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

[The Pale King]

like, top 4 goalie

For the Panthers franchise? Sure, he's right there. Definitely ahead of James Reimer.

Worthy of a plaque and jersey in the main concourse custodial closet for sure.

 

[The Pale King]

Interesting to read takes about Dick Irvin's Canadiens squads that make them sound like the 80s Oilers in terms of firewagon hockey - "don't care if they give up 5 as long as they win".

Some of the Lundqvist takes focusing on GF make them sound like the 2003 Ducks or something. They were a team that consistently spent to the cap, had a lot of talent on the rosters and if anything those "6th in wins, 21st in GF" stat makes it sound to me like they created a defensively stifling environment, one that probably benefitted Lundqvist's numbers overall. Was the money generally well-spent? Well, certainly not always, but we're not talking about the pre-lockout Rangers either.

I mean the year Lundqvist's Rangers made it to the SCF in 2014, the Kings team they lost to was 25th in GF. When they lost to the Devils in the ECF in 2012, the Devils were 11th in regular season goals for, while the Rangers were 13th. The Cup winning Kings were 29th in GF. It's pretty clear you could be a competitive team during Lundqvist's prime on teams with middling overall GF numbers, at least in the regular season.

Would anyone say either of those Kings rosters were lacking in talent despite finishing an average of 27th in GF in their Cup seasons? I certainly wouldn't.

Following the finals appearance, the next three seasons the Rangers were 3rd, 7th, and 4th in GF in the regular season. One of the dangers of looking at GF over such a large period is that these seasons get lost in the mix.

Does any of this say anything about Lundqvist's actual play? No, but let's not pretend he played his career in front of the Jacques Lemaire Wild either.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Some videos now to tide us over...

Johnny Bower...


Henrik Lundqvist...


Andrei Vasilevskiy...


There was a request for Bernie Parent, I'll see if I can grind that out soon...

 

[blogofmike]

my cousin just said Bobrovsky has a shot at a Rushmore career.

...he's serious

About late night drinking?

Interesting to read takes about Dick Irvin's Canadiens squads that make them sound like the 80s Oilers in terms of firewagon hockey - "don't care if they give up 5 as long as they win".

Some of the Lundqvist takes focusing on GF make them sound like the 2003 Ducks or something. They were a team that consistently spent to the cap, had a lot of talent on the rosters and if anything those "6th in wins, 21st in GF" stat makes it sound to me like they created a defensively stifling environment, one that probably benefitted Lundqvist's numbers overall. Was the money generally well-spent? Well, certainly not always, but we're not talking about the pre-lockout Rangers either.

I mean the year Lundqvist's Rangers made it to the SCF in 2014, the Kings team they lost to was 25th in GF. When they lost to the Devils in the ECF in 2012, the Devils were 11th in regular season goals for, while the Rangers were 13th. The Cup winning Kings were 29th in GF. It's pretty clear you could be a competitive team during Lundqvist's prime on teams with middling overall GF numbers, at least in the regular season.

Would anyone say either of those Kings rosters were lacking in talent despite finishing an average of 27th in GF in their Cup seasons? I certainly wouldn't.

Following the finals appearance, the next three seasons the Rangers were 3rd, 7th, and 4th in GF in the regular season. One of the dangers of looking at GF over such a large period is that these seasons get lost in the mix.

Does any of this say anything about Lundqvist's actual play? No, but let's not pretend he played his career in front of the Jacques Lemaire Wild either.

Regular season GF doesn't carry into the playoffs. They are an indicator of quality, but Jonathan Quick won 2 games in 2014 while giving up 4 GA.

That's notable because Henrik Lundqvist never won a playoff game at the 4-GA mark in his entire career.

NYR went to the Finals with Lundqvist going 4-3 in 2-GA games, with another 3 overtime losses where he gave up the 3rd goal in overtime.

9 of New York's 13 wins came in 0 or 1 GA games from Lundqvist.

That means 0 wins with 3-GA for Hank and the Blueshirts, while the 2014 Kings gave Quick 2 with 3-GA and 2 wins with 4-GA.

----

Or if you want to compare with the 2003 Wild...

1) Lundqvist produced 9 0-GA or 1-GA games. Minnesota only had 2.
2) While Lundqvist was 4-3 (or 4-6 over 60 mins) in 2-GA games, the Wild were 7-2 (7-3 counting 3-GA OT losses).

So yeah, Lundqvist wasn't on the Jacques Lemaire Wild.

