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

[The Pale King]

Edit: I had posted my initial rankings here... rescinding them as I adjust them a bit more. Sorry!

 

[Hockey Outsider]

The idea of era bunching is the most salient point. Perhaps the way to disband it is to find parallels for goalies across eras. For example, when I read of the intelligent demeanor and calm play of Vezina, my mind links him with Plante. A pair of great but flawed goaltenders like Dryden and Durnan seem a match. Brimsek seems really excellent, a goalie's goalie, in a sphere with Kiprusoff, Lundqvist, Price...

???

This is a great point. It's easier said than done (and I realize I'm also saying this as a non participant) but the best to avoid this pitfall would be to find-cross era similarities. Otherwise it's too easy to simply compare peers.

 

[Michael Farkas]

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


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

Well, why would you abandon the "versus peers" part of your thought process for technology? Stick got whippier. Pads got bigger and more adaptable to the prevailing style. Goalies got more mobile with advances in skate technology, pads being lighter but still protective, not absorbing water, etc.

If goalie pads didn't advance AND shooters could shoot like this now, every game would be 18-16. Save percentage might actually matter haha

Goalies stop ~98% of untipped, unscreened shots. I think they're doing just fine...

##

I don't understand your response for the second point, respectfully.

 

[The Pale King]

This is what I've got so far:

Tretiak
Brimsek

Dryden
Durnan
Gardiner

Vezina
Broda
Belfour

Benedict

 

[rmartin65]

Well, why would you abandon the "versus peers" part of your thought process for technology? Stick got whippier. Pads got bigger and more adaptable to the prevailing style. Goalies got more mobile with advances in skate technology, pads being lighter but still protective, not absorbing water, etc.

I think what I said is consistent with my arguments- just because the goalie position gets easier or harder doesn’t mean the goalies should be considered better or worse. I judge them by relative to their peers first and foremost.

If goalie pads didn't advance AND shooters could shoot like this now, every game would be 18-16. Save percentage might actually matter haha

Goalies stop ~98% of untipped, unscreened shots. I think they're doing just fine...

I guess today’s skaters aren’t that great then, since they can’t beat the goalies cleanly.

##

I don't understand your response for the second point, respectfully.

If all that matters is representation, then why are we ranking them? We should just put out an unranked list of names saying these 60- in some order- are the 60 greatest of all time.

 

[Michael Farkas]

If all that matters is representation, then why are we ranking them? We should just put out an unranked list of names saying these 60- in some order- are the 60 greatest of all time.

Well, that's your claim, right? That every era needs to be represented - more or less. "No era should be ignored" to paraphrase.

So instead of Vezina being 9th overall, can't his era be represented by him at 27th?

 

[overpass]

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.

I'm going to make one more post about Durnan and Brimsek. I can understand opinions differ and if the panel ends up putting Brimsek ahead, that's fine. But I'm puzzled by your assessment that has Brimsek with more support for best goalie ever than Durnan. I'd like to unpack this assessment a bit and discuss the evidence we're using.

I'll direct these questions to you because of your post above, but I'm equally interested in hearing from other participants who share the assessments that contemporaries rated Brimsek over Durnan, and that Brimsek had more support than Durnan for greatest of all time

First, why are you not putting more weight on the 1958 Sport Magazine All-Star team? And second, why are you not putting more weight on the seasonal all-star and award voting by writers and coaches?

The 1958 Sport Magazine team
I'm all for researching and posting quotes by writers about who they consider to be the greatest goaltender ever. I've done it too and I appreciate you and others who have done so. But there are also some potential biases in researching these quotes. Most papers aren't archived so you're reading a limited selection of opinions. I know almost all of you are reading English papers only, so you're missing many of the Quebec papers. Is your search methodology unbiased? Even if your method is consistent, are you sure the names of different goalies are equally recognized by your search tools?

Fortunately there's a large repository of opinions, collected in an unbiased manner, that we can go to. I've posted before about the 1958 Sport Magazine all-time all-star hockey team. There was also some discussion of that team here in 2015. They polled 70 writers and broadcasters for their all-time starting six. Bill Durnan received more votes than any other goaltender and was the goalie for their all-time team.

