HOH Top 60 Goaltenders of All Time (2024 Edition) - Round 2, Vote 8

MadArcand

Whaletarded
Dec 19, 2006
5,979
515
Seat of the Empire
Moog ran into a lot of strong opposition in the playoffs. His teams were eliminated by:

93 Sabres
94 Canucks
97 Oilers
Is this a joke? .512, .506, .494. "Strong opposition, Liut killed by breeze."

Meanwhile the reality of Liut's opponents (bolded if worse record than Liut's team's):
.544 CHI
.463 NYR
.450 CHI
.650 CHI
.550 MIN
.544 MTL
.450 QUE
.644 MTL
.631 BOS
.550 PIT
2/10

Out of 10 series he lost, only twice did Liut lose to an inferior team. Superpowered Habs, Bruins & Pens apparently count for nothing.

Meanwhile Fuhr's losses:
.556 CGY
.569 LAK
.425 MIN
.607 MTL
.573 DET
.628 DET
.695 DAL
2/7

Moog's losses:
.688 NYI
.600 NYI
.619 EDM
.719 MTL
.563 EDM
.550 PIT

.544 PIT
.512 BUF
.506 VAN

.729 DET
.494 EDM
.543 BUF
5/12

Liut and Fuhr similar, Moog far behind, QED
 

The Pale King

Go easy on those Mango Giapanes brother...
Sep 24, 2011
3,244
2,715
Zeballos
Regular season points vs. playoff opponent is not a metric I've really considered before. But just because I'm curious, all six of J. Quick's series losses were to teams that finished ahead of the Kings in the standings. He never lost to an underdog. He also looks damn good in the series clinching/elimination games table. All of this is exactly what the eye test would tell you.

The only times his teams had a higher points percentage than their playoff opponents was against the Devils and Rangers in the Stanley Cup finals, and once against the Sharks in 2012-13. The Blackhawks and Kings had an identical points percentage in 2013-14, the second year they met in the WCF.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nabby12

blogofmike

Registered User
Dec 16, 2010
2,341
1,179
Is this a joke? .512, .506, .494. "Strong opposition, Liut killed by breeze."

Meanwhile the reality of Liut's opponents (bolded if worse record than Liut's team's):
.544 CHI
.463 NYR
.450 CHI
.650 CHI
.550 MIN
.
544 MTL
.450 QUE
.644 MTL
.631 BOS

.550 PIT
2/10

Out of 10 series he lost, only twice did Liut lose to an inferior team. Superpowered Habs, Bruins & Pens apparently count for nothing.

Meanwhile Fuhr's losses:
.556 CGY
.569 LAK
.425 MIN
.607 MTL
.573 DET
.628 DET
.695 DAL

2/7

Moog's losses:
.688 NYI
.600 NYI
.619 EDM
.719 MTL
.563 EDM
.550 PIT

.544 PIT

.512 BUF
.506 VAN

.729 DET
.494 EDM
.543 BUF
5/12

Liut and Fuhr similar, Moog far behind, QED

No joke.

In the quote I've highlighted the Stanley Cup Finals teams in blue and the other guys in red.

Before the loss to the 86 Habs, in the round immediately after defeating Liut, the combined record of every team that beat him is a very breezy 1-20 (his Blues career).

The 86 Habs and 91 Pens are the only teams that went on to win another playoff round in Liut's list.
 

Hockey Outsider

Registered User
Jan 16, 2005
9,523
15,922
Tuukka Rask
Regular Season

I actually really like Tuukka compared to modern age goalies. In an age when consistency is terribly hard to come by, where goalies are getting nominated for Vezinas one year just to fall off the face of the earth the next, Tuukka was the model of consistency.

I posted this a couple rounds earlier in a post about Luongo, I'll post again.

Of notable retired goalies (plus Fleury and Quick) who hit their primes after 2000 and may come up for discussion, here is how this consistency compares.

Percentage of Full Seasons With Above Average SV%
1. Rask - 100% (12/12)
2. Luongo - 84% (16/19)
3. Lundqvist - 80% (12/15)
4. Thomas - 75% (6/8)
5. Holtby - 70% (7/10)
6. Fleury - 65% (13/20)
7. Nabokov - 64% (9/14)
8. Brodeur post 2000 - 64% (9/14)
9. Quick - 59% (10/17)
10. Price - 57% (8/14)
11. Kiprusoff - 55% (6/11)
12. Rinne - 54% (7/13)

Rask is the ONLY goalie to never fall below average in SV% his entire career even compared to legends already inducted.

His QS% is a .608 throughout his career. Notably ahead of other contemporaries like Price (.574), Rinne (.572), Holtby (.571), Quick (.531), and Fleury (.551).