But if he was, he just might have won them the Stanley Cup.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I mean the year Lundqvist's Rangers made it to the SCF in 2014, the Kings team they lost to was 25th in GF. When they lost to the Devils in the ECF in 2012, the Devils were 11th in regular season goals for, while the Rangers were 13th. The Cup winning Kings were 29th in GF. It's pretty clear you could be a competitive team during Lundqvist's prime on teams with middling overall GF numbers, at least in the regular season.

Would anyone say either of those Kings rosters were lacking in talent despite finishing an average of 27th in GF in their Cup seasons? I certainly wouldn't.

Following the finals appearance, the next three seasons the Rangers were 3rd, 7th, and 4th in GF in the regular season. One of the dangers of looking at GF over such a large period is that these seasons get lost in the mix.

I don't want to belabor this point too much, but it's sort of my thing haha

The Rangers made a pretty significant change around 2014 to actually use the middle of the rink and actually employ some stretch passing. And they had a fairly unique roster. Guys that could stretch and go: like Kreider and Hagelin. Guys that could stretch and hold: like Nash, Hayes, and Stepan. Backed by d-men who weren't as untalented as their numbers suggested: like Boyle, McDonagh, and Klein.

They had some dynamic playmakers too: St. Louis, Brassard, Zuccarello, and a much less dynamic, but super smart Stepan.

It was really a pretty well put together roster, especially up front. At least, for not having a super star or even probably a semi-star at that point.

Anyhow, they really played a good two-way game during that time. The Tortorella days were closer to the Lemaire Wild (obviously, not quite that, but directionally)...except the Rangers were asked to leave their feet for shot blocks a lot more.

The 2012 Kings were basically a league average offense after Sutter took over, while playing great defense. The 2013 team scored. The 2014 team scored with Gaborik. I wouldn't say "they lacked talent" but they certainly aren't a team of needle-movers. It was a grindy team that had more finish than they had setup.

Kopitar is a setup guy. But a lot of the rest of that lineup would really prefer to play downhill and shoot: Carter, Williams, Toffoli, Brown, Pearson, freakin' Dwight King probably had 8 assists in the NHL. Doughty can do everything, but if you green light him to shoot the lights out, he becomes Ray Bourque. That's a different type of roster entirely for me. It's not untalented, but it's not a dynamic roster by any means. I don't know how to check this, but I wouldn't be surprised they were about the bottom of the league in team assists or their G:A ratio, especially at even strength, was at odds with the normal 1.74 per goal or whatever the number is/was...

 

[jigglysquishy]

Here is my post about Vezina in the SCF from last round.

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.
Click to expand...

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 ~1912-1925. 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.

I've included below his playoff games outside the Stanley Cup Finals.


1914 Playoffs
Habs beat Toronto 2-0 in a total goal 2 game series

Translated from French
Le Temps – March 10, 1914

Toronto will have to score at least three points to gain the upper hand and as Vezina is an unusual goalkeeper, Jack Marshall's players will not have it easy.

Toronto beats Montreal 6-0 to win the series 6-2

The Toronto World – March 12, 1914

Torontos had had considerable trouble in beating Vezina in most of the games.
Vezina, in the nets, did not have a night off, as one might suspect from the score: in fact, he gave a good exhibition, as he must have stopped a regular rainstorm of shots.

1917 Playoffs
Montreal beats the Senators 5-2 in a 2 game total goal series


The Montreal Daily Mail – March 8, 1917

All the shots that they directed at Vezina were from long range and easily handled by the goaltend.
Gerard gave Vezina a hard one.
Denneny had an excellent opening to even the score, but Vezina displayed his ability to save at critical moments.
Merrill made a nice rush, but Vezina turned his shot aside.
Vezina made a grand save on Gerard’s shot.

Senators win 4-2, but Montreal wins the series 7-6

No relevant comments


1918 Playoffs
Toronto beats Montreal 7-3 in a 2-game total goal series

The Calgary Daily Herald – March 12, 1918

Vezina had no chance to save.
Vezina stopped, but Randall recovered and scored as he fell over a bunch of players piled up in a heap at the goal.

