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

[Dr John Carlson]

Procedure

• In this vote, you will be presented with 14 players based on their ranking in the Round 1 aggregate list
• Players will be listed in alphabetical order to avoid creating bias
• You will submit ten names in a ranked order, #1 through #10, without ties via PM to both @Dr John Carlson and @Professor What. That means four names out of these fourteen will be left unranked on your ballot.
• Use the same private message thread every week rather than starting a new PM
• Results of this vote will be posted after each voting cycle, but the individual ballots themselves will remain secret until the completion of this project
• The top 5 players will be added to the final list (unless a very large break exists at the spot between 4&5 (or 3&4!), or the break between 5&6 is minimal)
• Lists of players eligible for voting will grow as the project continues
• Voting threads will continue until we have added 60 names to the list, for a total of 12 voting threads

Eligible Voters

• Ballots from voters who have submitted an approved Round 1 ranking of 80 goaltenders (which was used to shape the aggregate list) will have their votes tabulated in the final ranking
• These voters are: @nabby12, @overpass, @frisco, @Professor What, @DN28, @jigglysquishy, @tony d, @rmartin65, @Vilica, @bobholly39, @The Pale King, @blogofmike, @Dr John Carlson, @MXD, @Michael Farkas, @ContrarianGoaltender, @VanIslander, @seventieslord, @Weztex

Guidelines

• Respect each other. No horseplay or sophistry!
• Please refrain from excessive use of the 'laughing' reaction to indicate disagreement
• Stay on topic and don't get caught up in talking about non-eligible players
• Participate, but retain an open mind throughout the discussion
• Do not speculate who cast any particular ballot. Do not make judgments about the mindset of whoever cast that particular ballot. All individual ballots will be revealed at the end of the project
• Anybody may participate in the discussion, whether they submitted a list or not

House Rules

• Any attempts to derail a discussion thread with disrespect to old-time hockey will be met with frontier justice
• Take a drink when someone mentions the number of hockey registrations in a given era
• Finish your drink when someone mentions that wins are a team stat

The actual voting period will open up on Friday, November 22nd at midnight and continue through Sunday, November 24th at 11:59 PM Eastern time. I will release the results of the vote the morning of Monday, November 25th, at which point the next voting thread will begin.


Vote 3 Candidates

• Tom Barrasso
• Tony Esposito
• Grant Fuhr
• George Hainsworth
• Hap Holmes
• Curtis Joseph
• Miikka Kiprusoff
• Percy LeSueur
• Harry Lumley
• Chuck Rayner
• Jonathan Quick
• Rogie Vachon
• John Vanbiesbrouck
• Gump Worsley

Click to read more...

 

[rmartin65]

I'm in an unfortunate position this round (and likely several future rounds) because, while I think that LeSueur deserves a real shot to go in this round, I think that he is less great (or at least no greater than) than his contemporary Paddy Moran. If we put LeSueur in now (which, like I said, I think he deserves real consideration for), we will miss out on the opportunity to compare the two to one another, kind of like how I think this board would have benefited from a Benedict/Lehman discussion.

 

[bobholly39]

I know someone whose going to be happy to see Tom Barrasso.

On my end - I'm happy to see Quick. I feel sometimes he gets under appreciated vs some of his peers in the ~2010s.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Hope we get better discussion this round. 50% of voters have abandoned the discussions in general. Last week had like 30 posts in total, 50% of which were unrelated to the project.

 

[bobholly39]

I'm in an unfortunate position this round (and likely several future rounds) because, while I think that LeSueur deserves a real shot to go in this round, I think that he is less great (or at least no greater than) than his contemporary Paddy Moran. If we put LeSueur in now (which, like I said, I think he deserves real consideration for), we will miss out on the opportunity to compare the two to one another, kind of like how I think this board would have benefited from a Benedict/Lehman discussion.

Couple of things.

