HOH Top 60 Goaltenders of All Time (2024 Edition) - Round 2, Vote 3

[overpass]

1. The Problem with Bill Durnan's Save Stats

The main reason that I was hesitant about Durnan last time was that there are unofficial save percentage numbers from the 1948-49 and 1949-50 season that don't really make it seem like Durnan stands out all that much.

Of course that doesn't tell the whole story, because we need to consider the quality of those shots. There have absolutely been some team situations where a team was preventing shots at the cost of shot quality, giving up fewer shots but with a higher average degree of danger on the ones that did get through.

I agree with your assessment that Durnan's shots against were low throughout his career, and it's a good point. I do think there is some reason to believe the difficulty of those shots was above average.

Dick Irvin's teams tended to be high scoring outside of the Durnan years. His teams were first in the league in goals scored in 9 of his 26 seasons coached, and 7 of 19 seasons if you exclude seasons with Durnan. But in his 26 seasons, his teams never led the league in goals against except in 6 seasons when Bill Durnan was in goal.

Every time Dick Irvin left a team, they finished first in the league in goals against the following season. And the teams that he joined tended to improve in scoring but not goals against.

Andy O'Brien wrote years later that the Canadiens tended to allow more difficult chances against. From an article on Charlie Hodge in the Sun, Nov 28, 1964.

Canadiens have a long history of being hard to live with as far as goalkeepers are concerned. The great Bill Durnan's nerves became shot, Gerry McNeil was reduced to playoff shakes and tears, and the apparently calm and collected Plante became edgy and temperamental (asthma was blamed but nerves went with the asthma). I'm inclined to think that Canadiens' famed fire-wagon style of play is a basic cause for the toll on goalers. The club has always cared not a hoot if the opposition gets five goals as long as it ends up with six and this policy hardly contributes to goalkeeping serenity. It gets awfully lonely at times back there with defencemen making like forwards and left wings making like right wings.

Did Andy O'Brien go back far enough to watch Durnan? Yes he did, and farther back. O'Brien was the son of hockey trainer Bill O'Brien and was around the game since he was a boy. Andy sold programs in the Forum on its opening night, was the stickboy for the 1925-26 Maroons, and was a sportswriter from the 30s until the 80s.

 

[CuuuJooo]

I agree with your assessment that Durnan's shots against were low throughout his career, and it's a good point. I do think there is some reason to believe the difficulty of those shots was above average.

Dick Irvin's teams tended to be high scoring outside of the Durnan years. His teams were first in the league in goals scored in 9 of his 26 seasons coached, and 7 of 19 seasons if you exclude seasons with Durnan. But in his 26 seasons, his teams never led the league in goals against except in 6 seasons when Bill Durnan was in goal.

Every time Dick Irvin left a team, they finished first in the league in goals against the following season. And the teams that he joined tended to improve in scoring but not goals against.

Andy O'Brien wrote years later that the Canadiens tended to allow more difficult chances against. From an article on Charlie Hodge in the Sun, Nov 28, 1964.

Canadiens have a long history of being hard to live with as far as goalkeepers are concerned. The great Bill Durnan's nerves became shot, Gerry McNeil was reduced to playoff shakes and tears, and the apparently calm and collected Plante became edgy and temperamental (asthma was blamed but nerves went with the asthma). I'm inclined to think that Canadiens' famed fire-wagon style of play is a basic cause for the toll on goalers. The club has always cared not a hoot if the opposition gets five goals as long as it ends up with six and this policy hardly contributes to goalkeeping serenity. It gets awfully lonely at times back there with defencemen making like forwards and left wings making like right wings.

Did Andy O'Brien go back far enough to watch Durnan? Yes he did, and farther back. O'Brien was the son of hockey trainer Bill O'Brien and was around the game since he was a boy. Andy sold programs in the Forum on its opening night, was the stickboy for the 1925-26 Maroons, and was a sportswriter from the 30s until the 80s.

Shades of Ken Dryden? Minus the playoff shakes, obviously.