Montreal beats Toronto 4-3 to lose series 10-7

No relevant comments


1919 Playoffs
Montreal beats Ottawa 8-4 in a best of seven series
Montreal 1 Ottawa 0

Not covered by any English-language newspapers


Montreal beats Ottawa 5-3
Montreal 2 Ottawa 0

No comments


Montreal beats Ottawa 6-3
Montreal 3 Ottawa 0

No comments


Ottawa beats Montreal 6-3
Montreal 3 Ottawa 1

No comments


Montreal beats Ottawa 4-2
Montreal 4 Ottawa 1

No comments


What can I say, outside of some mild praise for Lalonde, this series gets very little coverage


1923 Playoffs
Ottawa beats Montreal 2-0 in a 2-game total goal series

Le Canada – March 8, 1923
Translated from French

We saw hockey there with indescribable goalkeeping exploits, sensational races of precise throws by Vezina and Benedict.

Montreal beats Ottawa 2-1 to lose the series 3-2

The Morning Leader - March 10, 1923

Vezina played a magnificent game in the nets for the visitors. He seemed to be absolutely impassable and time and again took the pep out of the Ottawa forwards by his uncanny work. At the end of the second period he had stopped 39 shots, while at the finish he was over 50.

1924 Playoffs
Montreal beats Ottawa 1-0 in a 2-game total goal series

Le Canada – March 10, 1924

Vezina stopped a dangerous blow launched by Denneny

Montreal beats Ottawa 4-2 to win series 5-2


The Morning Leader - March 12, 1924

The attacks were no use against the back-checking of the forwards and the great work of Vezina.

The Montreal Gazette - March 12, 1924

The speed of Morenz and the clever goal keeping of Vezina held the present champions well in check.

1925 Playoffs
Montreal beats Toronto 3-2 in a 2-game total goal series

The Morning Leader - March 12, 1925

Day, Dye, and Neville gave Vezina a busy session.
Dye got back in the action and signalized his return with a deadly shot which Vezina cleared.

Montreal beats Toronto 2- 0 to win series 5-2

The Morning Leader - March 14, 1925

Vezina Shines As Toronto Is Again Whipped
Vezina was unbeatable in the Canadiens’ net. Though Vezina was the team’s star, Sprague Cleghorn and Coutu were great defensively.
Vezina helped them immensely, but was given great protection.
Dye got inside only to have Vezina make a brilliant save.
St. Patricks again had the advantage of the extra player but Vezina was their stumbling block.
St. Patricks tried hard to get a goal, but, although they bombarded Vezina from all angles, he was unbeatable.

Not a whole lot to gleam from all these, other than some pretty hefty praise in 1925.
The newspaper coverage for regular playoffs outside the Stanely Cup itself is quite poor.

But there you have it. Every Vezina playoff game.

 

[overpass]

Following up on my earlier post about goalie salaries, I've found a few pieces of information which indicate that early goalies did not usually receive top salaries.

This is about the position in general, not the goalies up for voting now, if you'll forgive the digression. But we can apply the conclusions to Vezina, Benedict, and Gardiner this round.

The first is a general statement from 1929 that goalies tend to be paid less than other players.

Pittsburgh Press, Jan 15, 1929
The question has been asked a number of times as to the salaries paid hockey players. There are very few who get more than $5000 a year, according to reliable sources, although there are a couple of $9,000 men in the league, but they work only a few months each year for this, and do not play every day, by any means.

In the National League, the teams play about two games a week, sometimes taking part in three and often in only one.

There are a number of the best players, it is asserted, who make $5,000 for a season's play. Goalies are paid less than other players, in the long run, although men like Roy Worters and John Roach are exceptions to this rule.

Hockey players have the entire summer to themselves, and some of them make as much in the off-season as during the ice campaign. Most of them are in some line of business, which they turn over to a partner during the hockey league season.

Roy Worters and George Hainsworth were the leaders in goalie salaries around 1928-1930. Worters was negotiating for a contract prior to the 1928-29 season, asking for $8,000, and being offered $6,000 by the club. The total when he signed wasn't given, but was said to be considerably less than he had asked (source). Likely closer to $6000.

Worters had made $4000 for 1927-28, which was not star money at the time. About half of the league-leading salaries like Dunc Munro, Lionel Conacher, and Hooley Smith.

George Hainsworth signed for the highest salary of any goaltender in the league before the 1930-31 season. One paper said he would make about $7500, a $1500 raise from the previous season (source). Another said more than $7000 (source). That would put the top goaltender at about 60% of Eddie Shore's $12,000 salary in 1930-31.

We can also go back to Percy Lesueur. Who isn't up for voting, but maybe his salary can shed light on how the position was viewed as Vezina and Benedict were entering big-time hockey.

