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

[Hockey Outsider]

Thanks for posting. This is largely consistent with what I remember. (I would have watched all, or almost all, of these games - not that my memory is infallible 20+ years later).

In 1999, he was excellent in round 1. In round 2 he struggled with peak Jagr (understandable) but was fairly good overall. The conference finals against Buffalo was probably a coin flip had Hasek been healthy. Joseph had a couple of really bad games and only went 1-1 facing off against an inexperienced Dwayne Roloson. Definitely a disappointing end, as this series was winnable. (Regardless, the Leafs would have been trounced by Dallas).

The 2002 summary excludes the 7 game war against the Islanders. That was one of the roughest series of the Dead Puck Era. Joseph was fairly good overall (but he had a couple of bad games). The entire team looked awful in game 1 against Ottawa (the Leafs only had one day to rest while the Sens had a full week - Joseph wasn't good but the entire team was horrendously outplayed). But he was lights out the rest of the way. Joseph held the Sens to 13 goals over the next 6 games (one of which went into triple OT). Keep in mind that Sundin missed the entire series. The Leafs absolutely should have lost, but Joseph won the series for them (and Gary Roberts).

I'll defend Joseph's play in the 2002 conference finals. He was excellent. "Outplayed by Arturs Irbe" isn't a great look, but I didn't see much difference in the actual performance. To the extent Joseph was blamed (and I don't recall much at the time), it was scapegoating. The Leafs big three scorers (Sundin, Mogilny and Roberts) combined for 2 goals and 2 assists in a six game series. The Leafs scored 3 goals in the final 4 games. If I've added this up correctly, they scored 4 goals over the final 355 minutes (0.67 goals per 60). Joseph did everything he realistically could have done. (Once again, the Leafs would have been absolutely trounced in the SC Finals, so the drought would have continued, but the forwards need to take the blame for this one).

Overall, during the Leafs two deep runs, I think Joseph had three excellent series (1999 Flyers, 2002 Sens, 2002 Canes), two good but not great series (1999 Pens, 2002 Isles), and one bad series (1999 Sabres).

A few more thoughts on Joseph (by the way, nobody should be using this as a substantive argument for or against him, I'm just sharing my recollections about these series:

I didn't talk about 2000 and 2001. Both had identical opponents and outcomes - a round 1 win against Ottawa, and a round 2 loss against the Devils.

In 2000, he was very strong against Ottawa. The Leafs finished a few points ahead in the standings, but it was expected to be a close series. He had one bad game but helped the Leafs win games that they probably should have lost (ie winning 1-0 in a game where they were outshot 30-20; winning an elimination game where the Leafs were outshot 38-24).

In the second round, going head to head against Brodeur in his prime, Joseph looked to be his equal. The Leafs lost in six, but they were poorly matched against the Devils, and were badly outplayed the whole round. (This was the infamous "six shots in an elimination game" series). He was the Leafs best player in most of the games (he helped Toronto win 2-1 in a game they were outshot 33-21; he lost 1-0 but held the Devils to only one goal in a game where they outshot the Leafs 33-20; he helped the Leafs win 3-2 in a game where they were outshot 36-22). He wasn't bad in the game six loss (two goals on 26 shots), and besides, what's a goalie going to do when Sergei Berezin singlehandedly takes half of the team's shots in an elimination game?

Joseph was even better in 2001 against Ottawa. This time, the Sens were the clear favourite (on paper - they finished 19 points ahead). Joseph very nearly had three consecutive shutouts (the Sens didn't score on him for the first 177 minutes of the series). Yes, only a four game sample size, but he had this aura of invincibility, very much like Roy on his strongest playoff runs. Stats aren't everything, but it's hard to ask for much more than a 97.6% save percentage and a 0.71 GAA.

The 2001 series against New Jersey was frustrating. The Leafs made it to game seven this time, but once again, they were very much outmatched. This was the worst of the four series I've talked about here, by a wide margin. Joseph was awful in game seven (but the Leafs as a whole were lifeless). He still had a few good games (he posted a shutout to help Toronto win a game they were outshot 32-17). Or there were games where he played well but the matchup was so one-sided I'm not sure if any goalie would have made a difference (keeping the Leafs close in a game that they eventually lost in OT, having been outshot 45-28). Brodeur wasn't very good this series either. I think it's literally true to say that Joseph was Brodeur's equal for the second year in a row (but last year they were both great, and this year they both disappointed). Joseph didn't cost the Leafs, but it's fair to say that he could have stolen the series with a stronger performance.

