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.

 

[blogofmike]

I hope we can discuss where Bernie Parent's two year peak ranks among the all-timers. Sure, he was better outside of that peak than he is often given credit for, but his position will depend heavily on our assessment of his 73-74 and 74-75 seasons.

I don't have the numbers at my disposal right now but I believe he held four of his six playoff opponents in 74 and 75 to slightly less than half their normal goal scoring rate. Atlanta, Boston, Toronto, Buffalo. That's ridiculous goal prevention for Parent and the Flyers. And his numbers against Rangers and Islanders weren't bad either.

In the 74 playoffs, Orr, Esposito and the Bruins scored 26 goals in 6 games against Tony O and the Hawks. The same Hawks team that had allowed the fewest goals in the regular season. And then Parent and the Flyers only allowed 13 goals in 6 games to that Boston team in the finals. Half the rate of the best regular season defensive team.

Hockey-reference's adjusted GAA has Parent's 73-74 and 74-75 as top 10 all time seasons. Their GA-, which I believe is based on save percentage, has 73-74 as top 10 and 74-75 as top 50. Although these methods do have a lot of 70s seasons near the top and probably don't account for the lack of parity in the expansion era.

There is one knock I'm aware of against Parent's 73-74 season. His 47 wins that season were a league record for decades. But did you know that he got most of those wins against non playoff teams? Vs playoff teams he was 13-11-9. And he was 34-2-3 against non-playoff teams. That said, the Flyers only scored 2.5 goals/game against playoff teams in the regular season, and I don't put a lot of stock in the win stat anyway, so it doesn't really matter for me. Parent showed in the playoffs that he could shut down anyone.

Are there any competitors here with a two year RS and PO peak to put up against Parent? Maybe Vasilevsky? I was thinking about Ed Belfour's 99 and 00 but he's been selected already.

Here's Parent's splits by team and summed up in point range.

1974 Splits

Opp PTS	Year	Opponent	GP	W	L	T/O	GA	SA	SV	SV%	GAA	SO	TOI
113​	1974​	Boston Bruins	4	1	1	1	12	104	92	0.885	3.80	0	189:14:00
105​	1974​	Chicago Blackhawks	5	5	0	0	4	137	133	0.971	0.80	1	300:00:00
99​	1974​	Montreal Canadiens	5	2	2	1	9	137	128	0.934	1.80	1	299:33:00
94​	1974​	New York Rangers	5	1	2	2	13	146	133	0.911	2.61	0	298:22:00
86​	1974​	Toronto Maple Leafs	5	4	0	1	5	163	158	0.969	1.00	1	300:00:00
78​	1974​	Los Angeles Kings	5	2	2	1	14	123	109	0.886	2.81	1	298:56:00
76​	1974​	Buffalo Sabres	5	5	0	0	14	151	137	0.907	2.80	0	300:00:00
74​	1974​	Atlanta Flames	5	1	2	2	10	145	135	0.931	2.01	1	298:05:00
68​	1974​	Detroit Red Wings	5	5	0	0	6	130	124	0.954	1.26	0	284:55:00
65​	1974​	Pittsburgh Penguins	4	3	1	0	9	103	94	0.913	2.25	2	240:00:00
64​	1974​	St. Louis Blues	6	6	0	0	9	137	128	0.934	1.50	1	360:00:00
63​	1974​	Minnesota North Stars	5	3	0	2	13	157	144	0.917	2.60	0	300:00:00
59​	1974​	Vancouver Canucks	4	2	1	1	8	109	101	0.927	2.00	0	239:28:00
56​	1974​	New York Islanders	5	5	0	0	2	119	117	0.983	0.40	3	300:00:00
36​	1974​	California Golden Seals	5	2	2	1	8	145	137	0.945	1.61	1	298:52:00

