HOH Top 60 Goaltenders of All Time (2024 Edition) - Round 2, Vote 7

[rmartin65]

And his longevity is a positive thing, not a negative.

Or it can be seen as compiling. How many times was he seen as one of the top 2-3 goalies? Once? His Vezina year, which always struck me as a career achievement award (supported by the fact that he wasn't even the choice in goal for the first all star team that year)? He consistently was looked at as a guy who cost his team games because he gave up bad goals with greater regularity than seemingly any other "top level' goalie around.

We are pumping the tires of a guy whose best selling point seems to be that he played a long time and for a lot of good teams. I need more than that for a top ~35 goalie of all time. Especially when we consider that we have already voted in at least 4 guys with significant post-lockout experience, and are now discussing another 3. Sometimes I think the HoH can be too harsh towards modern players, but I think we are swinging too far in the other direction at this point.

 

[bobholly39]

Or it can be seen as compiling. How many times was he seen as one of the top 2-3 goalies? Once? His Vezina year, which always struck me as a career achievement award (supported by the fact that he wasn't even the choice in goal for the first all star team that year)? He consistently was looked at as a guy who cost his team games because he gave up bad goals with greater regularity than seemingly any other "top level' goalie around.

We are pumping the tires of a guy whose best selling point seems to be that he played a long time and for a lot of good teams. I need more than that for a top ~35 goalie of all time. Especially when we consider that we have already voted in at least 4 guys with significant post-lockout experience, and are now discussing another 3. Sometimes I think the HoH can be too harsh towards modern players, but I think we are swinging too far in the other direction at this point.

Well, yes. Fleury definitely has some compiling.

But again - longevity is a good thing, not a bad thing. Compiling is less compelling then eliteness maybe, but it's still a positive, not a negative.

I like Fleury's resume because he does have a lot of "elite" moments in his career, sprinkled into a long career. So it's not just compiling. Some examples:

Vezina. Lifetime achievement award? I'm sure voters were happy to vote for him so that didn't hurt, but it doesn't mean that he wasn't deserving. I thought he was the best choice for Vezina that year.

Playoffs. He has at least 4 very significant playoff runs. For a goalie in this era, that's a lot. 2008, he was the best goalie in the playoffs, and it's a "smythe worthy run". 2009 - not as great overall, but he still won the cup, and was particularly excellent in games 6 and 7 of the finals to win. 2017 - stepped in when Murray went down, and was arguably playoff MVP through 2 rounds. 2018 - was smythe favorite going into the final on an expansion/underdog team (he didn't have a great final). That's quite good for "peak playoff".

2018 Season in Vegas. He was fantastic that season, and the impact of his performance cannot be understated. Without his amazing start - Vegas likely stumbles in the first season (everyone expected them to be bottom feeders)....doesn't make final in year 1....doesn't end up a perrenial cup contender as quickly as it happened etc. An unexpectedly great season for Fleury, and a huge impact on that franchise.

When we vote Fleury in - I agree that it won't be because he was a top 2 or 3 goalie in the world for many, many years. That's not his claim to fame. His claim to fame is that he was a #1 goalie in the league for almost 21 years, and was probably a top ~10 goalie for majority of his career, with some sprinkled in greatness. You vote him in because he has a fantastic overall resume, powered by longevity.

How much that's worth is up to each individual voter. I don't expect him to be my #1 in this vote, but good chance I have him near the top.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Fleury is an easy NR for make and will be the next couple rounds at least as well. I think he was only legitimately a top 5 goalie in the league a few times and spent most of his career in the 15-25 range. The Patrick Marleau of goalies.

For goalies who had teams wins despite them (Worsley, Vachon, Fleury) he contributed the least. Outside the one Vegas year, he has little to like outside Pittsburgh where at least Worsley has a competent decade with the Rangers and Vachon has a quite respectable run with the Kings.

Vachon, small gap, Worsley, big gap, Fleury.

In a 20 team league he spends a third of his career in the minors. In a six team league he is a career backup with only 5 years as a starter.

Hard to find a worse 4 year playoff run than 2010-2011-2012-2013.

Of the three active goalies up, he's very clearly last for me. And at least one more active goalie not yet available should go ahead of him too.

He makes the list, but he came up too early.

 

[rmartin65]

Well, yes. Fleury definitely has some compiling.

But again - longevity is a good thing, not a bad thing. Compiling is less compelling then eliteness maybe, but it's still a positive, not a negative.

Sure, it isn't a negative.

Going back to some previous players then- how did you feel about Dryden's lack of longevity? Carey Price's relative lack of longevity for the era? If longevity is a positive, wouldn't lack of longevity be a negative?

I like Fleury's resume because he does have a lot of "elite" moments in his career, sprinkled into a long career. So it's not just compiling. Some examples:

Lots of goalies have "elite moments" sprinkled into their career. Barrasso, to use another (former Pens) goalie, similarly had an inconsistent career with some high peaks.