1. I really think for future projects, we should come up with a way to "wildcard-nominate" names to add earlier to the discussion, outside of the aggregate list rankings. It shouldn't be easy to do so, and there should definitely be a cap, but we could come up with some sort of system. I have a few ideas, but this probably isn't the place to get into it.

2. You still have to vote for the player based on who else is in this round, as opposed to who isn't. That's happened a few times for me in this project so far.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Vezina Shares

Stolen from @TheDevilMadeMe 's methodology and updated to 2024

There are 22 goalies with a 1.0 share or higher

	Goalie	Times	Share
1​	Martin Brodeur	15​	5.40​
2​	Dominik Hasek	11​	4.76​
3​	Patrick Roy	17​	4.63​
4​	Connor Hellebucyk	5​	2.63​
5​	Ed Belfour	11​	2.51​
6​	Pekka Rinne	5​	2.12​
7​	Andrei Vasilevsky	6​	2.05​
8​	Tom Barrasso	7​	1.98​
9​	Sergei Bobrovsky	6​	1.97​
10​	Henrik Lundqvist	10​	1.93​
11​	Grant Fuhr	8​	1.84​
12​	Braden Holtby	3​	1.68​
13​	Roberto Luongo	9​	1.66​
14​	Tim Thomas	3​	1.55​
15​	John Vanbiesbrouck	9​	1.52​
16​	Tuukka Rask	5​	1.50​
17​	Miikka Kiprusoff	7​	1.44​
18​	Carey Price	7​	1.40​
19​	Evgeni Nabokov	6​	1.23​
20​	Curtis Joseph	8​	1.02​
21​	Pete Peeters	3​	1.02​
22​	Igor Shesterkin	3​	1.02​

Jonathan Quick, the only eligible goalie from the Vezina voting era not in the above table, has a share of 0.75

Times top 3
Barrasso - 5 (1,2,2,2,3)
Fuhr - 4 (1,2,3,3)
Kiprusoff - 3 (1,2,3)
Joseph - 3 (2,3,3)
Vanbiesbrouck - 2 (1,2)
Quick - 2 (2,3)

All-Star Teams (1945 onwards)

Tony Esposito	3​	2​	2​	7​	23​
Tom Barrasso	1​	2​	1​	4​	12​
Grant Fuhr	1​	1​	2​	4​	10​
Harry Lumley	2​	0​	0​	2​	10​
Chuck Rayner	0​	3​	0​	3​	9​
Gump Worsley	1​	1​	0​	2​	8​
John Vanbiesbrouck	1​	1​	0​	2​	8​
Rogatien Vachon	0​	2​	0​	2​	6​
Miikka Kiprusoff	1​	0​	0​	1​	5​
Jonathan Quick	0​	1​	1​	2​	4​
Curtis Joseph	0​	0​	0​	0​	0​

 

[Michael Farkas]

Initial thoughts...

On the plus side...

Kip-Kip Hooray! Miikka Kiprusoff is available. Had him back to back with Hellebuyck on my initial list. Big fan of his. He's one of the very few that really survived and thrived from DPE to the open era. I had him around my other "short career, but big impact" guys like Hellebuyck, Gardiner, Durnan, [yet to be named, but backed up Quick last night]...

Jonathan Quick is available in a timely manner in my opinion, same with John Vanbiesbrouck - at least relative to a pretty herky jerky field. Quick had the best playoff run since the lockout (2012) and maybe the best for an even longer period, depending on how much you dock Giguere for his performance in the '03 Final.

People know that I love Harry Lumley...I just don't have anything more to say about him. Can I re-post my post and hope it generates some interest this time? haha

Ok, that's all the positivity I think I have...

- I don't find too much of a difference between Fuhr and Barrasso...and I don't find too much of a difference between them and Mike Vernon either. They went back to back to back on my initial list actually.

- Curtis Joseph is a weird one. He's worth digging in on, from my perspective, more in this round. He had a lot of tough competition, but I wonder a little bit about how he handled better competition. I had him right in the group with Fuhr/Barrasso/Vernon on my initial because I also found him to be a bit of a guesser and erratic...I could be talked out of that.