G: Bill Durnan
D: Eddie Shore
D: Doug Harvey
LW: Gordie Howe
C: Howie Morenz
RW: Maurice Richard

Unfortunately we don't know how many votes Durnan received. Maybe it was 40 out of 70, maybe it was 20. It's likely it was fewer votes than the others, as the goalie position had the most players named with votes. Frank Brimsek, Terry Sawchuk, Chuck Gardiner, Turk Broda, Roy Worters, George Hainsworth were named as also receiving votes, which is a pretty wide spread. I don't know if those names are in order, it's possible but not terribly relevant.

What we do know for sure is that in 1958, from a relatively large sample of 70 voters, Durnan received more votes as the best ever than Brimsek did. More than Sawchuk. More than Broda, more than Gardiner, more than any other goalie in history to that point.

If you found one writer in 1958 naming Brimsek as the best of all time, or Durnan as the best of all time, you'd consider it a find, right? If you found ten quotes, that would be amazing. We have 70 votes and Durnan was #1. Shouldn't this result be taken a little more seriously?

I'm a little surprised that Terry Sawchuk wasn't considered #1 at that point. He was only a year younger than Howe, and he had played roughly exactly as many NHL seasons to that point as Bill Durnan had. If you're valuing the opinions of contemporary journalists, aren't you impressed by the fact that more picked Bill Durnan's career than picked the first half of Sawchuk's career, including his incredible five year peak?

Awards voting vs quotes
For that matter, if we're talking about opinions of writers, why aren't we taking their end of season all-star and awards votes more seriously? Bill Durnan was six times voted to the first all-star team as goalie, the most in 20 years of all-star voting. If you found a quote from a writer before the playoffs saying something like "Bill Durnan was the best goalie of the regular season", would you give that any value? If so, you know the league office collected and aggregated those opinions, issued all-star teams and awards based on them, and paid out bonus money to the winners, right? The people you're quoting are the same people who voted for the all-star teams and awards.

I realize single season assessments are less valuable than career assessments. If you don't put any weight on quotes about single seasons, feel free to disregard. But if you do value such quotes, aren't awards votes the same type of thing as a quote about performance in a season? They're both an assessment of the goalie. A vote is lower resolution than a quote, but collected with a larger sample and more systematically.

If you value the assessments of players and coaches over writers, fair enough. Did you know the coaches did the all-star voting for the 1946-47 through 1949-50 seasons? 3 of Durnan's 6 first team all-stars were based on coaches voting. If you found a quote from Frank Boucher in March of 1949 saying Durnan was the best goalie that season, would you value that opinion? If so, fortunately for you, the league office collected his opinion and that of the five other coaches!

Forgive the length. I'm interested to see responses because I have long thought based on my reading that Bill Durnan had substantial support for the greatest of all time well after his retirement, and I don't think his rating in this section has reflected that support.

 

[rmartin65]

Well, that's your claim, right? That every era needs to be represented - more or less. "No era should be ignored" to paraphrase.

So instead of Vezina being 9th overall, can't his era be represented by him at 27th?

Oh, no. My claim isn't that we need to represent every era, but, rather, that we should be considering every era. I guess a follow-on result would be that (mostly) all the eras would be represented, but for me the process is the important part in these projects, not the result.

For what it is worth, I don't even have Vezina number 1 here... and Benedict is last for me. I'm honestly not trying to push early players because they are early players, I'm only trying to give them what I consider to be a fair shake and encourage others to do the same.

 

[VanIslander]

In terms of studying HISTORY, ... why isn't the best player of one era heralded over the 4th best of another era?

50 years from now, the same reflections will be made about our era relative to others.

Are Babe Ruth and Muhammad Ali ( of over a half century ago) discounted due to differences in speed, training and comps? Is being old a negative?

Judge players relative to era conditions then try to compare those accomplishments with those of other eras.

The best goalie trophy was named after Vezina. Look at his career. He deserves top-10 all-time recognition.

 

[Dr John Carlson]

Gentle reminder that votes are due tonight at 11:59 PM Eastern!

 

[jigglysquishy]

I'm going to make one more post about Durnan and Brimsek. I can understand opinions differ and if the panel ends up putting Brimsek ahead, that's fine. But I'm puzzled by your assessment that has Brimsek with more support for best goalie ever than Durnan. I'd like to unpack this assessment a bit and discuss the evidence we're using.