Vezina. Lifetime achievement award? I'm sure voters were happy to vote for him so that didn't hurt, but it doesn't mean that he wasn't deserving. I thought he was the best choice for Vezina that year.

Vasilevskiy was the best choice that year, IMO. I think I'd also have taken Hellebuyck, too. I remember Varlamov having a strong year as well.

Playoffs. He has at least 4 very significant playoff runs. For a goalie in this era, that's a lot. 2008, he was the best goalie in the playoffs, and it's a "smythe worthy run". 2009 - not as great overall, but he still won the cup, and was particularly excellent in games 6 and 7 of the finals to win. 2017 - stepped in when Murray went down, and was arguably playoff MVP through 2 rounds. 2018 - was smythe favorite going into the final on an expansion/underdog team (he didn't have a great final). That's quite good for "peak playoff".

2008 was a great run, I agree. But 2009- he's the... 3rd? most important Penguin. 2017- if he was having that strong of a run, he wouldn't have been replaced by Murray. But he was, and the Penguins won the cup. With Fleury on the bench, and a kid who would have maybe another season or two of relevance in net, the Penguins won two Cups after YEARS of failing to do so.

The Penguins literally paid the Golden Knights to take Fleury.

2018 Season in Vegas. He was fantastic that season, and the impact of his performance cannot be understated. Without his amazing start - Vegas likely stumbles in the first season (everyone expected them to be bottom feeders)....doesn't make final in year 1....doesn't end up a perrenial cup contender as quickly as it happened etc. An unexpectedly great season for Fleury, and a huge impact on that franchise.

Are you talking 17-18? You are giving credit to MAF for that season? Despite what people thought, the Knights were actually good. Look at their track record, regardless of who has been in goal, they have been a consistently strong team.

They move on from MAF after 20-21, miss the playoffs. Alright, looks good for Fleury, right? However, this can easily be attributed to the injuries that Vegas suffered that year. With a healthy roster, the Knights win the Cup the next year despite a carousel of goalies.

When we vote Fleury in - I agree that it won't be because he was a top 2 or 3 goalie in the world for many, many years. That's not his claim to fame. His claim to fame is that he was a #1 goalie in the league for almost 21 years, and was probably a top ~10 goalie for majority of his career, with some sprinkled in greatness.

He was a top 10 goalie in a 30-32 team league?! That's the argument now? He was one of the top 30% of goalies? There have to be goalies with better arguments than that.

You vote him in because he has a fantastic overall resume, powered by longevity.

I'd argue his resume is powered by longevity and team success (sounds a lot like Worsely, honestly, and the group resoundingly rejected Worsely last round).

 

[Michael Farkas]

Fleury was the Conn Smythe favorite heading into the 2017 Eastern Conference Final. To call that NOT a strong run is nuts. Yes, they turned to Murray later in that series because Sullivan famously relies on youth...but that doesn't mean we get to cement over his unreal play in the process. If guys get credit for Harts in shortened 48 game seasons, we can spare a thought for half a Smythe haha

 

[jigglysquishy]

Curtis Joseph never made a Cup final, but he did make two Conference Finals. Since they are both losses, I'll also include the previous series he won.

1999 Playoffs
Penguins beat Leafs 2-0
Shots: Leafs 20 Penguins 19
Leafs 0 Penguins 1

The Leader-Post· May 8, 1999

The Penguins would have been up by two or three goals at the end of the first period, but not for some superb saves by Joseph. Barrasso's shutout was his first in the playoffs in three years.

Leafs win 4-2
Shots: Leafs 25 Penguins 27
Leafs 1 Penguins 1

The Leader-Post· May 10, 1999

Kip Miller and German Titov beat Curtis Joseph, who was at his acrobatic best.

Penguins win 4-3
Shots: Leafs 29 Penguins 21
Leafs 1 Penguins 2

The Leader-Post· May 12, 1999

The Penguins got only three shots in the third period, but scored on two in a game decided by a pair of frantic flurries.

Asked if it was unusual Pittsburgh won with so few shots in the pivotal period, Joseph said: "You'd think so, but this is a funny game."

Leafs win 3-2 in OT
Shots: Leafs 30 Penguins 14
Leafs 2 Penguins 2

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette · ‎May 14, 1999

There is little more at stake for Jaromir Jagr and Curtis Joseph. Jagr, the best player in the world during the NHL's regular season, is trying to prove he can carry his team when the lights are shining brightest.

Joseph knows what that's like. People in Toronto will tell you that you can keep Dominik Hasek, they'll take Joseph. He might have been the best goaltender in the league in the regular season, but these are the playoffs. He has never gone beyond the second round.