I know that Joseph's playoff performances get criticized, but he was very good in Toronto. By my count he was great to excellent in six series (1999 vs Flyers, 2000 vs Sens, 2000 vs Devils, 2001 vs Sens, 2002 vs Sens, 2002 vs Canes - not to get too stat heavy but his simple/unweighted save percentage was 94.1% and it's not because I'm cherry picking his wins because he actually lost two of these series). He was solid to good in three series (1999 vs Pens, 2002 vs Isles, 2002 vs Devils - the first two being "good enough to win" and the last one being "wouldn't have made a difference"). The only series that he actively cost them was 1999 vs Buffalo.

Lastly, a comment on the 2002 Olympics. I distinctly remember that Pat Quinn's plan was to play Joseph and Brodeur in the first two games, and see how it went from there. Intentionally or not, this was setting Joseph up for failure. Team Canada was disorganized in the first game, and they played a strong, skilled Swedish team (and were trounced). Brodeur played against Germany, a vastly weaker opponent, and the Canadian team was already starting to look more cohesive. I clearly remember thinking, at the time, that Brodeur didn't look any better than Joseph, and the difference in the results was due to the quality of their teammates and opponents. (It was rumoured, but never confirmed, that Quinn playing Brodeur for the remainder of the short tournament created a rift between them, and was responsible for Joseph going to Detroit as a free agent in the summer of 2002).

 

[blogofmike]

Does anyone have any thoughts on Kiprusoff's large home/road split in his stats? I believe it's the largest among goalies in the last 25 years or more.

Career Home: 197-89-37, 2.23 GAA, 0.919 SV%
Career Road: 122-124-34, 2.79 GAA, 0.906 SV%

And his backups, who rarely played, played a substantial portion of Calgary's second half of back to backs on the road. So he was getting an easier selection of road games, if anything.

Does anyone who followed the Flames remember if Kiprusoff was known to be better at home? Or was it the whole team?

Subsequent Calgary goalies haven't had the same pattern to their home/road splits.

Shot in the dark, but was this before west coast teams figured out how to travel east? There might be something in the East/West home/road splits

 

[bobholly39]

Bobrovsky is a weird one. His last two years have pulled the designation of "worst playoff goalie ever" away from him, but his team almost got reverse swept in the Finals. And that would have been the most Bobrovsky out-come of all. Him winning that game seven still feels cosmically wrong on some level. I mean, the guy has single-handedly scared GMs away from giving goalies those long, huge deals. In my eyes, that's his lasting legacy as much as the two Vezinas.

I used to be a huge Bobrosvky critic for playoffs in general, as well as for his performance after contract and the idea of giving a goalie like that such a contract.

But - the past few years have rehabiliated him big time on both fronts.

Reverse sweep? Sure, 'almost'. Does it matter though? If he doesn't steal game 1 (and it was such an amazing game 1 performance), series is completely different. And - he was rock solid in game 7. Sure - it gave Panther fans a lot of stress, but in the end, I rather he be dynamite for games 1 and 7 (and game 2), then just be ~so-so throughout, never stealing a game but never being overly bad. If he had done that - Oilers win the cup in 5 or 6 in my opinion.

As for his contract - I used to be a huge critic, but I definitely am not anymore. Money very well spent, and he's definitely earned his contract. When he started with Florida, he spent 2 years sucking in both regular season and playoffs. But he since has done a lot better in both regular season and playoffs, for almost 3 years straight.

I still don't think career-wise he's a very strong playoff goalie, but it's also no longer a big weakness.

 

[bobholly39]

Lastly, a comment on the 2002 Olympics. I distinctly remember that Pat Quinn's plan was to play Joseph and Brodeur in the first two games, and see how it went from there. Intentionally or not, this was setting Joseph up for failure. Team Canada was disorganized in the first game, and they played a strong, skilled Swedish team (and were trounced). Brodeur played against Germany, a vastly weaker opponent, and the Canadian team was already starting to look more cohesive. I clearly remember thinking, at the time, that Brodeur didn't look any better than Joseph, and the difference in the results was due to the quality of their teammates and opponents. (It was rumoured, but never confirmed, that Quinn playing Brodeur for the remainder of the short tournament created a rift between them, and was responsible for Joseph going to Detroit as a free agent in the summer of 2002).