His prime regular season years are also pretty good:

2010: 1st in SV%, 8th in GSAx, 3rd in GSAA, 5th All Star, 7th Vezina
2011-2012: best backup in the league to prime Tim Thomas
2013: 3rd in SV%, 2nd in GSAx, 4th in GSAA, 4th All Star, 5th Vezina
2014: 2nd in SV%, 12th in GSAx (interesting), 2nd in GSAA, 1st All Star, 1st Vezina
2015-2019: .917 SV%, easily top 5 goalie in this time
2020: 2nd in SV%, 2nd in GSAx, 1st in GSAA, 2nd All Star, 2nd Vezina

Playoffs
People also like to shoot down his playoffs, but it is of note that he led the playoffs in SV% three times for starting goalies who made it past the first round (2013, 2014, 2019) and his career playoff SV% is a .925, up from his regular season. Not the full picture, definitely some asterisks there but he's hardly a bad playoff goalie.

Someone commented about the 2013 finals meltdown, but I find that hard to put that on Rask. In the final two minutes he gives up two goals but the tying goal is a cross-crease one timer where Lucic fails to pick up his man after an insane Patty Kane zone entry and Toews pass. The shot is almost from in the crease, and the Hawks had 6 men on the attack. Not on Rask. The winning goal comes off of an insane redirect followed by a rebound off the post - another shot from in the crease where Boychuk was caught puck watching instead of covering his man. Again, not on Rask. He still had a .932 SV% that series and a .940 SV% (!!!) all playoffs. He likely would have won the Conn Smythe that year had Boston won.

Fun fact he also handed Crosby his only sweep ever until the 2019 playoffs that year with a .985 SV%.

Another fun fact is that he had a .938 in the four 2014 Olympics games he played and a .920 SV% in the two 2016 World Cup games he played.

The Bads (kinda?)
Now, he never peaked very high for very long, but he still has his 2014 Vezina season, his 2020 Vezina runner up year, and even his 2010 rookie season where he led the league in SV%. His GSAx (MoneyPuck) stats also have him second in the league in 2013 as well.

It is important to note that he did retire early due to injury and never had that downward trajectory that many other goalies have. But he still has 12 seasons with above average SV% which is more than anyone listed except for Fleury and Lu who both played 20 and 19 seasons respectively.

In terms of playoffs, his 2010 meltdown againt Philly sticks out, his 2014 series against Montreal sucked (although the first round against Detroit was a clinic), both his 2018 series aren't great. Game 7 of the SCF against St. Louis was bad but the other six games were good to great. His final series against the Isles sucked. But overall I'd say he's 12 for 17 in playoff series (worst case 10 for 17 depending on how you rate the 2019 finals and 2017 against Ottawa), that's still pretty good.

He also played on a very defensive Bruins team his whole career. How you adjust for that is going to be up to you. You surely can't blame him for that though.

Final Thoughts
Rask is maybe the most consistently good goalie of the 2010s. You can pretty much always count on him to put up an above average game.

His peak is also solid, a fist and a second Vezina season is great. Never was the best goalie in the world for more than one season at a time maybe, but who was when getting this far down the list? His playoffs are great, right about in line with his regular season performances if not a bit better - again, consistency.

On a personal note I also love his playstyle. You almost never caught him out of position, he was very calm in net, barely ever overreacted. Even if you watch his highlight reel desperation saves, it's never because he overcommited to a puck or flailed out of position and used his athleticism to recover (like Fleury for example), the saves are all from his puck tracking and fast reaction timing that were literally the most efficient way to make the stop. That kind of stability puts a team at ease.
Always great to see a long, thoughtful post from a non-participant.

I'm sure Mike Farkas (and a few others) might have similar comments, but if you take Rask's numbers at face value, he's probably deserving for this round. The question is - how much are those numbers due to Rask himself, and how much of it is him playing in front of such a responsible, disciplined team?

During the span of Rask's career, Bruins goalies, aside from Rask himself, had a 91.9% save percentage, which is barely lower than Rask's 92.1%. And aside from 159 games of Tim Thomas, this wasn't exactly a great group of netminders (a past-his-prime Jaroslav Halak - who posted his best numbers in seven years, Anton Khodobin, Chad Johnson, Jonas Gustavsson, etc).

Rask won a Vezina, and had years where he finished 2nd, 5th and 7th. (I wouldn't give much weight to his additional 7th place finish from 2010, which was a result of literally one vote). So perhaps the argument is, the voters knew he was good, despite playing on such a strong team. But the "team effects" argument seems to be the main strike against Rask at this point.
 

AlfiesHair

Registered User
Jul 7, 2020
24
60
Always great to see a long, thoughtful post from a non-participant.

I'm sure Mike Farkas (and a few others) might have similar comments, but if you take Rask's numbers at face value, he's probably deserving for this round. The question is - how much are those numbers due to Rask himself, and how much of it is him playing in front of such a responsible, disciplined team?

During the span of Rask's career, Bruins goalies, aside from Rask himself, had a 91.9% save percentage, which is barely lower than Rask's 92.1%. And aside from 159 games of Tim Thomas, this wasn't exactly a great group of netminders (a past-his-prime Jaroslav Halak - who posted his best numbers in seven years, Anton Khodobin, Chad Johnson, Jonas Gustavsson, etc).

