HOH Top 60 Goaltenders of All Time (2024 Edition) - Round 2, Vote 4

[blogofmike]

If nothing else, I really hope that he can finally disconnect Billy Smith and Grant Fuhr. They are multiple tiers apart. Even if Fuhr plays 75 games and Smith 52 a year, it's not that close for me.

I have that flipped, but that debate isn't in the cards for this round. Smith only played 52 GP once though. Fuhr hit 75 GP more than that.

Smith peaked at 58 GP a mark Fuhr hit 7 times, and more relevant to this round, Parent hit 6 times (WHA season counted), including the two big years where he wins the Vezina and Smythe on a team that loaded up on PK time as a strategy (or by-product of its strategy, if you prefer).

Someone's going to have to explain it to me what Charlie Gardiner did that Bernie Parent didn't, so that the guy who played the majority of the schedule in 11 of 14 pro seasons, while being a fantastic goalie for 2 Cups (without HHOF defenders like Conacher and Coulter,) seems to be getting dinged for longevity.

 

[bobholly39]

How good are Bernie Parent's back to back smythe runs?

How do they measure to some of the greatest playoff runs ever by a goalie? I usually have Roy 1993 at the top, and Giguere is probably close. Is Parent on the same level?

Parent was the only back to back smythe winner in history until Mario Lemieux did it in the 90s, and eventually Crosby too. So it's a super rare feat.

 

[bobholly39]

A pass in the sense he's not a choker.

No pass here, because maybe a Bernie Parent level of play would have ended the series in 4 or 5 and thus Bobrovsky isn't here yet.

Ken Dryden had an 'easy' career for winning Cups. He definitely had some soft games when he could have put his opponents away. But Dryden had maybe 3 clunkers in late series games over 3 rounds on the way to the 1973 Cup. Having 3 in 3 games is a dicier proposition for your team's chances.

Yeah but if it's the finals, who cares if you win in 4 or 7 games? You have the full summer to rest up. I'd be more annoyed by it in earlier rounds - "choking" in games 5/6 and force your team to go 7 can have repurcussions in later rounds.

Still not really sure how relevant this line of thought is in this thread though. Will be an interresting dialogue for Bobrosvky specifically maybe when he pops up.

If nothing else, I really hope that he can finally disconnect Billy Smith and Grant Fuhr. They are multiple tiers apart. Even if Fuhr plays 75 games and Smith 52 a year, it's not that close for me.

In other random musings, I lament sometimes that players will lose an MVP because they missed a couple too many games, but meanwhile dudes will get full freight for partial seasons (like 2013) - Subban got a Norris for 42 games, Bobrovsky got a Vezina for 37 or 38, etc. They get full value out of those.

If Vasilevskiy was permitted to play just 38 games in 2018, he probably wins the Vezina.
He goes from 2.62 / .920 (full season) down to 2.23 / .929 (first 38). So, now he's sitting: 1st in wins, 1st in save pct., 2nd in GAA, 1st in shutouts (among other 38-game players) on a 27-8-2 record. Seems pretty likely his 3rd place finish because a 1. Now, we're talking about a first-team all star in 3 of his first 4 seasons as starter.

I know it's "fun with numbers" and maybe it does absolutely zero to change the perception of him, but so much of these averaging stats and trophy voting is really a nip here and a tuck there from looking very different.

I agree with the idea that Billy Smith is way above Fuhr, and it's not particularly close.

In regards to games played - I definitely think it's more impressive, and more difficult, to have a higher caliber season with ~60+ games, then if you're playing less.

Carey Price - 7 seasons of 58+ games
Luongo - 10 seasons of 58+ games
Vasilevskiy - Only 3 seasons of 58+ games. In his 3 best seasons (2019, 2020, 2021), he played 53, 52 & 42 games respectively. Good on him/Tampa for playing less and getting the most out of him, and being able to stay fresh & perform in the playoffs - but it definitely tends to help his numbers, both in regular season and playoffs.

 

[rmartin65]

Imagine if we had a yearly panel of experts and another of players in a 30+ team pro circuit(s) situation in, say, 1925 or whatever and there's almost a decade long stretch of what is said about Carey Price...he'd probably be in the conversation for 1st overall. Instead, he's going to fight and claw for freakin' 15th...? I don't know, boys...I know that new is scary sometimes, but here's one where we have the answer key.

I had Price pretty high on my initial list as well, and he's definitely in consideration for the top spot on my list for this round, but come on... you'd be the first person in line claiming that Price couldn't compare to Vasilevskiy or whoever because he played pre-forward pass and goalies of that era couldn't compare to later 'tenders.

Plus, it's highly unlikely that we'd even be able to find/compile quotes like that because the game wasn't covered and dissected in public as much as it is today. Realistically, we'd have a fraction of those quotes.