I remember that too.

Honestly - after Patrick Roy in 1998 (rock-solid performance, even though they lost), and until Carey Price took over in 2014 & 2016 - I feel as though none of the Canadian goaltenders ever truly inspired confiderence.

Brodeur, Joseph, Luongo...they all seemed to struggle some, and seemed as likely to lose their spot then not.

Joseph specifically - I never though he did all that well internationally. He played some games, and he didn't do very bad, but also nothing too memorable. I do like his playoffs a lot - very strong, and very consistent performer. I agree with an earlier post that among all goalies in this round - he's one of the most capable of stealing a playoff game, and this at anytime in his career, not just at his peak.

 

[overpass]

Shot in the dark, but was this before west coast teams figured out how to travel east? There might be something in the East/West home/road splits

It could well have been travel-related. I looked at his road games by time zone. He was at his best in road games in the Mountain time zone, which is where he played his home games.

Road/Pacific time zone: 3.10 GAA, 0.897 SV%
Road/Mountain time zone: 2.41 GAA, 0.918 SV%
Road/Central time zone: 2.63 GAA, 0.906 SV%
Road/Eastern time zone: 2.84 GAA, 0.910 SV%

And he performed worse in road games that, for him, were three consecutive road games or more

1st/2nd road game: 2.63 GAA, 0.912 SV%
3rd+ road game: 3.18 GAA, 0.893 SV%

It's possible other goaltenders have splits in this direction as well, but nobody else in his era had overall home/road splits as large.

Why Kiprusoff in particular? Maybe it's because he played so many regular season games. Maybe he would have had better GAA and SV% numbers with a lower workload. Or maybe he had difficulty maintaining his 3 hour/day stretching routine on the road.

Does it matter? Maybe Kiprusoff was better suited to a playoff hockey travel schedule than the regular season. Maybe he was a better goalie than his regular season averages. Up to you if you want to take that into consideration.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

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.

I'm not surprised by this take.

I opted out before the rankings even started.

I could see that my level of knowledge on the subject was not up to snuff with Mr. Farkas. And Mike can seem rather harsh at times with his responses.

That said, I am still following this project because it's sooo informative. Having a completely different way of evaluating (the Farkas View) makes me consider the position and players that play it in a new way. And other posters are really taking a deep dive into the goalie world.

So, hopefully everyone continues on with the project. Getting down to the bottom of the list should really be a treat. I'm rooting for Cam Talbot and Tim Thomas!

 

[overpass]

Looking at Kiprusoff's performance month by month, there's a case that his heavy workload caused his road performance in particular to struggle.

Looking at his seven seasons from 2005-06 to 2011-12 where he played 70 or more games in each season, Kiprusoff had his largest home/road splits at the beginning and end of the season.

Player	Seasons	Months	Location	W	L	T	GAA	SV%
Miikka Kiprusoff	05-06 to 11-12	October	Home	24​	13​	4​	2.46​	0.911​
Miikka Kiprusoff	05-06 to 11-12	October	Road	11​	15​	4​	3.25​	0.892​

Kiprusoff was well known as a slow starter. Later in his career he started to take offseason training more seriously, and his October in 2011-12 was much better than earlier seasons. Looking at the home/road splits, his October performance was particularly poor on the road.

Player	Seasons	Months	Location	W	L	T	GAA	SV%
Miikka Kiprusoff	05-06 to 11-12	Nov-Dec	Home	57​	22​	10​	2.27​	0.915​
Miikka Kiprusoff	05-06 to 11-12	Nov-Dec	Road	39​	33​	7​	2.55​	0.913​

In November and December, Kiprusoff's road performance was much better.

Player	Seasons	Months	Location	W	L	T	GAA	SV%
Miikka Kiprusoff	05-06 to 11-12	Jan-Feb	Home	49​	22​	12​	2.09​	0.925​
Miikka Kiprusoff	05-06 to 11-12	Jan-Feb	Road	31​	21​	13​	2.67​	0.911​

In January and February, his road performance continued around the same level, and his home performance got even better.

