HOH Top 60 Goaltenders of All Time (2024 Edition) - Round 2, Vote 5

[jigglysquishy]

Doing a simple 5-3-1 system for 1st-2nd-3rd AS voting (post-merger only)

Hainsworth - 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd
Worters - 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd
Thompson - 1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd

Results in

Thompson - 24
Worters - 23
Hainsworth - 12

Hainsworth has the additional 1st AS in the WHL in 1925-26. Worter apparently has a 1st AS in 1925-26 as well, but I can't source it.

It's hard to look at this and put Hainsworth anywhere but clearly last. I would like to get a better sense on the strength of the OHA. He gets praise going back all the way to 1916 in the league, which is relevant.

 

[seventieslord]

Not to belabor things, but I was hoping Barrasso would come up this round. Vezina finalists:

Tom Barrasso 1-2-2-2-3
Belfour-1-1-2-3
Lundqvist 1-2-3-3-3
Vasy 1-2-3-3
Luongo 2-3-3
Price 1-3
B.Smith 1
Fuhr 1-2-3-3
Hellebuyck 1-1-2-3

My Best-Carey

To expand on this:

This is perhaps the most favourable possible way to look at Barrasso's voting record. For whatever reason, his all-star results are a little off from his vezina results. If we used all-star team voting instead of vezina voting, which would allow us to extend these results back to 1927 (and perhaps expand them using what we know of western league all-star teams, too), he wouldn't look so dominant in this field. Additionally, he doesn't have a heck of a lot of recognition beyond those five seasons. His sixth best season of recognition for the Vezina was 1988-89, in which he finished 7th, with a single vote. A goalie like Fuhr has a 5, 6, 6, 6 that gets cut off by this method - a method I suspect was deliberately chosen to boost Barrasso's perception in this project.

Are all-star votes better than vezina votes? Who knows. I think it's wise to consider all of them. One thing I can say is that they are certainly based on a wider cross section of opinions. For example, in 1988, I think it's more statistically likely that Patrick Roy was considered to have the 2nd best season, as he finished 2nd in all-star voting (in which 63 ballots were cast), as opposed to Barrasso's 2nd in Vezina voting (21 ballots). Similarly, in 1998, Barrasso was all alone in 3rd in Vezina voting (26 ballots), but a distant 4th in all-star voting (53 ballots). Simply on the basis of sample sizes, I'd trust the latter more.

Anyway, the above includes a number of goalies no longer eligible for discussion and leaves out a whole bunch with extensive all-star voting records to consider. I submit to you a more complete, and current list: (needs to have at least 3 votes to count as a top-5)

Thompson: 1-1-1-2-2-3-3-3-3-4-4-5
Esposito: 1-1-1-2-2-3-3-5
Worters: 1-1-2-2-2-3-3-3-3
Hainsworth: 1-2-2-2-3-4-4-5-5
Hellebuyck: 1-1-2-3-4
Worsley: 1-2-3-3-4-4-4
Lumley: 1-1-3-4-4
Barrasso: 1-2-2-2-3
Fuhr: 1-2-3-3-5
Smith: 1-4-5

This is based strictly on vezina votes after it became a voting award, all-star votes back till 1931, and unofficial gm-voted teams till 1927. It also includes Hainsworth's first tea min the 1926 WCHL as an "overall" 2nd team.

These are a little incomplete for a few reasons:
- on the early GM-voted teams, I had to use every vote we had and still there are not 5 goalies who get credit for a top-5 each season. Goalies are credited with 1-2 votes a few times. Still, it's possible with expanded voting we'd see Hainsworth show up another time.
- in the O6 era, voting results are sparse. We often only know the top-3, sometimes even only top-2. This may affect Lumley and Worsley to some degree.
- If someone would like to remind me of the all-star teams earned by Lehman and Holmes I can work out an estimate for what that looks like in a "consolidated" sample.

I still prefer Worters to Hainsworth and Thompson, but I have to say, his voting record looks really good. He earned top-5 recognition in every season he ever played in the NHL, and top-3 three quarters of the time.

The further back you go, the more you have to take a string of award voting results with a grain of salt (and the Lehman string of 1s and 2s will emphasize that), but there's one guy who was voted the top guy in the world's top league three times and it wasn't even that long ago: Tony Esposito. The statistical record really supports his dominance as well. I think it's a shame we never had the chance to compare him and Parent, because I'd say the same thing I said in the last project: There was never a time, outside of 1973-74 and 1974-75 that Bernie Parent was considered better than Tony Esposito. If those two years are enough to do it for you, then fair enough, because they were pretty spectacular years, but Esposito was outperforming him otherwise.

It would take a lot to knock Esposito out of a top-2 spot for me here. He's got the best record of award recognition, when mental adjustments are made for era and talent pool size and whether people in his era drove cars and stuff (they did, and the cars were pretty dope, too), and it's backed up by very strong statistical dominance over a very long period of time, in a number of environments - dominant team, good team, blah team, and three different coaching regimes. Some statistical models have him as being one of the two greatest regular season stat accumulators of all-time (goals saved vs. average, or vs. replacement, etc), the others in contention generally being Roy and Brodeur. Of course, he benefitted from a weaker NHL so his dominance in that regard has to be viewed through that lens, just like Dryden's was. His save percentages relative to the league average were, like Dryden's, a little cartoonish at times and one should scale those margins back mentally. But still, eight times top-4 in the NHL? You won't find anything close to that at this point in the project (was there even anything close to it last round?) He also wasn't some nonsense Brian Elliott guy who did it here and there in a light workload - he was a worhorse year after year. This is why he was top-3 in GSAA nine times: statistically dominant, and available every night. And if you still want to punish him for his lack of any playoff success in the mid-late 1970s... take a look around at who he's being compared to here. In light of everything he has going for him, the fact that he's only coming up in this round is proof that we've already punished him very heavily for that.

 

[seventieslord]

Doing a simple 5-3-1 system for 1st-2nd-3rd AS voting (post-merger only)

Hainsworth - 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd
Worters - 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd
Thompson - 1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd

Results in

Thompson - 24
Worters - 23
Hainsworth - 12

Hainsworth has the additional 1st AS in the WHL in 1925-26. Worter apparently has a 1st AS in 1925-26 as well, but I can't source it.

It's hard to look at this and put Hainsworth anywhere but clearly last. I would like to get a better sense on the strength of the OHA. He gets praise going back all the way to 1916 in the league, which is relevant.

I would submit that a 5-3-1 counting system only compounds the problematic way that they count points from ballots already.

a 5-3-1 system implies that the voter believes that the guy they're placing first is five times more deserving than the guy placing third, or that 2nd is three times more deserving. In reality, they probably see those guys as a 10, 9, 8 on the value and/or performance scale. When looking back at these ballots, we should treat simply showing up on one (well, not just on one, of course, but on many) as the achievement that it is. The invisible players who just missed that ballot aren't zeroes, they're 5s, 6s and 7s. Of course we don't know who they are, so we can't make up points for them but we can view those ballots differently - there's no rule that they have to count 5-3-1-. I'm also not necessarily suggesting that 10-9-8 is the right way to do it, it's just for illustration.

