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

[MXD]

More time as best in the world.

We have lots of goalies that burned bright for a short time. Tretiak burning bright from 1972-1984 is a big plus when Dryden did from 1972-1980. Especially with Tretiak arguably being ahead already before Dryden retired.

Something like the 1981 CC is a plus for me.

I mean, here, being the best in the world would just mean being the best of the exact same pool, minus the prior best (Dryden). Same fish, slightly smaller pond.

(I do agree this doesn't quite take into account the blossoming of whoever between that period, but we also know that nobody who did blossom at that time was better than peak Dryden, unless someone really wants to make an argument in that regards for Liut and Smith)

The same question applies to Frank Brimsek by the way. He almost certainly was the best in the world, despite all the caveats, from 39 to 42. But we're really just saying he was better than Dave Kerr.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Billy Smith would certainly be in that conversation...

 

[VanIslander]

Certainly we haven’t resorted to counting cups, right?

Just to make sure based on this post, you voted for Roy over Hasek last round?

Not in any universe i had any agency in.

1. Hasek
1b. Roy

...my submitted vote was exactly that.

There are two 1's then some 3rd. I put Hasek over Roy but i "get" the reverse. I was in high school in 1986 when that young Roy shocked the world. But i have never seen a better puck stopper (can't say goalie because he is a fool in addition to being a genius) than Hasek.

As for my respect for Broda (i ain't no Leaf fan),... he seems to have a greater role in his dynasty's success than Plante in his. In Toronto Turk was top 3 most nights; Plante was 4th, 5th in Montreal, sometimes less than that.

Patrick Roy in 1986 had a great defensive team in front of him but he was clearly the star.

Don't count cups. Look at a player's role in a team's success if they have it. How much did the guy contribute to how well they did?

 

[Michael Farkas]

Any chance I can submit a ballot with just 1 name...or just 3 names? haha

I'm definitely not ready for Benedict or Vezina.

Broda would be a lot easier to dismiss if he didn't have success after the '48 and '49 area. His skating is horrible. His second-shot compete is not good. He got to play for a defensive team. But as the pace of the game picked up towards the end of his career, he still hangs in there. A couple of 3-AS finishes, a couple of Cups...I have him pretty far down my initial list, but maybe that was too tough.

It just seems like a lot of people from back then like him and like him a lot. I don't know it's because of his personality or the sheer number of publicity shots that he has eating pancakes in the crease...but he certainly has a contemporary following.

I wish Belfour was more consistent. He probably gets a lot of defensive coaching help. He's very interesting because he really battled but he's more of a stand-up goalie than people give him credit for, especially at the beginning of his career. Then he brought in a lot more of a hybrid look, a lot of paddle down stuff...I think that gave him more success near his posts.

Belfour couldn't quite deliver Tretiak better than Tretiak could...but he's not so far away from him.

I'm a big fan of Brimsek in this area. He's one of the calmest goalies I've seen. Really great on his angles. He has hands, he has feet. But his angle game is just a little more advanced than some in terms of taking away net from shooters. He's not just standing on his goalline all day. Yeah, Boston wasn't the toughest spot to jump in to...but a lot of talk at the time was him replacing yet-another-claim-for-greatest-ever Tiny Thompson. And to come in with 10 blank jobs as a rookie and all that, sure there's team in there too, but this is a really good goalie and it's tough to take over for a legend sometimes...

 

[VanIslander]

Any chance I can submit a ballot with just 1 name...or just 3 names? haha

I'm definitely not ready for Benedict or Vezina.

Who else from the first half century of Stanley Cup hockey is more deserving?

Or are you definitely ignoring most of hockey history? Or just discounting it a ton?

 

[Michael Farkas]

Who else from the first half century of Stanley Cup hockey is more deserving?

Or are you definitely ignoring most of hockey history? Or just discounting it a ton?

It's very clear at this point that you are not following the discussion at all. Which is disappointing. This thread is like 7 pages over the course of 6 days.

 

[VanIslander]

It's very clear at this point that you are not following the discussion at all. Which is disappointing. This thread is like 7 pages over the course of 6 days.

1. Are any players from the first half century of Stanley Cup hockey deserving of top-10 status?
2. Seventieslord "liked" my post then minutes after you posted, he unliked it. The Housewhiffs of HfBoards.

 

[seventieslord]

If you want an explanation for that, it's that I agree in principle with what you're saying, that we should have goalies from the first 50 years of hockey this high on the list, but Mike is also right that if you're just asking him this as if it's the first time you've noticed this about him, that's a problem.