Player	Seasons	Months	Location	W	L	T	GAA	SV%
Miikka Kiprusoff	05-06 to 11-12	Mar-Apr	Home	37​	15​	6​	2.16​	0.923​
Miikka Kiprusoff	05-06 to 11-12	Mar-Apr	Road	25​	27​	6​	2.99​	0.902​

And in March/April, his home performance continued to be very good, but his road performance dropped off.

Player	Seasons	Months	Location	W	L	T	GAA	SV%
Miikka Kiprusoff	05-06 to 11-12	Playoff	Home	7​	5​	0​	2.39​	0.920​
Miikka Kiprusoff	05-06 to 11-12	Playoff	Road	2​	11​	0​	3.42​	0.907​

Finally, in the playoffs of these 70+ GP seasons, Kiprusoff's road performance wasn't great. (His road performance in the 2004 playoff, when he wasn't overworked in the regular season, was much better).

I would suggest that Kiprusoff was overworked, which caused his late season performance and playoff performance to suffer. Kiprusoff was also not always in shape to start the season, causing his early performance to suffer. Neither of these are new ideas, I've heard them both before. What I would add is that when he wasn't at his best, it was his road performance in particular that dropped off.

Maybe with 10-15 fewer starts per season from 05-06 to 11-12, he wins 240 games instead of 273 games, but with a save percentage of 0.917 instead of 0.914, or so. And maybe the Flames win an extra game and a playoff round in 2006 or 2008.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Vachon and Worsley are tied at the hip because they split starts during the 60s Habs dynasty. But after looking at it holistically I do have Vachon firmly ahead.

Montreal Dynasty Years

1963-64
Worsley is traded from the Rangers to the Habs for his involvement in the player's union in the summer of 1963. At age 34, he's already one of the oldest players in the league. He spends the better part of two years in the minors as Charlie Hodge is starting for the Habs. It's a period of turmoil for Montreal goalies. In 1962-63, Plante is still the ace. Hodge is in the AHL.

Worsley is the starter in 1963-64, but gets hurt in an early game. Hodge takes the reigns and doesn't let them go. Montreal loses a 7 game series against the dynasty Leafs.

1964-65
Worsley (35) backs up Hodge all season. In game 3 of the first round against Toronto, Worsley starts as Hodge pulled his groin. Hodge was expected to start come the SCF, but Toe Black went with Worsley. They split starts in the finals. Worsley got the surprise game 7 start after Hodge has a good series.

Toe Blake started Worsley because "he might not be as nervous as Charlie".

Both Hodge and Worsley get praised. The Habs are very deep and multiple players get praised over the goalies, especially Beliveau.


1965-66
Worlsey is the starter all year and plays every playoff game. He gets praised a bit, but Montreal just thoroughly outplays the Black Hawks most of the series. Not within the 5 most praised Hab.

1966-67
Vachon (age 21) takes the starter job from 37 year old Worsley. Media is impressed at how good he is at such a young age. Vachon gets lots of praise. After game 4 Montreal coach Toe Blake said, "If Vachon doesn't save us there, I don't know what might have happened. We started stone cold. I began to wonder where my players were the night before."

Vachon is replaced by Worsley in the third period of game 5. One bad period and Toe Blake replaces Vachon with Worsley. He (or Beliveau) are the most praised Hab, but Sawchuk and Bower are the clear kings of the round.

1967-68
Worsley and Vachon split starts. Hard to call either the guy, but Worsley is the one who is tagged to start the playoffs.

Worsley has a strong round 1 against the Bruins where he is arguably the most praised Hab for the only playoff series of his career. Vachon. Worlsey gets hurt against the Black Hawks after getting hit by Bobby Hull and is replaced by Vachon. Worsley starts the finals and plays good, but the Habs dominate the Blues to such an extent it's hard to pull anything worthwhile from it.

1968 is a year where Montreal could have conceivably won with any of about 10 goalies in the world at that point.

1968-69
Vachon and Worsley split starts (with Esposito getting games in too). Toe Blake goes with Worsley to start the playoffs.