- Who the **** is Chuck Rayner? I don't mean that literally, of course...but what is he doing here now? First thing's first...how much better than Sugar Jim Henry was he really...? I'm excited to hear his case - if this is the appropriate round for that...

- Another appropriate coagulation appears with Vachon being up here with Esposito. A couple of sloppy 70's guys. I actually think Vachon is a step better than Espo. Neither belong this round though, for me.

- Then we have a player who turned pro as a winger, but wasn't good enough and someone else on the team had typhoid fever or whatever, so he hopped in net and, uhhh, here we are...somehow...haha

 

[Professor What]

Hope we get better discussion this round. 50% of voters have abandoned the discussions in general. Last week had like 30 posts in total, 50% of which were unrelated to the project.

I feel like I'm part of the problem there, but I'm just not sure what I can offer a lot of times other than a voice in the voting after consuming what others have to offer.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Tom Barrasso in the Finals

1991 Finals
North Stars win 5-4
Shots: Penguins 38 North Stars 29
Penguins 0 North Stars 1

The Pittsburgh Press · ‎May 16, 1991

Smith did that, too, scoring the North Stars' final goal with a backhand "I'm not going to sink very often." That's because he beat Barrasso with a soft shot to the short side of the net to give the North Stars a 5-3 lead 1:39 in the third period.

It would have been a tough night for Barrasso, even if his team had won the game. Barrasso was shaken up when he was slashed on the left arm by left winger Brian Propp about 8 1/2 minutes into the first period, then was struck in the groin by an Ulf Dahlen shot.

Pittsburgh wins 4-1
Shots: Penguins 31 North Stars 40
Penguins 1 North Stars 1

Observer-Reporter · ‎May 18, 1991

Without Tom Barrasso's goaltending, the Penguins' penalty killing, and an emotional lift from ailing defenseman Paul Coffey, Lemieux's goal may have been a sidelight in a lopsided loss.

Credit to Barrasso, who made 39 saves and rebounded from a shaky Game 1 start to serve up a star performance.

Lemieux's goal overshadowed the brilliant play of goaltender Tom Barrasso.

Minnesota wins 3-1
Shots: Penguins 30 North Stars 33
Penguins 1 North Stars 2

Observer-Reporter · ‎May 20, 1991

The Penguins' Tom Barrasso was splendid in the first period.

Minnesota goaltender Jon Casey, on the other hand, was hardly tested until the third period. Pittsburgh managed only 15 shots on him through the first two periods, but had 15 more in the third period.

Penguins win 5-3
Shots: Penguins 23 North Stars 38
Penguins 2 North Stars 2

Reading Eagle · ‎May 22, 1991

Barrasso was there to put up a stop sign.

Barrasso finished with 35 saves and was voted the No. 1 star of the game. "Barrasso had a great game our penalty killing was right on," Penguins coach Bob Johnson said.

Penguins win 6-4
Shots: Penguins 31 North Stars 25
Penguins 3 North Stars 2

Barrasso left at the end of the first period with a groin injury after being hit by Basil McRae

Observer-Reporter · ‎May 24, 1991

Barrasso did not look fluid on Minnesota's opening goal by Neal Broten.

Penguins win 8-0
Shots: Penguins 28 North Stars 39
Penguins 4 North Stars 2

The Spokesman-Review · ‎May 26, 1991

Barrasso a Secret Weapon

[Barrasso's] outstanding play in the decisive 8-0 win in Game Six came despite a groin pull and a nagging ankle injury.

Barrasso came out strong. He stopped the North Stars on three power plays and made 16 of his 39 saves in the first period. Over his last seven periods, he allowed just four goals.

Overall, a great series. He's the second most praised Penguin after Lemieux. Outside Recchi no other Penguin gets high praise. Lemieux is the clear star here and gets mentioned everywhere as dominating the North Stars. Sounds like a bit of a sloppy series, especially defensively.