Ottawa Citizen Dec 10, 1909
The Ottawa salary list this year will come to about $15,000. Bruce Stuart, Fred Taylor, and Marty Walsh are understood to have closed for $1,500 while Dubbie Kerr and Fred Lake signed for ($1400?), so it is said. Percy Lesueur and Bruce Ridpath will each get $1,000 and Ken Mallen will be only a hundred or so behind them. Then a manager and two trainers must be paid for.

So Lesueur was paid less than the leading skaters on the team. In fact, he was near the bottom of the salary scale, tied for 6th out of 8 players on the team and only $100 ahead of 8th.

Based on the figures I've seen, it looks like top goalies in Vezina, Benedict, and Gardiner's era made around 60% of the salaries of the top skaters. Vezina himself and his $6000 in 1925-26 is the one exception I've found.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Someone like Worters probably had a lot of leverage too.

"I want more money"
- We don't have any.
*looking around* "Well, you certainly didn't spend it on skaters...fork it over."
- We spent it mostly on jerseys and a marching band that plays on the ice before our games*


* This was true at least in the Brooklyn Americans season

 

[rmartin65]

Following up on my earlier post about goalie salaries, I've found a few pieces of information which indicate that early goalies did not usually receive top salaries.

This is about the position in general, not the goalies up for voting now, if you'll forgive the digression. But we can apply the conclusions to Vezina, Benedict, and Gardiner this round.

The first is a general statement from 1929 that goalies tend to be paid less than other players.

Pittsburgh Press, Jan 15, 1929
The question has been asked a number of times as to the salaries paid hockey players. There are very few who get more than $5000 a year, according to reliable sources, although there are a couple of $9,000 men in the league, but they work only a few months each year for this, and do not play every day, by any means.

In the National League, the teams play about two games a week, sometimes taking part in three and often in only one.

There are a number of the best players, it is asserted, who make $5,000 for a season's play. Goalies are paid less than other players, in the long run, although men like Roy Worters and John Roach are exceptions to this rule.

Hockey players have the entire summer to themselves, and some of them make as much in the off-season as during the ice campaign. Most of them are in some line of business, which they turn over to a partner during the hockey league season.

Roy Worters and George Hainsworth were the leaders in goalie salaries around 1928-1930. Worters was negotiating for a contract prior to the 1928-29 season, asking for $8,000, and being offered $6,000 by the club. The total when he signed wasn't given, but was said to be considerably less than he had asked (source). Likely closer to $6000.

Worters had made $4000 for 1927-28, which was not star money at the time. About half of the league-leading salaries like Dunc Munro, Lionel Conacher, and Hooley Smith.

George Hainsworth signed for the highest salary of any goaltender in the league before the 1930-31 season. One paper said he would make about $7500, a $1500 raise from the previous season (source). Another said more than $7000 (source). That would put the top goaltender at about 60% of Eddie Shore's $12,000 salary in 1930-31.

We can also go back to Percy Lesueur. Who isn't up for voting, but maybe his salary can shed light on how the position was viewed as Vezina and Benedict were entering big-time hockey.

Ottawa Citizen Dec 10, 1909
The Ottawa salary list this year will come to about $15,000. Bruce Stuart, Fred Taylor, and Marty Walsh are understood to have closed for $1,500 while Dubbie Kerr and Fred Lake signed for ($1400?), so it is said. Percy Lesueur and Bruce Ridpath will each get $1,000 and Ken Mallen will be only a hundred or so behind them. Then a manager and two trainers must be paid for.

So Lesueur was paid less than the leading skaters on the team. In fact, he was near the bottom of the salary scale, tied for 6th out of 8 players on the team and only $100 ahead of 8th.

Based on the figures I've seen, it looks like top goalies in Vezina, Benedict, and Gardiner's era made around 60% of the salaries of the top skaters. Vezina himself and his $6000 in 1925-26 is the one exception I've found.

Not to ask you to do work that I can theoretically do myself (well, I guess I am asking), but what does this look like in other eras?

 

[overpass]

Someone like Worters probably had a lot of leverage too.

"I want more money"
- We don't have any.
*looking around* "Well, you certainly didn't spend it on skaters...fork it over."
- We spent it mostly on jerseys and a marching band that plays on the ice before our games*


* This was true at least in the Brooklyn Americans season

Heh. Indeed.

Pittsburgh actually signed him to that contract early in the 1928-29 season and then traded him to the highest bidder, the Americans. I guess it was more than they were willing to pay.

