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

[AlfiesHair]

I think Luongo's time is closer than some may think. He has a great balance of peak and consistency that I'm not sure any of his contemporaries had.

First lets talk peak, there are two seasons in my eye to pick from.

Peak #1 - 2003-04 w/Florida Panthers (Swimming Upstream)

Played 72 games and managed to keep a .931 SV% (3rd after Roloson [48GP/.933SV%] and Kiprusoff [38GP/.933SV%]) While there are some issues with GSAA it is definitely of note that he had a league leading 48.42 GSAA (according to HR) which was nearly double second place (Dwayne Roloson with 28.82).

He did all this with a heavy workload while on a non-playoff, pretty crappy Panthers team. This team somehow went through three different bench bosses this season so he never got consistent defensive help from coaching. His defense sucked and allowed the most shots on goal in the whole league. In games where he had lower than a .935 SV%, the Panthers went 2-28-5-2. He needed to steal every win they had and even then, his efforts sometimes weren't enough. His backup Steve Shields had a .879 SV% in 16GP this season, .052% points below Lu. The Panthers finished 24th overall, probably only that high due to Lu's work this year.

Despite not making the playoffs he still finished third in Vezina votes (behind a fairly average season statistically from Brodeur and a 38 game season from Kiprusoff). I think its safe to say if Lu got any help in front of him and made the playoffs he probably would have easily won the Vezina with those numbers and had a considerable Hart case too (he finished 6th, 3rd in goalies behind Brodeur and Kipper).

I would argue this was his greatest statistical regular season but it happened to be on possibly the worst team he ever played for in his NHL career. From a GSAA perspective, this is one of the greatest regular seasons by a goalie ever when looking at distance between 1st and 2nd place. How many other goalies have had these kind of all time seasons on a non-playoff team? How much more credit would Lu get if they made playoffs?

Peak #2 - 2006-07 v/Vancouver Canucks (Consistent Dominance)

His first season in Vancouver. Puts up a .921 SV% (good for second for goalies who played more than half their team's games, only after Brodeur's .922) in 76 games. Second to Brodeur's 35.76 GSAA with 34.53, far far ahead of third place - these two were by themselves this year.

Finishes closely behind Brodeur in Vezina voting, a little further behind him in All Star voting, but finishes over him in Hart voting by a slim margin which is good enough for 2nd in the league, clearly voters thought he was the most valuable player on his team by far. I would say he has a case again this year for being better than Brodeur after you consider the defensive systems the Devils still had in place, but it's close.

Then he gets his first shot at postseason hockey. Does he buckle under the pressure? Hell no. He puts up a .950 SV% against a very evenly paired Dallas team in a seven game goalie duel with Marty Turco (who put up a .952, what a clinic from these two). Vancouver falls to Anaheim in round two in five games but Lu still stands tall with a .930 SV%, although his SV% kind of carried by two phenomenal games. In front of him Vancouver only puts up 8 goals in five games while he lets in 13. You could say he was out goalied by Giguere who put up a .948 SV% but this series was definitely closer than it may seem, three of the five games ended in OT and again, Canucks forwards couldn't score.

Overall probably his second best regular season and his best playoffs from a statistical standpoint. His only regular season rival in Brodeur also gets bounced in the second round with worse overall stats. Luongo is the best goalie in the world this season hands down.

Thoughts: I think Luongo has an argument to steal two of Brodeur's Vezinas. His 2004 season is certainly statistically superior and I also think his 2007 season is sliiiiightly better than Brodeurs - Hart Trophy voters seem to agree with me too.

If he has one or two Vezina Trophies to his name, how do we look at him differently?



CONSISTENCY
Maybe this was Luongo's greatest strength. Excluding his 20 yr old rookie season and his 39 year old final season, he only fell below average in SV% once in that 17 year span (2013 - his .907 was below the league avg of .912) - and most of the time he was WAAAY over.

I know SV% stats aren't perfect, but they're the best we got pre-GSAx.

Of notable retired goalies who hit their primes after 2000 and may come up for discussion, here is how this consistency compares.