 

[VanIslander]

@Michael Farkas you are "not ready" to add Vezina?

I have read every word of this thread and baulked at some of it. I even took a well-cheered time out. Then i came back. Read every word of it and here remain with a stomachache.

If Vezina ain't accepted soon, ... *speechless*

 

[Michael Farkas]

@Michael Farkas you are "not ready" to add Vezina?

I have read every word of this thread and baulked at some of it. I even took a well-cheered time out. Then i came back. Read every word of it and here remain with a stomachache.

If Vezina ain't accepted soon, ... *speechless*

Well, "speechless" is tacit agreement then and I hope that the ballots reflect that. The conversation seems to be sliding at least a little bit away from the 1910s crew. There's mounting evidence on every front that it would be early for those guys on an all-time list. One major thing going against that is: "that's not how we did it last time".

Is there a "first 50 years of hockey" macro or button that you guys are pressing? haha - make it 100!

 

[VanIslander]

CBC has given the impression that hockey began with "the Original 6", going no farther back than that, coincidentally the beginning of television and the CBC. Why talk about hockey before you could broadcast the generation of Howe, Richard, Kennedy?

(I learned about Eddie Shore and Cyclone Taylor in uni (1987 was still way pre-Internet). I knew about Morenz and Lalonde through children's books.)

 

[jigglysquishy]

I think Vezina should go this round and I'll have him top two. We will get a spread of votes. Outside Tretiak and Dryden up high I wouldn't be surprised be any votes.

 

[rmartin65]

The conversation seems to be sliding at least a little bit away from the 1910s crew. There's mounting evidence on every front that it would be early for those guys on an all-time list.

To you there is mounting evidence. To others, perhaps. But to speak as if there is some kind of unanimous or semi-unanimous shift in that direction is (I believe) not accurate.

That said, I do hope we avoid the era bunching (did @jigglysquishy invent this term? I enjoy it) we have seen before.

Is there a "first 50 years of hockey" macro or button that you guys are pressing? haha - make it 100!

When 50 years of hockey is appropriate, it will continue to be used. Just because you don't like hockey prior to X date doesn't mean it didn't exist.

I'll use 100 years when we see people discarding goalies before (does some quick math poorly) 1987. Until then, 50 years seems to work.

 

[jigglysquishy]

I would love if Tretiak, Vezina, Gardiner, and Brimsek were the four that got in this round. Then everyone with widespread support as the best goalie ever would be in.

 

[MXD]

Vezina is clearly someone who could miss the cutoff, depending on where the cutoff is. I see absolutely no problem in leaving him out, though I'll probably have him in. From my reading of this thread, I do think he has to rank a bit ahead of contemporary Benedict, but there's absolutely no way I'm ranking him ahead of Dryden and Gardiner.

I came in this thread thinking it Belfour's candidacy came a round too early, and that it was too early to vote Durnan and Broda in. Nothing that transpired from the last week made me change my mind significantly, though Benedict joined them, so to speak, and I'm probably willing to entertain switching them around from the Benedict, Durnan, Broda and Belfour order I got early on. Neither of those four would not go into next round as my presumptive #1, should they fail to get in this round.

 

[Michael Farkas]

"at least a little bit" is what I said, which does not at all hint at unanimous.

Ok, so then 1887 AHAC is where you guys "start" more or less? I inferred from the math that the 1925 poll saying Vezina was the best ever and that you guys take that and go "first 50 years of hockey" which puts it at 1875. That's an incorrect assumption on my part. So Vezina was likely the best for the first 38 years of hockey.

Now, on top of that, I find it extremely difficult to believe that the first 10 years of Soviet hockey was worse than the first 10 years of 1880's and 1890's hockey...but I guess that's an answer we'll never know for sure.

Benefit of the doubt is not something I'm prepared to deliver in the top 10 of all time though. And there is very, very reasonable doubt. To the point that the players, goalies, coaches, and managers seem to feel exactly that way.

So again I'll ask, now that we're at, what, 5 different people this week that have been quoted as saying "goaltending in the 30's and 40's is hell of a lot harder than it was prior to that" (but the inverse for skaters)...is there even one instance where someone says specifically the opposite?

Hyper-inclusivity is death. I hope that we're not on the verge of doing that here.