1992 Finals
Penguins win 5-4
Shots: Penguins 39 Blackhawks 34
Penguins 1 Blackhawks 0

Observer-Reporter · ‎May 27, 1992

If the Edmonton Oilers of the 1980s are the measuring stick, then Boston coach Rick Bowness believes the Penguins might be the next NHL dynasty. In large part because of goaltender Tom Barrasso.
"The Edmonton Oilers were successful because they had premier players, but they also had a premier goaltender in Grant Fuhr," Bowness said. "Right now, Tom Barrasso is giving them the type of goaltending Grant Fuhr gave the Edmonton Oilers, which allowed them to play their type of game. With Jagr, Stevens, and Lemieux, Pittsburgh can come at you with three of the premier forwards in the world today. And they can come at you hard because they have Barrasso in the net.

Penguins win 3-1
Shots: Penguins 25 Blackhawks 19
Penguins 2 Blackhawks 0

The Spokesman-Review · ‎May 29, 1992

The big man scored the big goals again for the Pittsburgh Penguins. Mario Lemieux, who made the 1992 Stanley Cup playoffs his personal showcase...
"We have to come up with some tactic to stop Lemieux," Chicago coach Mike Keenan said. "He cashed in again tonight."

The way goaltender Tom Barrasso and the Pittsburgh defence played, that's all the goals the Penguins needed.

Penguins win 1-0
Shots: Penguins 20 Blackhawks 27
Penguins 3 Blackhawks 0

The Victoria Advocate · ‎May 31, 1992

With goaltender Tom Barrasso at his best - and luckiest-

Barrasso and the Penguins' defense formed a devastating combination for the Blackhawks on Saturday.

Barrasso was lucky, too - two Chicago shots hit the post in the first period.

Penguins win 6-5
Shots: Penguins 29 Blackhawks 29
Penguins 4 Blackhawks 0

Gainesville Sun · ‎Jun 2, 1992

The best "money goaltender" in hockey? Try Tom Barrasso.

Certainly, Barrasso is the beneficiary of a fine team.

Beaver Country Times · ‎Jun 3, 1992

[Lemieux on winning the Conn Smythe] "I thought it was Tommy's all the way," Lemieux said of goaltender Tom Barrasso. "I missed six games. And against Washington, Tommy was spectacular. And against New York, he was unbelievable. This should have gone to Tommy, that's for sure"

Again, very highly praised. The Lemieux praise is immense. Maybe the most praised a forward has been in any series I've come across. But Barrasso is second, with Stevens and Jagr getting praise too.


Across these two series, it's clear Lemieux is heads and shoulders above anyone else. But Barrasso is for sure the second most praised Penguin.

 

[rmartin65]

- Then we have a player who turned pro as a winger, but wasn't good enough and someone else on the team had typhoid fever or whatever, so he hopped in net and, uhhh, here we are...somehow...haha

From the Toronto Star, 20 February 1905 Page 10

LeSueur was 56 per cent of the Smith’s Falls team. He is said to be just as good a forward as he is a goal-tender, but they need him more on the defence, so he plays in the nets. The puck got by him eight times, but with anybody else in his place it would probably to add a cipher after the 8

I'd like to see some proof behind "turned pro as a winger, but wasn't good enough" claim.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I'd like to see some proof behind "turned pro as a winger, but wasn't good enough" claim.

Well, the only proof would be on film...and we don't have that. But a few things point towards that...

It was him that got stuffed in net. The best forward on a team or an impact forward...unlikely to be left stationary and unused for long stretches of time. It wasn't this "J.T. Rankin" fellow, for instance, who seems to routinely outscore LeSueur by quite a large margin in common games. There's a lot more mentions of LeSueur playing defense and bumping and grinding than doing anything special with the puck.

So, it seems like he was...fine...a fairly generic forward and, ultimately, expendable.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Miikka Kiprusoff in the Finals

2004 Finals
Flames win 4-1
Shots: Flames 19 Lightning 24
Flames 1 Lightning 0

Sarasota Herald-Tribune · ‎May 26, 2004

Kiprusoff cannot be overlooked in this series.

