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.

Vanbiesbrouck 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. Vanbiesbrouck
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.

 

[MXD]

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?

(This is mostly me spitballing - nothing should be considered absolute truth... other than the bolded)

To me, the Rangers roster is clearly worse than the Leafs, the Habs and the Wings, and also clearly worst than the Bruins at the top-end. It was also probably worst than than the Hawks at the top-end of forwards over the duration. The Rangers probably had better depth than the Hawks, and... what, probably on par with the Bruins? The Habs had great D depth but a bit thin on forwards past Punch Line.

Rangers roster looks okay on paper, but a part of this is because there is a lot of guys who adequate NHLers in that specific timeframe - though quite a few were past their primes - while the general caliber wasn't at its highest. And those adequate players amount to a team that was arguably better as a whole than only one team (Hawks), key word being arguably.

They weren't outclassed the way the Rollins '54 Hawks were outclassed. Besides, isn't it widely acknowledged that the '54 Hart was some kind of compensation for the '53 Hart?

 

[frisco]

Beezer vs. Fuhr vs. Barrasso vs. Joseph in the playoffs.

Beezer 28-38, 0 Cups
Barrasso 61-54, 2 Cups
Fuhr 92-50, 4 Cups
Joseph 63-66, 0 Cups

I cannot generate much enthusiasm for Vanbiesbrouck.

My Best-Carey

 

[VanIslander]

Beezer vs. Fuhr vs. Barrasso vs. Joseph in the playoffs.

Beezer 28-38, 0 Cups
Barrasso 61-54, 2 Cups
Fuhr 92-50, 4 Cups
Joseph 63-66, 0 Cups

I cannot generate much enthusiasm for Vanbiesbrouck.

My Best-Carey

On team stats in playoff wins and cups,...

I have never judged goalies i've seen like that. Though it has been tempting with Plante vs. Sawchuk vs. Hall... before my time.

Well, i have seen the entire career of Fuhr and the Beezer, and the difference between them here should be razor thin. But stats mongers demand stats. Hopefully, in the end, history will remember them of the same tier (why don't we have tier drafts? - illuminate gaps instead of splitting hairs); albeit of very different team situations.

 

[rmartin65]

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.

Hockey and the culture surrounding it changed so rapidly at that time; I don't think we can lump all goalies who played in that era as contemporaries. I won't argue that LeSueur had relatively poor longevity relative to some of his high-level peers; he clearly played less high-level seasons than some of the other guys he played against. My point is that you were using the wrong players to prove this point, and, later, it looked like you were not applying this criteria consistently across the group of players in this project.

But yes, Moran's longevity was superior to LeSueur's. I am pro-Moran in this argument, so...

It's too bad so many people deep-sixed him on the preliminary list.

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?

Hern is another good example, and yeah, one who I would argue had superior longevity to LeSueur.

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.

We can easily flip that around and say less/worse equipment (meaning more pain) and less compensation (meaning less incentive to play) makes it less likely for goalies to have longer careers.

We can point to outliers all day. [EDIT- cut a section because I get to it later] Hasek played until he was 46. So did Plante. Should we compare all these other 1965 (or later) births to that kind of longevity?

LeSueur wasn't even that young when he retired- 35. That is older than Tretiak (32), Dryden (32), Gardiner (30), Durnan (34), Parent (34), and Holecek (34), just to look at players already on the list (it's early- please excuse any math errors). EDIT to add: ages taken from birth year, so it is likely that I'm off by a year in some cases. END EDIT

How much of LeSueur's relative lack of longevity is the lack of information we have on LeSueur's early career? Granted, it was probably as a forward... but do we hold that against him here?

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.

Maybe it means that the forward pass wasn't this impossible obstacle that previous goalies couldn't handle.

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.

Ah, I must have missed where that was stated. My apologies.