Rask won a Vezina, and had years where he finished 2nd, 5th and 7th. (I wouldn't give much weight to his additional 7th place finish from 2010, which was a result of literally one vote). So perhaps the argument is, the voters knew he was good, despite playing on such a strong team. But the "team effects" argument seems to be the main strike against Rask at this point.
Why thank you!

I gotta agree with you a little. Rask's 12th place GSAx finish winning him the Vezina Trophy is maybe the best quantitative way to show this. It's the lowest a Vezina winner has ever done according to MoneyPuck's model. Normally they're at least in the top 3.

So for full transparency's sake, not to advocate for any one goalie, it is clear even statistically that Rask benefited from a strong defence. If we take GSAx as the evolution of GSAA so as to account for shot quality a little, here is what we find.

GSAA finishes ranked - 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 8th, 12th, 19th, 21st, 24th, 25th, 29th, 41st

GSAx finishes ranked - 2nd, 2nd, 8th, 12th, 13th, 16th, 16th, 18th, 25th, 27th, 42nd, 59th

It seems to be clear that he certainly benefited from some easier shots than the average goalie over his career. Makes sense with two of the best defensive defensemen and forwards of all time with him his whole career.

EDIT: In 2010, sure he only got one Vezina vote to make him 7th, but he got 12 in postseason all star voting. Still only around 2% as the top three separated themselves pretty cleanly from the pack but stats also show he was around the top five best goalies that year.
 
Last edited:

MadArcand

Whaletarded
Dec 19, 2006
5,979
515
Seat of the Empire
No joke.

In the quote I've highlighted the Stanley Cup Finals teams in blue and the other guys in red.

Before the loss to the 86 Habs, in the round immediately after defeating Liut, the combined record of every team that beat him is a very breezy 1-20 (his Blues career).

The 86 Habs and 91 Pens are the only teams that went on to win another playoff round in Liut's list.
More joking I see. I don't know why you obsess over the Blues part of his career, when it's less than half of it, but whatever. You don't see how that's 100% a function of being on a bad team as opposed to being on a powerhouse like Moog was for 75% or his career? If your team is Oilers/Bruins, you should make the conference finals and thus automatically lose to a cup finalist. If you're Blues/Whalers, a 1st round loss is expected.

Btw:
1980 Chicago got swept by .688 Buffalo, hardly surprising
1981 Rangers swept by the Isles... LOL
1982 Chicago goes 1-4 vs. Canucks, that's bad
1983 Chicago wins 4-1 vs. Minny... So your 1-20 stat is a lie. Loses later to Oilers, what a shocker.
1984 Minny loses to Oilers... What a surprise again.
 

AlfiesHair

Registered User
Jul 7, 2020
24
60
On the note of GSAx - especially considering the amount of modern goalies, here are those with the best records since the stat has been recorded. I know there are a handful of solid models and there are still contextual issues with the stat but it is maybe the best singular goalie stat we can get. At least something to look at in my opinion.

Top 10 GSAx Finishes (MoneyPuck)
(2009-2024, those with three or more top 10 finishes)
  1. Hellebuyck - 6 (3, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0)
  2. Lundqvist - 6 (1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 2, 0, 1, 1)
  3. Quick - 5 (0, 2, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1)
  4. Bobrovsky - 5 (0, 1, 0, 2, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1)
  5. Bishop - 5 (0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1)
  6. Halak - 5 (0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 2, 0, 1, 0, 0)
  7. Vasilevskiy - 4 (1, 2, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0)
  8. Holtby - 4 (1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0)
  9. Price - 4 (1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0)
  10. Ward - 4 (0, 2, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0)
  11. Luongo - 4 (0, 0, 0, 1, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0)
  12. Schneider - 4 (0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0)
  13. Crawford - 4 (0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 2)
  14. M. Smith - 3 (1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0)
  15. Saros - 3 (1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0)
  16. Rask - 3 (0, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0)
  17. Dubnyk - 3 (0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1)
  18. Fleury - 3 (0, 0, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0)
  19. Gibson - 3 (0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0)
  20. Hiller - 3 (0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0)
  21. Mason - 3 (0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0)
  22. Swayman - 3 (0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1)
  23. Rinne - 3 (0, 0, 0, 0, 2, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0)
  24. Howard - 3 (0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1)
Despite Quick not having an impressive GSAA record (just a 3rd and an 8th place) and playing on a defensive LA Kings team, he has a VERY strong GSAx record. Very surprised by this.

Bobrovsky's insane Vezina seasons don't even get first place by this metric, but he still has a great record overall (more or less aligns with his GSAA record). Still doesn't cover his season to season inconsistencies though.

Rask I've mentioned already.

Fleury is about what I'd expect, not too strong. Very rarely a top 10 goalie on any year but a couple quality seasons. Will always wish his prime had more to chew on besides his Stanley Cup count. Very similar to his GSAA record.