Percentage of Full Seasons With Above Average SV%
1. Rask - 100% (12/12)
2. Luongo - 84% (16/19)
3. Lundqvist - 80% (12/15)
4. Thomas - 75% (6/8)
5. Holtby - 70% (7/10)
6. Fleury - 65% (13/20)
7. Nabokov - 64% (9/14)
8. Brodeur post 2000 - 64% (9/14)
9. Quick - 59% (10/17)
10. Price - 57% (8/14)
11. Kiprusoff - 55% (6/11)
12. Rinne - 54% (7/13)

This isn't the perfect stat to analyze, but I just wanted to make the point that this kind of consistency is very hard to get in this era - even from the world's best. Apart from Rask looking incredibly impressive, you have to take away that Luongo looks amazing compared to his peers.

But lets see the quality of these seasons, with this same group, lets do top 10 SV% and GSAA appearances.

Top 10 SV% Appearances (HR)
1. Luongo - 10
2. Lundqvist - 7
3. Kiprusoff - 5
3. Price - 5
3. Rinne - 5
6. Thomas - 4
6. Rask - 4
6. Fleury - 4
6. Nabokov - 4
10. Holtby - 3
11. Brodeur post 2000 - 2
12. Quick - 1

Luongo clears everyone significantly despite being arguably the biggest workhorse on the list. For players post 1967, he's tied for third with Billy Smith in this metric falling behind only Roy (15) and Hasek (11).

Top 10 GSAA Appearances (HR)
1. Luongo - 11
2. Lundqvist - 9
3. Thomas - 5
3. Rask - 5
3. Price - 5
3. Kiprusoff - 5
7. Brodeur post 2000 - 4
7. Rinne - 4
7. Nabokov - 4
10. Holtby - 3
10. Fleury - 3
12. Quick - 2

Luongo and Lundqvist both stand far above the rest, but Luongo clears again. His 11 appearances are tied with Hasek while behind only Roy (16) and Esposito (12).

Thoughts: Statistically, Luongo is all time by these metrics. Yes, Vancouver was great defensively but don't forget that Lu played on the 2000s Panthers for half his prime - that's gotta count for something.


FINAL THOUGHTS
I know there are questions with Luongo's playoffs (which deserves its own post) but I personally don't think his playoffs are bad - just not extraordinary.

His regular season peak is only clearly beaten by Price and Parent and he is probably in the same realm as Benedict, Vasilevskiy, and maaaaybe Worters.

In terms of regular season consistency at a high level, I think he clears everyone. Parent, Price, Vasilevskiy, Worters, and Broda all had their off seasons. Bower, Smith, Benedict, and Thompson were all consistent but not at as high a level as Lu (Holecek I'd have to do more research).

Very strong peak, very strong consistency, very strong longevity, good playoffs, good award voting. I think Bobby Lu fits in right at the top of the available goalies here. In my head, he's easily top three. He's maybe the only goalie available to me without a big hole in his resume.

 

[blogofmike]

Does that only cover a portion of Smith's career (ie dynasty years?) Surely he must have faced elimination more than 7 times over 132 games right?

Nope.

They chose someone else (Resch or Hrudey) in every other case. In 1984, Melanson took the third goal and thus takes the loss. TCG also looked and posted results.

Smith was sometimes just not chosen. In a platoon setup one bad game means ditching the guy with a lifetime .905 playoff save percentage back when that was really high.

So Billy Smith never lost an elimination game, unless you want to give him 1984 (which would be the case under baseball rules, I believe).

 

[Doctor No]

Smith was sometimes just not chosen. In a platoon setup one bad game means ditching the guy with a lifetime .905 playoff save percentage back when that was really high.

“Sometimes” is doing a lot of work here - looking at my data above, Smith was just not chosen in 24 of 32 potential elimination games.

 

[blogofmike]

Very strong peak, very strong consistency, very strong longevity, good playoffs, good award voting. I think Bobby Lu fits in right at the top of the available goalies here. In my head, he's easily top three. He's maybe the only goalie available to me without a big hole in his resume.

Wild claim: Roberto Luongo had maybe 3 playoff rounds where he played very, very well.

Maybe that number is off. But is it FAR off?

 

[blogofmike]

“Sometimes” is doing a lot of work here - looking at my data above, Smith was just not chosen in 24 of 32 potential elimination games.

Fair and accurate. My least favourite type of critique.