That's probably true- as I alluded to earlier, I think we'd get more accurate results if we bracketed players by birth year as opposed to just lumping all the pre-merger guys together, but I bet we can pull this data and actually check. If you select the top 5 guys from the 1883-1893 birth year bracket and get those numbers, I'll grab the top 5 1876-1886 guys and we can take a look.

EDIT- I realized that I basically have a good data set already from when I went through the HoF. It isn't necessarily the best players of the birth year brackets, but it is readily available. I'm trying to move quickly, so the final season age column is just final season minus birth year- I'm sure there are a couple spots where I am off by a couple months. I'm largely just using the seasons as according to Wikipedia. I think this artificially inflates Lehman's numbers a bit, because he played his first couple seasons (and, oddly, a later season) in a poor league, but since he is in both data sets it doesn't really matter. I tried to ignore seasons that were clear outliers in terms of games played- mostly just guys who played seasons of 3 or 4 games at the end of their careers. All numbers were (quickly) compiled in good faith. If anyone points out any errors, I'll be glad to fix the tables.

For LeSueur (HoF goalies born 1876-1886):

Name	Career (Years)	Career (Seasons)	Final Season Age
Paddy Moran	1902-1917	16	40
Bouse Hutton	1899-1904 ; 1909	7	27 ; 32
Riley Hern	1898-1911	14	34
Percy LeSueur	1904-1916	13	35
Hugh Lehman	1904-1928	24	42
Average	N/A	14.8	35.6 or 36.6 (Hutton)

For Holmes (HoF goalies born 1883-1893):

Name	Career (Years)	Career (Seasons)	Final Season Age
Hugh Lehman	1904-1928	24	42
Georges Vezina	1910-1925	16	38
Hap Holmes	1909-1928	19	40
Clint Benedict	1910-1931	22	39
George Hainsworth	1913-1936	23	43
Average	N/A	20.8	40.4

Like I said above, the numbers were compiled quickly- point out any errors you see. I am also not a numbers guy so please let me know if these aren't good metrics to use for this exercise.

But, assuming all the information is acceptable, LeSueur's career length is 1.8 seasons shorter than the average, and he retired .6 or 1.6 years years before the average, depending on how you want to deal with Hutton's 1909 season in the FHL. Speaking of Bouse- man, if there is ever a guy whose longevity should be questioned...

Holmes' career was also 1.8 seasons shorter than the average, and he retired .4 years before the average.

This looks pretty close to a wash to me. I think it also shows why birth year is a better gauge for this era than assuming the pre-consolidation era can be considered as a single block.

END EDIT

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

Definitely worse. Again, you aren't exactly breaking my heart here.

Nicholson had crazy good longevity, and did it in multiple leagues and situations. He played on good teams, bad teams, in East Canada, in the IPHL, even in the West a bit. And he was, until the end, among the top-tier guys. He was 39 when his career ended.

I'm not necessarily arguing for LeSueur; I am arguing against not giving him a real glance because he played pre-forward pass or whatever the argument is.

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

Whose career length was more out of the norm, LeSueur, or Kiprusoff?

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...

Nah man, that makes perfect sense to me. I am all about looking at these players within the context of their environment, what was expected of the position at the time. It's basically the crux of my arguments here, haha.

The only thing I'd push back on- and it is a small thing- is why would Lumley being a goalie coach be a mark in his favor? Does Mitch Korn sneak onto our list?

 

[Michael Farkas]

I'm not necessarily arguing for LeSueur; I am arguing against not giving him a real glance because he played pre-forward pass or whatever the argument is.

The argument against LeSueur isn't pre-forward pass. It's that the experts of the annals - like yourself - are strongly suggesting, "this isn't my guy in this general block of goalies"...

I'd rather get those guys in a better, more correct-ish order because - as we see - that order might matter for future projects and might impact future feelings on those players. Personally, I'm leaning on someone like you to help lay out that roadmap and then I'll go back and read and see there's anything between the lines that jumps out at me. And then I bring that to this thread and someone like you will tell me whether that makes sense in the context of the world or why it doesn't.