And then when talking about ASTs that may have already been derived from ballots counted in that way, if we treat a 1st as though it's five times the value of a 3rd, we are just compounding that issue.

Without changing the yearly values based on how far back it was (an exercise I'd be interested in trying later), I would propose that these three goalies' voting records be valued as such:

Thompson: 1-1-1-2-2-3-3-3-3-4-4-5 = 7+7+7+7+6+6+5+5+5+5+4+4+3 = 71
Worters: 1-1-2-2-2-3-3-3-3 = 7+7+6+6+6+5+5+5+5 = 52
Hainsworth: 1-2-2-2-3-4-4-5-5 = 7+6+6+6+5+4+4+3+3 = 44

and yes, I know the results come out in the same order, just different relative margins.

 

[overpass]

I would like to get a better sense on the strength of the OHA. He gets praise going back all the way to 1916 in the league, which is relevant.

Same. Keep in mind that his OHA play before 1916 was at intermediate level, not senior, so it was clearly not the strongest league.

I'm pretty confident the OHA hockey of the early 20s was very good, with many pro-level players. And they joined the NHL when salaries rose enough to make it worth their while.

What I'd like to know more about is the effect of the war on amateur hockey. Non-Canadians may not be aware that in many ways the first world war had a bigger impact on Canadian society than the second. We always talk about the war years in the 40s but not so much about the war years in the 10s. Hainsworth's Kitchener team won the Allan Cup in 1917-18, definitely a war season.

 

[frisco]

To expand on this:

This is perhaps the most favourable possible way to look at Barrasso's voting record. For whatever reason, his all-star results are a little off from his vezina results. If we used all-star team voting instead of vezina voting, which would allow us to extend these results back to 1927 (and perhaps expand them using what we know of western league all-star teams, too), he wouldn't look so dominant in this field. Additionally, he doesn't have a heck of a lot of recognition beyond those five seasons. His sixth best season of recognition for the Vezina was 1988-89, in which he finished 7th, with a single vote. A goalie like Fuhr has a 5, 6, 6, 6 that gets cut off by this method - a method I suspect was deliberately chosen to boost Barrasso's perception in this project.

Are all-star votes better than vezina votes? Who knows. I think it's wise to consider all of them. One thing I can say is that they are certainly based on a wider cross section of opinions. For example, in 1988, I think it's more statistically likely that Patrick Roy was considered to have the 2nd best season, as he finished 2nd in all-star voting (in which 63 ballots were cast), as opposed to Barrasso's 2nd in Vezina voting (21 ballots). Similarly, in 1998, Barrasso was all alone in 3rd in Vezina voting (26 ballots), but a distant 4th in all-star voting (53 ballots). Simply on the basis of sample sizes, I'd trust the latter more.

Anyway, the above includes a number of goalies no longer eligible for discussion and leaves out a whole bunch with extensive all-star voting records to consider.

-Vezina voting or AS voting is a pretty fine distinction to say one is "better" than the other. To cut off the results at Top 3/5/10 or whatever is just arbitrary. I'd say often that stuff past top three and down is subject to being influenced by meaningless down ballot votes.

Keeping the focus on top three's in Vezina or "finalists" is perfectly legitimate and probably a better indication of dominant seasons. Anyway, I wasn't trying to trick anyone into thinking Barrasso was anything but what he was.

-Comparing Barrasso to goalies already selected ahead of him in this project serves a purpose especially if Barrasso compares favorably to said goalies (Price, Smith, Luongo, Fuhr). It shows that Barrasso in in the same "tier" to an extent.

-I really don't see the reason for your post other than to try to undermine what I said. Save, the material on Tony Esposito which is separate. Trust me, I'm not going to try to dig into your methodology just for the sake of trying to make you look bad. It would be petty.

My Best-Carey

 

[MXD]

There's definitely a point to be made about Barrasso being in the same tier as Grant Fuhr.

 

[seventieslord]

-Vezina voting or AS voting is a pretty fine distinction to say one is "better" than the other. To cut off the results at Top 3/5/10 or whatever is just arbitrary. I'd say often that stuff past top three and down is subject to being influenced by meaningless down ballot votes.

Keeping the focus on top three's in Vezina or "finalists" is perfectly legitimate and probably a better indication of dominant seasons.

To me, it's not about what's "better". This is just data that helps us to track contemporary opinion. And all-star voting is just a larger sample size, which is more reliable data than a smaller sample, all things being equal.

-I really don't see the reason for your post other than to try to undermine what I said. Save, the material on Tony Esposito which is separate. Trust me, I'm not going to try to dig into your methodology just for the sake of trying to make you look bad. It would be petty.

No, it's not meant to undermine what you said, but you gave an incomplete picture of the data, presented in a way that paints Barrasso in the most positive light possible.

Personally, I think that you undermine yourself when you give the sense that the only thing you care about in this project is where Barrasso lands.

 

[Dr John Carlson]

Belated initial thoughts...

- Let's keep the ineligible goalie discussion to a minimum!

- I have no clue how my vote will turn out. Nobody sticks out as a frontrunner.

- Not sure that I'm ready for Hellebuyck right now, who I think is considerably lesser than Vasilevskiy by my own eyes, and the latter just went in last round. It's interesting that his results in the NHLPA player polls aren't all that great. Here's the Vasilevskiy post from vote 3 that also covers all of Hellebuyck's prime years. Never voted a top 3 goaltender by those who played against him, though some of the margins are admittedly very thin. I guess the point is that for a player of his stature, I'd expect some separation from the pack.

- Not sure I'm ready for Lehman or Holmes right now either. I had Holmes ahead on my initial list because he just got results while Lehman did not. But... eh. Here's a post from the preliminary thread where I looked at Holmes vs. Lehman for goals allowed/goal support in Cup finals, my hypothesis having been that Lehman, or at least his teams, cratered under looser six-man rules. The results were inconclusive. I don't know who takes the blame for Vancouver consistently coming up short in the finals but my cursory look didn't point disproportionately in Lehman's direction.

- Gump Worsley might get the NR treatment from me for a while... what's the case for him that doesn't boil down to him being fortunate enough to play for the Habs?

- I will be posting a deep dive on George Hainsworth's OHA career later this week. Roy Worters got away from me last week but I hope I'll have enough time to finish that up too. But a Hainsworth post will definitely be coming. I think George was a guy who wouldn't win you many games, but he'd pretty much never lose them for you. I don't know how high that gets you on the final list.