I see now that Worters' wikipedia page says he signed for $8500 in the 1931 off season, an unprecedented sum for a goalie. No source given, unfortunately. I'm a little surprised, as salary cuts started that offseason and continued for the next year or two in the Depression economy. Again, Gardiner took a big pay cut of 25%.

Not to ask you to do work that I can theoretically do myself (well, I guess I am asking), but what does this look like in other eras?

I haven't done exhaustive research. But for the Original Six era and early expansion, I have a few data points that indicate goalies were making 80-90% as much as star skaters, sometimes even matching them.

Bill Durnan was at 87.5% of Maurice Richard's salary in his final season, $10,500 to $12,000. And he may have made more than Maurice when you factor in his bonus for winning the Vezina, $1000 from the league which was matched by the team. (I believe both also received $1000 from the league for being a first team all-star, which was matched by the team).

Mike mentioned upthread that Terry Sawchuk was making as much as Gordie Howe in the 50s, I think it was $16,000? Although that would still be about 80% of what Jean Beliveau made, but Beliveau's situation was unique as he was negotiating with the threat of remaining in amateur hockey.

Glenn Hall hit the very highest level of salary when he signed with the Blues in 1967, and Terry Sawchuk was close behind with LA.

Then I think the top goalies were pretty consistently around 80-90% of top skaters in the 90s and on, when we have numbers. See Hasek, Roy, Lundqvist, and Price.

Edit: In 1963, Jacques Plante signed with the Rangers for $23,000. Average basic salary that season was $13,000, and the highest paid player was $29,000, not identified but rumoured to be Doug Harvey. So Plante was 79% of the top salary. And if Harvey was the top salary, that may have included extra for coaching.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Mike mentioned upthread that Terry Sawchuk was making as much as Gordie Howe in the 50s, I think it was $16,000? Although that would still be about 80% of what Jean Beliveau made, but Beliveau's situation was unique as he was negotiating with the threat of remaining in amateur hockey.

Yeah, my understanding is that Beliveau got 5 yrs x $21,000 per before he scored an NHL goal. But that was to buy him out of the QSHL situation. It was the richest contract in hockey history at the time. I sort of equate that to the Lindros deal where it's not exactly...the same (?) for lack of a better term. They were hold outs. I think I mentioned too that Dryden was kind of a weird situation too. If they didn't pay him, he'd just clerk off...

 

[mrhockey193195]

Interesting to read takes about Dick Irvin's Canadiens squads that make them sound like the 80s Oilers in terms of firewagon hockey - "don't care if they give up 5 as long as they win".

Some of the Lundqvist takes focusing on GF make them sound like the 2003 Ducks or something. They were a team that consistently spent to the cap, had a lot of talent on the rosters and if anything those "6th in wins, 21st in GF" stat makes it sound to me like they created a defensively stifling environment, one that probably benefitted Lundqvist's numbers overall. Was the money generally well-spent? Well, certainly not always, but we're not talking about the pre-lockout Rangers either.

I mean the year Lundqvist's Rangers made it to the SCF in 2014, the Kings team they lost to was 25th in GF. When they lost to the Devils in the ECF in 2012, the Devils were 11th in regular season goals for, while the Rangers were 13th. The Cup winning Kings were 29th in GF. It's pretty clear you could be a competitive team during Lundqvist's prime on teams with middling overall GF numbers, at least in the regular season.

Would anyone say either of those Kings rosters were lacking in talent despite finishing an average of 27th in GF in their Cup seasons? I certainly wouldn't.

Following the finals appearance, the next three seasons the Rangers were 3rd, 7th, and 4th in GF in the regular season. One of the dangers of looking at GF over such a large period is that these seasons get lost in the mix.

Does any of this say anything about Lundqvist's actual play? No, but let's not pretend he played his career in front of the Jacques Lemaire Wild either.

Fair points, but I think it's still accurate to say that Henrik had one of the worst supporting casts of any HOFer in history and barely played with "elite" or "HOF caliber" teammates throughout his career. To me, that is an important factor when considering team success. Many of those Rangers teams were very solid, but punched above their weight in the regular season and were completely neutralized in the playoffs.

Worst Supporting Cast throughout a HOFer's Career

Fair warning, I'm coming at this question from a very biased place. With the recent announcement that Henrik Lundqvist will be inducted into the HOF as part of the class of 2023, a lot of discussion has bubbled up amongst the masses about the fact that he did not win a Stanley Cup and will be...

forums.hfboards.com

 

[jigglysquishy]

Some videos now to tide us over...

Johnny Bower...


Henrik Lundqvist...


Andrei Vasilevskiy...