 

[rmartin65]

The argument against LeSueur isn't pre-forward pass. It's that the experts of the annals - like yourself - are strongly suggesting, "this isn't my guy in this general block of goalies"...

I'm not sure that's accurate- there are multiple mentions of goalies having it easier due to... reasons... including the absence of the forward pass.

I'd rather get those guys in a better, more correct-ish order because - as we see - that order might matter for future projects and might impact future feelings on those players. Personally, I'm leaning on someone like you to help lay out that roadmap and then I'll go back and read and see there's anything between the lines that jumps out at me. And then I bring that to this thread and someone like you will tell me whether that makes sense in the context of the world or why it doesn't.

I don't think that is in the spirit of the exercise- Moran isn't eligible here. If we think LeSueur is better than (some of) the goalies eligible here, we should rank him accordingly, whether or not we get the Moran/LeSueur thing "right" (as of how I see it, of course). As you said in another thread- and I may be paraphrasing- smart people don't compound mistakes. In my opinion, it was a mistake to have LeSueur ahead of Moran, but also in my opinion, it is a mistake to not give LeSueur a real fair shake this round just because Moran isn't eligible.

Plus, I have very little confidence that what I say matters. I wrote several posts in the pre-discussion/research thread on the old-time goalies, and based on how the names are coming up, I doubt that they impact/swayed anyone then. Directly talking about Moran/LeSueur, I straight-up said that I preferred Moran to LeSueur, providing quotes and all-star teams, and still here we are, talking about LeSueur first. Why should I expect it to be any different here in round 2?

LeSueur isn't first on my list this round. I don't think he should be first on anybody's list here. But, in my opinion, he is historically greater than several names eligible this round. And my goal is to try to make people see that, while being fair, accurate, and holistic in regards to the information I am providing.

Beezer vs. Fuhr vs. Barrasso vs. Joseph in the playoffs.

Beezer 28-38, 0 Cups
Barrasso 61-54, 2 Cups
Fuhr 92-50, 4 Cups
Joseph 63-66, 0 Cups

I cannot generate much enthusiasm for Vanbiesbrouck.

My Best-Carey

Big yikes on this take. Are we really just going to look at stats- or worse- team-based stats here?

 

[VanIslander]

Anyone of my generation would be embarrassed by being associated with Barrasso. He is a clear tier or more below the others here.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Plus, I have very little confidence that what I say matters. I wrote several posts in the pre-discussion/research thread on the old-time goalies, and based on how the names are coming up, I doubt that they impact/swayed anyone then

Perception and canon are difficult to chip away at. I've found that it takes more than a week haha

Stay with it if you know the score. Don't settle. You may well be right and you're the only one that knows it right now.

Re: LeSueur being better than some other guys...well, that's a tougher nut to crack, of course. It really depends on what names specifically and do we have enough deserving names to not disparage LeSueur, but also get him pitted against his peers in a meaningful way.

There's basically two, maybe three goalies that are really worth it here for my tastes. So, something is gonna likely suck haha

 

[VanIslander]

Sure

 

[Michael Farkas]

Anyone of my generation would be embarrassed by being associated with Barrasso. He is a clear tier or more below the others here.

Tell us more...?

 

[rmartin65]

Perception and canon are difficult to chip away at. I've found that it takes more than a week haha

I initially laid the groundwork for this about 18-ish months ago during the pre-consolidation project. If I'm remembering correctly, I wasn't 100% behind the idea like I am now, but I raised the issue then. As I've read more game summaries, more post-career analysis from those who watched them and/or played with/against them, I've really become convinced that I am right. But this isn't an idea brand new to the boards that I'm bringing up for the first time this week.

Stay with it if you know the score. Don't settle. You may well be right and you're the only one that knows it right now.