I'll direct these questions to you because of your post above, but I'm equally interested in hearing from other participants who share the assessments that contemporaries rated Brimsek over Durnan, and that Brimsek had more support than Durnan for greatest of all time

First, why are you not putting more weight on the 1958 Sport Magazine All-Star team? And second, why are you not putting more weight on the seasonal all-star and award voting by writers and coaches?

The 1958 Sport Magazine team
I'm all for researching and posting quotes by writers about who they consider to be the greatest goaltender ever. I've done it too and I appreciate you and others who have done so. But there are also some potential biases in researching these quotes. Most papers aren't archived so you're reading a limited selection of opinions. I know almost all of you are reading English papers only, so you're missing many of the Quebec papers. Is your search methodology unbiased? Even if your method is consistent, are you sure the names of different goalies are equally recognized by your search tools?

Fortunately there's a large repository of opinions, collected in an unbiased manner, that we can go to. I've posted before about the 1958 Sport Magazine all-time all-star hockey team. There was also some discussion of that team here in 2015. They polled 70 writers and broadcasters for their all-time starting six. Bill Durnan received more votes than any other goaltender and was the goalie for their all-time team.

G: Bill Durnan
D: Eddie Shore
D: Doug Harvey
LW: Gordie Howe
C: Howie Morenz
RW: Maurice Richard

Unfortunately we don't know how many votes Durnan received. Maybe it was 40 out of 70, maybe it was 20. It's likely it was fewer votes than the others, as the goalie position had the most players named with votes. Frank Brimsek, Terry Sawchuk, Chuck Gardiner, Turk Broda, Roy Worters, George Hainsworth were named as also receiving votes, which is a pretty wide spread. I don't know if those names are in order, it's possible but not terribly relevant.

What we do know for sure is that in 1958, from a relatively large sample of 70 voters, Durnan received more votes as the best ever than Brimsek did. More than Sawchuk. More than Broda, more than Gardiner, more than any other goalie in history to that point.

If you found one writer in 1958 naming Brimsek as the best of all time, or Durnan as the best of all time, you'd consider it a find, right? If you found ten quotes, that would be amazing. We have 70 votes and Durnan was #1. Shouldn't this result be taken a little more seriously?

I'm a little surprised that Terry Sawchuk wasn't considered #1 at that point. He was only a year younger than Howe, and he had played roughly exactly as many NHL seasons to that point as Bill Durnan had. If you're valuing the opinions of contemporary journalists, aren't you impressed by the fact that more picked Bill Durnan's career than picked the first half of Sawchuk's career, including his incredible five year peak?

Awards voting vs quotes
For that matter, if we're talking about opinions of writers, why aren't we taking their end of season all-star and awards votes more seriously? Bill Durnan was six times voted to the first all-star team as goalie, the most in 20 years of all-star voting. If you found a quote from a writer before the playoffs saying something like "Bill Durnan was the best goalie of the regular season", would you give that any value? If so, you know the league office collected and aggregated those opinions, issued all-star teams and awards based on them, and paid out bonus money to the winners, right? The people you're quoting are the same people who voted for the all-star teams and awards.

I realize single season assessments are less valuable than career assessments. If you don't put any weight on quotes about single seasons, feel free to disregard. But if you do value such quotes, aren't awards votes the same type of thing as a quote about performance in a season? They're both an assessment of the goalie. A vote is lower resolution than a quote, but collected with a larger sample and more systematically.

If you value the assessments of players and coaches over writers, fair enough. Did you know the coaches did the all-star voting for the 1946-47 through 1949-50 seasons? 3 of Durnan's 6 first team all-stars were based on coaches voting. If you found a quote from Frank Boucher in March of 1949 saying Durnan was the best goalie that season, would you value that opinion? If so, fortunately for you, the league office collected his opinion and that of the five other coaches!

Forgive the length. I'm interested to see responses because I have long thought based on my reading that Bill Durnan had substantial support for the greatest of all time well after his retirement, and I don't think his rating in this section has reflected that support.

This is a great post and gives me pause.

I hope to dig in further next week.

 

[Michael Farkas]

The people you're quoting are the same people who voted for the all-star teams and awards.

Did you know the coaches did the all-star voting for the 1946-47 through 1949-50 seasons? 3 of Durnan's 6 first team all-stars were based on coaches voting.