There was a request for Bernie Parent, I'll see if I can grind that out soon...

I watched all these. Thank you for putting it together.

Henri Richard and Beliveau look like titans. Richard always driving the net. I was surprised to see the Harvey drive early where he sweeps around the Leafs' net.

Horton is inconsistent. Some great plays but he gets beat a lot. Does a good job of keeping most chances to the outside.

The last play in the video with Goyette in alone on Bower is great.


Now that I'm looking for it I can see Lundqvist plays deep in his net. Rangers do a good job of keeping Sens on the perimeter. Phaneuf wastes opportunities with shots from the blue line.

Great Lundqvist stop at 1:20. 3:10 as well.

McDonaugh blocking shots and breaking up plays.


Lighting giving up more good chances than I was expecting. Vasilevskiy very mobile. They allow Vasilevskiy to see the shots but I was honestly expecting stronger rebound clearing by the defenders.

 

[mrhockey193195]

That's notable because Henrik Lundqvist never won a playoff game at the 4-GA mark in his entire career.

NYR went to the Finals with Lundqvist going 4-3 in 2-GA games, with another 3 overtime losses where he gave up the 3rd goal in overtime.

9 of New York's 13 wins came in 0 or 1 GA games from Lundqvist.

That means 0 wins with 3-GA for Hank and the Blueshirts, while the 2014 Kings gave Quick 2 with 3-GA and 2 wins with 4-GA.

I consider myself an expert on quirky Henrik Lundqvist statistics, particularly those pertaining to lack of team support, but I didn't realize it was quite this bad. Particularly the bolded - that is astounding.

That had me curious about 3-GA games in his playoff career. I just checked, Henrik had 30 playoff games where he gave up exactly 3 goals. The Rangers were 9-21 in those games (8 of them being OT losses where the 3rd goal came in OT).

Just looking at games where he gave up 3 goals in regulation, the Rangers were 9-16 (3 games where he gave up the 4th goal in OT).

 

[blogofmike]

I consider myself an expert on quirky Henrik Lundqvist statistics, particularly those pertaining to lack of team support, but I didn't realize it was quite this bad. Particularly the bolded - that is astounding.

That had me curious about 3-GA games in his playoff career. I just checked, Henrik had 30 playoff games where he gave up exactly 3 goals. The Rangers were 9-21 in those games (8 of them being OT losses where the 3rd goal came in OT).

Just looking at games where he gave up 3 goals in regulation, the Rangers were 9-16 (3 games where he gave up the 4th goal in OT).

I posted this earlier, but you might be interested in checking out how goalies did with various levels of GA support here: HOH Top 40 Stanley Cup Playoff Performers of All Time

Lundqvist has a losing record in 2-GA games. Even Curtis Joseph (narrowly) has a winning record in those, and I named the thing after him because of his terrible goal support.

@Michael Farkas likes to say that "everybody gives up 2," but for Lundqvist, even that was a dicey proposition.

 

[VanIslander]

I haven't seen a better goalie than Belfour since he retired.

Vasilevskiy may approach... (the future undetermined)

 

[jigglysquishy]

Been a quiet week. Anyone want to advocate for Broda, Belfour, Vasilevsky, Parent, or Holocek in the top 4?

 

[Professor What]

Been a quiet week. Anyone want to advocate for Broda, Belfour, Vasilevsky, Parent, or Holocek in the top 4?

Yeah, that's why I was hoping for another week. I wanted to see some more discussion on those guys, but I seemed to be alone. Oh well, it is what it is. There will be another week to talk about some or all of them, I'd say.

 

[Dr John Carlson]

What are our thoughts on Broda versus Bower? They're very easy comparables. Both played for the Leafs, both achieved enormous team success during the second half of their careers, playing behind dynasties built on defense. Both had excellent longevity.

Broda has a stronger NHL resume, but that can partially be chalked up to playing in the thinner 30s rather than Bower being unable to break through in the deeper 50s. In the primes of their career - Broda in the 40s, Bower in the 60s - which one stood above their peers more?

Broda would be a solid 3rd in that decade for me, with not much depth behind him challenging him for that spot. Bower, meanwhile... in that decade, Hall is a solid #1, but how about versus Sawchuk/Plante strictly in the 60s, when those two were on the back nine of their career?

I was very impressed by Bower, more so than I anticipated, when I was watching film in the preliminary discussion. I had him pretty high on my list. I don't want to use that in an argument versus Broda though, who I haven't seen enough of to feel comfortable judging on eye test.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Been a quiet week. Anyone want to advocate for Broda, Belfour, Vasilevsky, Parent, or Holocek in the top 4?

