopt his style. "I suppose if I had discovered it easier to stop pucks by going down on the ice, I would have done that and fallen more. I stay up because that's the way I can handle them best. Plenty of goalies go down for them and do just as well. I never forced myself to stay up. I just found it easier that way. I figure I'm beaten once I'm down on the ice."

A stubborn goalie.

Most sharp-shooters will tell you Brimsek is the most "stubborn" goalie in the world when it comes to trying to make him move first. Long ago he discovered that the successful hockey sniper was taught and developed the art of feinting. Make the goalie move first, as a rule, and you have him at your mercy.

...

"The closer a player comes in on me, the better I like it," he tells you. "Some of them think they improve their chances when they get on a goalie's doorstep. They haven't so much room when they are in close. The hardest shot in the game to handle is one from about 15 feet out, say about the red line, and not off the ice."

Re: the end there...I've seen some goofy marks on the rink that come and go in the 30's including a circle (or three circles) down the middle of the offensive zone. I'm not sure if maybe he's referring to the old penalty shot line (wasn't it done like a soccer PK for a while?).

I think these kinds of articles are most valuable right now because it draws a connection between the beginning of the film and the most recent games before film.

One thing that I noted is that there are very clear goalie chains that began to develop in the 30's and 40's and they got passed down the line. Dave Kerr -> Jacques Plante -> Vladislav Tretiak -> Martin Brodeur for instance.

But there are very few chains that get developed prior to that. Part of it might be the availability of seeing these players...as Brimsek noted, but he's one of the few Americans at this point, so his situation is a little different. Another part of it might be that there just isn't anything worth copying from an era or from most goalies in that era.

The chain here, even if unintentional, is meaningful to me. Vezina -> Brimsek -> Bower. Lesueur -> Benedict -> [unclear to me at this point, because I don't fully understand either of these two goalies yet].

I'd be a bit more comfortable with the guys I can't see or can't see much of if I had this level of detailed comparison on both sides (which I'm just saying out loud, it's not a call to action for anyone but me).

I got an immediate negative response for even bringing up disciples in the previous thread, which kinda felt weird...but ain't nobody out there saying, "I took my goaltending technique from freakin'...George Hainsworth or whoever" (probably).

 

[overpass]

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.

Thanks for the post, I appreciate the work that went into it and the additional perspective it brings to the project.

My view is that players must be evaluated in light of the technology they are using - which in this case means the goalie equipment. I'm happy to rate old-time goalies highly if they were outstanding when it came to using the equipment they had, and if they were able to have a significant positive impact on the game.

On the other hand, if the goalie position really was a place where weaker skaters and athletes tended to go, maybe the goalies from that era shouldn't be rated as highly. It does seem like Brimsek and Durnan may have been a cut above previous goalies as athletes.

One thing that gives me pause when it comes to downgrading the goalie position historically is the fact that goalies often received significant Hart trophy votes, and sometimes won the trophy. Not that we have to agree with every voting result, but writers must have considered goalies to be significant factors in their teams' success.

Here's one way to look at the Hart support goalies received in different eras. I went through each season and gave 5 points to the Hart winner, 4 to the runner-up, down through 1 point for 5th place. The percentage of top 5 Hart voting points that went to each position in each era is below.

Top 5 Hart voting by position and era

Era	Goalie	Defence	Left wing	Centre	Right wing
1924-1929	19%​	29%​	3%​	37%​	12%​
1930-1945	5%​	40%​	15%​	32%​	8%​
1946-1967	24%​	7%​	13%​	31%​	26%​
1968-1979	17%​	22%​	4%​	46%​	11%​
1980-1993	16%​	13%​	0%​	61%​	11%​
1994-2007	36%​	4%​	6%​	28%​	26%​
2008-2017	19%​	3%​	17%​	46%​	15%​
2018-2024	3%​	0%​	22%​	61%​	14%​

Goalies received 19% of Hart votes from 23-24 through 28-29, which is about in line with historical norms. It was a low-scoring era, especially toward the end. However, it wasn't the statistical leaders who were getting Hart votes, but more often the ones who were perceived to be lifting weaker teams. Most of these votes were for Roy Worters, who won the Hart trophy once and was top 5 three times, but never got past the first round of the playoffs. Clint Benedict and John Ross Roach were both top 5 in Hart voting on below-500 teams that missed the playoffs.

From 1929-30 through 1944-45, Hart votes for goaltenders were few and far between. Defencemen were recognized for Hart voting in this era more than in any other. The Hart voting does support the idea that goaltending was weaker than other positions at this time. Charlie Gardiner was not top 5 in Hart voting in any season as far as we know - he peaked at 7th in 29-30. We only have 4 of the top 5 finishers for two of his first all star seasons, so it's possible he has a missing 5th place.