Being a consistently great goalie on a consistently great team is one of the toughest jobs in hockey.

Having said that, I do think that Broda was the more "clutch" playoff goalie, though I'm not sure that makes up for the generally "just okay" regular seasons.

World War II really mucked everything up...

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

I agree with your assessment that Durnan's shots against were low throughout his career, and it's a good point. I do think there is some reason to believe the difficulty of those shots was above average.

Dick Irvin's teams tended to be high scoring outside of the Durnan years. His teams were first in the league in goals scored in 9 of his 26 seasons coached, and 7 of 19 seasons if you exclude seasons with Durnan. But in his 26 seasons, his teams never led the league in goals against except in 6 seasons when Bill Durnan was in goal.

Every time Dick Irvin left a team, they finished first in the league in goals against the following season. And the teams that he joined tended to improve in scoring but not goals against.

Andy O'Brien wrote years later that the Canadiens tended to allow more difficult chances against. From an article on Charlie Hodge in the Sun, Nov 28, 1964.

Canadiens have a long history of being hard to live with as far as goalkeepers are concerned. The great Bill Durnan's nerves became shot, Gerry McNeil was reduced to playoff shakes and tears, and the apparently calm and collected Plante became edgy and temperamental (asthma was blamed but nerves went with the asthma). I'm inclined to think that Canadiens' famed fire-wagon style of play is a basic cause for the toll on goalers. The club has always cared not a hoot if the opposition gets five goals as long as it ends up with six and this policy hardly contributes to goalkeeping serenity. It gets awfully lonely at times back there with defencemen making like forwards and left wings making like right wings.

Did Andy O'Brien go back far enough to watch Durnan? Yes he did, and farther back. O'Brien was the son of hockey trainer Bill O'Brien and was around the game since he was a boy. Andy sold programs in the Forum on its opening night, was the stickboy for the 1925-26 Maroons, and was a sportswriter from the 30s until the 80s.

Some good points about Irvin. I'm fully prepared to believe that the Habs allowed tougher chances against than the Leafs or Wings, perhaps significantly so. But that still wouldn't make them worse than average in the Original 6, unless we think they were also worse than the Rangers and/or Bruins. It's obvious that no team was close to the Hawks, who were on an island of their own in the post-war era considering the big-name goalies who all went there and failed, with the exception of Al Rollins' magical season and a half, until Hall in the late '50s.

If Durnan was just narrowly losing to Broda or Lumley playing on a dynasty or dynasty-in-the-making, that's one thing. But potentially being consistently close in save percentage for his entire non-wartime career to a guy who was getting significant Hart support on the Rangers (and who probably won't be coming up for vote for a bit yet) is specifically what gives me pause. And it's not just those two years, if we assume Durnan faced 26 SA/60 in 1947-48, then 24 SA/60 in 1946-47 and 1945-46, here are the SA/60 that Rangers goalies would have needed to record the same save percentage:

1946 (Rayner): 34.32
1947 (Rayner): 31.85
1948 (Henry/Rayner): 30.55

Those don't seem unreasonable to me? Rayner was at 31.9 in the 1948-49 season and 33.7 in the 1948 playoffs (albeit against the Wings). Durnan probably has an edge in 1945-46, but the other two years were likely very close. New York was the worst team during the war and only made the playoffs once during this period. And those are still the Punch Line era Habs, who weren't even that dominant offensively in those seasons (average to above-average in the first two years and then worst in the league by some distance in 1947-48). If Irvin was trading defence to create offence in those years, then the offence really wasn't very good at all.

This is very much painting in broad strokes with lots of gray areas, and I'm fully prepared to admit I'm missing important information somewhere, but I'm honestly still not entirely sure I can make it all add up in a way that both makes sense and elevates Durnan enough to vote him high this round.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

Being a consistently great goalie on a consistently great team is one of the toughest jobs in hockey.

People always say this, but what's the evidence it is actually true?