Anyway, like I said, I like Price. I'm concerned how much of his praise is about his talent and not his play though, if that makes any sense. We aren't building an all-star to save Earth from aliens or anything, or creating a draft list, we are compiling a list of greatest goaltenders of all time. And I don't know if his greatness lines up with his talent, though that can absolutely be attributed in part (in full?) to his team (even if I think his teams weren't always as bad as some are making them out to be).

I also think it is interesting that Price is getting credit for playing on bad teams while Worters is called a "bad-team goalie". I have Price over Worters, for what it is worth, but I think it is interesting that one goalie is getting the excuses and the other isn't.

Talking about team influence, I think it is interesting to see how a lot of the guys this round played on some dynasty/almost-dynasties. How many of those teams were dynasties because of the goalie, versus how many were simply good goalies in a great situation?

 

[MXD]

I also think it is interesting that Price is getting credit for playing on bad teams while Worters is called a "bad-team goalie". I have Price over Worters, for what it is worth, but I think it is interesting that one goalie is getting the excuses and the other isn't.

Talking about team influence, I think it is interesting to see how a lot of the guys this round played on some dynasty/almost-dynasties. How many of those teams were dynasties because of the goalie, versus how many were simply good goalies in a great situation?

"Bad team goalie" implies that the player wouldn't have success on stronger teams, and Price's stint with the Canadian national team (Olympics and WC) would dispel this notion.

 

[rmartin65]

"Bad team goalie" implies that the player wouldn't have success on stronger teams, and Price's stint with the Canadian national team (Olympics and WC) would dispel this notion.

And Worters seems to have done all right when on strong teams as well (looking at his time in the USAHA, though I’ll admit to not being particularly well-versed in that league, so I’ll gladly rescind this statement if someone with more information disagrees).

 

[Michael Farkas]

I had Price pretty high on my initial list as well, and he's definitely in consideration for the top spot on my list for this round, but come on... you'd be the first person in line claiming that Price couldn't compare to Vasilevskiy or whoever because he played pre-forward pass and goalies of that era couldn't compare to later 'tenders.

How does that relate to Price vs. Vasilevskiy?

Plus, it's highly unlikely that we'd even be able to find/compile quotes like that because the game wasn't covered and dissected in public as much as it is today. Realistically, we'd have a fraction of those quotes.

Anyway, like I said, I like Price. I'm concerned how much of his praise is about his talent and not his play though, if that makes any sense. We aren't building an all-star to save Earth from aliens or anything, or creating a draft list, we are compiling a list of greatest goaltenders of all time.

The greatest goaltenders are the ones with the most talent and the ones that can bring that talent to the forefront (play) most often. We have to be careful to try to neutralize team effects to avoid ranking teams instead of players. If Price played poorly all the time/a lot/sometimes it would be talked about by these same people more....or, said another way, he'd be talked about less and/or in less glowing terms. He played great because he was great because he played great.

And I don't know if his greatness lines up with his talent, though that can absolutely be attributed in part (in full?) to his team (even if I think his teams weren't always as bad as some are making them out to be).

I also think it is interesting that Price is getting credit for playing on bad teams while Worters is called a "bad-team goalie". I have Price over Worters, for what it is worth, but I think it is interesting that one goalie is getting the excuses and the other isn't.

There's a key distinction and difference there though. I think that's been described a few times, but we can discuss the difference in characteristics further if you'd like.

Talking about team influence, I think it is interesting to see how a lot of the guys this round played on some dynasty/almost-dynasties. How many of those teams were dynasties because of the goalie, versus how many were simply good goalies in a great situation?

This is a very good question and it highlights why talent evaluation is critical to the process.

 

[Michael Farkas]

And Worters seems to have done all right when on strong teams as well (looking at his time in the USAHA, though I’ll admit to not being particularly well-versed in that league, so I’ll gladly rescind this statement if someone with more information disagrees).

It's quite a stretch. Appears to be a decent minor league. But it's a decent minor league in a split-league situation in the 1920's, it's upside is only so great.

That Pittsburgh team made it quite lopsided by ransacking Canadian amateurs (as it was stated that "despite how much the United States plays hockey, they can't develop any players of ability").

That Pittsburgh Yellow Jackets team had 9 NHLers playing regularly for them that year.

Unicorns had barely 2.
Maple had 0
Cleveland had 2
Duluth had 3
Arrowheads had 3
Rangers had 1
Fort Pitt had 5
Minneapolis had 3
New York had 0
St. Paul had 1

Yellow Jackets swept both playoff series to win the championship. I'll assume that Worters played that and won it. But the third (?) best league, a very uneven league, in 1925...? That's not really the level.