Rinne's record looks... really not great. Thought his highs would be higher, he may have had the best D-core of the 2010s in front of him, but I thought his stats would hold even when adjusting for an easier shot quality. His GSAA have him with a 1st and 2nd place finish, with GSAx he gets only two 5ths.
 

blogofmike

Registered User
Dec 16, 2010
2,341
1,179
More joking I see. I don't know why you obsess over the Blues part of his career, when it's less than half of it, but whatever. You don't see how that's 100% a function of being on a bad team as opposed to being on a powerhouse like Moog was for 75% or his career? If your team is Oilers/Bruins, you should make the conference finals and thus automatically lose to a cup finalist. If you're Blues/Whalers, a 1st round loss is expected.

Btw:
1980 Chicago got swept by .688 Buffalo, hardly surprising
1981 Rangers swept by the Isles... LOL
1982 Chicago goes 1-4 vs. Canucks, that's bad
1983 Chicago wins 4-1 vs. Minny... So your 1-20 stat is a lie. Loses later to Oilers, what a shocker.
1984 Minny loses to Oilers... What a surprise again.
My mistake. I counted the wrong series in 1983. So they're 5-17? The point stands.

It's not just that the team loses. It's that Liut is middling against middling teams. Liut didn't play the Islanders or Oilers. Moog did. Liut played middling teams. Moog played the contenders and the Cinderellas.

The 81 Blues were good (.669). Against the 81 Rangers the Blues scored goals decently, (22 GF in 6 games,) but Liut gave up 29 goals. The 81 Isles existed. The Isles beat Moog's Oilers and Steve Baker's Rangers (I think Baker was 1-10 over the rest of his NHL career). But it was 30-win team with a losing record that lit up Liut like a Christmas tree.

Know how Quick (and Joseph, and Lundqvist before,) can get credit for doing well with no goal support? Liut was the opposite of that.



First one was a good setup, but Liut is just leaky for the most part. (See goal #2 at 5:50). Around 14 minutes there's a weak breakaway shot but a juicy rebound. At 24:30 Beck just beats him clean off the faceoff.

After the 4-0 goal, the Blues rally to make it 4-3. And then some guy scores on Liut around 35:45 (and the pop up video says he never scored another goal ever again.) He actually beats Liut twice, the first shot hits the post before sending a second effort into a yawning cage. In the 3rd (43 mins) there's a weird bounce that catches Liut when he's positioned awkwardly himself. Around 56:00, Nilsson claps one past Liut.

And a guy on a team with over a .200-point points percentage lead lets his team down against a losing team, as he saves 13 of 20 in an elimination game. And the Oilers and Islanders have nothing to do with it.
 

jigglysquishy

Registered User
Jun 20, 2011
8,529
9,561
Regina, Saskatchewan
Every Mike Liut playoff game except when they lost in the first round.

1981 Playoffs
Blues beat Penguins 4-2
Shots: Blues 48 Penguins 26
Blues 1 Penguins 0

Youngstown Vindicator · ‎Apr 9, 1981
[Pittsburgh] Coach Eddie Johnston had a plan in mind for Mike Liut. The problem was that the Pittsburgh Penguins were unable to pull it off against the NHL all-star goalie. "Everybody has something he can be beat at," Johnston said Wednesday. "We were getting it a little high on him. We didn't want to get it that high: that's for sure."

Penguins win 6-4
Shots: Blues 23 Penguins 30
Blues 1 Penguins 1

Beaver Country Times · ‎Apr 10, 1981
Pittsburgh Coach Eddie Johnston, a former NHL goalkeeper himself, says he has spotted a flaw in the technique of St. Louis Blues' goalie Mike Liut. "We just happened to see something in the last few weeks," said Johnston. "Something you get into a bad habit and if somebody doesn't tell you about it, you keep doing it."

Blues win 5-4
Shots: Blues 32 Penguins 31
Blues 2 Penguins 1

No relevant comments

Penguins win 6-3
Shots: Blues 24 Penguins 34
Blues 2 Penguins 2

The Pittsburgh Press · ‎Apr 13, 1981
Already [Johnston] rattled St. Louis goalie Mike Liut to such an extent that the usually indominable netminder has allowed 18 goals in the first four playoff games, more than a goal above his season average.

Blues win 4-3 in double OT
Shots: Blues 52 Penguins 51
Blues 3 Penguins 2

The Evening News · ‎Apr 15, 1981
If not for All-Star goaltender Mike Liut, the Blues would be sitting on the sidelines right now.
The Southeast Missourian · ‎Apr 15, 1981
St. Louis has the exhausted netminder in Mike Liut, who was spectacular Tuesday night...

The task will be even tougher if Liut isn't sharp.


Blues beat the Rangers 6-3
Shots: Blues 28 Rangers 31
Blues 1 Rangers 0

No relevant comments

Rangers beat Blues 6-4
Shots: Blues 29 Rangers 30
Blues 1 Rangers 1

No relevant comments

Rangers beat Blues 6-3
Shots: Blues 17 Rangers 31
Blues 1 Rangers 2

The Spokesman-Review · ‎Apr 20, 1981
New York outshot St. Louis 15-5 int he middle period as the Blues' defense staged a disappearing act, leaving All-Star goalie Mike Luit on his own to face the Ragner onslaught.