Worsley plays the first 1.5 rounds and is okay. After getting shelled 5-0 by the Bruins, he is replaced by Vachon. Hard to blame a 39 year old for getting replaced. An easy finals for the Habs, but Vachon is spoken of favourably.

1969-70
Vachon firmly starts over Worsley. Montreal misses the playoffs because of the expansion format. They are 5th in points overall, but miss. Worlsey is sent to the minors partway through the year and ends up getting traded to the North Stars.

1970-71
Ken Dryden steals the show with arguably the best goaltending performance by any goalie post-Bower/Sawchuk 1967 and pre-Roy 1993. Vachon is then dealt to the Kings.


They flip/flop starts throughout. Toe Blake has no hesitation to pull a goalie after a bad period and ride the other guy. He always went with Worsley to start the playoffs, but Vachon usually took the reigns.

In terms of praise, Vachon is comfortably praised more than Worsley is across these years. Worsley gets some noted criticism, particularly in 1966-67.



Both guys spent 50+% of their career on a team going nowhere. Either the 50s Rangers or the 70s Kings. Vachon is spoken of more favourably in contemporary opinions than Worsley was in the 50s. Obviously Worsley never had the opportunity to play internationally, but Vachon does earn credit for a very strong 1976 Canada Cup.

Overall, I do think Vachon is ahead. He's praised more on the Montreal dynasty, despite Toe Blake's preference to go with veterans. He's praised more away from the dynasty too. Neither was ever the start on the dynasty and were probably never a top 5 most important player in any single Cup run. It's definitely a case where goaltending is the weak spot on a dynasty.

I can see the case for Worsley, especially since maintaining a starting job in the 50s was harder. Being expected to carry the load in your late 30s is not reasonable, even if Bower did it.

 

[sr edler]

Give me more here...? (If you please). I really don't see as big of a gap as other folks. Three tiers below puts him down in like...what...Ron Hextall territory? Jon Casey?

There are no tiers down here, only fog. Btw, blaming Vernon only for Calgary's early 90s playoff woes is wildly myopic. Yes, Vernon wasn't an otherworldly world-beater, we all know that, few goalies are, but he wasn't the reason they lost in 94 to Vancouver at least. It was a hard-fought series and one team narrowly came out on top, which is what most often happens in tight series.

You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to find a 'mysterious' correlation in the Toronto Maple Leafs suddenly emerging from the basement and appearing in back-to-back Conference Finals in 93 & 94, with two former Calgary players (Macoun & Gilmour) playing key roles, while the Flames couldn't fight themselves out of a wet paper bag to save their lives with Nieuwendyk miscast as a 1C and most relevant depth gone in multiple other directions.

Also, you don't look like the 93 playoff Flames solely because of a suspect goalie, that's not how hockey works.

 

[frisco]

I don't like looking at playoff careers from such a "zoomed out" perspective. What does that tell us?

When we're looking at the totality of goalie performance from guys that played hundreds of games when ranking, I prefer a more overall view. When you get too granular with things like 8 second video clips or performances in one particular sequence or game or even one series, there's a great chance one misses the forest for the trees.

My Best-Carey

 

[Michael Farkas]

Comparing direct peers is always a nice perk in a round, so let's not waste that opportunity.

Call me a stickler, but I greatly prefer goalies that stay in the play instead of throwing themselves out of it. Just like I like my defenders to remain upright, instead of sliding uselessly across the ice.

A really good example of a goalie who keeps himself in the play vs. a goalie who throws himself out of the play here.

Back to Barrasso here in the '96 Eastern Conference Final.



As the puck goes out to the left point, he's in great shape. Wonderful depth. He's right on the shooting line, while being respectful of the threats near him - which he knows, in Pittsburgh, cannot generally be contained. Shot goes on net. All you have to do - and it sounds easy - is stay in the play. Instead, Barrasso chooses to lie down. Nothing he can do about the rebound because he's a side sleeper.



Again, Barrasso is sleeping on the job. It's a sudden change situation, a player on his backhand who isn't moving well. You can drop here, you can make a standup stop, but I don't mind dropping here...but throwing yourself on the floor is not the save selection here. This is a leaky goal.

And it's not like he wasn't capable...