1975 Splits

Opp Points	Year	Opponent	GP	W	L	T/O	GA	SA	SV	SV%	GAA	SO	TOI
113	1975	Buffalo Sabres	4	3	0	1	9	117	108	0.923	2.25	1	240:00:00
113	1975	Montreal Canadiens	4	2	1	1	8	98	90	0.918	2.17	1	221:16:00
105	1975	Los Angeles Kings	4	2	1	1	8	100	92	0.920	2.01	1	239:24:00
94	1975	Boston Bruins	4	1	2	1	14	118	104	0.881	3.50	0	240:00:00
89	1975	Pittsburgh Penguins	2	2	0	0	0	46	46	1.000	0.00	2	120:00:00
88	1975	New York Islanders	6	3	1	2	12	162	150	0.926	2.01	0	359:06:00
88	1975	New York Rangers	6	3	2	1	12	154	142	0.922	2.01	0	358:49:00
86	1975	Vancouver Canucks	5	4	1	0	10	108	98	0.907	2.01	1	299:11:00
84	1975	St. Louis Blues	3	2	1	0	7	87	80	0.920	2.35	0	178:46:00
83​	1975	Atlanta Flames	6	3	2	1	18	144	126	0.875	3.01	0	359:04:00
82	1975	California Golden Seals	4	3	1	0	8	96	88	0.917	2.00	1	240:00:00
78	1975	Toronto Maple Leafs	4	3	0	0	7	99	92	0.929	1.91	0	220:21:00
58	1975	Detroit Red Wings	2	1	1	0	6	37	31	0.838	3.02	0	119:12:00
53	1975	Minnesota North Stars	3	3	0	0	0	50	50	1.000	0.00	3	180:00:00
51	1975	Chicago Black Hawks	5	4	1	0	8	127	119	0.937	1.60	0	299:28:00
41	1975	Kansas City Scouts	3	2	0	1	7	74	67	0.905	2.33	1	180:00:00
21	1975	Washington Capitals	3	3	0	0	3	57	54	0.947	1.00	1	180:00:00

Summary

Time Period	Opponent	GP	W	L	T/O	GA	SA	SV	SV%	SO
1975	94+ Points	16​	8​	4​	4​	39​	433​	394​	0.910​	3​
1975	78-89 Points	36​	23​	8​	4​	74​	896​	822​	0.917​	4​
1975	21-58 Points	16​	13​	2​	1​	24​	345​	321​	0.930​	5​
1974	94+ Points	19​	9​	5​	4​	38​	524​	486​	0.927​	2​
1974	74-86 Points	20​	12​	4​	4​	43​	582​	539​	0.926​	3​
1974	36-68 Points	34​	26​	4​	4​	55​	900​	845​	0.939​	7​
BOTH	94+ Points	35​	17​	9​	8​	77​	957​	880​	0.920​	5​
BOTH	74-89 Points	56​	35​	12​	8​	117​	1478​	1361​	0.921​	7​
BOTH	68 or Below	50​	39​	6​	5​	79​	1245​	1166​	0.937​	12​

No GAA in summary because Excel turned TOI into a date and I can't be bothered....

However, the save percentage seems to hold up okay.

The 74 Sabres missing the playoffs don't 'help' his record vs. playoff teams, but really the problem in the regular season is that there weren't enough good teams on the schedule.

 

[MXD]

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.

It seems like an important caveat is missing here...

 

[rmartin65]

How does that relate to Price vs. Vasilevskiy?

It doesn't? It relates to you and others'opinions on pre-X-date hockey/goaltenders. If Price was receiving large amount of praise pre-1925 (I think that was the date you stated) some people would be pushing for him high, just like they did for Vezina. Others would claim he wasn't actually that great due to the era he played in, just like they did for Vezina.

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.

He's so great that he managed 1 1st-team AS (with a Hart and Vezina, a great, historically great even, season to be sure), no 2nd teams, and 1 third team? I'm not saying we need to just rank players by their post-season award finishes (and again, I have Price pretty highly ranked), but for a great player (which, yet again, I agree he was) I would expect to see more.

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.

It's not about Worters carrying a team, but rather the fact that Worters showed he could play on a good team and do well. Just like Price showed that he could do well playing behind the juggernaut that is Team Canada internationally.

 

[bobholly39]

It seems like an important caveat is missing here...

Obviously it's not his fault he couldn't play 58+ games in a season that had 56 games total.

Still doesn't change the fact that he doesn't really have as many seasons with high # of games as some other goalies. Only 3x Vasi had to play more than 53 games in a season.

Price - 7x
Luongo - 13x
Lundqvist - 10x

It's easier to stay fresh, or to do well come playoffs, when you play less games in a year. Playing on a team as solid as Tampa helps with that. Price, and certainly Luongo didn't have that luxury.

 

[MXD]

It's not about Worters carrying a team, but rather the fact that Worters showed he could play on a good team and do well. Just like Price showed that he could do well playing behind the juggernaut that is Team Canada internationally.

- There is a stage difference here. One was best-on-best internationnal hockey, where players are specifically chosen. The other was... the 3rd best league in North America?

- Also, Worters was just... There? I mean, he may have been better than Jake Forbes in 1925. It's hard to tell. But he probably was. Maybe he COULD and SHOULD have gotten NHL starting duties. We'll never know (there are probably valid explanations for this) Meanwhile, Price was specificallly chosen because he was deemed better than the best Canadian options for those tournaments.

(And I say that someone who is absolutely gonna rank Worters above Price in the end).