 

[Doctor No]

Fair and accurate. My least favourite type of critique.

It's definitely an interesting stat that Smith hasn't lost when he's out there, though.

 

[bobholly39]

I think Luongo's time is closer than some may think. He has a great balance of peak and consistency that I'm not sure any of his contemporaries had.

First lets talk peak, there are two seasons in my eye to pick from.

Peak #1 - 2003-04 w/Florida Panthers (Swimming Upstream)

Played 72 games and managed to keep a .931 SV% (3rd after Roloson [48GP/.933SV%] and Kiprusoff [38GP/.933SV%]) While there are some issues with GSAA it is definitely of note that he had a league leading 48.42 GSAA (according to HR) which was nearly double second place (Dwayne Roloson with 28.82).

He did all this with a heavy workload while on a non-playoff, pretty crappy Panthers team. This team somehow went through three different bench bosses this season so he never got consistent defensive help from coaching. His defense sucked and allowed the most shots on goal in the whole league. In games where he had lower than a .935 SV%, the Panthers went 2-28-5-2. He needed to steal every win they had and even then, his efforts sometimes weren't enough. His backup Steve Shields had a .879 SV% in 16GP this season, .052% points below Lu. The Panthers finished 24th overall, probably only that high due to Lu's work this year.

Despite not making the playoffs he still finished third in Vezina votes (behind a fairly average season statistically from Brodeur and a 38 game season from Kiprusoff). I think its safe to say if Lu got any help in front of him and made the playoffs he probably would have easily won the Vezina with those numbers and had a considerable Hart case too (he finished 6th, 3rd in goalies behind Brodeur and Kipper).

I would argue this was his greatest statistical regular season but it happened to be on possibly the worst team he ever played for in his NHL career. From a GSAA perspective, this is one of the greatest regular seasons by a goalie ever when looking at distance between 1st and 2nd place. How many other goalies have had these kind of all time seasons on a non-playoff team? How much more credit would Lu get if they made playoffs?

Peak #2 - 2006-07 v/Vancouver Canucks (Consistent Dominance)

His first season in Vancouver. Puts up a .921 SV% (good for second for goalies who played more than half their team's games, only after Brodeur's .922) in 76 games. Second to Brodeur's 35.76 GSAA with 34.53, far far ahead of third place - these two were by themselves this year.

Finishes closely behind Brodeur in Vezina voting, a little further behind him in All Star voting, but finishes over him in Hart voting by a slim margin which is good enough for 2nd in the league, clearly voters thought he was the most valuable player on his team by far. I would say he has a case again this year for being better than Brodeur after you consider the defensive systems the Devils still had in place, but it's close.

Then he gets his first shot at postseason hockey. Does he buckle under the pressure? Hell no. He puts up a .950 SV% against a very evenly paired Dallas team in a seven game goalie duel with Marty Turco (who put up a .952, what a clinic from these two). Vancouver falls to Anaheim in round two in five games but Lu still stands tall with a .930 SV%, although his SV% kind of carried by two phenomenal games. In front of him Vancouver only puts up 8 goals in five games while he lets in 13. You could say he was out goalied by Giguere who put up a .948 SV% but this series was definitely closer than it may seem, three of the five games ended in OT and again, Canucks forwards couldn't score.

Overall probably his second best regular season and his best playoffs from a statistical standpoint. His only regular season rival in Brodeur also gets bounced in the second round with worse overall stats. Luongo is the best goalie in the world this season hands down.

Thoughts: I think Luongo has an argument to steal two of Brodeur's Vezinas. His 2004 season is certainly statistically superior and I also think his 2007 season is sliiiiightly better than Brodeurs - Hart Trophy voters seem to agree with me too.

If he has one or two Vezina Trophies to his name, how do we look at him differently?



CONSISTENCY
Maybe this was Luongo's greatest strength. Excluding his 20 yr old rookie season and his 39 year old final season, he only fell below average in SV% once in that 17 year span (2013 - his .907 was below the league avg of .912) - and most of the time he was WAAAY over.

I know SV% stats aren't perfect, but they're the best we got pre-GSAx.

Of notable retired goalies who hit their primes after 2000 and may come up for discussion, here is how this consistency compares.