Excellent post. Two possible nitpicks (quite literally because it really is a very nice "grounding" post)...those same writers may not be voters. It was a pretty limited field of writers and we may well be getting opinions from columnists. And I believe coaches could not or did not vote for their own players or at least not for #1 (?), which can cause some unintended results and cloud who actually was the best in a given season. I posted the 47-48 ballot a page or two ago, so if we found that Frank Boucher said, "Rayner was the best this year" and then his ballot is: Brimsek, Durnan, Lumley then we might end up with something to dissect further.

In terms of studying HISTORY, ... why isn't the best player of one era heralded over the 4th best of another era?

Would you be more interested in hiring the 4th highest GPA out of Harvard or the best out of Arizona State?

 

[MXD]

Would you be more interested in hiring the 4th highest GPA out of Harvard or the best out of Arizona State?

I'd personally be more interested in hiring whichever of both is the less insufferable prick, because both are, at least for theory, significantly more competent than the average applicant.

...And I probably just won the award for the most off-topic post of the entire project, despite the fact we're only in vote 2.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I'd personally be more interested in hiring whichever of both is the less insufferable prick, because both are, at least for theory, significantly more competent than the average applicant.

In that case, I read that Vezina would often talk on speaker phone when on public transportation while Brimsek volunteered to tutor salamanders with learning disabilities in the offseason.

 

[VanIslander]

Would you be more interested in hiring the 4th highest GPA out of Harvard or the best out of Arizona State?

Hence the Babe Ruth (100 years ago) and Muhammad Ali (50 years ago) references.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Hence the Babe Ruth (100 years ago) and Muhammad Ali (50 years ago) references.

That doesn't address the topic at all.

 

[blogofmike]

I wanted share the Bendell stats for the 72 Summit Series. I think we're better off using them instead of official ones.

Tretiak is likely top pick for me, but I will note that his late career peak may also have to do with the team in front of him. This Tyznych fellow seems unlikely to have gotten a Round 1 vote here, but he's keeping pace with Tretiak according to Eurohockey, with Tretiak's GAA of 1.89 being above his unheralded backup's 1,70.

I think I'm zagging on Benedict. Clint Benedict played like he was the best when he was behind Ottawa, with 5 GAA leads. I'm okay with considering Ottawa as a factor when he's beating Vezina by about 1.50 GAA per season. But when Benedict left for the inaugural season of the Maroons, Benedict was a Hart finalist and his GAA only went up from 1.99 to 2.12, placing him 3rd, and better than Ottawa (who had a solid replacement in Connell). In year 2, the Maroons win the Cup with Benedict, and take out Ottawa in the NHL Finals. In year 3, with the 10th best offense in a 10 team league, he leads the regular season in GAA, and they lose a total goals series 2-1 against Hainsworth's Canadiens when Morenz scores in overtime. Eric Zweig found a quote from Vezina before a Habs-Maroons game here:

“It will be a close battle,” Vezina said. “I can hold them out at my end, Leo, but it will be tough to score against them. The best man is in the other goal, you know.”

Though as noted, hockey players themselves are a pretty modest bunch.

On the inverse note, when Chicago lost Charlie Gardiner, they retained the Vezina Trophy the year after his death, unlike with say Bill Durnan - when Durnan left, so did the Vezina Trophy.

Brimsek and Durnan is close for me. Though someone brought up Paul Bibeault above. Bibeault played in place of both Durnan and Brimsek in 1946. Bibeault beat Brimsek's GAA 2.81 to 3.26. Durnan beat Bibeault 2.60 to 3.00.

I love playoff guys, but Turk Broda seems more dependent on the Leafs defense than other dynasty goalies like Dryden and Benedict.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

This is what I've got so far:

Tretiak
Brimsek

Dryden
Durnan
Gardiner

Vezina
Broda
Belfour

Benedict

Like most of that.

 

[The Pale King]

Does anyone know why it took Bill Durnan until his age 28 season to win the starting job from*checks notes*... Paul Bibeault and Bert Gardiner? Can anyone shed any light on that?

 

[jigglysquishy]

Does anyone know why it took Bill Durnan until his age 28 season to win the starting job from*checks notes*... Paul Bibeault and Bert Gardiner? Can anyone shed any light on that?

Pre 1943 is my biggest hangup on Durnan.