Fun fact: From the year the Stanley Cup Finals changed to a best of 7 series (1939) to the WHA merger (1979), the team with home ice advantage went 35-6 in those series. Almost as if goalies were making next to no difference at all in the matchups that decided the Cup in that era.

In the segment that overlaps the official save percentage era it was 21-3, and here are the combined stats for the goalies in both groups:

Goalies with home ice: .915 season, .925 SCF
Goalies without home ice: .908 season, .900 SCF

I really don't think the goalies on the better teams all just randomly got more clutch, or that the goalies on the worse teams suddenly all choked. And it seems especially weird that the above result would happen if it's truly more difficult to play on great teams.

Being a consistently great goalie on any team is extraordinarily hard, and being a consistently great goalie on a bad defensive team is the hardest. Playing on a great team that doesn't allow many shots against is a different exercise that requires different mental preparation, but that doesn't mean it's even close to the toughest job in hockey.

 

[CuuuJooo]

People always say this, but what's the evidence it is actually true?

Fun fact: From the year the Stanley Cup Finals changed to a best of 7 series (1939) to the WHA merger (1979), the team with home ice advantage went 35-6 in those series. Almost as if goalies were making next to no difference at all in the matchups that decided the Cup in that era.

In the segment that overlaps the official save percentage era it was 21-3, and here are the combined stats for the goalies in both groups:

Goalies with home ice: .915 season, .925 SCF
Goalies without home ice: .908 season, .900 SCF

I really don't think the goalies on the better teams all just randomly got more clutch, or that the goalies on the worse teams suddenly all choked. And it seems especially weird that the above result would happen if it's truly more difficult to play on great teams.

Being a consistently great goalie on any team is extraordinarily hard, and being a consistently great goalie on a bad defensive team is the hardest. Playing on a great team that doesn't allow many shots against is a different exercise that requires different mental preparation, but that doesn't mean it's even close to the toughest job in hockey.

I don't have any statistical evidence to back it up, but I played goal for 25 years. And maybe (almost certainly) it's different at the professional level; however, the mental fortitude required to keep your head in the game when the score is 1-0 and your team is outshooting the opposition 40-10 is extraordinary. In many ways -- again, personally and anecdotally -- there's considerably less pressure when you're a great goalie on a bad team because you're always in the game and, ultimately, no one is going to pin that loss on you. Does anyone blame Carey Price, for example, for losing to Tampa in the Cup Finals? His team STUNK.

I'd love to hear more from the experts, though. Truly.

 

[overpass]

Regarding the value of goaltenders in early hockey, why not look at the salary information we can find? Yes, salary is not a direct measure of value, and it may depend on the bargaining power of each individual player. But it can maybe give us an indication of whether the best goaltenders were considered valuable enough to receive top salaries.

Georges Vezina
- Received a $6000 salary for his final NHL season of 1925-26 (wikipedia). Top salaries for that season included Lionel Conacher at $7500 and Dunc Munro at $7500.
- Toward the end of his career, Vezina was the wealthiest player in hockey, with a net worth estimated at $200,000.00. Vezina held a lot of real estate in his hometown of Chicoutim and also owned a tannery outside of playing hockey (source). In any case, he probably had a good head for business and was able to negotiate a good salary.
- Vezina was at 80% of the top player salaries at the end of his career.

Clint Benedict
- Per the 1924 lawsuit about Benedict's drinking, his salary for the 1923-24 season was $2300.
- Newsy Lalonde and Babe Dye were reported to be the top earners for the 1923-24 season, with salaries of $4000. The average Ottawa player made $2500 in salary for the 1923-24 season, as well as $1000 in playoff bonuses. And most held government jobs salaried around $2000 that allowed them to use their holidays for road trips. Benedict himself was not a civil servant, he held a high position in a printing company. And he owned an apartment house in Ottawa that brought him a handsome income (source).
- Benedict's highest salary earned was $5000 at the end of his career (source). That wasn't particularly high in the years immediately before the Depression. Eddie Shore was asking for $17,500 a season (source). Frank Getty wrote in 1929 that up until recently, $20,000 was the top hockey salary and that was paid to only one star (source).
- It sounds like Benedict's 1923-24 salary was slightly below average on his team, and was 57.5% of the top player salary for that season. His top salary with the Maroons was not particularly high for the era.