Percentage of Full Seasons With Above Average SV%
1. Rask - 100% (12/12)
2. Luongo - 84% (16/19)
3. Lundqvist - 80% (12/15)
4. Thomas - 75% (6/8)
5. Holtby - 70% (7/10)
6. Fleury - 65% (13/20)
7. Nabokov - 64% (9/14)
8. Brodeur post 2000 - 64% (9/14)
9. Quick - 59% (10/17)
10. Price - 57% (8/14)
11. Kiprusoff - 55% (6/11)
12. Rinne - 54% (7/13)

This isn't the perfect stat to analyze, but I just wanted to make the point that this kind of consistency is very hard to get in this era - even from the world's best. Apart from Rask looking incredibly impressive, you have to take away that Luongo looks amazing compared to his peers.

But lets see the quality of these seasons, with this same group, lets do top 10 SV% and GSAA appearances.

Top 10 SV% Appearances (HR)
1. Luongo - 10
2. Lundqvist - 7
3. Kiprusoff - 5
3. Price - 5
3. Rinne - 5
6. Thomas - 4
6. Rask - 4
6. Fleury - 4
6. Nabokov - 4
10. Holtby - 3
11. Brodeur post 2000 - 2
12. Quick - 1

Luongo clears everyone significantly despite being arguably the biggest workhorse on the list. For players post 1967, he's tied for third with Billy Smith in this metric falling behind only Roy (15) and Hasek (11).

Top 10 GSAA Appearances (HR)
1. Luongo - 11
2. Lundqvist - 9
3. Thomas - 5
3. Rask - 5
3. Price - 5
3. Kiprusoff - 5
7. Brodeur post 2000 - 4
7. Rinne - 4
7. Nabokov - 4
10. Holtby - 3
10. Fleury - 3
12. Quick - 2

Luongo and Lundqvist both stand far above the rest, but Luongo clears again. His 11 appearances are tied with Hasek while behind only Roy (16) and Esposito (12).

Thoughts: Statistically, Luongo is all time by these metrics. Yes, Vancouver was great defensively but don't forget that Lu played on the 2000s Panthers for half his prime - that's gotta count for something.


FINAL THOUGHTS
I know there are questions with Luongo's playoffs (which deserves its own post) but I personally don't think his playoffs are bad - just not extraordinary.

His regular season peak is only clearly beaten by Price and Parent and he is probably in the same realm as Benedict, Vasilevskiy, and maaaaybe Worters.

In terms of regular season consistency at a high level, I think he clears everyone. Parent, Price, Vasilevskiy, Worters, and Broda all had their off seasons. Bower, Smith, Benedict, and Thompson were all consistent but not at as high a level as Lu (Holecek I'd have to do more research).

Very strong peak, very strong consistency, very strong longevity, good playoffs, good award voting. I think Bobby Lu fits in right at the top of the available goalies here. In my head, he's easily top three. He's maybe the only goalie available to me without a big hole in his resume.

Only area I disagree on is his peak, as I posted earlier.

2004 Vezina or hart? No chance. He finishes the season very badly.

First 60 games - 936 sv%, 2.18 GAA
Last 12 games - 903 sv%, 3.42 GAA

When you're in a playoff race, that's a killer. He didn't deserve to sniff the hart, nor the Vezina.

He did it to a lesser extent in 2005-2006 as well. Definitely in 2007-2008 too, though there were some off-ice considerations that year impacting him.

I have no issue with his 2006-2007 season though. Very, very strong season. Objectively, I prefered Brodeur for Vezina ever so slightly, but when you take into account voter fatigue & Brodeur's multiple wins, I would have been happy to see Luongo win this one.

One thing that plays to Luongo's advantage for me is games played. Compare him to Vasi - Luongo was often playing 60+ and even 70+ games. It's harder to remain consistent all year with that much mileage - it's easier for someone like Vasi, who only 3x played over 54 games in his career.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Pretty fair example of pre-forward pass hockey here...it's basically 3-man offense against 5-man defense. That's why every game was 1-0.