Beck's slapshot from the left point was stopped by Liut, but Steve Vickers - left alone in front of the Blues' net - poked in the rebound.

Rangers win 4-1
Shots: Blues 34 Rangers 28
Blues 1 Rangers 3

Sarasota Herald-Tribune · ‎Apr 21, 1981
The Blues allowed the Rangers to break free for close-range shots at All-Star goalie Mike Liut. In this game, unlike his performances in the last two contests, Liut was outstanding. But New York goalie Steve Baker was even better.

Blues win 4-3
Shots: Blues 30 Rangers 37
Blues 2 Rangers 3

Record-Journal · ‎Apr 23, 1981
The Rangers, despite outshooting the Blues 17-7, could only come away with a 2-1 first-period lead because of some outstanding saves by St. Louis goalie Mike Liut.

Rangers win 7-4
Shots: Blues 16 Rangers 20
Blues 2 Rangers 4

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette · ‎Apr 25, 1981
Quarter final upset of the Blues. St. Lousi, which finished second overall in the regular-season standings to the Rangers' 13th, had beaten the Rangers all four times the teams met during the season.

But the Rangers controlled most of this series, taking advantage of leaky St. Louis defense and miscues by Liut, an All-Star goalie.

A good, not great run. Bernie Federko is the most praised Blue. The whole psychological warfare angle with Eddie Johnston is weird.

1982 Playoffs
Blues beat Jets 4-3
Shots: Blues 17 Jets 36
Blues 1 Jets 0

The Calgary Herald · ‎Apr 8, 1982
Mike Liut had a big night, stopping 33 shots.

Jets win 5-2
Shots: Blues 35 Jets 33
Blues 1 Jets 1

Record-Journal · ‎Apr 9, 1982
The fast-skating Jets, making full use of the Blues' penalties, then put on a barrage against Mike Liut to score 5 consecutive goals - four on the power plays - and take a 5-1 lead.

Blues win 6-3
Shots: Blues 27 Jets 30
Blues 2 Jets 1

No relevant comments

Blues win 8-2
Shots: Blues 25 Jets 41
Blues 3 Jets 1

The Southeast Missourian · ‎Apr 12, 1982
The young Jets, while bowing out of the best-of-five series, were stalled by Mike Liut, who kicked out 39 Jets shots. "How do you like to lose 8-2 when you get more than 40 shots?"A frustrated Tom Watt asked. "I think Mike Liut deserves to get credit for that. We knew when we started out he might make the difference."

Liut is the second most praised Blue behind Brian Sutter, though it's close. Good series, especially game 4.



Black Hawks beat Blues 5-4
Shots: Blues 40 Black Hawks 28
Blues 0 Black Hawks 1

No relevant comments

Blues win 3-1
Shots: Blues 32 Black Hawks 27
Blues 1 Black Hawks 1

The Evening News · ‎Apr 17, 1982
Mike Liut had a relatively easy night as the Blues' checker kept the Black Hawks off balance. Tom Lysiak scored a powerplay goal on Chicago's first shot of the night, then the Hawks got nothing past Liut.

Black Hawks win 6-5
Shots: Blues 35 Black Hawks 33
Blues 1 Black Hawks 2

Liut pulled after allowing 3 goals on first 3 shots of the game.

Black Hawks win 7-4
Shots: Blues 32 Black Hawks 30
Blues 1 Black Hawks 3

Liut didn't start the game. He was put in with 10 minutes left in the 3rd and allowed 1 goal on 2 shots.

Blues win 3-2 in OT
Shots: Blues 23 Black Hawks 24
Blues 2 Black Hawks 3

No relevant comments

Black Hawks win 2-0
Shots: Blues 23 Black Hawks 24
Blues 2 Black Hawks 6

Record-Journal · ‎Apr 24, 1982
Neither team scored in the first period. Chicago had two power play opportunities but Liut came up with several tough saves to keep Chicago off the score board.

Not a good series. Allowing four goals on 5 shots across two games and losing his starter job. It's just not good. Bernie Federko is again the most praised Blue. Tony Esposito comes in relief for game 6 and pitches a shutout.

Across these two series, Federko, Sutter, and Liut are the most praised Blue. Joe Mullen is up there too.


1984 Playoffs
St Louis beats Detroit 3-2
Shots: Blues 21 Red Wings 26
Blues 1 Red Wings 0

Bulletin Journal · ‎Apr 5, 1984
The opening game of the playoff series... figured to come down to the play of goalies Mike Liut and Greg Stefan - and it did.

Early in the second period, with the Red Wings on a four-on-three power play, trying to break a scoreless tie. Ron Duguay let go with a blast from just inside the blue line, which Liut managed to block. The rebound, however, bounced directly in front of a wide-open St. Louis net, with the Red Wings' Kelly Kisio waiting eagerly to tap it in and give Detroit the first goal. But as Kisio poked at the puck, Liut slid to his left, got his glove in front of the net and caught the shot. The save brought a standing ovation from the crowd and even produced a raised glove of triumph from the usually emotionless Liut.