[Joseph] did more for the Maple Leafs than Jagr did for the Penguins. Toronto won a thriller, 3-2, in OT.

Leafs win 4-1
Shots: Leafs 20 Penguins 16
Leafs 3 Penguins 2

Beaver Country Times · ‎May 16, 1999

If they're going to be so picky as far as firing the puck at Curtis Joseph, they're going to have to do a better job of screening the Maple Leafs' goalie.

Leafs win 4-3 in OT
Shots: Leafs 30 Penguins 28
Leafs 4 Penguins 2

Beaver Country Times · ‎May 18, 1999

"Joseph played excellent all season long," Jagr said. "He's a great goalie. If you want to win a championship, you have to have a lot of skill players and a very good goalie. That is what they have right now."

There was better goaltending from both Toronto's Curtis Joseph and Pittsburgh's embattled Tom Barrasso than the two teams coming for seven goals would suggest.

Good series overall. Joseph is the most praised Leaf and second most praised player after Jagr. Leafs do a good job of preventing shots.



Sabres beat Leafs 5-4
Shots: Leafs 32 Sabres 21
Leafs 0 Sabres 1

Beaver Country Times · ‎May 24, 1999

The series was supposed to be a battle of two of the best goalies in the world - Hasek and Curtis Joseph of the Maple Leafs. Instead, it was a veritable rookie [Roloson] against Joseph, and it was the 10-year veteran who turned in the shaky game.

Joseph, who had allowed just 25 goals in 12 games and stopped 291 of 313 shots [0.930%) in leading the Maple Leafs past Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, allowed the five goals on Buffalo's first 19 shots.

Leafs beat Sabres 6-3
Shots: Leafs 28 Sabres 33
Leafs 1 Sabres 1

The Day · ‎May 26, 1999

It didn't take the Buffalo Sabres long to find out the real Curtis Joseph was back in the Toronto goal Tuesday night. Midway through the first period, Stu Barnes broke in alone on Joseph, in a bid to score the game's first goal. But Joseph smothered the hard shot, and less than two minutes later the Leafs had a 2-0 lead.

"You want to make those saves early," said Joseph, who finished with 30 stops. "You want to give your team confidence."

Sabres win 4-2. Hasek returns.
Shots: Leafs 26 Sabres 24
Leafs 1 Sabres 2

Observer-Reporter · ‎May 28, 1999

For a change, Dominik Hasek didn't dominate. This time his Buffalo Sabres teammates made it so he didn't have to.

After Joseph made a terrific pad save on Brian Holzinger in front, Barnes chopped in the rebound before the defense could react.

Sabres win 5-2. Joseph pulled after two periods
Shots: Leafs 33 Sabres 32
Leafs 1 Sabres 3

The Vindicator · ‎May 30, 1999

Buffalo put the game out of reach when its relentless attack forced the Toronto defence into mistake after mistake in front of beleaguered goalie Curtis Joseph.

The loss was another harsh setback for Joseph, who often spectacular goaltending during his first season with the Maple Leafs had been credited for allowing the younger players on the team to develop more quickly.

He was always there to atone for their mistakes, but not on this night.

Sabres win 4-2
Shots: Leafs 24 Sabres 22
Leafs 1 Sabres 4

The Leader-Post· ‎Jun 1, 1999

The Buffalo Sabres have proved, once and for all they contend, that they are not a bunch of nobodies riding on Dominik Hasek's goaltending pads.

Toronto needed goaltender Curtis Joseph to steal them a game in the series, but it never happened.

Well, the Sabres miss Hasek for two games and still win the series 4-1. As the last line said, Toronto needed Joseph to steal them a game and he didn't.


2002 Playoffs
Sens beat Leafs 5-0
Shots: Leafs 27 Sens 33
Leafs 0 Sens 1

Beaver Country Times · ‎May 5, 2002

You could see the writing on the wall for Curtis Joseph in Game 11. After giving up five goals in the first 30 minutes of the game, the Maple Leafs goalie was booed by fans and left in the game by coach Pat Quinn. Joseph has a broken glove hand, was playing on one day's rest and needed a mental and physical break. Yet, Quinn just left him in the game. That kind of treatment will ensure Joseph will not even consider the Leafs when he becomes a free agent July 1.

While many say Joseph's poor play is hurting his value on the free-agent market, he actually might be helping himself. The 35-year-old goalie is gutting it out to try to help his team win. That's a great sign for any team seeking his services.

Leafs beat Sens 3-2 in triple OT
Shots: Leafs 42 Sens 56
Leafs 1 Sens 1

The Leader-Post · ‎May 6, 2002

Anybody wondering if Curtis Joseph lost his bite should check out the teeth marks on the Senators. There are 54 of them - as in Joseph saves during the Maple Leafs' 3-2 overtime victory.