- I assume there will be discussion about era representation regarding the 1980s guys in Smith and Fuhr. Last round's discussion dropped Smith on my vote. I don't know what to do with either of them... I think I like Fuhr a little more than the group, but I'm not confident about it!

 

[seventieslord]

I'm sorry, frisco started talking about Barrasso, and I thought it would make sense if he was up for discussion in this round... so I thought he actually was.

He'll be sure to post that same thing again when he does come up, and I'll post the same reply then, I guess.

 

[seventieslord]

The sources on these quotes were cut off in the 2017 merge, but they were from a variety of coach's polls from 1970 to 1980:

Round 2, Vote 3 (HOH Top Goaltenders)

Same could be said for some of the Toronto teams Irvin coached before coming to Montreal. Also Hap Day's approach, explains the importance that playoffs held during the era in question. That's why I reached the conclusion. In Chicago, Toronto and Montreal he had great regular season teams...

forums.hfboards.com

From another thread:

Throughout his career, Esposito was universally named as one of the league's two best goalies when players and coaches were asked. The exception was the 1979 poll.

Best Goalie - Jacques Plante (Tony Esposito, Bernie Parent, Ed Giacomin, Glenn Hall)

Best Goalie - Tony Esposito, Bernie Parent tie (Dan Bouchard, Rogie Vachon)

Best Goalie: 1) Bernie Parent, 52 pts 2) Ken Dryden, 29 pts 3) Tony Esposito, 17 pts 4) Ed Giacomin, 5 pts

Best Goalie - Ken Dryden (Tony Esposito, Bernie Parent, Rogie Vachon, Dan Bouchard)

Best Goaltender 1 Tony Esposito 2 Don Edwards 3 Mike Palmateer

one of the two best goaltenders in the league

Won't win any awards for his style, but he still considered one of the NHL's top three goalies.

There's no question that he's one of the best goaltenders around.…

keeps on going as one of the league's top goaltenders

still one of the best

He's as good as they come…

 

[blogofmike]

Tony Esposito Playoff Record by Series

Year	Opp	CHI Pts%	Opp Pts%	Opp GF	GP	DEC	GA	SA	SV	SV%	SO	PIM	TOI	ATOI
1970	Wings	.651	.625	3.24	4	4-0-0	8	143	135	0.944	0	0	239:48:00	59:05:00
1970	Bruins	.651	.651	3.64	4	0-4-0	19	148	129	0.872	0	0	238:28:00	59:03:00
1971	Flyers	.686	.468	2.65	4	4-0-0	8	132	124	0.939	0	0	239:47:00	59:57:00
1971	NYR	.686	.699	3.32	7	4-3-0	14	242	228	0.942	1	0	469:13:00	67:02:00
1971	Habs	.686	.622	3.73	7	3-4-0	20	208	188	0.904	1	0	438:45:00	62:04:00
1972	Pens	.686	.423	2.82	2	2-0-0	3	57	54	0.947	0	0	119:58:00	59:05:00
1972	NYR	.686	.699	4.06	3	0-3-0	13	96	83	0.865	0	0	178:31:00	59:03:00
1973	Blues	.596	.487	2.67	4	4-0-0	4	101	97	0.96	1	0	239:27:00	59:52:00
1973	NYR	.596	.654	3.32	5	4-1-0	10	162	152	0.938	0	0	299:43:00	59:57:00
1973	Habs	.596	.769	3.73	6	2-4-0	32	189	157	0.831	0	0	352:52:00	58:49:00
1974	Kings	.673	.500	2.99	4	4-0-0	2	113	111	0.982	2	0	240:00:00	60:00:00
1974	Bruins	.673	.724	4.47	6	2-4-0	26	202	176	0.871	0	0	339:52:00	56:39:00
1975	Bruins	.513	.588	4.31	3	2-1-0	14	123	109	0.886	0	0	169:02:00	56:21:00
1975	Sabres	.513	.706	4.43	5	1-4-0	20	154	134	0.87	0	0	301:36:00	60:19:00
1976	Habs	.513	.794	4.21	4	0-4-0	13	131	118	0.901	0	0	238:48:00	59:42:00
1977	Isles	.394	.663	3.60	2	0-2-0	6	71	65	0.915	0	0	118:39:00	59:20:00
1978	Bruins	.519	.706	4.16	4	0-4-0	19	117	98	0.838	0	0	251:40:00	62:05:00
1979	Isles	.456	.725	4.48	4	0-4-0	14	126	112	0.889	0	0	238:45:00	59:41:00
1980	Blues	.544	.500	3.33	3	3-0-0	4	88	84	0.955	0	0	192:34:00	64:11:00
1980	Sabres	.544	.688	3.98	3	0-3-0	10	96	86	0.896	0	0	177:26:00	59:09:00
1981	Flames	.488	.575	4.11	3	0-3-0	15	123	108	0.878	0	0	215:00:00	71:04:00
1982	Stars	.450	.588	4.33	1	1-0-0	2	33	31	0.939	0	0	60:00:00	60:00:00
1982	Blues	.450	.450	3.94	3	2-1-0	4	69	65	0.942	1	0	129:00:00	43:00:00
1982	Canucks	.450	.481	3.63	3	0-2-0	10	89	79	0.888	0	0	189:35:00	63:12:00
1983	Blues	.650	.406	3.56	1	1-0-0	2	26	24	0.923	0	0	59:56:00	59:56:00
1983	Stars	.650	.600	4.01	2	2-0-0	5	72	67	0.931	0	0	130:34:00	65:17:00
1983	Oilers	.650	.663	5.30	2	0-2-0	11	64	53	0.828	0	0	119:00:00	59:30:00

Here's how that looks broken down by opponents' regular season scoring numbers:

Opp GF	GP	DEC	GA	SA	SV	SV%	SO
4+ GF	37​	8-29-0	152​	1241​	1089​	0.878​	0​
3.5-3.99 GF	29​	8-20-0	103​	896​	793​	0.885​	2​
3-3.49 GF	19​	15-4-0	36​	635​	599​	0.943​	1​
<3 GF	14​	14-0-0	17​	403​	386​	0.958​	3​

He has 5 series where he's between .895 and .930.

The rest of the time he's dynamite against bad offenses or not quite that good against good offenses (around 12 times each).

Tony can steal you a playoff game against St. Louis, but that's potentially petty theft.

 

[overpass]

Here's how that looks broken down by opponents' regular season scoring numbers:

Opp GF	GP	DEC	GA	SA	SV	SV%	SO
4+ GF	37​	8-29-0	152​	1241​	1089​	0.878​	0​
3.5-3.99 GF	29​	8-20-0	103​	896​	793​	0.885​	2​
3-3.49 GF	19​	15-4-0	36​	635​	599​	0.943​	1​
<3 GF	14​	14-0-0	17​	403​	386​	0.958​	3​

He has 5 series where he's between .895 and .930.