I'm stubborn, so I have no intention on settling. I just don't have any faith that it will do anything, and I don't think that we should be putting off a player who looks pretty good in this group of players (as I have tried to illustrate) based on a conversation maybe happens however many weeks into the future.

Re: LeSueur being better than some other guys...well, that's a tougher nut to crack, of course. It really depends on what names specifically and do we have enough deserving names to not disparage LeSueur, but also get him pitted against his peers in a meaningful way.

It's the whole crux of the project, right? Comparing the relative greatness of goalies throughout the history of hockey. We don't need to compare LeSueur against just his peers any more than we should be comparing someone like Lumley against just his peers. It is, in my opinion, ranking LeSueur's greatness vs his peers vs Lumley's greatness vs his peers and looking at the details that help make that distinction make sense.

There's basically two, maybe three goalies that are really worth it here for my tastes. So, something is gonna likely suck haha

Haha, we agree on something! Not a great group of names, IMO. And we almost certainly don't like all the same names, haha. Maybe this is a good week for us to vote-in 2-3 guys to get us back to that 5 per round goal.

 

[Michael Farkas]

It would be a blessing to only vote two names this round. These rounds I thought be the toughest because there's a lot of guys that don't belong and a lot of guys that do aren't available yet.

We extended discussion by a week before to be more thorough...now, I want to move a week forward just to see if the headmaster spits out some worthwhile names haha

C'est la vie...

I got:
Lumley >>> Rayner
Kipper > Quick
Fuhr, Barrasso, and CuJo are sort of take your choice. Especially the first two. CuJo gets a lot of love here...I was disappointed that there wasn't more of a push for him. I was expecting to get the ol' timeshare sales pitch on him.

Beezer, like Quick and CuJo, I could be convinced either way. I just don't have strong feelings on them. Quick is probably the best of the trio...

Vachon > Espo and Gump

What's the feeling on Holmes vs. LeSueur? I'm guessing the latter has more praise relatively speaking?

 

[jigglysquishy]

I have Holmes ahead of LeSueur. I think he gets more consistent praise.

I'm absolutely on board with Moran ahead of LeSueur too.

I have both Esposito and Hainsworth high this round.

 

[MXD]

I mean, I guess I see the argument for Lumley being ranked above Rayner if longevity is being weighted very heavily, and absolutely no credit should be given to hockey played out in the NHL during the war years (in a situation where Lumley can't even be possibly discredited due to his age).

In other words, if you stack the deck as much as possible in favors of factors that favour Lumley.

I'm NR'ing Lumley this round, along with Fuhr, Barrasso and someone else, probably Worsley. Rayner probably gets lower half support, though I do think he probably deserves a bump on top of that due to some collateral bad faith arguing.

 

[frisco]

Big yikes on this take. Are we really just going to look at stats- or worse- team-based stats here?

It's more data. What's wrong with looking at stats along with video, newspaper quotes and all the information we can get our hands on when making lists?

My Best-Carey

 

[rmartin65]

It's more data. What's wrong with looking at stats along with video, newspaper quotes and all the information we can get our hands on when making lists?

My Best-Carey

Nothing wrong with more information, but team-based stats have to be pretty low on the priority list, right?

Percy LeSueur went 7-2 in SC games, winning 2 cups. That looks better than all of those guys you mentioned except maaaayyyyybe Fuhr, if Cup-counting is important to you. So if we are looking to be consistent and the metrics you provided (playoff wins and SC wins) are something you value, one would expect to see LeSueur rank high on your list this round.

Edit: Hap Holmes, looking at Wiki for the numbers, went 21-21-1 in the playoffs, and famously won 4 cups with 4 different teams. I'd also expect to see him do well with you this round if playoff success is your thing.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

It's more data. What's wrong with looking at stats along with video, newspaper quotes and all the information we can get our hands on when making lists?