It was Joseph's finest postseason performance of the spring. He'd be un-Cujo-like ordinary. Yet, he retained his composure.

"We hung him out to dry int he first game," Shane Corson said of Joseph. "He deserved more than that because he's done such great job for us all year."

Sens win 3-2
Shots: Leafs 28 Sens 29
Leafs 1 Sens 2

The Leader-Post · ‎May 7, 2002

Coach and GM Pat Quinn said "I don't look at the two late goals as giving us confidence [Leafs were down 3-0]. I didn't like the way we were playing and Curtis Joseph gave us a chance."

Leafs win 2-1
Shots: Leafs 24 Sens 25
Leafs 2 Sens 2

The Leader-Post · ‎May 9, 2002

Joseph made several excellent stops for the Leafs and finished with 24 saves.

Sens win 4-2
Shots: Leafs 28 Sens 21
Leafs 2 Sens 3

No relevant comments. Joseph has an .850SV%


Leafs win 4-3
Shots: Leafs 19 Sens 23
Leafs 3 Sens 3

The Leader-Post · ‎May 14, 2002

Goaltender Curtis Joseph, who returned from a broken hand shortly before the playoffs, has looked ordinary at various junctures during the playoffs. The criticism of Joseph reached a nadir when he was referred to as "Joe Sieve" in a scathing newspaper headline. Joseph responded with one of his finest games of the season.

Leafs win 3-0
Shots: Leafs 27 Sens 19
Leafs 4 Sens 3

The Leader-Post · ‎May 15, 2002

Ottawa had the majority of the good scoring chances in the scoreless first period, but Joseph was outstanding.

Alexander Mogilny's two goals, one by Bryan McCabe, Curtis Joseph's goaltending and heroic defensive shot-blocking earned the Leafs a 3-0 victory.

Joseph, who has played progressively better each week...

Joseph registered the 14th - and certainly easiest - playoff shutout of his fine NHL career.

The puck seldom ended up anywhere near Joseph.

Leafs beat Hurricanes 2-1
Shots: Leafs 24 Hurricanes 32
Leafs 1 Hurricanes 0

The Leader-Post · ‎May 17, 2002

Alexander Mogilny and Jonas Hoglund scored and Curtis Joseph turned away 31 shots and Toronto ruined Carolina's first appearance in the Eastern Conference Finals.

Peppering Joseph for 15 shots in the opening 20 minutes.

Carolina wins 2-1 in OT
Shots: Leafs 27 Hurricanes 33
Leafs 1 Hurricanes 1

No relevant comments

Carolina wins 2-1 in OT
Shots: Leafs 21 Hurricanes 17 (oof)
Leafs 1 Hurricanes 2

The Leader-Post · ‎May 22, 2002

Carolina managed only 15 shots on goal in regulation time, but they got the only one that mattered in overtime.

Hurricanes win 3-0
Shots: Leafs 31 Hurricanes 15
Leafs 1 Hurricanes 3

No relevant comments


Leafs win 1-0
Shots: Leafs 19 Hurricanes 27
Leafs 2 Hurricanes 3

The Leader-Post · ‎May 27, 2002

Joseph was at his best in the third period when he stopped 15 shots as the Hurricanes dominated the play. Perhaps his finest save of the night came with about three minutes to play when he made a spectacular shoulder stop on Jeff O'Neill.

The BBC line of Brind'Amour, Battaglia and Cole combined for 14 of Carolinas' first 30 goals int eh playoffs, but hasn't put one by Joseph.

Hurricanes win 2-1 in OT
Shots: Leafs 36 Hurricanes 35
Leafs 2 Hurricanes 4

The Leader-Post · ‎May 29, 2002

"Arturs Irbe made the difference in this series and got us to the finals," said Carolina GM Jim Rutherford. Toronto's Curtis Joseph was outstanding, too. Both goalies played unbelievably well, but it's Carolina advancing.

A good, not great run. Back-to-back losses to Carolina where they don't hit 20 shots hurts. Getting cleanly outplayed by Irbe hurts. The Leafs media is all over Joseph and it sounds like his hand was never close to game-ready.


Overall, definitely get the picture of an inconsistent goalie with a good, not great team in front of him. I don't think he ever collapses in the losses, but he gets thoroughly outplayed by the opposing goalie both times.

 

[MXD]

Why?

All advocacy, no fact-finding.
Like, I see no real point in writing posts or even reading the thread anymore.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

All advocacy, no fact-finding.
Like, I see no real point in writing posts or even reading the thread anymore.

I'm exceptionally confused, because I see quite a bit of "fact-finding" and data being included in these threads. Care to elaborate on what's got you upset?

 

[jigglysquishy]

All advocacy, no fact-finding.
Like, I see no real point in writing posts or even reading the thread anymore.

You don't find the playoff reports to be "fact-finding"?