 

[MXD]

Obviously it's not his fault he couldn't play 58+ games in a season that had 56 games total.

Still doesn't change the fact that he doesn't really have as many seasons with high # of games as some other goalies. Only 3x Vasi had to play more than 53 games in a season.

Price - 7x
Luongo - 13x
Lundqvist - 10x

It's easier to stay fresh, or to do well come playoffs, when you play less games in a year. Playing on a team as solid as Tampa helps with that. Price, and certainly Luongo didn't have that luxury.

Come on, Vasilevskiy would've absolutely played 58+ games in 2020 and 2021 had it been a regular season, and shorter seasons meant less games played for other netminders too, so all of them, in theory, gets to the playoffs with similar freshness.

 

[Michael Farkas]

It doesn't? It relates to you and others'opinions on pre-X-date hockey/goaltenders. If Price was receiving large amount of praise pre-1925 (I think that was the date you stated) some people would be pushing for him high, just like they did for Vezina. Others would claim he wasn't actually that great due to the era he played in, just like they did for Vezina.

It's not about the date. You keep trying to frame it as this expedition of era bias. The film is clear on Price and Vasilevskiy, so this doesn't apply at all. Again, I had Plante at 1. If you think the era difference between Price and Vasilevskiy - which doesn't really exist - is helping this conversation...ugh...come on...this feels like a distraction attempt.

He's so great that he managed 1 1st-team AS (with a Hart and Vezina, a great, historically great even, season to be sure), no 2nd teams, and 1 third team? I'm not saying we need to just rank players by their post-season award finishes

It certainly sounds like it. It sounds like we have "award voting bias" here, right? Even though we know the connection between team effects and averaging stats and averaging stats to award voting...we're prepared to strip essentially unanimous contemporary expert opinion away because he didn't get enough 2nd Team All-Star finishes because his team was led by Sergei Kostitsyn...

You said it before, "what's the point of even doing a ranking" when I said push Vezina down from 11 to 21 because "Vezina was the greatest of his era" according to some folks. Now, when the tables turn, and most folks say Price was the greatest of his era...all of a sudden you're rubbing your neck and staring at your shoes haha

I don't think it's clear what criteria is good at this point. The only thing that seems to be looked at as a positive is "how we did it 12 years ago". Goalies with How-We-Did-It-12-Years-Ago points seem to do great. You try to take a bite out of any one of them - and it's "bias".

Try to introduce a new guy - that's also bias. A third of the group determined that Andrei Vasilevskiy - who has been straight superb in the open-era/post-DPE2.0 era - isn't better than a single one of the other 11 goalies or whatever last round. Not better than the guy filmed repeatedly eating pancakes in his crease, not better than the guy who didn't make the NHL until he was 28 when folks went to War, not better than anyone...but I get charged with "bias" once a page.

I've been informed that it's not a draft, I've been informed that it's not a talent evaluation exercise, I've been informed that we should not consider the caliber of the very position we're evaluating, I've been informed that it's not a statistical endeavor, and now it seems - fresh off of Vezina going #1 last round strictly because people between 1915 and 1930 said he was great - people between 2010 and 2025 saying Price was great don't matter.

I mean, honestly, what is it? Just copy and paste the list from 12 years ago onto one side of Excel and then take last year's ATD and put it on the other side and find the average at this point haha

Is there a form we have to fill out to not get another goalie gatekeeped out of this?

I'm sorry, I enjoy this, I really do...I love the history of the game, and I don't mind tap-dancing between landmines because I see things differently...but when the exact same thing that lets the 1910 goalie in is then rejected or partially rejected or whatever words we want to use for the 2010 goalie...I don't know what we're trying to accomplish at that point.

Are we trying to make a list of the top goalies of all time or are we petitioning city hall to not have a historic building torn down...

(and again, I have Price pretty highly ranked), but for a great player (which, yet again, I agree he was) I would expect to see more.


It's not about Worters carrying a team, but rather the fact that Worters showed he could play on a good team and do well. Just like Price showed that he could do well playing behind the juggernaut that is Team Canada internationally.

Equating a single season of a 1920's split-league minor league and best on best international competition 100 years later is just too much, man...Worters and Price are not the same in any way at all, the goalies, their accomplishments, their team, their style, their everything...Price puts his pants on one leg at a time, Worters puts them on both legs at the same time...they are nothing alike in any way, their team situations weren't a like in any way. Nothing is the same about them except the "G" to the left of their name.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I mean, he may have been better than Jake Forbes in 1925. It's hard to tell.

Ok, I can definitely confirm this one. Forbes is not good...at all. I'd try to find out if he was even comparable to Andy Aitkenhead before Worters...