Lightning winger Martin St. Louis felt his team made it easy on Kiprusoff. "We need to make our presence felt," St. Louis said. "At this point in time, you don't need anyone to motivate yourself and bring out the desperation. You have to find it yourself."

They saw a goalie in Kiprusoff who plays with a poise the Bolts didn't see in the netminders faced in their previous three series.

Lightning wins 4-1
Shots: Flames 19 Lightning 31
Flames 1 Lightning 1

Lakeland Ledger · ‎May 28, 2004

The Lightning also saw that Calgary goalie Miikka Kiprusoff is indeed human.

The Item · ‎May 28, 2004

Miikka Kiprusoff kept it to 1-0 through two periods with a succession of key saves.

Flames win 3-0
Shots: Flames 18 Lightning 21
Flames 2 Lightning 1

St. Petersburg Times · ‎May 31, 2004

Flames goalie Miikka Kiprusoff is 7-1 in the postseason with a 1.17 GAA and a 0.953% SV% and four shutouts in games after a loss. He is 8-0 including the regular season in games after allowing four or more goals.

Kiprusoff has been solid in the final, not spectacular. But he has played all but 19 minutes in the playoffs with a 1.87 goals-against average, a playoff-high five shutouts and a .930 save percentage.

Lighting win 1-0
Shots: Flames 29 Lightning 24
Flames 2 Lightning 2

The Hour · ‎Jun 1, 2004

Kiprusoff was nearly as sharp as Khabibulin, but had almost no chance on the goal by Richards.

St. Petersburg Times · ‎Jun 1, 2004

Kiprusoff wasn't tested much, but made a handful of stellar saves when he needed to. He was beaten only on a five-on-three by a well-placed shot.

Calgary wins 3-2 in OT
Shots: Flames 36 Lightning 28
Flames 3 Lighting 2

Sarasota Herald-Tribune · ‎Jun 4, 2004

Kiprusoff held his own ground, and may have had the save of the playoffs [on Modin's one timer]

Lightning win 3-2 in OT
Shots: Flames 33 Lightning 27
Flames 3 Lighting 3

No relevant comments


Lightning wins 2-1
Shots: Flames 17 Lightning 15
Flames 3 Lighting 4

Regina Leader Post · ‎Jun 8, 2004
Calgary netminder, Miikka Kiprusoff, meanwhile, kept the Flames' hopes alive.


Regina Leader Post · ‎Jun 9, 2004

Miikka Kiprusoff still needs to solidify his standing among goaltenders. Venturing into these playoffs, many savvy pundits compared Calgary to last spring's Out-Of-Nowhere playoff entry, the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim. And that comparison came to fruition. The Ducklings, like the Flames, came up a tantalizing one game shy of the ultimate Disney ending.

Well, take a long look at what happened to Anaheim this season. JS Giguere, the 2003 Conn Smythe Trophy winner, struggled to rediscover his form and the whole thing went straight into the crapper and coach Mike Babcock's team tumbled out of the playoffs.

This is Kiprusoff's challenge next year. Maintain the absurdly high level he has established for himself. Which, naturally, is always easier said than done.

Overall, Kiprusoff is absolutely the most praised Flame. I remember this series live and he was definitely the star on the Flames.

I don't know if I'll do any post-lockout newspaper coverage. The volume and quality of newspaper reporting dropoff from the 90s to the 00s is very stark. Maybe only 10 or 15% of the words written on the 2004 Finals compared to the 1991 or 1992 Finals. And these eras all have ample video evidence.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Tom Barrasso in the Finals