My Best-Carey

Looking at a goalie's win/loss record doesn't necessarily tell you much about his performance. The outcome of a game is half based on a team's offense (which a goalie doesn't meaningfully contribute to) and even for goal prevention, that's half based on the team's defense. Ultimately, W/L is attributing 100% of the outcome to a goalie when he really only controls about one-quarter of what happens on the ice.

In this post, I look at support neutral wins and losses. In other words, based on the goalie's performance, how many games would we expect him to win and lose, playing behind league average offense and defense. It's a rough approximation obviously, but it's probably an improvement on the original stat.

Based on this method, Fuhr drops from 92-50 to 72-65 (still a good result, but his W/L record was clearly boosted by playing behind probably the greatest offensive team in NHL history). Barrasso's record doesn't change much (61-54 vs 59-56). Joseph looks much better (63-66 vs 69-60) as he was persistently let down by low-scoring teammates. I didn't post the numbers for Beezer (probably he didn't meet a games played threshold) but I can look it up later today if anyone is curious.

(EDIT - this can be refined further by limiting it to a player's prime years. I'm not sure if it's overly relevant that Fuhr turned in a sub-90% save percentage performance at age 36, for example).

 

[frisco]

Looking at a goalie's win/loss record doesn't necessarily tell you much about his performance.

It's an objective data point. In combination with hundreds of other pieces of information, it contributes to understanding of the quality of a netminder.

My Best-Carey

 

[frisco]

Nothing wrong with more information, but team-based stats have to be pretty low on the priority list, right?

Percy LeSueur went 7-2 in SC games, winning 2 cups. That looks better than all of those guys you mentioned except maaaayyyyybe Fuhr, if Cup-counting is important to you. So if we are looking to be consistent and the metrics you provided (playoff wins and SC wins) are something you value, one would expect to see LeSueur rank high on your list this round.

Edit: Hap Holmes, looking at Wiki for the numbers, went 21-21-1 in the playoffs, and famously won 4 cups with 4 different teams. I'd also expect to see him do well with you this round if playoff success is your thing.

Yes, I'm an idiot. I am purely looking at playoff W-L record when evaluating goaltenders without any context and all other factors completely ignored.

So playoff wins are not important. That's why Roy's 151 wins should be ignored as happenstance? Or Vanbiesbrouck's 28-38 record as just purely the whims of random variation?

My Best-Carey

 

[rmartin65]

Yes, I'm an idiot. I am purely looking at playoff W-L record when evaluating goaltenders without any context and all other factors completely ignored.

No one is calling you an idiot. I just noticed that in the 8 posts you had made in this thread before that post, 5 of them were pretty much just focused on playoff wins/losses and Stanley Cups. I therefore deduced that that is a metric that is important to you, because if it wasn't, why would you talk about it so much? By extension, if playoff success is important to you, I assume that LeSueur and Holmes do well on your ballot, since they have a pretty nice record of playoff success.

So playoff wins are not important. That's why Roy's 151 wins should be ignored as happenstance? Or Vanbiesbrouck's 28-38 record as just purely the whims of random variation?

Point to where someone here is saying they should be ignored.

 

[Professor What]

I have Holmes ahead of LeSueur. I think he gets more consistent praise.

I'm absolutely on board with Moran ahead of LeSueur too.

I have both Esposito and Hainsworth high this round.

I'm high on Hainsworth this round too. Also high on Holmes.

I've got Esposito and LeSueur middle of the pack here. I agree that I'd like to see the comparison between LeSueur and Moran. I think I missed pretty badly with Moran on my initial list though, so if it doesn't happen, I guess I'm part of the reason why. Even so, I feel like we're getting to the point that LeSueur should get some consideration.

I still think we're in range for Esposito as well. I don't think he's going in this round, though I could be proven wrong. I feel like it's soon though. I get all the stuff about his technique not being the greatest or even being bad, but at some point it has to come back to results, and a guy pulling his piece of the load. You can criticize Esposito in the playoffs all day long, and he has been. But the regular season record has to count for something.