 

[Michael Farkas]

First hand player evaluation has uncovered all kinds of new facts about players that we never had before.

It is unfortunate that this list cannot possibly be independent. We're not capable of being sequestered, so there is a battle against a very thin but strong "consensus". But that's life on the internet...

 

[rmartin65]

Fleury was the Conn Smythe favorite heading into the 2017 Eastern Conference Final. To call that NOT a strong run is nuts. Yes, they turned to Murray later in that series because Sullivan famously relies on youth...but that doesn't mean we get to cement over his unreal play in the process. If guys get credit for Harts in shortened 48 game seasons, we can spare a thought for half a Smythe haha

Tim Thomas actually won a Conn Smythe, but I doubt I'll see you bring that up in his defense. There have been "elite moments" (to use @bobholly39 's phrase) where Bobrovskiy was seen as a Conn Smythe candidate, and again, I don't anticipate you rushing to his defense there.

The fact of the matter is the Pittsburgh Penguins won two Stanley Cups with MAF on the bench. Year after year of playoff disappointment with Fleury in net (to be fair, it wasn't always Fleury's fault), they make a switch and win two in a row. Even with MAF supposedly playing well, Sullivan chose to make that change.

Even if (and I think that is a big if) Sullivan made the wrong choice and Fleury gave the Penguins a better chance to win- what does it say about how important goal tending actually was to that team?

You don't find the playoff reports to be "fact-finding"?

I do, for what it is worth. I appreciate what you are doing.

All advocacy, no fact-finding.
Like, I see no real point in writing posts or even reading the thread anymore.

Perhaps I am part of the problem, because, while I do see a lot of advocacy, I also see a lot of fact finding.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Tim Thomas actually won a Conn Smythe, but I doubt I'll see you bring that up in his defense. There have been "elite moments" (to use @bobholly39 's phrase) where Bobrovskiy was seen as a Conn Smythe candidate, and again, I don't anticipate you rushing to his defense there.

Who? An irrelevant goalie getting an undeserved Smythe isn't on the table here.

This was in response to what you said. You made a claim, "if he was having that strong of a run, he wouldn't have been replaced by Murray."

That claim is being refuted. What that has to do with Sergei Bobrovsky, I'm not being obtuse here, when I say, "I don't know."

The fact of the matter is the Pittsburgh Penguins won two Stanley Cups with MAF on the bench. Year after year of playoff disappointment with Fleury in net (to be fair, it wasn't always Fleury's fault), they make a switch and win two in a row. Even with MAF supposedly playing well, Sullivan chose to make that change.

Even if (and I think that is a big if) Sullivan made the wrong choice and Fleury gave the Penguins a better chance to win- what does it say about how important goal tending actually was to that team?

Well, if goaltending wasn't that important to that team, I wouldn't have had Fleury as the Smythe favorite.

The Pens were outplayed quite a bit, as you may well recall, early in that playoffs. They were outshot pretty handily most games, we were missing our #1 d-man, we had undrafted rookies playing top line...it was Fleury bailing us out. He got replaced after one bad period (right after a shutout), and for whatever reason, that sort of went to the team's legs and they got on a roll...and you don't want to change a winning lineup.

Murray got hooked in the East Final the year before too. So that's how it goes sometimes...but I don't know who was watching those Fleury games in 2017 and going, "well, that's not important..." haha

 

[Professor What]

You don't find the playoff reports to be "fact-finding"?

They are, very much. I just came back on to read the one you posted earlier because I didn't have time to read it earlier, and I found all of the discussion. Keep doing what you're doing.

Perhaps I am part of the problem, because, while I do see a lot of advocacy, I also see a lot of fact finding.

You also keep doing what you're doing. We've been encouraging people to share their thoughts. I think that ideally you see plenty of both of them.

 

[rmartin65]

Who? An irrelevant goalie getting an undeserved Smythe isn't on the table here.

Come on, we've been mentioning goalies who aren't eligible in a particular round all project (sorry @Dr John Carlson !) You said the Fleury was a CS candidate; I replied that Thomas actually won a CS.

You can't have your cake and eat it too- either we care about the CS, or we don't.

This was in response to what you said. You made a claim, "if he was having that strong of a run, he wouldn't have been replaced by Murray."

And I stand by that. I would be shocked to learn that a coach would intentionally turn away from a goalie putting up a CS-worthy run.

That claim is being refuted. What that has to do with Sergei Bobrovsky, I'm not being obtuse here, when I say, "I don't know."

Bobrovskiy has had runs equal to Fleury's half playoff run. People talked about Bobrovskiy as a legitimate Conn Smythe candidate. That's it.

Well, if goaltending wasn't that important to that team, I wouldn't have had Fleury as the Smythe favorite.

Oh, you had him as a favorite. I guess the authority has spoken and we can move on.