This is a terrific stop. He processes this all quite quickly and he goes on the attack here. He has a defender on the inside, but he isn't actually doing much here (as was the standard through most of the later 90s on this team)...Barrasso doesn't want this player to get to his forehand because that's a player advantage. Watch as the Florida player gets to the hashmark at 20:07...Barrasso flashes the stick blade out. He's saying, "I'm not letting you go across my crease. If you're gonna beat me, it's gonna have to be on the backhand, big boy."

The shooter relents and takes the backhand shot. Barrasso gets tidy again, pulling the stick back in, matching speed coming back to some degree, and he butterflies into the save. Because he didn't go pad stack here, it's an easy chest save for him and there's no second chance. It's hard to go pad stack and NOT regurgitate pucks. Pad stack is more of a desperation move than a control move, right? If every move you make is desperation, how good is your game gonna be really?

If a quarterback threw a pass while jumping and throwing against the grain, what's gonna happen? Well, he's gonna have a lot of highlights...he's also gonna be the all time leader in interceptions.

I don't have Barrasso all the way at the bottom of my list or off of it because there's obviously some talent there. There's a process...sometimes. He's not just winging it...watch here, he's going to give a goal because that happens, but this is a pretty good process. He stays in the play here.



Puck swings around the net. He's checking for threats. Puck goes out to the point...long shot, gets tipped, he makes a good save in traffic. Now...sometimes he lies down in this spot. But not here. He stays with it. He moves with the puck and he would have had a real chance at FLA10's shot attempt (he whiffs). Then on the third opportunity, he's still in pretty good shape. Would I like a little more depth there? Sure. I'd love him to be more at the top of the crease there. But the moral of the story is, he's in the play. All I'm asking of this guy is: give yourself a chance to make a save. He does here in this 3-shot sequence. It doesn't go his way, but I look at it as generally a positive.

So we see...he could play well. He had the ability. But he just didn't bring that to the forefront nearly enough for whatever reason. And it cost the Penguins dearly in big spots.

Now, let's take a look at a guy who didn't have a lot of size, but he did have a lot of positional integrity. John Vanbiesbrouck, by comparison, keeps himself in the play much more often than Barrasso. Let's look at the tape...

I like to try to start with clear, non-complex situations.



This is a standard "dumb" 3 on 2. This is what a poorly coached team's 3 on 2 looks like. Why is it dumb? All three players are in a straight line. So, you basically kill a passing opportunity. Lanes AND layers. Lanes AND layers, boys. Width and depth if you want to maximize your attack.

Vanbiesbrouck can play this differently because the only reasonable way the puck can get across the net line to the wide guy is if he does it himself (i.e. a poor rebound). Shot from distance. Controlled rebound. I'll take that.

Now...on the re-group...the Pens smarten up. Player emerges from behind the net, now he passes it into the slot to the wrong hand. Beezer doesn't sell out to this. It's a pass to the slot, yes...but it's a poor one.

Beezer is a quick processor. Look at this depth. Zero. Why? Because this guy in the slot isn't in a position to shoot. So **** him.

Then you let it roll. Everyone with hockey sense knows where the puck is gonna go next. It's to that RHS on the far post. Beezer all but beats the pass over there THEN gets the depth and he swallows this shooter up. He takes a tough situation and makes it look incredibly routine because of his reads and the fact that he didn't throw himself out of the play.

Here comes some non-dumb players...



Look at the motion into the save on Lemieux. If you're thinking, "hey, that kind of reminded me of Miikka Kiprusoff's save when he came across the crease" - you're right. Similar process. Similar result.

Point shot save. Fall on the floor and go for a light swim? No thanks, I'd rather stay in the play...



He's involved in a 3+ shot attempt sequence here. But he plays it real cool.

Beezer played 22 playoff games in '96 - just two times did he yield more than 3 goals (both were 4 spots). Comparatively, Barrasso really played just 9 games in that same playoffs...he gave up 4+ goals in 4 of them!

In 1992, the time Barrasso actually gets praise, he gave up 4+ in 7 of 21 games (he was 5-0 (!) when he gave up 4 or 5 goals in that playoff...talk about great help).

In '92 Belfour just 4 of 18 were 4+ goal games for comparison.

Whether you look at the box score or you look at the tape, it just screams "inconsistency!". Up and down. That's not what I'm looking for in big spots with my goalie. I want something more reliable. Give me Beezer over Barrasso.