 

[jigglysquishy]

We have references to Vezina being the greatest of all time into the 40s. I don't think he's firmly removed from the conversation until Sawchuk.

Now, I totally get having Gardiner and/or Brimsek ahead of him.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Are those references handy by any chance? I'd just like to read the context of those remarks.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Are those references handy by any chance? I'd just like to read the context of those remarks.

Thanks for these!

An attempt at systemizing the information posted so far:

GOALTENDERS

Riley Hern (*1878):

• Bill O'Brien (1941): old hockey all-star team

Percy LeSueur (*1881):

• Various sports writers/Charlie Good (1924/1925): second all-time ("as good as Vezina, but didn't wear as well")
• Fred 'Cyclone' Taylor (1938): all-time all-star goaltender
• Fred 'Cyclone' Taylor (1942): best goaltender
• Fred 'Cyclone' Taylor (1946/1947): all-time all-star team

Harry 'Dutchy' Morrison (*1882):

• L.F. Earl (1943/1944): either Morrison or Charlie Gardiner would make the all-time all-star team

Hugh Lehman (*1885):

• Si Griffis (1938): all-time all-star team
• Lester? Patrick (1938): all-time all-star team

Georges Vézina (*1887):

• Various sports writers/Charlie Good (1924/1925): all-time all-star team ("for year in and year out consistency")
• Aurèle Joliat (1936/1937): 'oldtimers' all-star team ("was a wonder in the nets")
• Jack Adams (1938): all-time all-star team
• Charles Querrie (1938): all-time all-star team
• Sprague Cleghorn (1941): "best goaltender"
• Cooper Smeaton (1942/1943): 'oldtimers' all-star team
• Alf Smith (1943/1944): "greatest goalie of his time"
• Mickey Ion (1943/1944): 1910-20 all-star team and all-time all-star team
• Aurèle Joliat (1948/1949): one of the two best goaltenders Joliat had played with or against (the other being George Hainsworth)
• Frank Selke (1948/1949): 1900-1926 all-star team

Hap Holmes (*1888):

• Duke Keats (1942/1943): all-time all-star team

Clint Benedict (*1892):

• Bill O'Brien (1941): modern hockey all-star team
• Leo Dandurand (1941/1942): best goaltender ever
• Mickey Ion (1943/1944): 1920-30 all-star team
• Tommy Gorman (1947/1948): all-time all-star team

George Hainsworth (*1895):

• Aurèle Joliat (1936/1937): 'recent times' all-star team ("outstanding in goal")
• Bill Cook (1937/1938): all-time all-star team
• Mickey Ion (1943/1944): one of two goalies on the 1930-1940 all-star team (the other being Tiny Thompson)
  
• Newsy Lalonde (1947/1948): all-time all-star team ("even ahead of Vezina, on his record alone")
• Aurèle Joliat (1948/1949): one of the two best goaltenders Joliat had played with or against (the other being Georges Vézina)
• Bill Cook (1951/1952): all-time all-star team

Alec Connell (*1900):

• Tommy Gorman (1941): the best goaltender Gorman ever saw

Roy Worters (*1900):

• Lionel Conacher (1941): "the greatest goalie who ever played"
• Jim Hendy (1942/1943): 1930-1940 third all-star team (behind Tiny Thompson and Charlie Gardiner)

Alec Connell (*1901):

• Conn Smythe (1938): all-time all-star team

Tiny Thompson (*1903):

• Red Dutton (1938/1939): all-time all-star team
• Ebbie Goodfellow (1941/1942): first all-star team among players Goodfellow had played against (ahead of Charlie Gardiner)
• Jim Hendy (1942/1943): 1930-1940 all-star team (ahead of Charlie Gardiner)
  
• Mickey Ion (1943/44): one of the two goalies 1930-1940 all-star team (the other being George Hainsworth)

Charlie Gardiner (*1904):

• Hap Holmes (1937/1938): all-time all-star team ("moved so that he was in front of practically every shot")
• Tommy Gorman (1938): all-time all-star team
• Ebbie Goodfellow (1941/1942): second all-star team among player Goodfellow had played against (behind Tiny Thompson)
• Cooper Smeaton (1942/1943): 'modern' all-star team
• Jim Hendy (1942/1943): 1930-1940 second all-star team (behind Tiny Thompson)
• L.F. Earl (1943/1944): either Gardiner or Dutchy Morrison would make the all-time all-star team
• Frank Boucher (1947/1948): all-time all-star team
• Frank Boucher (1949/1950): all-time all-star team ("probably the greatest goaltender of them all")
• Dick Beddoes (1961): all-time all-star team

Frank Brimsek (*1915):

• Art Ross (1939/1940): best goaltender of all times

This is all I have handy. My Vezina playoff post includes references to it in 1925.