All NHL Footage 1917-1967 Ver 2.0 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive (needs to be watched at 0.75 speed)

I believe this game is the only known footage of Clint Benedict, unfortunately he doesn't face any shots on net I don't believe.

https://archive.org/details/1962-stanley-cup-finals-g-6_20240121/1930s/1929-30/NYA+vs+MTM.mp4

I believe this film is from this game: Montreal Maroons vs. New York Americans Box Score: January 19, 1928 | Hockey-Reference.com

Compared to (just randomly) a few seasons later, where you see more "gang" rushes, more four-man attacks, less solo (1 on 3 or more) attacks.

 

[blogofmike]

Holeček should receive more credit than implications he was propped up the Czechoslovak defensive system. What more was left for him to do? Like what is he missing in his career?

When European hockey finally got on the same foot as the North American around 1970, no goalie has received more best goalie awards, more all-star votes than Holeček.

All-stars were voted by writers, best goaltender awards were decided by the IIHF directoriate. Different group of voters, yet both were repeatedly selecting Holeček. No goalie has even won internationally more of these than Holeček before or since. Including a goalie, who's already on the list, and was in better position to earn more all-stars / goalie awards since he played internationally considerably longer.

"Who cares about awards? They're binary. You either win it or don't. Don't tell us full picture. And voters make mistakes."

If you're suspect about voters being wrong, we will surely find a basis for it in stats...

No, we won't. Holeček recorded the SV% the same way as awards. Goaltending statistics are available here: Goaltenders Internationally in 1964-1990 (stats and awards)

It would be easy to reject Holeček if the stats invalidate the awards but the opposite is true.

Defensive system and good coaches didn't really help the Czechoslovak team in 1970 and 1979, did they? I'd be curious how could anyone explain away Holeček's stats in contrast with the Czechoslovak goalies' SV% immediately before and after Holeček.





Thirdly, I hoped game reports goalies mentions, that I posted yesterday, would convey clearly that Holeček was consistently one of the best players of his team. If you don't believe in hundreds of voters' competency in declaring who the best goalie each championship was (even though those writers mostly see 90%+ of games and all goalies in action so they knew who they're voting for).. Okay..

If you deny the validity of Holeček's superior statistics in his prime being affected by the system he played in (even though the Czechoslovaks' SV% dropped like a rock right before and after Holeček for multiple tournaments in a row).. Okay..

But I don't see how you can't deny how reports acclaimed Holeček, game after game, tournament after tournament. I've covered only WHC 1971, OG 1972, WHC 1972 and WHC 1973. But I can assure you the papers are singing praises for Holeček the same way in other championship except for 1977.

So back to my original question - what Holeček himself should have done more? Awards - check, stats - check, admiration expressed in contemporary reports - check.

Holeček will not be 1st nor 2nd in my ballot. But he also won't be last.

I personally don't see how anyone, who claims how he values consistency in goalies ranking, would then vote Parent ahead of Holeček. Take 1974 & 1975 out, does Parent appear in the project at all? Take the same two seasons out of Holeček, he just comes to discussion 3 weeks later.

Of course, Parent has a superhuman peak, and that helps.

But before that, the thing keeping Parent off the list wasn't inconsistency.

NHL goalies 1967-68 to 71-72

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

Over 253 games played, and a .920 save percentage. He's behind guys who played less and played on strong teams (Habs, Hawks, Leafs). And while Parent played with Toronto at the end of this span, those are his worst results. Playing for the Toronto of 1972 wasn't the same advantage to a goalie as it was for Bower at the beginning of this span.

As for his team quality, did Holecek ever have a better save percentage than Dzurilla in the WC/Olympics/Canada Cup?

Carey Price and even Luongo were clear #1s for Canada in best-on-best situations.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

Wild claim: Roberto Luongo had maybe 3 playoff rounds where he played very, very well.

Maybe that number is off. But is it FAR off?

2007 vs DAL .950
2007 vs ANA .930
2009 vs STL .962
2011 vs NSH .933
2011 vs SJS .931
2016 vs NYI: .934

Which half of that list doesn't count for you?

I can maybe see it depending on your definition of "very, very well", but if you apply the same definition to other goalies they aren't going to have a lot of series that qualify either.

2004 Vezina or hart? No chance. He finishes the season very badly.

First 60 games - 936 sv%, 2.18 GAA
Last 12 games - 903 sv%, 3.42 GAA

When you're in a playoff race, that's a killer. He didn't deserve to sniff the hart, nor the Vezina.