 

[MadArcand]

There are no tiers down here, only fog. Btw, blaming Vernon only for Calgary's early 90s playoff woes is wildly myopic. Yes, Vernon wasn't an otherworldly world-beater, we all know that, few goalies are, but he wasn't the reason they lost in 94 to Vancouver at least. It was a hard-fought series and one team narrowly came out on top, which is what most often happens in tight series.

You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to find a 'mysterious' correlation in the Toronto Maple Leafs suddenly emerging from the basement and appearing in back-to-back Conference Finals in 93 & 94, with two former Calgary players (Macoun & Gilmour) playing key roles, while the Flames couldn't fight themselves out of a wet paper bag to save their lives with Nieuwendyk miscast as a 1C and most relevant depth gone in multiple other directions.

Also, you don't look like the 93 playoff Flames solely because of a suspect goalie, that's not how hockey works.

Talk about myopic, looking at things with Canucks tinted glasses. That series was not supposed to be close fought, Calgary has been the heavy favourite. And yet...

Game 1, Flames outshoot Canucks, but McLean pitches a shutout while Vernon sets the tone by imploding for 5 goals on 28 shots.
Game 2, he repeats the exact same abysmal performance, but is bailed out by Flames scoring 7.
Game 3, he plays well and Flames win 4-2.
Game 4, he has an actually great game, Flames win 3-2 and are now up 3-1 in the series.
Game 5, he has another good game but allows a Geoff Courtnall slapshot from beyond the left circle in the OT to lose Flames the game.
Game 6, he's mediocre at best and again allows an OT winner, a goal that Mike must love, as he ends his save against a point shot by sitting on his ass staring into the void and gets scored on off the rebound.
Game 7, another mediocre game and OT loss, where he first allows in a late Adams goal to tie it (where he flops down to let him walk around him), then gets famously owned by Bure in OT.

This is a reverse Roy in 93, anti clutch performance.

Btw Nieuwendyk in 93 was so bad that he scored 3+6 in 6 games. Fleury was 2ppg, team had 6 ppg players, got 3 goals apiece even from pure defensive defensemen in Yawney and Dahlquist... and lost because Vernon and Reese couldn't stop a beachball between the two of them. This was a team with absolutely no faith in their goaltending desperately trying to outscore the sieves, but being outdone by the most heinous goaltending ever seen.


Btw2, majority of the suckage mentioned in the previous post happened with Gilmour there. Even he couldn't make a save in Vernon's stead, you know...

 

[VanIslander]

Compiling?

For a goalie that is a net positive more often than not.

Cujo is a suspect case.

Sportscenter used to pimp him galore, and then he would lose against a key opponent, and there would be a pause and then rinse and repeat. (The Internet was not a huge factor in hockey until this century).

Curtis Joseph had a reputation of excelling against bad teams but ****ing the bed against good teams in the clutch.

 

[DN28]

Re: Worsley vs. Vachon. I'd still argue in favor of Worsley, even if Vachon may have been praised during their shared time in Montreal.

I'm searching hard for anything of substance in Vachon's prime outside 1974, 1975 & 1977 seasons and I'm not finding anything. Vachon's game fell apart around 1978, when he was 32-33 y/o. At the same age, Worsley only started in Montreal and had more than a decade of play ahead of him.

There is just so much more to Worsley's career. Gets into NHL in 1953 and wins Calder trophy.

Asks for a pay increase of $500 and gets demoted. Wins the WHL MVP in 1954 and Rangers take him back in spite of having Bower.

Worsley is 3rd team all-star and 3rd in Hart voting in 1956 after Rangers qualified for the playoffs 1st time in 5 years.

During 10 seasons with the Rangers, the club made the playoffs 4 times. Yet Worsley posted SV% well above the league average cumulatively which is quite a feat in the 6-team league. This is the era with less than 10 goalies playing. Rangers is arguably the most poorly ran team over this period. His Rangers part of his career suggests Worsley gave his team the best possible goaltending they could hope for given the circumstances... other than trading for a more elite goalie which they did in 1963 when Worsley became involved in the establishment of a players' union.