Yes.

Vasilevskiy is sort of old school in the sense that he worked his way in and then took the league by storm. He basically took the mantle from Lundqvist or Price as the league's best goalie for several seasons in a row, but not only that, he carried it into the playoffs pretty well. Unlike a lot of the fly-by-night goalies that we've become accustomed to in the last 20 years, Vasy was also consistently in or around the Final on merit.

Workhorse too, generally.

Scoring went up in 2017-18, so shutouts are tougher to come by...power plays are lethal...etc.

Vasy routinely created winnable game situations for his team...
1 or fewer games played table since 2018

	0 or 1 GA GP	GP	% of <=1 GA
Saros	91​	328​	27.7%​
Vasilevskiy	107​	387​	27.6%​
Fleury	92​	334​	27.5%​
Grubauer	73​	278​	26.3%​
Andersen	75​	304​	24.7%​
Hellebuyck	103​	423​	24.3%​
Bobrovsky	88​	370​	23.8%​
Talbot	66​	300​	22.0%​
Markstrom	76​	376​	20.2%​
Gibson	64​	359​	17.8%​

I mean, I don't even know what to say about Vasy. It's basically a situation where if you voted Hasek high in round 1, you should be voting Vasilevskiy high in this round. There's no other way to put it. I understand that Tampa is better than Buffalo, but Tampa also wasn't a great defensive team. (In before "Buffalo was a team of poorly-equipped ragamuffins and Hasek was basically Rocky Balboa" right...except Rocky stayed in fights or else the movies would have been very boring haha).

There are similarities in terms of their strengths and weaknesses...obviously, no one will likely do what Hasek did again, the league isn't really setup for that kind of thing anyhow...and Vasy is a better playoff performer.

It's not something I'm likely to "win", but folks will point at the stats vs. the field and all that kind of stuff...and I get it, but I don't think the league is wired for consistent save pct. killers like Hasek or GAA killers like Brodeur. There's a lot of reasons for that and I fear they'll take us off topic late (?) in the set. But Vasy did something really impressive in a not-super-defensive situation...that's extremely rare. As much as I like Lundqvist and love Price, those guys were both much more insulated.

Folks like the vs. backups stats...like most things, I think that's need context of course. But with Vasy...

2016-17 to 2023-24 (so I'm including his "off" season last year)
Vasy 275-128-29 (.670) | 2.56 GAA | .917 save pct. | 32 SO
Others: 104-61-21 (.616) | 3.02 GAA | .894 save pct. | 8 SO

The list of others includes save pct. champs Ben Bishop and Brian Elliott.

In other words, Vasy is 10th in GAA over that time, his composite backups are 72nd. Tied for 6th in save pct. but his backups would be dead last in the NHL (84th).

 

[Michael Farkas]

I was very impressed by Bower, more so than I anticipated, when I was watching film in the preliminary discussion. I had him pretty high on my list. I don't want to use that in an argument versus Broda though, who I haven't seen enough of to feel comfortable judging on eye test.

Bower blows Broda out of the water. Bower is way up there. He has a lot of technical ability. He's in the same spot as Dryden on my prelim (Bower a spot ahead).

We know now that Bower wasn't in a situation where he couldn't break into the O6, it's that he was withheld from joining the NHL. He might have stuck with the Rangers if his only full season wasn't lead by Paul Ronty. He got a lot of praise during that season too.

He ends up going back to the minors for some reason - becomes the only goalie in league history to win the MVP, then he wins it twice in a row (2nd ever player to do that, the other was in the War years). I guess if he stayed with the Rangers we might not be talking about him, but he's rock solid. He would have made it work virtually anywhere.

 

[Michael Farkas]