1991 Finals
North Stars win 5-4
Shots: Penguins 38 North Stars 29
Penguins 0 North Stars 1

The Pittsburgh Press · ‎May 16, 1991



Pittsburgh wins 4-1
Shots: Penguins 31 North Stars 40
Penguins 1 North Stars 1

Observer-Reporter · ‎May 18, 1991



Minnesota wins 3-1
Shots: Penguins 30 North Stars 33
Penguins 1 North Stars 2

Observer-Reporter · ‎May 20, 1991



Penguins win 5-3
Shots: Penguins 23 North Stars 38
Penguins 2 North Stars 2

Reading Eagle · ‎May 22, 1991



Penguins win 6-4
Shots: Penguins 31 North Stars 25
Penguins 3 North Stars 2

Barrasso left at the end of the first period with a groin injury after being hit by Basil McRae

Observer-Reporter · ‎May 24, 1991



Penguins win 8-0
Shots: Penguins 28 North Stars 39
Penguins 4 North Stars 2

The Spokesman-Review · ‎May 26, 1991



Overall, a great series. He's the second most praised Penguin after Lemieux. Outside Recchi no other Penguin gets high praise. Lemieux is the clear star here and gets mentioned everywhere as dominating the North Stars. Sounds like a bit of a sloppy series, especially defensively.



1992 Finals
Penguins win 5-4
Shots: Penguins 39 Blackhawks 34
Penguins 1 Blackhawks 0

Observer-Reporter · ‎May 27, 1992



Penguins win 3-1
Shots: Penguins 25 Blackhawks 19
Penguins 2 Blackhawks 0

The Spokesman-Review · ‎May 29, 1992



Penguins win 1-0
Shots: Penguins 20 Blackhawks 27
Penguins 3 Blackhawks 0

The Victoria Advocate · ‎May 31, 1992



Penguins win 6-5
Shots: Penguins 29 Blackhawks 29
Penguins 4 Blackhawks 0

Gainesville Sun · ‎Jun 2, 1992


Beaver Country Times · ‎Jun 3, 1992



Again, very highly praised. The Lemieux praise is immense. Maybe the most praised a forward has been in any series I've come across. But Barrasso is second, with Stevens and Jagr getting praise too.


Across these two series, it's clear Lemieux is heads and shoulders above anyone else. But Barrasso is for sure the second most praised Penguin.

I don't have a source for this, but I've heard multiple times over the years that Barrasso was runner-up for the Conn Smythe in 1992.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Not that I'm necessarily advocating for him for this round, but quoting an old thread on Joseph (in anticipation of someone saying that he was only good as an underdog):

I think Joseph had bad luck on the relatively few times he was put in a position where his team was a contender:

• at the 2002 Olympics, Quinn's plan was to play Joseph in the first game, and Brodeur in the second game, and make a decision from there. That put Joseph at a disadvantage because Joseph played against a very good Swedish team, and Brodeur played against the Germans. Plus the Canadian team was disorganized and uncoordinated in the first game of the tournament. I'd have to go back and watch the games but, from what I recall, I didn't think that Brodeur played any better than Joseph taking into account the context of each game.
• his best chance in the NHL was in Detroit. He was absolutely used as the Red Wings' scapegoat. Subject to all the usual disclaimers about save percentage, Joseph stopped 93.1% of the shots he faced in the 2003 and 2004 playoffs. That ranks him 3rd highest out of 16 goalies in 10+ games (admittedly a small sample size). But the Red Wings scored 3.20 goals per game in the regular season those two years (tied for first in the NHL). They dropped to 1.88 goals per game (15th out of 17 teams who played in 10+ games). Detroit scored zero goals in the decisive games five and six against Calgary in 2004. Somehow it became Joseph's fault that Yzerman, Shanahan, Hull, Datsyuk and Robitaille combined to score 12 goals and 32 points in 83 playoff games.
• as for his two trips to the conference finals with Toronto - he was poor in 1999 against Buffalo. No excuses. But he played very well in 20002 against Carolina. From what I recall, he didn't have a single bad game. Five of the six games were decided by one goal. Toronto's top four players (Sundin, Mogilny, Roberts, Tucker) combined to score 3 goals and 9 points in 22 (combined) games against Irbe. I never understood why Joseph took the blame for this loss.
• I agree Joseph was underwhelming in the 1995 playoffs (the only year the Blues were legitimate contenders when he was there).