The Original Six era was a strong one for goaltenders, and they received substantial Hart support throughout. Starting with Durnan, Brimsek, Lumley, and Rayner, moving on to Sawchuk, Hall, Plante, Hodge, and others.

Hart support for goalies dropped a bit post-expansion, and from 1968-1993 it was at about 2/3 of the level it had been in the Original Six era. However, it was still well above the 30s and early 40s. Centres really started to dominate the Hart voting at this time, especially in the 80s thanks to Gretzky.

1994-2007 was the era when goaltenders received the most support for the Hart trophy in history, by far. Led by Dominik Hasek and Martin Brodeur. We've already added three goalies from this era, and we have a fourth up for voting in Ed Belfour.

From 2008-2017, Hart voting for goalies dropped to around historical norms for the position. And from 2017-18 to the present, Hart voting for goalies has been at an all-time low. Only Shesterkin in 21-22 broke into the top 5.

After looking at these numbers, I can see the case that the early goaltending position was seen as less valuable, based on the Hart voting. If you remove Roy Worters as an outlier - and Worters' Hart voting was far above his later reputation - very few goalies received significant Hart support before the postwar Original Six era.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Quick one on Brimsek as a rookie...

 

[Michael Farkas]

One thing that gives me pause when it comes to downgrading the goalie position historically is the fact that goalies often received significant Hart trophy votes, and sometimes won the trophy. Not that we have to agree with every voting result, but writers must have considered goalies to be significant factors in their teams' success.

This was going to be one of my later points last night, but it got late. I think this is an outstanding point and it gives me a lot of pause too. Couldn't have said it better.

If they don't matter that much...why are they MVP candidates? That's really tough to square.

One thing that I do note here...and I think it's an important question...I think it's something like the style comparisons, where I'd like to see the process more than the result. Like...yeah, in the game by game accounts "Vezina stopped a ballyhoo of wood-spanked rubbers" or whatever old timey writing is being utilized. I get that. I don't have much doubt about Vezina or Benedict being great in their era. That's not my issue. My issue is: What does that really mean in terms of the whole history of the game?

So...the important question for me about MVP votes is: By being an MVP candidate are you really just the best thing going in a bad situation and NOT actually a great goaltender? Meaning, you're out there flying around trying to keep things alive while your defense stinks. But if you were on a great team, you'd be giving up some tough goals and it'd be very noticeable. To bring it into most people's vision...a Marc-Andre Fleury type, say.

The first Hart almost went to John Ross Roach - who, by a mile, was the worst goalie statistically in 1924. Jake Forbes, the second worst, was the other goalie to receive votes.

The two top guys (by a goal per game over Forbes, almost two over Roach) are gosh darn Vezina and Benedict!

The next year, Benedict is the highest goalie...mid-pack GAA, a 9-19 record was second worst in the league.

Then...the Worters years start. Now, the film shows Worters is a different breed than many of the other goalies from this time. He's very active and his team is well-dressed but awful (the Americans, chiefly). I drew the comparison to Vachon - who I surprisingly didn't like that much vs. what I was expecting - in the sense that he's just out there diving around trying to keep hope alive every night.

Worters doesn't seem quite as present in the best goalie of all time lists DESPITE his historically interesting Hart record for a goalie. (which you noted, overpass) Also, he's ignored by the HOF over three decades, including more than a decade after his death. So, no one was in a hurry there clearly...

And that's not too dissimilar in some ways to Vachon...some Hart consideration in an era that, ya know, threw one deserving goalie a year towards the top of the ballot and moved on mostly. And, again, not considered an all time great even in that era it feels like...and the HOF ignored him for 30 years too.

So...are goalie Harts from this era (and, hell, maybe the first 50 years of Harts) a byproduct of "hey, you're an acrobat on a bad team and it sticks out positively because the rest of your group is dog ****..." ? Does gHc (goalie Hart consideration) mean importance or greatness or does it mean entertainment (which I don't mean quite as pejoratively as it sounds)

I know I've only seen highlights, but really, the stats back this up...the New York Americans are awful. There is such a noticeable drop off in play with the bottom teams in the early film era versus the top that one wonders if the league only really had 5 or 6 teams' worth of talent at the time. Certainly, the final standings point to that, generally...and the film isn't far behind.

 

[Professor What]

Interesting!

I obviously didn't look too closely at the teams' overall records. I knew that the Habs weren't all that successful pre-1916, but, for some reason, I thought they dominated after that. I knew that, economically, the Sens started to decline and figured that translated to the ice. Guess not!

Don't feel too bad. I was thinking the same thing. That's what we get for not looking, I guess. Lol