The Pens were outplayed quite a bit, as you may well recall, early in that playoffs. They were outshot pretty handily most games, we were missing our #1 d-man, we had undrafted rookies playing top line...it was Fleury bailing us out. He got replaced after one bad period (right after a shutout), and for whatever reason, that sort of went to the team's legs and they got on a roll...and you don't want to change a winning lineup.

Yeah, I was shocked the Pens won that year; I definitely didn't expect it.

By your own admission, the Penguins replaced Fleury and it stimulated the team. I struggle to see how this is a positive note for Fleury.

Murray got hooked in the East Final the year before too. So that's how it goes sometimes...

And Murray isn't going to come up for debate this project. He got hooked... great. The team still went back to him and Murray was the one in the cage when the chips were down.

but I don't know who was watching those Fleury games in 2017 and going, "well, that's not important..." haha

Nowhere did I say that people were saying "that's not important". I think goaltending has always been important, dating way back into the 1880s.

I even qualified that statement with an "if". I personally think that having Murray in net vs Fleury was a big reason why the Penguins won those two Cups.

 

[bobholly39]

Sure, it isn't a negative.

Going back to some previous players then- how did you feel about Dryden's lack of longevity? Carey Price's relative lack of longevity for the era? If longevity is a positive, wouldn't lack of longevity be a negative?

Longevity hasn't been as important to me overall in this project. I know I've made a few comments along those lines previously. Normally, for positional forward rankings, I try to factor peak less than some others, but for goalies, peak and ability has generally been more important to me. So guys like Price or Dryden ranked high for me as a result. Another reason why I also like Quick here, with his 2012 playoff run which is possibly the best playoff run of any goalie left (minus Giguere).

But - for a few goalies where their longevity is just at an all-time high, I make an exception and find those resumes very attractive. I wanted to try and make a pitch for Brodeur at #1 based on his own incredible longevity, but I couldn't quite get there.

Fleury doesn't just have a bit of longevity, he's #2 all-time for wins. He has what....~18-19 seasons as a #1 goalie in this league? In an era where there's so much volatility among #1 goalies year over year. I just think it's impressive, and something I value at this stage in this project.

Lots of goalies have "elite moments" sprinkled into their career. Barrasso, to use another (former Pens) goalie, similarly had an inconsistent career with some high peaks.

Yes of course. I don't think Fleury's "elite moments" are necessarily the best in this group or anything - I'm just saying, he's not just a compiler/longevity with no elite moments.

He does have some elite moments too, and some significant ones. If all he was was a compiler (ie like a Mike Gartner), I'd like his resume less.

Barasso has nowhere near Fleury's longevity or consistency as a #1 goalie. He might have higher, or comparable peaks though.

Vasilevskiy was the best choice that year, IMO. I think I'd also have taken Hellebuyck, too. I remember Varlamov having a strong year as well.

Maybe you prefer Vasi. I don't think Fleury's Vezina was necessarily one of the strongest ever, but "lifetime achievement" is short-selling it. Lidstrom often gets said to have gotten a "lifetime achievement" Norris at age 40, when he maybe didn't deserve it. i don't think this is the same here. Fleury was 100% a worthy winner, even if you possibly prefered someone else.

2008 was a great run, I agree. But 2009- he's the... 3rd? most important Penguin. 2017- if he was having that strong of a run, he wouldn't have been replaced by Murray. But he was, and the Penguins won the cup. With Fleury on the bench, and a kid who would have maybe another season or two of relevance in net, the Penguins won two Cups after YEARS of failing to do so.

The Penguins literally paid the Golden Knights to take Fleury.

Yeah he was great in 2017 playoffs. The fact that coach opeted to go with Murray is fine, it's more about Pittsburgh having had moved on from Fleury, but it doesn't in anyway reflect on his level of play. He was probably the MVP favorite before they put Murray in (who himself also did great).

Penguins paying Golden Knights to take Fleury has no real bearing here. Since Fleury was obviously fantastic in Vegas, and this isn't a good move from Pittsburgh looking back.

Are you talking 17-18? You are giving credit to MAF for that season? Despite what people thought, the Knights were actually good. Look at their track record, regardless of who has been in goal, they have been a consistently strong team.

They move on from MAF after 20-21, miss the playoffs. Alright, looks good for Fleury, right? However, this can easily be attributed to the injuries that Vegas suffered that year. With a healthy roster, the Knights win the Cup the next year despite a carousel of goalies.

Almost no one expected Vegas to be good in year 1. The hockey world and fans were mostly crticizing the horrible way they ran their expansion draft. It was really a case of a team unexpectedly mcoming together and playing very well.

I think Fleury was a huge part of that success in year 1, and certainly in the playoffs.

Not really factoring in 21-22 and Vegas missing playoffs in anyway for Fleury.