 

[rmartin65]

Are those references handy by any chance? I'd just like to read the context of those remarks.

I don't know what @jigglysquishy has but here is what a quick search just showed up-

Star Weekly 18 March 1939 Page 47
"Also Georges Vezina, the greatest of all goalies to my way of thinking" (ok, not 1940s, but 1939 is pretty close. Looks like the words are attributed to Leo Dugal)

The Toronto Star, 24 December 1942 Page 13
"That Vezina was the greatest goalie in the game's history"

Niagara Falls Review, 13 February 1941 Page 16
"Bert Corbeau, Former Canadien Defence Star, Says Late George Vezina Greatest of Goaltenders"

"However the great difference of opinion may be on the respective merits of forwards and defensemen there is unanimity on naming the greatest goalie ever to play hockey. George Vezina, the Chicoutimi Cucumber is universally conceded to be the finest net guardian ever to clear a puck"

 

[rmartin65]

"at least a little bit" is what I said, which does not at all hint at unanimous.

My apologies. I was focused more on the "mounting evidence on every front" part.

Ok, so then 1887 AHAC is where you guys "start" more or less? I inferred from the math that the 1925 poll saying Vezina was the best ever and that you guys take that and go "first 50 years of hockey" which puts it at 1875. That's an incorrect assumption on my part. So Vezina was likely the best for the first 38 years of hockey.

Kind of. I'll look at and consider whatever information is out there, but 1887 is when the AHAC was formed, which is our direct link to the NHL. Rules are standardized. Players had been playing (and practicing) for a while, the games were usually well covered in the local papers. It is a pretty good starting point in my opinion, but the lines are always fuzzy.

Now, on top of that, I find it extremely difficult to believe that the first 10 years of Soviet hockey was worse than the first 10 years of 1880's and 1890's hockey...but I guess that's an answer we'll never know for sure.

On a raw talent level basis the first 10 years of the Soviet league were almost certainly better than the 1880s and 1890s, but that isn't comparing apples to apples. The early Soviet league seasons weren't the best hockey in the world, but there is a very good chance (almost a certainty) the AHAC was in the 1880s and 1890s.

So again I'll ask, now that we're at, what, 5 different people this week that have been quoted as saying "goaltending in the 30's and 40's is hell of a lot harder than it was prior to that" (but the inverse for skaters)...is there even one instance where someone says specifically the opposite?

And being a goalie today is harder than it was in the 30s and 40s. Are we lamenting the lack of Price and Vasilevskiy this round (I am, a little bit).

Hyper-inclusivity is death. I hope that we're not on the verge of doing that here.

Sure. But ignoring X years (I didn't say 50!) of the game's history is death too.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Last two points: I am lamenting the lack of Price and Vasilevskiy this round, yes. But I'm not convinced that the difficulty now is so much different than, say, 1955. Where as I find the difficulty (for lack of a better term here) from 1925 to 1955 to be relatively enormous.

No one wants to ignore these players or these eras. If the idea is to represent all eras, what difference does it make if the representative is at 11th or 24th?

 

[jigglysquishy]

The Windsor Daily Star - April 31, 1955

"George Vezina, one of hockey's greatest goaltenders - in the books of many a peanut muncher, the greatest"

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette - February 17, 1956
"George Vezina, recognized as one of the greatest goalies in the history of hockey"

The Montreal Gazette- January 7, 1947
"Brimsek is the best of modern goalies. He is the Chuck Gardiner or George Vezina of his generation"


I do love that Vezina, Gardiner, and Brimsek are all favourably put in the same category.

 

[rmartin65]

Last two points: I am lamenting the lack of Price and Vasilevskiy this round, yes. But I'm not convinced that the difficulty now is so much different than, say, 1955. Where as I find the difficulty (for lack of a better term here) from 1925 to 1955 to be relatively enormous.

You don't think things like the technological advancement in sticks have made the goalies' jobs harder? General improvement in the average NHLer?

No one wants to ignore these players or these eras. If the idea is to represent all eras, what difference does it make if the representative is at 11th or 24th?

I don't think we would be ranking them if this was the case.

 

[The Pale King]

Please ignore this post for now.