Sorry, I have to push back again. The 2003-04 Florida Panthers were not in a playoff race for Luongo's last 12 games of that season.

They were officially eliminated (could not surpass the Islanders even if they won all of their remaining games and the Islanders lost all of theirs) on March 23, with 6 games remaining (Luongo played 4 of the final 6 games)

And realistically, they were clearly out of it long before that:

Florida could no longer reach the Islanders' final season point total of 91 on March 9 with 65 points and 12 games remaining (10 of which were played by Luongo)

Florida was effectively eliminated based on the "points behind = number of games left" rule of thumb on March 19 (8 games left, 9 points back, and Luongo played 6 of those final 8 games)

I also want to expand your above stat table slightly:

First 39 games: 12-18-9, .930 Sv%, 2.41 GAA
Next 21 games: 9-8-4, .947 Sv%, 1.84 GAA
Next 10 games: 4-6-0, .915 Sv%, 3.19 GAA
Last 2 games: 0-1-1, .836 Sv%, 5.38 GAA

So I guess I agree that Luongo did finish the season very badly, in the last two games long after his team was eliminated. If the Hart or Vezina voters seriously cared about that, that only makes me think less of those voters than I already do.

Look at the numbers you just posted. A 2.18 GAA over 60 games on that Florida team? That's absolutely Hart or Vezina worthy. And even while he was doing that, his winning percentage put him on a 75 point per 82 game pace. The 2003-04 Panthers were never getting close to making the playoffs, even with arguably the best goalie in the league on their team, and it's honestly pretty silly to use any kind of framing that suggests that they would.

Also, to your last point about workload, Roberto Luongo in 2003-04 faced the 4th most recorded shots of any goaltender ever (and he had the third-highest total in 2005-06). You think that just maybe might have had an impact on his end-of-season numbers (in addition to the fact that his team was already effectively or officially eliminated)?

 

[The Macho King]

2007 vs DAL .950
2007 vs ANA .930
2009 vs STL .962
2011 vs NSH .933
2011 vs SJS .931
2016 vs NYI: .934

Which half of that list doesn't count for you?

This isn't directed at you but just a general comment - I also don't think save percentage in a round tells us much. If a goalie wins a 5 game series allowing 1 goal in each win but gets absolutely shelled in the loss and it drops his save percentage, are we going to say he had a bad series?

A goalie needs to give you four good games.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

This isn't directed at you but just a general comment - I also don't think save percentage in a round tells us much. If a goalie wins a 5 game series allowing 1 goal in each win but gets absolutely shelled in the loss and it drops his save percentage, are we going to say he had a bad series?

A goalie needs to give you four good games.

I actually debated adding Luongo against Chicago in 2011 to that list, based on his 116/122 (.951) in the team's four wins, which could potentially qualify using the same logic.

That said, it depends on how good the rest of your team is. Carey Price had four games at .961 or better against the Bruins in the same postseason, and yet he still didn't win the series. If you are on the better team, you are probably set with four good games. If you're on a dominant team, you may only need to avoid collapsing four times. And if you are on a substantially worse team, you may very well need five or six good games to have a chance of advancing.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

so luongo came and went and i’m only catching up on it now.

it’s too late to help the rankings, but a contribution if i may, for posterity:

yes, the stretch run of the 2008 season was a result of his wife’s difficult pregnancy. he was flying back and forth between where the team was and miami to be with her.

but two bits of context here that weren’t discussed:

1. this was a major turning point in the public perception of luongo, which affected his mentality. before, he was the franchise. but he was livid (and imo rightfully so) that the local press reported on this. i don’t remember any ill will towards the team about this getting out, but this affected his relationship with the media from the spring of 2008 until he came clean about his secret twitter account around 2012/2013 and rehabilitated his media presence from paranoid crankypants to wacky veteran. there’s a chicken/egg thing here: as he turned on the media, the media also turned on him, and so when that first chicago series got away from him, they really really piled on. both in the local media and around the league, he was really really maligned and imo that affected his focus on the ice.

he also was never unguarded around the fans again, because you’d get jackasses calling him out on radio call-in shows for “not being a good captain” and staying with the team in a playoff race when obviously real life was happening in real time. i think that played a part too. (the fanbase was, and to this day in some circles remains, really really hard on his wife too, which i imagine he didn’t exactly love. part of the context there is this was post-pronger trade out of edmonton and canadian fans were paranoid across the board of superstars’ wives not wanting to live in canada.)