• Ed Belfour - I had him in my prelim, but I'm trying to figure him out more. I feel like I'm missing something here. I just can't figure it out. Is it just a consistency thing?
• Clint Benedict - My feelings on this are well stated, and I think basically everyone is in the same boat here...too soon.
• Johnny Bower - Just talked about him, he's way better than...
• Turk Broda - ...this guy. It's just too soon here, by a bunch...
• Bill Durnan - You could do worse right now. Short career in War years though, so if this a career-value Olympics, then it's not so good...but if it's a more encompassing situation, you can do worse now.
• Charlie Gardiner - Ummm...yeah, probably not now. But he represents another level compared to Vezina and Benedict for me. Looks like he transitioned as well as he could in his short time.
• Jiri Holecek - There's just no way to spin a yarn well enough to get Holecek at the top of the ballot right now. He requires a much deeper dive. I don't have him lower on my prelim list than some of the others, but having him at the top of your ballot right now is basically indefensible, in the sense that no one has even tried to defend it, at least not that I recall. (edit: sorry this sounded harsher than I wanted)
• Henrik Lundqvist - I can buy it depending on what you value. I don't see the case for him being over Vasilevskiy though. Vasy was a better goalie. Lundqvist was more insulated. Yeah, you get, what, 3 more years as an elite goalie? And that's not nothing, but Vasy just didn't get a chance to finish his career yet (not projecting). I don't need to rush Lundqvist right now.
• Bernie Parent - This is partially my fault, but he probably belongs around now. I don't know if the video is gonna be enough to push anyone over the top, but this guy was really good. Ugh...I don't know...I get that he only has a few years, so I don't know how to really defend it.
• Andrei Vasilevskiy - Hard for me to see how he's not top 2 this round.
• Georges Vezina - My feelings here are quite clear. It's not time yet. Maybe soon. I'm not gonna say anything to start another Vezina convo. It's out there. It's just not time yet.

 

[The Pale King]

I don't want to belabor this point too much, but it's sort of my thing haha

The Rangers made a pretty significant change around 2014 to actually use the middle of the rink and actually employ some stretch passing. And they had a fairly unique roster. Guys that could stretch and go: like Kreider and Hagelin. Guys that could stretch and hold: like Nash, Hayes, and Stepan. Backed by d-men who weren't as untalented as their numbers suggested: like Boyle, McDonagh, and Klein.

They had some dynamic playmakers too: St. Louis, Brassard, Zuccarello, and a much less dynamic, but super smart Stepan.

It was really a pretty well put together roster, especially up front. At least, for not having a super star or even probably a semi-star at that point.

Anyhow, they really played a good two-way game during that time. The Tortorella days were closer to the Lemaire Wild (obviously, not quite that, but directionally)...except the Rangers were asked to leave their feet for shot blocks a lot more.

The 2012 Kings were basically a league average offense after Sutter took over, while playing great defense. The 2013 team scored. The 2014 team scored with Gaborik. I wouldn't say "they lacked talent" but they certainly aren't a team of needle-movers. It was a grindy team that had more finish than they had setup.

Kopitar is a setup guy. But a lot of the rest of that lineup would really prefer to play downhill and shoot: Carter, Williams, Toffoli, Brown, Pearson, freakin' Dwight King probably had 8 assists in the NHL. Doughty can do everything, but if you green light him to shoot the lights out, he becomes Ray Bourque. That's a different type of roster entirely for me. It's not untalented, but it's not a dynamic roster by any means. I don't know how to check this, but I wouldn't be surprised they were about the bottom of the league in team assists or their G:A ratio, especially at even strength, was at odds with the normal 1.74 per goal or whatever the number is/was...

I'm with you here for just about all of this. I watched probably 50-60 Kings games a year during that time-frame plus all of the playoffs. The things I'd nitpick would be taking us pretty far out of the scope of this threads focus (like for example, Doughty's shots are laser-guided by God to hit opposing shin-guards, it's the only thing he wasn't elite at, vs. Bourque's, which had a very different type of blessing, generally), so I'll refrain.

My point was the idea that Hank's rosters were packed with nothing but scrubs is not true, but perhaps if we're looking strictly as regular season GF, someone could draw that conclusion.

Or if we're going to credit Lundqvist for his success with middling offensive talent in this round, I hope Quick receives the same consideration when his name eventually comes up for his two cups with, as I mentioned, clubs that finished 25th and 29th in regular season GF.

All that said, obviously regular season GF is not a good way to evaluate the goalies in this round, I was responding to another poster who I should have quoted in my initial post.

 

[The Pale King]

At the moment, I really like: Vasilevsky, Belfour, Durnan and Parent.

And I've got Lundqvist, Gardiner, Vezina, and Bower somewhere in the middle.

I have these guys towards the bottom: Broda, Benedict, Holocek

 

[Michael Farkas]

Or if we're going to credit Lundqvist for his success with middling offensive talent in this round, I hope Quick receives the same consideration when his name eventually comes up for his two cups with, as I mentioned, clubs that finished 25th and 29th in regular season GF.

My prelim list had Lundqvist and Quick seven spots apart. So you have my vote.