Charlie Gardiner
- Gardiner was the highest paid puckstopper in the sport when he passed away. Lorne Chabot asked for the same salary and was turned down (source). Chabot stated he only wanted the same salary he had received with Canadiens, suggesting his salary was equal with Gardiner's if accurate.
- Chicago asked Gardiner to take a paycut from $6000 to $4500 after the 31-32 season (source). Later articles are split on whether his pay was actually cut or if it was unchanged.
- After the 1931-32 season, the NHL instituted a maximum individual salary of $7500 and team salary of $70,000. After 1932-33 the salary cap was reduced to $65,000.
- Eddie Shore was generally believed to have been paid $10,000 for 1932-33, and a maximum of $16,000 some years earlier (source).
- Unfortunately I don't have Gardiner's salary for his final season, just that it was tops among goalies. But if it's anything like his earlier $6000 or $4500 numbers, he was some distance short of the max salary of $7500, not sure by how much.

Bill Durnan
- Made $10,500 salary in his final season. Maurice Richard made $12,000 (source), and the average NHL player made $8000 (source).
- Durnan made 88% of Richard's salary.
- Durnan and Richard also made several thousand dollars a season in bonuses if they were postseason all-stars, for winning the Vezina or Hart trophy, and for winning the Stanley Cup. Both in the direct bonus from the league, and also matched by the team in some cases (source).

Ed Belfour
- Signed for 2.75 million/year in 95-96, just inside the top 25 but less than half of the salaries of Gretzky, Tkachuk, and Messier (source).
- Signed for 5.5 million/year in 00-01, 55% of what Paul Kariya and Peter Forsberg were making (source)
- Signed for 6.5 million/year in 02-03, less than 60% of Jagr and Tkachuk's salaries.

Henrik Lundqvist
- Signed a 7 year extension worth 8.5 million/year which started in 2014-15. or 89% of what Alex Ovechkin was making per season (source)

Andrei Vasilevsky
- Signed a 7 year extension worth 9.5 million/year starting in 2020-21, or 76% of Connor McDavid's yearly salary.

Toronto was pretty tightlipped about salaries so I haven't included Bower or Broda. I don't know what Bernie Parent signed for upon returning to the NHL, except that it was said to be a lifetime contract with the Flyers, like that of Bobby Clarke.

I conclude that Georges Vezina was paid near the top of the salary table, similar to later goalies Durnan, Lundqvist, and Vasilevskiy. Benedict was likely not paid too well relative to the stars or even to the average player.

Lundqvist may have been the highest paid goalie of this group relative to his peers.

Belfour never got a really top contract, although he had bad timing when it came to performance in his contract year of 2002.

Was there ever a time when the top goalies made as much as the top skaters? Yes, I believe Glenn Hall's contract of $47,500 with the St Louis Blues in 67-68 put him right there with Bobby Hull and Gordie Howe. And Terry Sawchuk's $40,000 with LA was close behind. But for most of hockey history, the top goalies have been paid less than the top skaters.

 

[rmartin65]

Regarding the value of goaltenders in early hockey, why not look at the salary information we can find? Yes, salary is not a direct measure of value, and it may depend on the bargaining power of each individual player. But it can maybe give us an indication of whether the best goaltenders were considered valuable enough to receive top salaries.

Georges Vezina
- Received a $6000 salary for his final NHL season of 1925-26 (wikipedia). Top salaries for that season included Lionel Conacher at $7500 and Dunc Munro at $7500.
- Toward the end of his career, Vezina was the wealthiest player in hockey, with a net worth estimated at $200,000.00. Vezina held a lot of real estate in his hometown of Chicoutim and also owned a tannery outside of playing hockey (source). In any case, he probably had a good head for business and was able to negotiate a good salary.
- Vezina was at 80% of the top player salaries at the end of his career.