It's not a Hasek stuck behind the iron curtain then Belfour. Hasek is winning MVPs in the Czech league.

Its not a Bower stuck behind Rayner and Worsley. Bower is winning MVPs in the AHL.

I can 100% buy those guys were capable NHL starters before they got the opportunity.


I just can't square it.

 

[overpass]

Does anyone know why it took Bill Durnan until his age 28 season to win the starting job from*checks notes*... Paul Bibeault and Bert Gardiner? Can anyone shed any light on that?

Durnan was reluctant to go pro because he had a good job and was happy playing amateur.

Durnan’s greatness for Canadiens recalled 60 years after Hall induction | NHL.com

Goalie Week spotlight shines on ambidextrous legend, 1 of 100 Greatest NHL Players

www.nhl.com

Durnan wasn’t an easy sell, making a decent dollar in senior without the pressure of NHL goaltending.

Ten minutes before the Canadiens’ first game of the 1943-44 season, the tight-fisted Gorman still didn’t have Durnan’s name on a contract. So the GM finally offered a sum that the goalie liked and Durnan signed, racing into the Montreal Forum dressing room, suiting up and playing impressively in a 2-2, career-opening tie against the Boston Bruins without so much as a warmup.

Bill Durnan: 100 Greatest NHL Players | NHL.com

Canadiens goalie began career at age 27, won Vezina Trophy six times in seven seasons

www.nhl.com

That's when the Montreal Royals recruited him, the owner enticing Durnan with an accounting job in his steel foundry. Durnan was now in the orbit of the Canadiens, playing in the Forum and distinguishing himself regularly.

Dick Irvin began coaching the Canadiens when Durnan signed with the Royals and, as his son Dick wrote in "In The Crease," "The most frustrating of the many frustrating experiences (my father) endured during his first three seasons in Montreal was watching Durnan play his home games for the Royals right in the Forum. It was obvious the amateur team had much better goaltending than the professional team that played in the same building."

When Bibeault entered the armed forces in 1943, Gorman didn't have to look far for a replacement.

Initially, Durnan wasn't especially interested, recalling how the Leafs mistreated him. But Gorman persisted and signed Durnan just minutes before the first game of the 1943-44 season on Oct. 30.

 

[Dr John Carlson]

It's pretty clear from the sources that if Durnan had wanted to play professionally for the Habs from 1941-1943, he would've.

 

[overpass]

From the first link I posted above, some information I hadn't seen before about Durnan's other sporting exploits. Softball stats and a soccer star. A multisport athlete like Charlie Gardiner.

The numbers of the late Bill Durnan are practically off the charts.

Fifteen strikeouts per game for 25 consecutive years on a fast-pitch diamond as one of Canada’s finest softball pitchers ever. Fourteen no-hitters, officially, but surely many more than that. Two world championship victories playing on teams out of Toronto, his hometown. Lifetime batting average of .350.

On the soccer pitch, as a young and powerful halfback, Durnan was scouted by two English First Division teams, offered contracts by each.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Yet another strike against pre-forward pass goalies...

The outstanding goalie in hockey is Roy Worters of the New York Americans. The ace wingman is Harvey Jackson of the Toronto Maple Leafs and the rising star among the defense men is Art Coulter of Chicago...

If you disagree with these finds, you must pick your quarrel with Les Patrick, coach of the New York Rangers and admitted genius of the ice game.

"There are more good goalies today than ever before," said Les. "They outclass the old timers because they have more chance to play, the modern rules favor them and they have better equipment."

"This year there is a scarcity of good defense men...the boys coming up are just as big, fast and strong as their immediate predecessors but they don't seem to have the ability to absorb the fine points of defense. In plainer words, they are big and dumb."

Patrick calls little Worters the goalie without a weakness. Tiny Thompson, Hainsworth and other net minders rank high in his estimation but they lack that little extra touch that is the hall mark of the master.

 

[Michael Farkas]

This is nothing, but Frank Brimsek did have a contract to play another year in the Chicago organization but they were committed to Lumley in 1951 (who got killed, 12-41-10). But there were 7 GP played by his understudies.

The article suggests that Brimsek would have reported to the new Milwaukee Sea Gulls of the USHL. They also finished last that year. Probably wouldn't have been a help to his legacy.