Detroit Coach Nick Polano thought the save gave both Liut and the Blues a little extra spark.

"Liut played really well and held us down," Greg Stefan said. "We seemed to get things going late, and maybe that momentum will carry over into tonight's game."

Red Wings win 5-3
Shots: Blues 31 Red Wings 28
Blues 1 Red Wings 1

No relevant comments

Blues win 4-3 in double OT
Shots: Blues 39 Red Wings 39
Blues 2 Red Wings 1

Game ran late and game 4 was the next night so all coverage is from the same day.

Blues win 3-2 in OT
Shots: Blues 24 Red Wings 42
Blues 3 Red Wings 1

The Windsor Star · ‎Apr 9, 1984
His name is Mike Liut. The Red Wings shooters know him well. But not well enough. The entire weekend belonged to him. He was spectacular during the almost five full periods of hockey Saturday night. He was even better during three more and a bit Sunday. He was all of that in the other team's building, in front of the other team's screaming, chanting fans, in the pressure games of the playoffs, the games that count.

He played a total of 160 minutes. He faced a total of 81 Detroit shots. He came away with 76 saves, two victories, and alone series to show for it.

There was no question that none of it was easy. Nor any question that the people who call Liut the best goaltender in the NHL are absLiutley correct.

"Unbelievable," said Jacques Demeres, the St. Lous coach. "He was as good, in one game, as any goaltender I've seen in the NHL in the last 10 years."

He stands off-centre towards the shoot," Dave Dryden, Red Wings goalie consultant, said. "He's the only goalie I've ever seen do that."

Immense praise. By far the most praised Blue (Doug Gilmour gets some love too) and by far his most praised series so far.



North Stars win 2-1
Shots: Blues 24 North Stars 41
Blues 0 North Stars 1

The Day · ‎Apr 13, 1984 ·
Minnesota outshot St. Louis 41-24, but could only get two shots past goalie Mike Liut, who was sensational.

Blues win 4-3 in OT
Shots: Blues 36 North Stars 38
Blues 1 North Stars 1

No relevant comments

Blues win 3-1
Shots: Blues 35 North Stars 25
Blues 2 North Stars 1

The Montreal Gazette · ‎Apr 16, 1984
Mike Liut didn't think he did anything special last night, but was the only one among the more than 19,000 people in the Arena who thought that way.

Liut, the St. Louis goaltender, shut out Minnesota for more than 56 minutes...

"I thought we got the offence going in the second half of the game," Minnesota Coach Bill Mahoney said, "but Mike Liut showed why he represents the finest type of goaltending you can get in the playoffs."

North Stars 3-2
Shots: Blues 33 North Stars 26
Blues 2 North Stars 2

Bulletin Journal · ‎Apr 17, 1984 ·

"I was beginning to wonder if I'd ever score, and I can't explain it because I've had good chances, but Liut has been brilliant," Steve Payne said. " He and Beaupre have been the highlights of the series."

North Stars 6-0
Shots: Blues 29 North Stars 24
Blues 2 North Stars 3

Liut pulled after allowing 5 goals on 22 shots.

Blues win 4-0
Shots: Blues 32 North Stars 33
Blues 3 North Stars 3

The Montreal Gazette · ‎Apr 21, 1984
Liut turned back 33 shots, including a handful of great chances for the North Stars in the third period.

North Stars win 4-3 in OT
Shots: Blues 28 North Stars 43
Blues 3 North Stars 4

St. Joseph Gazette · ‎Apr 23, 1984 ·
Gritty play by Blues' goaltender Mike Liut and Minnesota goalie Don Beaupre turned the series into a dog fight.

A good series. Federko is praised less than in years past, so maybe it's a tie for him and Liut as most praised Blue. He shuts the door in game 6 to force a game 7, but has a big stinker in game 5.

Across both series, he is the most praised Blue. Gilmour gets the forward love in series 1, Federko is series 2. But Liut is the king of the team in series 1, and close to Federko is series 2.



1986 Playoffs
Whalers beat Nordiques 3-2 in OT
Shots: Whalers 37 Nordiques 39
Whalers 1 Nordiques 0

The Day · ‎Apr 10, 1986
After a scoreless second period in which Liut stopped everything shot, shoved, or kicked his way (37 savings in all, including 6 on high-scoring Michel Goulet)

Liut.... was probably in his best form of the season in the second period.

Liut, who also kept the Whalers respectable throughout the opening period, withstood the Quebec's initial power-play barrage..... Goulet was robbed by Liut on two others from in close.

Turgeon, in the limelight at the game's end, credit Liut and the Whaler defensive effort in general.

Whalers win 4-1
Shots: Whalers 31 Nordiques 27
Whalers 2 Nordiques 0

Record-Journal · ‎Apr 11, 1986
Mike Liut, who has played spectacularly in the first two games of the series and has received much of the credit.

"Thirty shots against us with Mike Liut in goal, and we have a solid shot to win, "Ray Ferraro said. "Mike had a great game. He's been making all the saves he's had to and some he shouldn't be making."