Clint Benedict
- Per the 1924 lawsuit about Benedict's drinking, his salary for the 1923-24 season was $2300.
- Newsy Lalonde and Babe Dye were reported to be the top earners for the 1923-24 season, with salaries of $4000. The average Ottawa player made $2500 in salary for the 1923-24 season, as well as $1000 in playoff bonuses. And most held government jobs salaried around $2000 that allowed them to use their holidays for road trips. Benedict himself was not a civil servant, he held a high position in a printing company. And he owned an apartment house in Ottawa that brought him a handsome income (source).
- Benedict's highest salary earned was $5000 at the end of his career (source). That wasn't particularly high in the years immediately before the Depression. Eddie Shore was asking for $17,500 a season (source). Frank Getty wrote in 1929 that up until recently, $20,000 was the top hockey salary and that was paid to only one star (source).
- It sounds like Benedict's 1923-24 salary was slightly below average on his team, and was 57.5% of the top player salary for that season. His top salary with the Maroons was not particularly high for the era.

Charlie Gardiner
- Gardiner was the highest paid puckstopper in the sport when he passed away. Lorne Chabot asked for the same salary and was turned down (source). Chabot stated he only wanted the same salary he had received with Canadiens, suggesting his salary was equal with Gardiner's if accurate.
- Chicago asked Gardiner to take a paycut from $6000 to $4500 after the 31-32 season (source). Later articles are split on whether his pay was actually cut or if it was unchanged.
- After the 1931-32 season, the NHL instituted a maximum individual salary of $7500 and team salary of $70,000. After 1932-33 the salary cap was reduced to $65,000.
- Eddie Shore was generally believed to have been paid $10,000 for 1932-33, and a maximum of $16,000 some years earlier (source).
- Unfortunately I don't have Gardiner's salary for his final season, just that it was tops among goalies. But if it's anything like his earlier $6000 or $4500 numbers, he was some distance short of the max salary of $7500, not sure by how much.

Bill Durnan
- Made $10,500 salary in his final season. Maurice Richard made $12,000, and the average NHL player made $8000.
- Durnan made 88% of Richard's salary.

Ed Belfour
- Signed for 2.75 million/year in 95-96, just inside the top 25 but less than half of the salaries of Gretzky, Tkachuk, and Messier (source).
- Signed for 5.5 million/year in 00-01, 55% of what Paul Kariya and Peter Forsberg were making (source)
- Signed for 6.5 million/year in 02-03, less than 60% of Jagr and Tkachuk's salaries.

Henrik Lundqvist
- Signed a 7 year extension worth 8.5 million/year which started in 2014-15. or 89% of what Alex Ovechkin was making per season (source)

Andrei Vasilevsky
- Signed a 7 year extension worth 9.5 million/year starting in 2020-21, or 76% of Connor McDavid's yearly salary.

Toronto was pretty tightlipped about salaries so I haven't included Bower or Broda. I don't know what Bernie Parent signed for upon returning to the NHL, except that it was said to be a lifetime contract with the Flyers, like that of Bobby Clarke.

I conclude that Georges Vezina was paid near the top of the salary table, similar to later goalies Durnan, Lundqvist, and Vasilevskiy. Benedict was likely not paid too well relative to the stars or even to the average player.

Lundqvist may have been the highest paid goalie of this group relative to his peers.

Belfour never got a really top contract, although he had bad timing when it came to performance in his contract year of 2002.

Was there ever a time when the top goalies made as much as the top skaters? Yes, I believe Glenn Hall's contract of $47,500 with the St Louis Blues in 67-68 put him right there with Bobby Hull and Gordie Howe. And Terry Sawchuk's $40,000 with LA was close behind. But for most of hockey history, the top goalies have been paid less than the top skaters.

Some really excellent information in there, thank you.

Looks like the goalie position was valued after all.