The rest of the time he's dynamite against bad offenses or not quite that good against good offenses (around 12 times each).

Tony can steal you a playoff game against St. Louis, but that's potentially petty theft.

Well summarized. I was compiling some similar numbers for Esposito looking at performance vs strength of opponent, but it looks like you've covered it.

I will say that 0.878 and 0.885 look like bad save percentages, but in the mid-late 70s and early 80s, high scoring teams often shot 12-13% for the season. Those save percentages are probably about average when considering the strength of opposition. Of course you'd like to see better than average when talking about the great goaltenders.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Edmonton Journal · ‎Nov 29, 1979

The netminding of Tony Esposito [in comparison to Glenn Hall] and the colorful Chicago uniform were the only things that would remind anybody of the past last night. Last night seemed to typify the way it is with Tony Esposito. The Oilers won their fourth hockey game of the season, but Tony O put on such a show that he upstaged the whole momentous occasion.

Tony Esposito is the only charisma left with the Black Hawks. He’s always going to live in the shadow of Glenn Hall. There’s nothing depressing about that. But what must be frustrating is to be Tony Esposito, probably the greatest goaltender in the game today, and to be – because of the people you’re surrounded with – a man who’ll probably be forgotten a year or two after he retires.

“He’s the No.1 goalkeeper in all of hockey, “ swears ex-netminder [and current Chicago coach] Eddie Johnston. “The best in the business.”




I think it's fair to point out Esposito had a very strong reputation in the mid late 70s.

 

[seventieslord]

Edmonton Journal · ‎Nov 29, 1979

The netminding of Tony Esposito [in comparison to Glenn Hall] and the colorful Chicago uniform were the only things that would remind anybody of the past last night. Last night seemed to typify the way it is with Tony Esposito. The Oilers won their fourth hockey game of the season, but Tony O put on such a show that he upstaged the whole momentous occasion.

Tony Esposito is the only charisma left with the Black Hawks. He’s always going to live in the shadow of Glenn Hall. There’s nothing depressing about that. But what must be frustrating is to be Tony Esposito, probably the greatest goaltender in the game today, and to be – because of the people you’re surrounded with – a man who’ll probably be forgotten a year or two after he retires.

“He’s the No.1 goalkeeper in all of hockey, “ swears ex-netminder [and current Chicago coach] Eddie Johnston. “The best in the business.”




I think it's fair to point out Esposito had a very strong reputation in the mid late 70s.

and into the 80s.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

Tony Esposito Playoff Record by Series

Year	Opp	CHI Pts%	Opp Pts%	Opp GF	GP	DEC	GA	SA	SV	SV%	SO	PIM	TOI	ATOI
1970	Wings	.651	.625	3.24	4	4-0-0	8	143	135	0.944	0	0	239:48:00	59:05:00
1970	Bruins	.651	.651	3.64	4	0-4-0	19	148	129	0.872	0	0	238:28:00	59:03:00
1971	Flyers	.686	.468	2.65	4	4-0-0	8	132	124	0.939	0	0	239:47:00	59:57:00
1971	NYR	.686	.699	3.32	7	4-3-0	14	242	228	0.942	1	0	469:13:00	67:02:00
1971	Habs	.686	.622	3.73	7	3-4-0	20	208	188	0.904	1	0	438:45:00	62:04:00
1972	Pens	.686	.423	2.82	2	2-0-0	3	57	54	0.947	0	0	119:58:00	59:05:00
1972	NYR	.686	.699	4.06	3	0-3-0	13	96	83	0.865	0	0	178:31:00	59:03:00
1973	Blues	.596	.487	2.67	4	4-0-0	4	101	97	0.96	1	0	239:27:00	59:52:00
1973	NYR	.596	.654	3.32	5	4-1-0	10	162	152	0.938	0	0	299:43:00	59:57:00
1973	Habs	.596	.769	3.73	6	2-4-0	32	189	157	0.831	0	0	352:52:00	58:49:00
1974	Kings	.673	.500	2.99	4	4-0-0	2	113	111	0.982	2	0	240:00:00	60:00:00
1974	Bruins	.673	.724	4.47	6	2-4-0	26	202	176	0.871	0	0	339:52:00	56:39:00
1975	Bruins	.513	.588	4.31	3	2-1-0	14	123	109	0.886	0	0	169:02:00	56:21:00
1975	Sabres	.513	.706	4.43	5	1-4-0	20	154	134	0.87	0	0	301:36:00	60:19:00
1976	Habs	.513	.794	4.21	4	0-4-0	13	131	118	0.901	0	0	238:48:00	59:42:00
1977	Isles	.394	.663	3.60	2	0-2-0	6	71	65	0.915	0	0	118:39:00	59:20:00
1978	Bruins	.519	.706	4.16	4	0-4-0	19	117	98	0.838	0	0	251:40:00	62:05:00
1979	Isles	.456	.725	4.48	4	0-4-0	14	126	112	0.889	0	0	238:45:00	59:41:00
1980	Blues	.544	.500	3.33	3	3-0-0	4	88	84	0.955	0	0	192:34:00	64:11:00
1980	Sabres	.544	.688	3.98	3	0-3-0	10	96	86	0.896	0	0	177:26:00	59:09:00
1981	Flames	.488	.575	4.11	3	0-3-0	15	123	108	0.878	0	0	215:00:00	71:04:00
1982	Stars	.450	.588	4.33	1	1-0-0	2	33	31	0.939	0	0	60:00:00	60:00:00
1982	Blues	.450	.450	3.94	3	2-1-0	4	69	65	0.942	1	0	129:00:00	43:00:00
1982	Canucks	.450	.481	3.63	3	0-2-0	10	89	79	0.888	0	0	189:35:00	63:12:00
1983	Blues	.650	.406	3.56	1	1-0-0	2	26	24	0.923	0	0	59:56:00	59:56:00
1983	Stars	.650	.600	4.01	2	2-0-0	5	72	67	0.931	0	0	130:34:00	65:17:00
1983	Oilers	.650	.663	5.30	2	0-2-0	11	64	53	0.828	0	0	119:00:00	59:30:00

Here's how that looks broken down by opponents' regular season scoring numbers:

Opp GF	GP	DEC	GA	SA	SV	SV%	SO
4+ GF	37​	8-29-0	152​	1241​	1089​	0.878​	0​
3.5-3.99 GF	29​	8-20-0	103​	896​	793​	0.885​	2​
3-3.49 GF	19​	15-4-0	36​	635​	599​	0.943​	1​
<3 GF	14​	14-0-0	17​	403​	386​	0.958​	3​

He has 5 series where he's between .895 and .930.

The rest of the time he's dynamite against bad offenses or not quite that good against good offenses (around 12 times each).

Tony can steal you a playoff game against St. Louis, but that's potentially petty theft.

This table is unfortunately a bit misleading, and could really use being adjusted based on scoring levels.

The 1983 Blues scored 8% below league average, and you have them sorted into a higher tier than much better teams like the 1971 Rangers (6% above average) and the 1970 Red Wings (11% above average).

That said, Esposito did run hot and cold in the playoffs and I don't disagree with the overall conclusion in general, it's just not as neatly cut-and-dry as it seems in that presentation.

 

[AlfiesHair]

I'm glad Tony Esposito is getting some praise in this discussion, I think overall he is heavily underrated by this forum.



REGULAR SEASON STATS
Yes, he's about the same as an average NHL goalie in the playoffs, but he is essentially a top 5 to 10 goalie in almost every all-time regular season metric.

Top SV% Appearances (adjusted to account for league size)
1956-67: Top 3
1968-72: Top 4
1973-74: Top 5
1975-79: Top 6
1980-92: Top 7
1993-present: Top 10

* = played some seasons before SV% was counted

1. Roy - 15 (4, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 0, 2)
2. Hasek - 11 (6, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0)
3. G. Hall - 11 (2, 6, 3, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0)
4. Bower - 10 (6, 3, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0)
5. B. Smith - 10 (0, 3, 1, 1, 3, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0)
6. Luongo - 10 (0, 0, 3, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 3, 1)
7. Plante* - 9 (5, 1, 2, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0)
8. T. Esposito - 8 (2, 4, 0, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0)
9. Worsley* - 7 (1, 3, 2, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0)
10. Lundqvist - 7 (0, 0, 0, 2, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1)

Of goalies not voted in yet he fairs the best after Billy Smith who only played ~40 games a season. Reminder that Esposito was a consistent 65+ game goalie.


Top GSAA Appearances (adjusted to account for league size)
1956-67: Top 3
1968-72: Top 4
1973-74: Top 5
1975-79: Top 6
1980-92: Top 7
1993-present: Top 10

* = played some seasons before SV% was counted

1. Roy - 16 (3, 3, 3, 0, 1, 2, 3, 0, 0, 1)
2. T. Esposito - 12 (3, 5, 2, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0)
3. Hasek - 11 (6, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1)
4. Luongo - 11 (1, 1, 2, 0, 2, 2, 0, 1, 0, 2)
5. Hall - 10 (4, 4, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0)
6. Plante* - 9 (6, 1, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0)
7. Bower - 9 (3, 5, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0)
8. Lundqvist - 9 (0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 0, 1, 1)
9. Brodeur - 8 (2, 1, 0, 1, 0, 2, 0, 1, 0, 1)
10. Dryden - 7 (4, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0)

Probably the third best overall GSAA record of any goalie since SV% was counted. Seriously impressive.

To wrap up my SV% talk, he only finished below average in SV% twice in 16 seasons (age 38 and 40). As mentioned in my Luongo post last week, this is not an easy feat.

Top 5 All Star Appearances (only top 3 counted pre-1967)

1. Hall - 12 (7, 4, 0, 1, 0)
2. Brodeur - 12 (3, 4, 4, 0, 1)
3. Plante - 11 (3, 4, 4, 0, 0)
4. Roy - 10 (4, 2, 2, 2, 0)
5. Sawchuk - 10 (3, 4, 2, 1, 0)
6. Belfour - 9 (2, 1, 3, 1, 2)
7. Hasek - 8 (6, 0, 1, 1, 0)
8. T. Esposito - 8 (3, 2, 2, 0, 1)
9. Brimsek - 8 (2, 6, 0, 0, 0)
10. T. Thompson - 7 (2, 2, 3, 0, 0)

Also of note that he was voted the best goalie in the NHL three times. Only Hall (x7), Hasek (x6), Durnan (x6 with an asterisk), Dryden (x5), and Roy (x4) have achieved that more. Brodeur, Plante, Sawchuk, and Gardiner have all matched Esposito's 3.

Every one of those goalies have been voted into the top 13. If you take away the three goalies with shorter NHL careers (Dryden, Gardiner, Durnan), the rest make up the board's top 6. From a voting record perspective, Esposito probably has the 8th best overall record all time. This list is already in the 20s.

Not to mention he was also has a 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 9th, and 11th Hart Trophy voting record. Few goalies have ever received this kind of MVP voting attention, definitely none that haven't been voted in yet.


ESPOSITO'S INSANE PEAK
Esposito's 1969-70 rookie season was something to behold. A serious contender to be a top 10 season by any goalie in NHL history; at the very least I would say less than 10 goalies have achieved a season like this.

Esposito finishes the year with a .932 SV% in 63 games. Of players who played over half their teams games it goes:

1. Esposito - .932
2. Parent - .921
3. Vachon - .917
4. Giacomin - .916
5. Gamble - .915

Esposito is WAAAY ahead of the pack - and it's even more clear when you look at GSAA:

1. Esposito - 39.6
2. Parent - 19.1
3. Wakely - 14.4
4. Vachon - 10.4
5. Cheevers - 9.7

For GSAA this is like Gretzky numbers. Over double second place, over four times as much as fifth place. Literally a cheat code in net.

He also leads the league in wins (38) and shutouts (15!!! - best ever outside of the 1920s pre-forward pass era in a 70s era where scoring was going up!!!). Black Hawks finish tied for first in the NHL for points. Hawks gave up the 6th least amount of shots in the NHL that year, almost exactly average so I wouldn't say the Hawks were amazing defensively (although Mikita was in his defensive centre era and Stapleton, Mohns, Magnuson, Jarrett aren't a bad top 4 to be fair).

Espo finishes a relatively close second in Hart voting to Bobby Orr who had just lead the league in points as a defenseman for the first time in NHL history. Orr and Espo were the only two players to get any considerable votes as Orr got 156, Espo got 110, and nobody else got more than 12. If it wasn't for literally the second best player ever in his prime Espo would have likely been the unanimous Hart Trophy winner.

Hard to say for sure as I can't find the actual voting records for this year, but it looks like he was possibly a unanimous first team all star goalie (Esposito 1st with 180 total votes, Giacomin 2nd with 81) and Calder Trophy winner (Esposito 1st with 178 total votes, Fairbarin 2nd with 70).

In the playoffs he starts strong, sweeping Detroit with a .944 SV%. The Hawks then get swept by the Bruins and he puts up a measly .872 SV% - but nobody was stopping the Bruins' offense that year and they went on to win the Cup.

Overall, easily in the conversation for a top 10 individual regular season ever by a goalie. I would say it is probably the best rookie regular season in NHL history after Gretzky's.


FINAL THOUGHTS
I've always thought of Espo as Dionne for goalies. MVP calibre peak, consistently top of the league in regular season stats and awards, played for a relatively mediocre team for their entire careers, terrible playoffs. Obviously both of these players should be punished for their playoffs, but it seems Espo is punished WAAAAY more on this forum for playoff performance than a player like Dionne or even Bathgate. In the Top 100 project, Dionne finished 63rd - appropriate I'd say. Tony Esposito finished 108th and wasn't ranked at all until the forum did their Top 200. Is Esposito's regular season record really comparable to a player like Dionne? Yes, I think it is (maybe a bit worse). Does he deserve to be ranked around that type of player? I also think yes, although maybe I'm missing something truly huge.

The metrics I have posted above have Esposito's regular season record around top 10 all time, I think they're at least comparable to someone like Belfour who went 14th (although my opinion is that Esposito's reg szn record is slightly better). Is Esposito's playoffs SO bad that he should drop further than 22nd? I hope not. His regular season dominance is truly historic.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Oh **** me...

 

[blogofmike]

Well summarized. I was compiling some similar numbers for Esposito looking at performance vs strength of opponent, but it looks like you've covered it.

I will say that 0.878 and 0.885 look like bad save percentages, but in the mid-late 70s and early 80s, high scoring teams often shot 12-13% for the season. Those save percentages are probably about average when considering the strength of opposition. Of course you'd like to see better than average when talking about the great goaltenders.

Fully agree. I guess I wanted to highlight the sizeable performance gap.

This table is unfortunately a bit misleading, and could really use being adjusted based on scoring levels.

The 1983 Blues scored 8% below league average, and you have them sorted into a higher tier than much better teams like the 1971 Rangers (6% above average) and the 1970 Red Wings (11% above average).

That said, Esposito did run hot and cold in the playoffs and I don't disagree with the overall conclusion in general, it's just not as neatly cut-and-dry as it seems in that presentation.

A fair point. I put all the data in so people could judge accordingly. Even if you aren't a fan of the summary table, the data table shows that he's shutting down the low scoring expansion teams and getting shelled by most of the good teams.

 

[AlfiesHair]

Also just because I've done the research, here are the best 20 GSAA seasons in my eyes, listed chronologically (not ranked). This is a measurement comparing the total GSAA to others in the same season, not total GSAA across eras.

Original Six seasons are weird as often two goalies would finish far higher than third place for example, for this I just chose seasons where a goalie stood far above second place and did not compare to the rest of "the pack" like VsX does for example.

GSAA spread is is not equal in all eras. There is a certain amount of luck to goaltending and being 2x above second place in 1970 is not equal to being 2x above second place in 2020 simply because there are less full-time goalies that can get on a lucky tear and perform very well.

All stats curtesy of Hockey Reference.

1956-57
1. Hall - 36.8 (1st All Star)
2. Plante - 13.6
3. Sawchuk - 9.4

1958-59
1. Plante - 38.2 (1st All Star)
2. Bower - 10.9
3. Worsley - 6.1

1961-62
1. Plante - 37.2 (1st Hart, 1st All Star)
2. Bower - 20.8
3. Hall - 16.5

1969-70
1. Esposito - 39.6 (2nd Hart, 1st All Star)
2. Parent - 19.1
3. Wakely - 14.4
4. Vachon - 10.4
5. Cheevers - 9.7

1970-71
1. Plante - 52.5 (5th Hart, 2nd All Star to Giacomin)
2. Esposito - 24.4
3. Giacomin - 22.6
4. Cheevers - 19.3
5. Villemure - 15.5

1973-74
1. Parent - 72.7 (2nd Hart, 1st All Star)
2. Esposito - 64.6 (5th Hart, 2nd All Star)
3. Bouchard - 19.0
4. Vachon - 13.2
5. Brooks - 11.8

1974-75
1. Vachon - 60.7 (2nd Hart, 2nd All Star to Parent)
2. Parent - 46.6
3. Esposito - 31.6
4. Bouchard - 30.4
5. Dryden - 25.4

1975-76
1. Dryden - 60.7 (4th Hart, 1st All Star)
2. Resch - 45.8
3. Stephenson - 31.3
4. Esposito - 31.2
5. Bouchard - 26.6

1984-85
1. Lindbergh - 47.4 (3rd Hart, 1st All Star)
2. Lemelin - 21.9
3. Skorodenski - 21.8
4. Moog - 21.0
5. Liut - 18.2

1992-93
1. Joseph - 57.4 (3rd Vezina after Belfour, Barrasso, 4th All Star after Belfour, Barrasso, Potvin)
2. Belfour - 39.4
3. Potvin - 32.0
4. Barrasso - 30.9
5. Vanbiesbrouck - 23.5

1994-95
1. Hasek - 36.4 (3rd Hart, 1st Vezina, 1st All Star)
2. Burke - 14.6
3. Vanbiesbrouck - 13.4
4. Moog - 12.1
5. Hrudey - 10.3

1996-97
1. Hasek - 54.4 (1st Hart, 1st Pearson, 1st Vezina, 1st All Star)
2. Brodeur - 35.6
3. Roy - 34.3
4. Hebert - 31.2
5. Hackett - 26.5

1997-98
1. Hasek - 54.5 (1st Hart, 1st Pearson, 1st Vezina, 1st All Star)
2. Barrasso - 23.9
3. Kolzig - 23.1
4. Kidd - 19.0
5. Roy - 18.1

1998-99
1. Hasek - 54.1 (3rd Hard, 1st Vezina, 1st All Star)
2. Dafoe - 33.0
3. Hebert - 29.9
4. Irbe - 26.6
5. Khabibulin - 25.0

2001-02
1. Theodore - 45.9 (1st Hart, 1st Vezina, 2nd All Star after Roy)
2. Roy - 28.3
3. Khabibulin - 23.6
4. Burke - 20.8
5. Nabokov - 18.7

2003-04
1. Luongo - 48.4 (6th Hart, 3rd Vezina after Brodeur and Kiprusoff, 2nd All Star after Brodeur)
2. Roloson - 28.8
3. Raycroft - 24.2
4. Aebischer - 22.7
5. Kiprusoff - 21.0

2014-15
1. Price - 36.7 (1st Hart, 1st Pearson, 1st Vezina, 1st All Star)
2. Dubnyk - 23.7
3. Schneider - 21.2
4. Mason - 19.2
5. Hammond - 18.3

2016-17
1. Bobrovsky - 33.4 (3rd Hart, 1st Vezina, 1st All Star)
2. Holtby - 19.3
3. Dubnyk - 18.4
4. Price - 17.3
5. Anderson - 15.9

2021-22
1. Shesterkin - 44.9 (3rd Hart, 1st Vezina, 1st All Star)
2. Sorokin - 29.8
3. Markstrom - 26.1
4. Kuemper - 25.1
5. Saros - 23.0


THOUGHTS
Plante's incredible showing in 1971 as a 42 year old is otherworldly.

Parent and Esposito both being soooo far above the rest in 1974 is an oddity. Overall the 70s were crazy for GSAA - not sure why.

Vachon clearing Parent by a lot in 1975 during Parent's infamous two year run is interesting. He somehow gets second in Hart but loses the Vezina and first all star team.

Lindbergh's 1985 season was the only season from the 80s included, weak decade?

Yet another stat that proves Hasek's peak years are insane.

Joseph's 1993 and Luongo's 2004 seaons are completely overlooked by almost everyone, both finished 3rd in Vezina voting (interesting how Lu and Theodore's seasons are so similar in GSAA on paper only two seasons apart yet Theodore wins the Hart and Lu doesn't even win the Vezina).

Big blowout GSAA seasons normally track with award voting pretty well.

 

[jigglysquishy]

1983 Finals

Moog was goalie in the finals



1984 Finals
Edmonton wins 1-0
Shots: Oilers 38 Islanders 34
Oilers 1 Islanders 0

The Montreal Gazette · ‎May 11, 1984

“All I can say,” said Edmonton Coach Glen Sather, “is that I’ve never seen him quite as composed as he was tonight.”

Fuhr… stunned everyone with his exceptional work. He stopped the Islanders early, and stopped them late. He stopped them from close in, and while the traffic was heavy in his crease. He stopped shots from point-blank range.

Islanders win 6-1
Shots: Oilers 23 Islanders 26
Oilers 1 Islanders 1


Sunday Union · ‎May 13, 1984

Fuhr, the hero of the first game, again played well despite being beaten three times from close range.

Oilers win 7-2
Shots: Oilers 40 Islanders 25
Oilers 2 Islanders 1

The Montreal Gazette · ‎May 16, 1984

Grant Fuhr: Better than Billy? [Smith]

What the Oilers also got, were big saves from Grant Fuhr when they needed them the most

Oilers win 7-2
Shots: Oilers 38 Islanders 21
Oilers 3 Islanders 1

Andy Moog played as Fuhr had a hurt shoulder after being checked by Pat LaFontaine


Oilers win 5-2
Shots: Oilers 23 Islanders 25
Oilers 4 Islanders 1

Andy Moog played as Fuhr had a hurt shoulder



Not a lot to gleam from this. Fuhr is spoken of well, but Moog comes in relief to win two games. He is spoken of well for game 3, but with the Oilers scoring 7 goals on 40 shots he didn’t have to do much.


1985 Finals
Flyers win 4-1
Shots: Oilers 26 Flyers 40
Oilers 0 Flyers 1

Ottawa Citizen · ‎May 22, 1985

Gretzky said “If it wasn’t for the great work of Grant Fuhr we could have been down four goals after the first period."

Although Fuhr's sloppy puck handling allowed Tim Kerr, who had missed the last five playoff games with a knee injury, to score Philadelphia's third goal, the Edmonton goalie stopped four breakaways and many of his 33 stops were sparkling.

Oilers win 3-1
Shots: Oilers 29 Flyers 18
Oilers 1 Flyers 1

The Spokesman-Review · ‎May 24, 1985

Edmonton didn’t allow the Flyers to gather any momentum by checking Philadelphia’s puck carriers all over the ice.

The Flyers didn’t get a shot at Fuhr for the first nine minutes, but when they did the Edmonton netminder was quick to foil Mark Howe’s slapshot and Murray Craven’s backhander on the rebound.

Oilers win 4-3
Shots: Oilers 26 Flyers 30
Oilers 2 Flyers 1

No relevant comments as everyone is focusing on Gretzky’s first period hattrick (plus one assist). Game was over after the first period.


Oilers win 5-3
Shots: Oilers 32 Flyers 23
Oilers 3 Flyers 1

The Windsor Star · ‎May 29, 1985

The Great One preferred to heap praise on the shoulders of Grant Fuhr and rightly so. Without some of Fuhr’s early heroics, the Flyers might have been off and winging. It might be time, in fact, to start mentioning Fuhr’s name in the same breath as the other great Stanley Cup goalies of years gone by: Dryden, Bower, Plante, Sawchuk, Broda, Durnan. He is proving he belongs.

Oilers win 8-3
Shots: Oilers 41 Flyers 22
Oilers 4 Flyers 1

The Windsor Star · ‎May 31, 1985

It was Gretzky and Coffey, both just 24, who were the glamour boys in the final. But it was Fuhr, 22, whose play in the Edmonton net won him new respect as a pressure performer.

The only suspense in the final period was who would win the Smythe Trophy – Gretzky, Coffey, or Fuhr?

Flyer Brad Marsh said “But Grant Fuhr made a lot of critical saves that turned some games around.”

Fuhr’s strongest series. He’s spoken of well throughout and it sounds like is right in the Conn Smythe race until the end. That he’s compared to guys like Bower, Plante, and Sawchuk is big.


1987 Finals
Oilers win 4-2
Shots: Oilers 26 Flyers 31
Oilers 1 Flyers 0

The Deseret News · ‎May 18, 1987

Another big plus for the Oilers was in goal, where Grant Fuhr outplayed Philadelphia’s Ron Hextall.

Oilers win 3-2 in OT
Shots: Oilers 34 Flyers 34
Oilers 2 Flyers 0

The Free Lance-Star · ‎May 21, 1987

“We took over and Grant Fuhr kept them in the game," Flyers defenseman Mark Howe said. Fuhr was also there in the third period for the Oilers, only this time he didn't have to work as hard.

Flyers win 5-3
Shots: Oilers 28 Flyers 31
Oilers 2 Flyers 1

Gainesville Sun · ‎May 23, 1987

Flyers Coach Mike Keenan said “ We were carrying the play, Grant Fuhr was playing well for them in goal, but we felt we would get to him eventually."

Fuhr, who made 31 saves, surrendered more than three goals for the first time in his last twelve games.

Oilers win 4-1
Shots: Oilers 29 Flyers 28
Oilers 3 Flyers 1

The Bulletin · ‎May 25, 1987

Edmonton goalie Grant Fuhr stopped more than shots — he stopped momentum. Inspired by their heroics in the previous match the Philadelphia Flyers could have evened the Stanley Cup final with a good start in Game 4. Fuhr made sure they never generated it.

Fuhr dominated the defense. Providing playoff-calibre goaltending when his team needed it the most, Fuhr stopped 27 shots.

With less than three minutes left in the second period, the Flyers again peppered Fuhr with several shots, but he stopped them all.

Flyers win 4-3
Shots: Oilers 34 Flyers 35
Oilers 3 Flyers 2

No relevant comments


Flyers win 3-2
Shots: Oilers 32 Flyers 23
Oilers 3 Flyers 3


No relevant comments


Oilers win 3-1
Shots: Oilers 43 Flyers 20
Oilers 4 Flyers 3

The Spokesman-Review · ‎Jun 1, 1987

Grant Fuhr, the Oilers' No. 1 goaltender in their Stanley Cup-winning seasons of 1984 and 1985, played a strong game in the nets for the Oilers. He was helped by a sterling defensive effort from his defensemen and forwards, who limited the Flyers to 20 shots, only two in the final period.

I don’t think this does him a lot. He’s strong in the first half of the series, but gets zero praise in Game 5 and 6 losses. Then in Game 7 the Oilers double the Flyers in shots and make it very easy on Fuhr.



1988 Finals
Oilers win 2-1
Shots: Oilers 22 Bruins 14
Oilers 1 Bruins 0

The Free-Lance Star · ‎May 19, 1988

Fuhr got the reputation of being a great “money” goalie.

Moog isn’t able to shake the belief that Fuhr is destined to beat him

Oilers win 4-2
Shots: Oilers 31 Bruins 12
Oilers 2 Bruins 0

No relevant comments. Fuhr stops 10 of 12.


Oilers win 6-3
Shots: Oilers 24 Bruins 28
Oilers 3 Bruins 0

The Bryan Times · ‎May 23, 1988

Bruins Coach Terry O’Reilly said. “They’re not making mistakes and when they do, Grant Fuhr is coming up big.”

Oilers win 6-3
Shots: Oilers 26 Bruins 19
Oilers 4 Bruins 0

The Vindicator · ‎May 27, 1988

O’Reilly said “We weren’t at our best, but that’s because the Oilers played so well defensively. Those defensive guys are the six most underrated players in the league. Everyone talks about Gretzky, Messier, Kurri, Anderson, and Fuhr. But nothing is said about their defense.”

A sweep where Fuhr faces 20+ shots in only one game. Outside a comment from Bruins coach Terry O’Reilly in Game 4, he’s basically background noise.



Overall, I was hoping to see more. He gets praise for sure, but most of the games he’s barely brought up. Oilers were a tremendous team and didn’t need him to be great, though he certainly was frequently. But across four Cups in five years I was expecting some more oomph. Comparing him to Smith back-to-back runs, Smith is definitely spoken of higher in contemporary reports.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Parent and Esposito both being soooo far above the rest in 1974 is an oddity. Overall the 70s were crazy for GSAA - not sure why.

You're not? I mean, look at the situation...this is sort of a lay up, no?

If we're really gonna try to shoehorn GSAA...in 1974...to boost Tony Esposito as some sort of hero here, I don't know...I'd be at a real loss for words haha

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

- Gump Worsley might get the NR treatment from me for a while... what's the case for him that doesn't boil down to him being fortunate enough to play for the Habs?

Who's rating him high based on his time in Montreal? Gump Worsley is in this group because he was a good goalie for a very long time.

Fortunate is a weird term to use for a guy who played 581 games for the New York Rangers, a team that didn't have a single goalie with a cumulative winning record between WWII and expansion (even though that group included five Hall of Famers).

Here's a very brief case for Worsley's results without even talking about Montreal:

Exhibit A:

Gump Worsley, 1960-61 NYR: 20-29-8, 3.29, .913
Gump Worsley, 1961-62 NYR: 22-27-9, 2.92, .912
Gump Worsley, 1962-63 NYR: 22-34-10, 3.27, .914
Jacques Plante, 1963-64 NYR: 22-36-7, 3.39, .910

In other words, typical Gump Worsley was basically right in line with (and if anything arguably better than) what our #3 goalie did when he showed up to the disaster that was the New York Rangers. That's also despite 1963-64 seeing a scoring drop of 6% compared to the previous years.

Exhibit B:

Gump Worsley, 1969-70 to 1971-72: 66 GP, .928, 2.32
Tony Esposito, 1969-70 to 1971-72: 168 GP, .928, 2.09

In his 40s, playing behind an expansion defence, Worsley was matching prime Esposito on an Original 6 team in save percentage (and this wasn't a backup effects thing either, as Worsley actually had the stronger hockeygoalies.org SoS 0.02 to -0.13).

Other than a few stretches of weaker play that seem to be mostly injury-related (which is no different than basically any other O6 goalie not named Glenn Hall), Worsley's New York results look quite competitive to me relative to the other top goalies of that era, once you factor in them mostly being consistently the worst or second worst defensive team in the league.

I am fully aware that some people don't think he passes the eye test, or that any goalie would have won the Cup every year on the 1960s Canadiens. This is the point of the project where views are going to start widely diverging based on what you value. And yet, to quote Gump himself based on his philosophy as a goalie scout:

"For me, only one thing [matters]. Does he keep the flippin' puck out of the flippin' net? If he can do that consistently in tough situations, I don't give a hoot about style or technique."

Personally, I think he kept the flippin' puck out of the net enough to be considered here.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Overall, I was hoping to see more. He gets praise for sure, but most of the games he’s barely brought up.

This jives with the film. He's out there winging it...it's sort of fun. But the only real difference between him and Barrasso and Vernon is that Fuhr had a team that could outscore him and it became canon because it wasn't really looked into.

For all the flak that a guy like Marc-Andre Fleury gets...other than Fleury starting on basically a traditional expansion team and having to face tougher goalie competition when it comes to Vezina stuff...what's really the difference here?

 

[Doctor No]

GSAA stinks in the 1970s in particular because one of the underlying assumptions of the statistic's value is that "the average shot distribution faced by each goaltender is similar". It's generally useful as a coarse measuring post but needs to be understood in context.

Beyond that, if you're going to use GSAA, you should use an estimate of GSAR (Goals Saved Above Replacement). GSAA assigns a value of zero to average goaltending, and a quick look around here during playoff time where fans are bitching about bad goaltending will give you ample evidence that average goaltending does have (positive) value.

I roughly estimated replacement level save percentages as 0.015 lower than league average (so if league average was 0.900, replacement level estimate could be 0.885), but it varies quite a bit from period to period (and seems to be getting smaller recently, for a number of reasons I'd bet).

And if you take a genuine replacement level goaltender and put him on a Ken Hitchcock team, he's probably going to get at least some Vezina shares.

Insert save percentage caveat here.

 

[Michael Farkas]

"For me, only one thing [matters]. Does he keep the flippin' puck out of the flippin' net? If he can do that consistently on tough situations, I don't give a good about style of technique."

And the answer is "clearly not". Losing record in the O6 playoffs (very much buoyed by 1966's run - his only full time run in that time, right?). Over 3 GAA in the O6 playoffs. Sent down to the minor multiple times in his prime due to performance...and talent begets performance, of course.

What other O6 strong holds were getting sent to the minors in their prime at this time? Are they available for voting? Will they ever be?

We're at - what - 20th? We're going to take a bottom half goalie (or if that's too strong) a league average goalie from his era right now (or ever)?

I don't know...this is gettin' kinda rocky this round haha

Cap it at 20 and call it a successful project. We're going to bat for a guy who had to wire a hammock between his legs to compete, and another who would sooner be found sleeping in one than working on his trade...