Whalers win 9-4
Shots: Whalers 35 Nordiques 33
Whalers 3 Nordiques 0

Record-Journal · ‎Apr 13, 1986
Mike Liut and a swarming defence combined to hold Quebec's offense to seven goals in three games. Liut frustrated Quebec time and time again and amassed 95 saves in the first-round series.

Liut is easily the most praised Whaler this series and arguably the most praised he's been in any playoff series I have looked at so far.



Whalers beat Canadiens 4-1
Shots: Whalers 23 Canadiens 27
Whalers 1 Canadiens 0

The Montreal Gazette · ‎Apr 18, 1986
For the fourth time in as many playoff games, Liut was outstanding last night and his alert play in the first period, when the Habs outshot Hartford 14-4, kept his team tied 0-0


Habs win 3-1
Shots: Whalers 25 Canadiens 30
Whalers 1 Canadiens 1

The Day · ‎Apr 20, 1986
Guy Carbonneau scored his first two goals of the NHL playoffs in support of Patrick Roy's steady goaltending.

Mike Liut, who faced 30 shots and who has been the anchor to the Whalers success of late.

Roy provided Montreal with several key stops.


Montreal wins 4-1
Shots: Whalers 21 Canadiens 21
Whalers 1 Canadiens 2

Liut was hurt in warmups. He played the first 10 minutes of the game (1 goal on 6 shots) before being replaced.

The Montreal Gazette · ‎Apr 22, 1986
Liut fanned on the first Canadiens shot on goal, a 65-foot slapshot. The puck trickled between his legs just wide of the net.

Kjell Dahlin beat him high on the glove side with a 35-foot wrist shot. There was no screen. On most nights, Liut would not have let in such a goal.

As much as Liut's injury could prove fatal to Hartford's chances of winning this series, so could the Whalers' seemingly chronic inability to stop Habs centre Guy Carbonneau. Carbonneau has been the best player in this series to date..... [holding Ron Francis to one shot across games 1 and 2].

On several accounts, [Montreal coach] Jean Perron was the first star of the game.


Whalers win 2-1 in OT. Steve Weeks plays as Liut is hurt.
Shots: Whalers 24 Canadiens 19
Whalers 2 Canadiens 2

Habs win 5-3. Steve Weeks plays as Liut is still hurt.
Shots: Whalers 23 Canadiens 30
Whalers 2 Canadiens 3

Whalers win 1-0
Shots: Whalers 17 Canadiens 32
Whalers 3 Canadiens 3

The Phoenix · ‎Apr 28, 1986
Mike Liut [pulled out a magic trick] in which the crippled goaltender returned to shut out the opposition.

Liut proved equal to the task, masking up for several defensive lapses by his teammates and frustrating the Canadiens' offence.

With 10:25 remaining in the game, Liut made probably his biggest saved of the game when he was down but managed to get a leg in front of a point-blank shot by Claude Lemieux.


Habs win 2-1 in OT
Shots: Whalers 25 Canadiens 32
Whalers 3 Canadiens 4

Record-Journal · ‎Apr 30, 1986
Many consoled and praised Liut on his stellar play.

Patrick Roy, Montreal's goaltender who was almost as brilliant as Liut

He's for sure the most praised Whaler in this series and the second most praised player overall after Carboneau.

This is Liut's most praised single playoff run so far and he is the most praised Whaler in both series.


1990 Playoffs
Capitals beat Devils 5-4 in OT
Shots: Capitals 24 Devils 30
Caps 1 Devils 0

No relevant comments


Devils win 6-5
Shots: Capitals 26 Devils 39
Caps 1 Devils 1

Liut was pulled at the end of the first after allowing 3 goals on 10 shots.

Gainesville Sun · ‎Apr 8, 1990
Beaupre, who was spectacular in relief of starter Mike Liut


Devils win 2-1
Shots: Capitals 21 Devils 10
Caps 1 Devils 2

No relevant comments

Capitals win 3-1
Shots: Capitals 33 Devils 24
Caps 2 Devils 2

Beaupre starts over Liut

Capitals win 4-3
Shots: Capitals 24 Devils 20
Caps 3 Devils 2

Beaupre starts over Liut

Capitals win 3-2
Shots: Capitals 32 Devils 34
Caps 4 Devils 2

Beaupre starts over Liut

Nothing good here. Loses his starter job after weak performances.


Rangers beat Caps 7-3
Shots: Capitals 35 Rangers 38
Caps 0 Rangers 1

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette · ‎Apr 20, 1990
Bernie Nicholls defended Murray's choice of Liut as the starting goalie. "He played really well against us at Washington a while back and you can't say the goals were his fault." Still, Beaupre is expected to be in goal for Game 2.

Caps win 6-3
Shots: Capitals 25 Rangers 28
Caps 1 Rangers 1

Beaupre starts over Liut

Caps win 7-1
Shots: Capitals 49 Rangers 19
Caps 2 Rangers 1

Beaupre started the game, but pulled his groin 3:16 into the first.