Worsley had a rough start with the Habs, playing more in AHL during 1964 & 1965. He had every reason to "give up", to take it easy and calmly finishing off the career in the minors. After all, Worsley went through a lot of injuries even for an O6 goalie. To quote from Wikipedia:

Worsley suffered many injuries during his career. While with Vancouver of the WHL, he sustained a back injury that nearly ended his career when Gus Kyle hit him from behind. He also suffered a knee problem in the 1956 playoffs that required surgery; a severed tendon in 1960; a blistering shot from Bobby Hull that hit him in the forehead in 1961; a pulled hamstring that same year; another pulled hamstring in 1963–64; knee surgery in 1966; a sprained knee, then a concussion from a hard-boiled egg thrown by a New York fan; a broken finger in the 1969 playoffs; a pulled hamstring in 1972–73 that forced his temporary retirement. The blast to the forehead from Bobby Hull knocked him unconscious and sent him to Montreal's Royal Victoria Hospital. Upon awakening, asked how he was feeling, Gump replied: "Good thing the puck hit me flat!"

Worsley became the AHL 1st all-star goalie in 1964, goes back to Habs and helps them to win cups.

During the dynasty (1965-1969), Montreal Canadiens regular season goalies:
Worsley posted 0.916 in 158 games.
Vachon 0.909 in 94 games.
Hodge 0.906 in 116 games.

Same team and same time frame during the playoffs:
Worsley posted 0.931 in 39 games.
Vachon 0.938 in 19 games.
Hodge 0.925 in 5 games.

Worsley struggled with the fear of flying which (among other things) led his path to Minnesota. 4 and half seasons spent in the expansion North Stars, Worsley (age 40-44) still recorded the SV% above the league average in every single season with the North Stars.

I noticed that 42 y/o Gump had particularly good the 1972 season. 0.933 in 34 games - 3rd best in GSAA that year behind Dryden and Esposito. Then posts 0.935 in 4 playoff games. North Stars lost the quarter-final series with the Blues 3-4.

Worsley finished 4th in '72 NHL all-star voting.

Worsley received non-negligible all-star goalie votes throughout his career from the 1950s through 1960s up to 1970s. No goalie here has better longevity.

I enjoyed the post by @Michael Farkas about Worsley's poor technique. I'm not here to defend Gump's technique, I think a combination of his past soccer experience and injuries contributed to Worsley's less structured style.

But then, isn't it all the more impressive what Worsley actually achieved? And how he kept overcoming the obstacles put in front of him? I view Worsley as a goalie who by far made the most of what he had been given at the starting line.

Earlier someone asked "where's the beef" with Worsley? Well, out of this group of goalies, I see no other netminder with more "beef" than Worsley. He has the stats on his side, he has the all-star votes on his side. He has meaningful longevity on his side including the experience and team success with very different organizations he played for through 3 decades.

I'll have Worsley 1st in my ballot this week.

 

[DN28]

Past discussion threads have definitely shown how diverging the standards we vote on can be. Era considerations, playoff/team success, goaltending style and accompanying video demonstrations, and the validity of award voting...

Yet, if I were to say that we should prefer stable goalies with a more reliable record over volatile ones with an up-and-down track record, I think most people would nod in agreement with this standard.

But are we consistent in applying such a standard?

To be more specific, I don’t understand the debate between Vanbiesbrouck, Joseph, and Barrasso. I’d place Barrasso tiers below the other two. And I’ll admit, I’ve always ranked Fuhr below both Beezer and Joseph as well.

When Vanbiesbrouck or Joseph had their worst seasons, they were still league-average starting goalies. When Barrasso had his down seasons, he was at the level of a serviceable backup. And when Fuhr had his down seasons, he was arguably the worst goalie in the NHL.

There’s a lot of value in a goalie who, even when struggling, can maintain a level of play around the league average. The team can adjust its system, work with it, and hope for better results in the playoffs.

There’s not much you can hope for if, in a given season, you’re stuck with the worst goalie in a 30-team league.

What I’m essentially arguing is that we should consider the floor of the goalies in question. Barrasso finishing five times in the top three of Vezina voting? That’s great. But what about his five worst seasons? How do those compare to the five worst seasons of JVB’s and CuJo’s careers?

I hope I’m not the only one who evaluates goalies this way. When I played the sport, I didn’t want a goalie who would ‘win me games.’ I just wanted a goalie who would lose games for me the least amount of times.