He was a top 10 goalie in a 30-32 team league?! That's the argument now? He was one of the top 30% of goalies? There have to be goalies with better arguments than that.

I'd argue his resume is powered by longevity and team success (sounds a lot like Worsely, honestly, and the group resoundingly rejected Worsely last round).

I feel like you're twisting my words a bit. It's not the top 10 that is hugely commendable, it's the 21 years. Close to 21 years of being a top ~10 goalie.

It's true that Fleury had some "low lows", but never over a full season. He doesn't really have many "bad" seasons. Overall, he's been a consistent and reliable #1 goalie, for longer than almost anyone in history.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

It's surprising to me that such a group of less than great goalies could come up this quickly.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Come on, we've been mentioning goalies who aren't eligible in a particular round all project (sorry @Dr John Carlson !) You said the Fleury was a CS candidate; I replied that Thomas actually won a CS.

You can't have your cake and eat it too- either we care about the CS, or we don't.

Ok, back to binary world haha - then in that case I don't care about any stats, awards, or anything. I only care about talent evaluation. So...if those are the rules that we're gonna play by, I'm so incredibly game haha.

This method of argument doesn't work on me, because I'm willing to go nuclear. If it were up to me, we'd be sitting in a room watching film and figuring this out. So...if I'm not permitted to use the term "Conn Smythe" anymore because Fleury had half a Smythe run and Thomas got one that I don't believe he should have...that's weird, but fine. But let's start the project over with these rules, right? No sense doing this at the halfway point?

And I stand by that. I would be shocked to learn that a coach would intentionally turn away from a goalie putting up a CS-worthy run.

Yeah, we all were. But Murray had won a Cup last year, so he took a chance...he said it was the most difficult decision he's ever had to make. In some respects, we lucked out playing a very defensive Ottawa team who was being carried by Karlsson...so that helps a bit. But still...tough call. If it works, it's genius. If it failed, it would be looked at as a blunder. That's how it goes...

Bobrovskiy has had runs equal to Fleury's half playoff run. People talked about Bobrovskiy as a legitimate Conn Smythe candidate. That's it.


Oh, you had him as a favorite. I guess the authority has spoken and we can move on.

That's correct. I mean, who do you trust more? The guy who watches every second of every single playoff game every year or the writer who is asking players what "F1" means on the marker board? haha

But it's not like I was alone...it was pretty clear he was a standout: Buccigross: My Conn Smythe front-runners

Yeah, I was shocked the Pens won that year; I definitely didn't expect it.

By your own admission, the Penguins replaced Fleury and it stimulated the team. I struggle to see how this is a positive note for Fleury.

Fleury was bailing out a team trying to figure out what to do for 2 and a half rounds. If you can spin that into a negative, you can have the point...

 

[Michael Farkas]

It's surprising to me that such a group of less than great goalies could come up this quickly.

Yeah, it's too bad. It's a thin position, it's fragile...60 is a big number.

 

[rmartin65]

Ok, back to binary world haha - then in that case I don't care about any stats, awards, or anything. I only care about talent evaluation. So...if those are the rules that we're gonna play by, I'm so incredibly game haha.

Binary it may be- which is why we can't look at only awards finishes and stats- but I'm trying to figure out why you are so willing to discount awards and stats when they disagree with your opinion, but then turn around and accept the results from the same voting blocks when they support your case.

I feel like there is a difference between adding context (good) and selectively using data (bad).

This method of argument doesn't work on me, because I'm willing to go nuclear. If it were up to me, we'd be sitting in a room watching film and figuring this out. So...if I'm not permitted to use the term "Conn Smythe" anymore because Fleury had half a Smythe run and Thomas got one that I don't believe he should have...that's weird, but fine. But let's start the project over with these rules, right? No sense doing this at the halfway point?

Go nuclear, that's fine. I'm at the point where I am no longer enjoying the project, so I am thinking about sitting out a round or two. You all can keep ranking the goalies from the last 20 years because they have the best technique according to the 2024 understanding of the position. That's not the project I signed up for.

Yeah, we all were. But Murray had won a Cup last year, so he took a chance...he said it was the most difficult decision he's ever had to make. In some respects, we lucked out playing a very defensive Ottawa team who was being carried by Karlsson...so that helps a bit. But still...tough call. If it works, it's genius. If it failed, it would be looked at as a blunder. That's how it goes...

I guess we'll just have to add this to the (ever-growing) list of things we disagree on.

That's correct. I mean, who do you trust more? The guy who watches every second of every single playoff game every year or the writer who is asking players what "F1" means on the marker board? haha

Ugh, that was rough.

Anyway, I'm convinced- let's just use your list because you watch every second of every single playoff game every year. No need for us all to waste our time here.