The Times-News · ‎Apr 24, 1990
Liut, 34, was shelled in the series opener, the Capitals say they don't lose an edge with him in goal. He lead the league in GAA (2.53) during the regular season. "We have all kinds of confidence in Mike Liut," Murray said. "He is a top goaltender in the NHL."

Caps win 4-3 in OT
Shots: Capitals 25 Rangers 33
Caps 3 Rangers 1

No relevant comments. Rod Langway scored his first goal in 90 games (regular season + playoff) in OT to win it.

Caps win 2-1 in OT
Shots: Capitals 34 Rangers 29
Caps 4 Rangers 1

The Evening News · ‎Apr 28, 1990
The game was a goaltending duel between Vanbiesbrouck and Mike Liut. Both were super, with Liut making 29 saves and Vanbiesbrouck making 31.

The Capitals continued to clamp down defensively in the second period, with both goaltenders playing well. Liut stopped two shorthanded breakaways by Paul Broten about three minutes apart. Vanbiesbrouck was equally sharp for the Rangers, making two excellent stops on Mike Ridley from in-close.

Game 7 sounds strong, but not much outside that. He loses his starting job again and only gets it back with an injury.


Boston beats Washington 5-3
Shots: Caps 26 Bruins 35
Caps 0 Bruins 1

Lewiston Morning Tribune · ‎May 4, 1990
Brian Propp was surprised when he got the puck back from Cam Neely, Boston's top goal scorer. So was Washington goalie Mike Liut, who wasn't ready for Propp's game-winning shot. "I thought Neely would shoot for sure. He was in good position." Liut said. "Propp made a good play. He held the puck. He froze me a little."

Bruins win 3-0
Shots: Caps 28 Bruins 30
Caps 0 Bruins 2

Don Beaupre started

Bruins win 4-1
Shots: Caps 26 Bruins 24
Caps 0 Bruins 3

Don Beaupre started

Bruins win 3-2
Shots: Caps 14 Bruins 17
Caps 0 Bruins 4

Sun Journal · ‎May 10, 1990
Rod Langway gave up the puck to Boston's Bobby Carpenter in the Capital's zone. Mike Liut stopped Carpenter's shot, but the rebound bounced off Carter's kneepad and past Liut's glove.

Bad series overall. Loses the starter job three series in a row. When he's put back in for the series-decider, he lets in 3 goals on 17 shots. Cam Neely is by far the most praised player overall, with Andy Moog second, Ray Bourque third. Hard to pull anything positive from 1990, despite going to the Conference Finals.



I think Liut was at his best in the playoffs in Hartford. He's young and raw on St. Louis. Despite the accolades in 1981, he struggles in the playoffs. He does well against the Jets in 1982, but not the Hawks. His 1984 run is very strong though. I really like his 1986 run, where he is the most praised Whaler by quite a bit and runs into a very deep Canadiens team. 1990 is just a plain bad run.

Overall, I guess this is the kind of resume we have to expect at this stage of the project. Outside of 1984 and 1986, not much positive to pull. Those are two very strong runs, but I'm also cognisant that the two teams he gets the best praise against (1982 Jets and 1984 Red Wings) were weak (0.500 Point % and 0.431 Point%). The 1986 Nordiques were good and obviously the 1986 Habs were great.

How much do we weigh a playoff resume that is held up on two round-two losses (1984 and 1986)? There's a weak 1981, good 1982, a playoff collapse in 1987, and a straight up bad 1990.
 

Professor What

Registered User
Sep 16, 2020
2,673
2,352
Gallifrey
Can someone explain to me the rationale behind looking at playoff opponents' regular season win percentage for goalies?

Yeah, I get the idea of identifying tougher opponents and giving credit for performance against stronger opponents, but I'm not sure that looking at the win percentages really tells anything of the sort. Sure, we can get that a goalie gets better results against stronger or weaker teams, but that's like giving a goalie credit for wins to start with. It's a whole team performance. I can see how something like @jigglysquishy's playoff analysis posts could be used to do something like that and seeing how the goalie is praised (or not) against stronger and weaker opponents, but just looking at the stats without context is a team thing.

I was watching something about some college football on YouTube earlier. Josh Pate said that for his taste, Clemson had played really well against poor competition and poorly against good competition. That got me thinking about how I feel my team, Alabama, has played better against tough competition than they have weaker opponents. But it's all a team thing. Yes, certain players have a bigger or smaller effect on the outcome. Yes, a more talented player that gets more minutes is going to have more impact than a guy that just makes the roster. Yes, the goalie is out there for more or less the whole game, and is a key player when the puck is in the defensive zone. But when we look at the winning percentages without the added context, what are we learning about the goalies? We're learning about how certain teams did in those situations, but the goalie could have been better or worse than the team as a whole, and there's no way to know which one it is without the extra information..

Also, @Michael Farkas, are you still doing video mashups of the goalies? If you are and you have time, I'd be interested to see some video on Liut. I'm getting a real feeling that the optics and the results might not be equal when talking about him, and I'd like to have something to judge by. If not, have a great day anyway. Lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: jigglysquishy

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad