HOH Top 60 Goaltenders of All Time (2024 Edition) - Round 2, Vote 6

[frisco]

As a lifelong Penguins fan...I can't agree with this. The Pens might have had four Cups if Barrasso could make a timely save.

The '93 and '96 stuff has been seen a thousand times at this point. But even in '92...the Pens tried to run and gun, and Barrasso gave us 4.81 GAA and .861 in the first four games vs. Washington. The Penguins had to switch to a more passive, structured defensive system to get by the Capitals.

Disagree. Pens win zero Cups in the 1990's without Barrasso. Penguins had to be coaxed, coddled and threatened just to play some defense when the playoffs rolled around after country clubbing around the league during the regular season. And they still didn't commit to it. Barrasso allowed them to freewheel and not pay the price.

My Best-Carey

 

[rmartin65]

Anyway, on another note, I think I'm having an easier time finding my NRs in this round than I am ranking the top 10. I see some guys that I think just don't fit in, and I'm finding that easier to separate than I am the guys who are actually going to end up on my list.

I feel this way this round too. There are a couple guys I feel pretty good about slapping with the NR, but the rest I feel like I can talk myself into some different rankings based on different criteria.

That level of competition makes me want to learn more about who was beating Percy LeSueur for all star nods in one of the 17 leagues going on in 1907 haha

I feel like we got to a place where we are starting to have some decent dialogue back and forth, and then you throw in one of these drive-by lines here like this.

Apparently not the only time in LeSueur's career that his team (or teammates) was considering jettisoning him. I always found this 1914 article interesting, which I'm sure I posted in the pre-merger list threads at some point:



I wish there was more about this 'clique' but I guess it wasn't as well known as the second paragraph says. An Ottawa Citizen article on the same day says Benedict and Skene Ronan were strongly considering heading to the PCHA soon, so perhaps that's a hint as to one player in the 'clique'.



The only other reference I could find. If we take the first article as gospel - which we maybe shouldn't, if he's being considered their 'most valuable man' by another paper - and assume that LeSueur was in decline by 1914, then we're looking at maybe an eight year prime for him?

To be fair, goalies get replaced. LeSueur was jettisoned to make way for Benedict, then Benedict was replaced by Connell. Lumley played in the AHL after being an established NHLer. Bower spent forever in the AHL. These things happen to a lot of goalies.

The clique thing though is very interesting. I wish we knew more about that, haha. I think I mentioned it in the pre-consolidation project, but Ottawa HC always had stuff going on- allegations of professionalism, allegations of drunk reffing, players refusing to play if someone was on the team, feelings getting hurt over the captaincy, etc.

For goalies in this time period (post-professionalism, pre-forward pass) that's pretty short, compared to Vezina/Benedict/Lehman/Holmes/Hainsworth. Or, maybe Benedict was just that much better that it made Peerless Percy look... peerful?

Those guys aren't all exactly contemporaries, though. LeSueur was born in 1881, then Lehman in 1885, then Vezina (1887), Holmes (1888), Benedict (1892), and Hainsworth (1895).

Agreed on all fronts. Even just a quick once-over of the candidates from some of our quieter participants would be appreciated. For example...

- Tom Barrasso: I greatly appreciate that he turned out well considering how he was thrown to the wolves right out of high school. How many 18 year olds even started in the NHL, and how many of those weren't negatively impacted by that in their development? We've got one up for voting right now, and the list doesn't go much longer than that. Such an up and down career, though, and I value consistency a lot. I'll hold off on him for now.

I want to like Barrasso... I do. But I'm struggling with putting the fourth best guy born in 1965 on this list already. Kind of like the whole "if everyone is special, no one is special" deal, right? Is 1965 some miracle year of goalie talent?

- Tony Esposito: I find the arguments against him to be pretty compelling. The film study plus his record against stronger competition is a tough sell. One without the other wouldn't sway me much, but together they make a lot of sense to me. But as was said last round, him being available for voting at this late juncture shows that he's already been penalized plenty for this. It's probably been posted already somewhere and I'm just forgetting because it's late, but how much worse did he perform statistically versus the best teams compared to his contemporaries?

I really don't know what to do with Esposito. Like you said, the film study really isn't favorable, but then the contemporary opinions seem to be in stark contrast to that.

- Grant Fuhr: I've always found it tough to look past how Team Canada kept coming back to him in big spots. Was his rep really just a product of Gretzky's Oilers?

Against this group of goalies, Fuhr looks alright to me. I wish there was a little more separation between him and Smith, but that's the nature of this type of exercise I guess.

- George Hainsworth: I already offered my thoughts on Honeyboy in the last thread. For twenty years, he was good, and that's pretty much it. And that's coming in a pre-forward pass era where I'm not sure being consistently good was as difficult as it'd be in later eras.

Ah, yes, the pre-forward pass goalies had it easier argument. I guess we can check that box off.

I think we can really only judge the guys on the era they played in. How did Hainsworth look relative to his peers, how did Barrasso look relative to his peers, etc. Otherwise we are stacking the deck against players by sheer virtue of when they were born. And then they get hit hard again because there is an absence (or relative lack) of film on them.

- Hap Holmes: A similar story as Hainsworth - long and consistent career, questions about how great he was. But Holmes was surely buoyed a bit by Jack Walker, maybe the second best defensive player on his era, always tagging along with him (or was it Holmes who was doing the tagging along? hmm).

I was too high on Holmes on my initial list, but it is starting to feel like the right place for him, in my opinion. You just dinged LeSueur for his career length, but now career length isn't enough to help Holmes?

- Curtis Joseph: Workhorse, longevity, lacked goal support... a lot of the same things I liked about Henrik Lundqvist, but the playoff games I watched of him during the preliminary thread left me wanting. I thought there were too many games where I was more impressed by the opposing goalie, even in cases where I wouldn't have expected it, most notably Arturs Irbe vs Carolina. But the record is really good...

I can wait on CuJo. How many mid-60s births are we going to have in the top-40?

- Mikka Kiprusoff: I find Kipper to be a tough nut to crack. Only seven years as the undisputed starter in the NHL, though one season was wiped out entirely due to a lockout, and another season saw him nearly steal a Cup. But I always thought he was so good in those years where he did start. Hmm, another guy who could go either way for me, but I'd probably lean upper half than bottom half right now.

Again- LeSueur's career is too short, but Kiprusoff's isn't? And I like Kiprusoff, for the record. I think he should make it this round.

- Percy LeSueur: Not yet for me, certainly not so soon after Lehman, and I'd take Holmes over him too. I think those are easy guys to compare to, who both lasted much longer. I also have fewer questions about competition with Holmes than I do LeSueur, considering the fractured leagues of the ~1910 period. So if I'm not quite ready for Holmes, and I prefer him to LeSueur...

As someone pointed out earlier, we probably shouldn't be ranking players based on where other players have or haven't been placed. I'd also have some separation between Lehman and LeSueur, but that's because Lehman went too late, in my opinion.

I'm not sold on LeSueur; I think I've made that clear. But I don't think he is out of place here, and I feel like he is being dismissed out of hand for reasons that are being ignored for other goalies.

- Harry Lumley: I appreciate Mike Farkas's film work on him, but it's hard for me to put as much stock into that the further back we go, for two main reasons: one, we just have less film available and thus we don't get as big a sample, and two, the expectations for how the position is meant to be played has changed so much. I think I'll have Apple Cheeks in the middle of the pack. As with Barrasso, I greatly appreciate that he started so young yet kept it up for so long. I also appreciate that the Leafs deemed him good enough to trade an enormous haul for him in 1952, as he toiled away on the loser Black Hawks.

Why does the expectations of how the position is meant to be played matter?

- Chuck Rayner: Still too many questions for me. I mentioned earlier that it doesn't make sense to me how he got 'bad team goalie' Hart support when it's not clear why the Rangers were bad in the first place. Definitely someone we need more on.

Yeah, I'd like to see some more information on Rayner as well. Maybe I'll spend some time this weekend on it.

- Jonathan Quick: To be honest, never passed the eye test for me... too low to the ice, too much movement. Not my kind of goalie, even if he's lasted longer than I thought he would. I'll probably be lower on him than the group, but I don't think he's my least favourite here, if that's saying anything.

I like Quick, but I don't know if I like Quick this early. I feel like he is getting a lot of mileage for those couple of seasons, but even then, I don't remember feeling like he was one of the best 2-3 goalies in the league.

- Rogie Vachon: I thought he was really good in the Canada Cup, certainly more than I liked the two Czechoslovaks he was up against in the final, one of which is already inducted. But that's a very small sample, and I'll admit to having not watched games of the hapless Kings of this time. Did he play differently behind a much more competent Canada team than he did in Los Angeles?

Like Rayner, I need more on Vachon.

- John Vanbiesbrouck: I find him much preferrable to Barrasso. Less up and down, and I think at least just as good at his best. Liked him at the Canada Cup. He'll do well for me this week.

He's one of the few guys who I think better of right now as opposed to earlier in the week.

- Gump Worsley: I still think he's a comfortable NR. In the words of Canadiens1958 - where's the beef? A lot of years eating up minutes to little fanfare in New York, then an ultra-sheltered role with the Habs. Still a lot of guys I prefer.

Easy NR. Easy, easy, easy.

Same. I'm open to a case for him. But there's a lot of...stuff...going on during this time. Even the resident "give me every year in a firehose" isn't sold on him being the guy from this era to go.

I assume this is me, and I assume it is meant in a negative light. Can you explain what you mean so I can defend myself appropriately?

 

[Dr John Carlson]

If the Rayner Rangers were possibly not bad, then the Lumley Red Wings were an elite team that underachieved. Or we agree to retroactively amend prior lists so Jack Stewart, Sid Abel, Bill Quackenbush and Ted Lindsay get downgraded accordingly.

I'm not sure that I follow.

Let me try to clarify what I was asking about Rayner. This is the thought process: goalies on bad teams were more likely to receive Hart/All Star support during this time, likely because voters were more eager to recognize the workload that came from playing behind porous defenses. Rayner was well-received by postseason voters, getting three 2nd team placements, a Hart, and another two years with Hart support. So, was this support partially the result of voters being eager to recognize that he held together a bad team?

If it was, it seems weird to me, since the Rangers roster looks like it should've been better than the results would indicate. Compare Rayner's Hart winning roster to, say, Al Rollins's Hart winning roster. Rollins's leading scorer was a player who scored more points in 1954 than all of his other seasons combined, and the team as a whole was way worse offensively based on how far they finished behind the pack in goals for. It makes total sense that Rollins's Hart was partially due to playing on a bad team. It makes less sense for Rayner.

Then, that leads back to the original question of whether his award support was because of his play behind a bad team. Maybe it wasn't? To put it more succinctly, was Chuck Rayner receiving 'Al Rollins-type' award support, or was he receiving 'Frank Brimsek-type' award support? Somewhere in the middle?

Those guys aren't all exactly contemporaries, though. LeSueur was born in 1881, then Lehman in 1885, then Vezina (1887), Holmes (1888), Benedict (1892), and Hainsworth (1895).

I meant more that they all played in the aforementioned 'post-professionalism, pre-forward pass' time period, and that LeSueur's longevity looks worse compared to others in that period. Paddy Moran can of course be thrown into that mix, who was born four years earlier yet wrapped up at just about the same time as LeSueur. In fairness, would that have been the case if Clint Benedict was nipping at Paddy's heels in Quebec? Probably not.

I'll break my own project rules about ineligible players and ask you this: another LeSueur contemporary would be Riley Hern. In the preliminary thread, you said you previously underrated his longevity. How does his longevity look compared to LeSueur's?

Ah, yes, the pre-forward pass goalies had it easier argument. I guess we can check that box off.

Not quite how I meant for that to be interpreted. I don't think it's era bias to make the claim that I did, it just seems like common sense. No forward passing -> less lateral movement and fewer high danger chances -> less physical exertion and thus longer careers. I was saying this in the preliminary thread.

Obviously it's a big mark in Hainsworth's favour that he extended his career for so long even after 1929 as an old man.

I was too high on Holmes on my initial list, but it is starting to feel like the right place for him, in my opinion. You just dinged LeSueur for his career length, but now career length isn't enough to help Holmes?

See my previous paragraph. My argument is that LeSueur's shorter career length is more outside of the norm for good goaltenders of his day than Holmes's longer career length is.

I'll break the rule again. How does LeSueur's longevity compare against Billy Nicholson?

Again- LeSueur's career is too short, but Kiprusoff's isn't? And I like Kiprusoff, for the record. I think he should make it this round.

No, his career is short, and that's what my issue is with Kiprusoff. I agree.

Why does the expectations of how the position is meant to be played matter?

I'll have to clarify what I mean here. Looking at film of these older goalies, we're looking through the lens of somebody from 2024, who's been exposed to decades of improved technique designed to increase the percentages as much as possible in the goalie's favour. This has been accomplished through film, training, diet and exercise, stats, etc.

None of that was available to players like Harry Lumley, or at least not nearly to the same extent. The 'rules' of how to play goal weren't as clearly defined. Maybe the most clearly defined rule of the time was that you had to stay on your feet, because if you left your feet then the shooter can do whatever he wants. Fast forward a decade and Glenn Hall is breaking that rule. Fast forward another few decades and suddenly the whole rule has flipped - going down to make the save is now accepted, even encouraged at times.

That's just one example. The point I'm making is that I'm not sure how confident we can be in watching this old film and saying this guy's great or this guy's bad. We can look back at film and say Lumley was ahead of his time technically based on what we know now in 2024. Through the lens of hockey people in 1950, did they think Harry Lumley was ahead of his time technically? I know Mike Farkas showed he was an early example of a goalie coach, and that's a mark in his favour. But how far can that get us?

To put it another way, if we look back with our 2024 lens and assess another goalie as not holding up, would somebody with their 1950 lens argue the opposite? Example... Chuck Rayner?

Let me know if that's just mumbo jumbo...

 

[The Pale King]

This is where I'm at late in the round:

Outside of Quick and Kiprusoff, I don't love any of the guys in this round. Both of those guys I would feel great going into a playoff series with, including against a fair number of the goalies we've already ranked in the project. For the rest of the guys in the round, I don't mean they're "bad", but it's a challenge to weigh the (often significant) ugly parts against the gold, especially across eras.

Vanbiesbrouk looks good to me here as well. As mentioned upthread, it's not ideal that he loses his job to Richter (on that note, how does Richter squeeze a 7th in Vezina voting out of his 23 games in 89-90?), but he was really excellent for the Panthers. The Flyers certainly would have been in a better spot had they acquired him a year or two earlier in place of Snow or Hextall. He's got longevity, a high peak, and one legendary playoff run, and some post-career ugliness that possibly makes people not super willing to vouch for him.

I see parallels between Vachon and Lumley. Both lost their spot on what would go on to be dynasties to Sawchuk and Dryden respectively, then they have an really impressive run later on in the middle of the decade. I used to be a big champion for Vachon on this forum but now that he's in the Hall, I feel like I can lay off a bit. Both Rogie and Harry have very forgettable ends to their careers, with Vachon in particular I feel damaging his reputation. Vachon does have a really nice showing at the Canada Cup though. I give him the nod here.

Joseph and Fuhr are guys that are interesting to me in that they seemed to excel in polar-opposite circumstances. Joseph you wanted if you were an underdog in the first round, Fuhr seemed like he wouldn't blow things for you when there was perhaps more margin for error. Both guys seem to have a mid or late career season that gets them a lot of mileage in terms of public perception (Fuhr's 1996 that I dug into last round, Joseph's 1999 Vezina runner-up campaign). I'll see if I can dig up my old post about that season. TLDR is that the Leafs allowed basically the same amount of goals with Potvin in net the season before, but went from 2nd last to first in goals for. I'd still go with Joseph overall here. To segue into Barasso, he's shown that he absolutely can blow things for you, but those Pittsburgh d-corps were absolutely brutal, even the years they won the Cup. Fuhr's Oilers teams obviously played fire-wagon hockey, but on paper they have guys that could shut it down at least in Lowe, Huddy, and Smith.

For the group of 80s/90s guys that overlap substantially here, I have them as:
1. Vanbiesbrouk
2. Joseph
3. Barasso
4. Fuhr

They will not be consecutive on my list though.

I had Lesueur fairly high in my initial rankings. I don't have a great read on the older guys but I want to give him credit for his innovations with the glove as well as the net as well as what looks like a truly legendary middle-part haircut. The Senators felt comfortable enough with him to keep him there for what seems like a long time for the era, 7 years. I don't know how to feel about him in comparison with Hap Holmes here. I think I like both more than Hainsworth though.

Esposito has to go at some point, scrambles and all but it still feels a bit early. I like him enough to not NR him. Behind Vachon for sure though.

It's too early for Rayner. I had him ranked in the 50s on my initial list, and I'm starting to feel like that might have been too high. He's definitely behind Lumley in this group. No one has really gone to bat for him, he's probably a NR for me. Ditto for Worsely.