2. the peak luongo was 2004 up to march 20, 2008. on that day, he was 5th in wins, 2nd in SV% (less than 0.004 behind giguere, 0.005 ahead of brodeur), 6th in GAA. he was very much headed for major vezina consideration. so in a way, bad luck to have had the 2005 lockout and then a disastrous stretch run that was largely out of his control interrupt an absolutely otherworldly peak.

otoh, he was never the same after 2008. he was still a superstar goalie in the prime of a hall of fame career, but he was never the same. and i always have suspected, beyond the media and fan part of it, the real issue was he slipped. and i get why. any of us with kids, we all slipped a bit when we had our first one right? and at luongo’s level, playing at the top 0.01% of all goaltenders ever, if his mind slipped from, say, 100% locked in to 95%, which is totally understandable given that there’s a human life you’re now responsible for, that’s the difference between the luongo who could win any game any time and the guy who would always give you a chance to win. i get that at this level there are guys — roy, hasek, and jesus brodeur pulled the tim duncan and dominated the finals while going through a divorce where his wife was actively taunting him from the stands — who can have kids and compartmentalize, but when he became a dad luongo slipped.

and finally the yips. luongo had them. why, i don’t know, but he absolutely did have them. you could see it in his body language. when he’s feeling it, he strides onto the ice (and he was always the first canuck out of the tunnel) balls out and gigantic shoulders way up, like the shadowy image of kaiser soze walking out of the fire when kevin spacey is describing him in the usual suspects. but when the pressure was on, he played so much deeper into his crease and you could practically see him clenching. and when the puck was in the net, his eyes said so much.

and the results speak for themselves. chicago series 1, 2, and 3. last minute goals, whether at the end of a period or famously at the end of regulation while holding a lead, were his specialty. you never felt safe with him, whereas in 2007 and most of 2008, and later with thatcher demko, i never worried. end of the slovakia game, holding a 3-0 lead, he lets in two goals in the last ten minutes, holding on for a 3-2 win and a berth to the gold medal game. then the last minute parise goal in the gold medal game that forced overtime, before the crosby winner. now luongo came up big in games he almost flubbed too, making legendary saves on demitra and patrick sharp. but he also put himself in the position of having to make them.







watch him lose his post on the visnovsky goal and how deep he is on the handzus goal (that said, he always had trouble with big guys in his crease, from young wayne simmonds and handzus when he was on the kings to most famously byfuglien, and patrick marleau of all people terrorized him on several occasions).

which leads me to the last piece of luongo context here: i think after 2010 he never really trusted his technique. ian clark was his guy, and he was there up to 2010, when the team let him go (clark was later credited as being responsible for turning bobrovsky into a vezina guy, markstrom late-blooming into a top goalie, and developing demko). the ostensible reason is they blamed the previous two years’ meltdowns on luongo losing his feet when there was a lot of traffic in front of his crease or east-west puck movement on the rush, leading to a lot of famous goals where he ended up on his stomach. so rollie melanson (also a very very good goalie coach who developed cory schneider into an elite goalie and depending on who you ask either gets the credit for carey price or the blame for holding him back) was brought in, against luongo’s wishes, and rebuilt his game, most noticeably having him play deeper in his crease but also dramatically changing the way he set and pushed off. luongo was a good soldier and did the work, but i always thought the earlier, more aggressive luongo was the better goalie.

none of this contains an argument on where luongo is among the all-time goalies, which i have no idea. but in a post-mortem of him as a goalie, these are my two, three, and four cents from living with him as my guy day-in, day-out for half a decade.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

also, to respond to the teammates part, in vancouver, he had some good bluelines. early on, he had very good defensive guys like ohlund, willie mitchell, and when healthy sami salo.

in 2011 dan hamhuis was absolutely a top five defensive dman in the league, and that team also had three of the best ten dedensive forwards in the league: malhotra, kesler, and burrows.

that said he also had to play behind some nightmare third pairs those years