But it's not like I was alone...it was pretty clear he was a standout: Buccigross: My Conn Smythe front-runners

People liked Bobrovskiy too; link and link

And I don't even really like Bobrovskiy this round. I think I'll have him above MAF and Quick, though, if we are talking about current players.

Fleury was bailing out a team trying to figure out what to do for 2 and a half rounds. If you can spin that into a negative, you can have the point...

I'm not spinning it into a negative, I'm saying he wasn't as good as you and @bobholly39 are saying.

And I'm not in this for points (although that this is where your mind went to explains stuff); I'm not/wasn't in this to win points or debates, I am/was trying to talk about goalies to both get a better understanding for myself and to hopefully contribute to others having the same experience. If your goal is winning, then I think you are doing a good job.

Yeah, it's too bad. It's a thin position, it's fragile...60 is a big number.

It gets even thinner when people don't give a real shot to goalies because they played too long ago.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Binary it may be- which is why we can't look at only awards finishes and stats- but I'm trying to figure out why you are so willing to discount awards and stats when they disagree with your opinion, but then turn around and accept the results from the same voting blocks when they support your case.

I feel like there is a difference between adding context (good) and selectively using data (bad).

Round and round...

I don't know what's not to get. You said a disparaging remark about Fleury's 2017 playoffs. I said a good thing about it and then sourced with contemporary opinion. I cannot figure out what I'm supposed to do differently here...

Go nuclear, that's fine. I'm at the point where I am no longer enjoying the project, so I am thinking about sitting out a round or two. You all can keep ranking the goalies from the last 20 years because they have the best technique according to the 2024 understanding of the position. That's not the project I signed up for.

That's not what happened. We went this down road already and you apologized once for making this baseless assertion. Why you'd get flustered enough to say it again is beyond me. It's just a conversation. I couldn't be more light-hearted if I tried...

I guess we'll just have to add this to the (ever-growing) list of things we disagree on.


Ugh, that was rough.

Anyway, I'm convinced- let's just use your list because you watch every second of every single playoff game every year. No need for us all to waste our time here.


People liked Bobrovskiy too; link and link

And I don't even really like Bobrovskiy this round. I think I'll have him above MAF and Quick, though, if we are talking about current players.

Great, so we agree.

I'm not spinning it into a negative, I'm saying he wasn't as good as you and @bobholly39 are saying.

But he was. And contemporary opinion thought that too. I think you barred me from citing stats, but up until the bad period he had a .931 save pct. too. But even if you don't think so...and that's fine. It's fine not to think that...to lash out and drag Bobrovsky's run 7 years later and Tim Thomas from whenever and the ol' gag about me only wanting goalies that played in the last 20 years thing into that...and just throwing it at the wall...that's where it's weird to me.

And I'm not in this for points (although that this is where your mind went to explains stuff); I'm not/wasn't in this to win points or debates, I am/was trying to talk about goalies to both get a better understanding for myself and to hopefully contribute to others having the same experience. If your goal is winning, then I think you are doing a good job.


It gets even thinner when people don't give a real shot to goalies because they played too long ago.

Oh...don't try to psycho-analyze me, you silly goose haha

"Ooh, you said 'points'! So that must mean..." Come on, what are we doing here? What's the next line, "I'm rubber and you're glue..." haha

Re: that last line. Remember, that still didn't happen.

 

[Professor What]

Okay, let's not let things get personal here. We're discussing goalies, not each other.

 

[rmartin65]

Congrats on the win, @Michael Farkas

 

[nabby12]

Unfortunately, Michael Farkas and Michael Farkas alone has taken all of the enjoyment out of this project. To the point, where myself and others, and now rmartin65 (a very respected HF member) are not interested in participating.

To piggyback off of rmartin65's comments, I'll go even further to say the language that Farkas uses when talking about goalies he doesn't like or rank high is incredibly disrespectful. And how he chooses to communicate with others here really puts people off. You're not the smartest person here or some authority figure on goalies.

There's zero respect for goalies of the past or ones he doesn't like. Just some of the things I've see Farkas post over the past little bit:

"Tony Esposito was not a very good goaltender." Of course he was a very good goalie. He's top 30 all time... Any goalie even being considered for this list is a very good goaltender, plain and simple.

"Bobrovsky is one of the worst playoff goalies of all time." Bob literally just won the Stanley Cup and carried his team to the final the year before. Won two Vezina's with Columbus. He's an incredible goalie.

"Earl Robertson and Lorne Chabot were very bad goalies." So disrespectful on so many levels, and just not accurate. No respect for the history of the game.

There's many more instances too. Just scroll back through his posts where I've added a "laughing" like to bookmark it.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Ah, vote me out then. I'll accept the decision with no protest and put my time towards something else. No hard feelings.

 

[bobholly39]

Ugh.

Can't we just talk hockey without getting all offended and upset if people say or post things others don't agree with? Why are people even getting so upset, I don't get it.