Ultimately, Joseph couldn't get it done during two good opportunities (1995 and 1999). Nobody is saying that he's Patrick Roy, but I don't think his reputation as a choker is fair.

 

[rmartin65]

Well, the only proof would be on film...and we don't have that. But a few things point towards that...

It was him that got stuffed in net. The best forward on a team or an impact forward...unlikely to be left stationary and unused for long stretches of time. It wasn't this "J.T. Rankin" fellow, for instance, who seems to routinely outscore LeSueur by quite a large margin in common games. There's a lot more mentions of LeSueur playing defense and bumping and grinding than doing anything special with the puck.

So, it seems like he was...fine...a fairly generic forward and, ultimately, expendable.

I'd argue that this would mean that LeSueur' game was more suited to playing goal (which was a defensive position) than the other forwards.

As for being outscored by Rankin- I mean, Cheechoo won the Rocket in 06, and I hope we can all agree that he was nowhere near the best or most impactful player in the NHL that year.

Unless we are going to reduce a forward's value to just goals, this argument doesn't work for me.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I don't think we're "reducing it" to goals...and I don't get the Cheechoo thing because I don't even know if this Rankin fella led anything in goals...I also don't get the relevance in general. But regardless, yeah, sure...maybe LeSueur was more suited to playing a game where he didn't have to move. He certainly wasn't peak value at forward haha - it's a little jarring that it wasn't one of the d-men or subs (did they exist in this league?). They took a starting forward.

Regardless, this doesn't do LeSueur any favors no matter what...whether he was a great forward or a ham n' egger...we're evaluating him on his goaltending relative to the history of the game. I'm going to be very interested to see what talking points we have about the goaltending just a touch before Vezina and Benedict...

 

[rmartin65]

I don't think we're "reducing it" to goals...and I don't get the Cheechoo thing because I don't even know if this Rankin fella led anything in goals...I also don't get the relevance in general. But regardless, yeah, sure...maybe LeSueur was more suited to playing a game where he didn't have to move. He certainly wasn't peak value at forward haha - it's a little jarring that it wasn't one of the d-men or subs (did they exist in this league?). They took a starting forward.

The Cheechoo example was just to illustrate that goals shouldn't be the end-all-be-all for the evaluation of forwards, which I think you can agree with. But since you brought up Rankin outscoring LeSueur as evidence that LeSueur "wasn't good enough" to play wing, I felt like it was necessary.

As for the bold: again, is scoring goals peak value for forwards? I don't think so, and I don't think you do either. Also, I have seen nothing to indicate that LeSueur was "more suited to playing a game where he didn't have to move". His game was more suited towards defense, which the goalie was back then. I'm not going to argue that at all, but it doesn't mean anything about his mobility. If you have any quotes about his poor skating ability (and players did get dinged for that- Pulford has several quotes calling him a poor skater) I'd like to see them, because it would only serve to further my opinion that Moran was the better goalie. Otherwise it kind of feels like you are throwing things against the wall to discredit LeSueur (and probably other pre-forward pass goalies, but that is just my interpretation).

For what it is worth, multiple teams would shift their better players to goal when their goalies had to serve penalties. It isn't like Bowie was being stuck in goal full time, but teams didn't always just put the point back there.

Anyway, I literally provided a quote up thread that claims LeSueur was 1) "just as good at forward as he is a goal-tender", and 2) his team "need[ed] him more on the defence [note that they said "on defense- more evidence to support my theory that goalies were thought of more as defenders than they are today]".

I'll take the contemporary quote on this one.

Regardless, this doesn't do LeSueur any favors no matter what...whether he was a great forward or a ham n' egger...we're evaluating him on his goaltending relative to the history of the game. I'm going to be very interested to see what talking points we have about the goaltending just a touch before Vezina and Benedict...

It certainly doesn't hurt him or other goalies of the era. And again, you were the first to bring up his time at forward, so I don't know why you are trying to shut down the discussion now.