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

[Weztex]

I think we seriously need to look at ending the project early, maybe even as early as #40.

@frisco
@tony d
@Vilica
@bobholly39
@ContrarianGoaltender
@VanIslander
@rmartin65
@seventieslord
@Weztex
have not posted this week

@nabby12
@The Pale King
@Dr John Carlson
have only posted once this week

So of the 19 of us, 12 have functionally abandoned the project.

This project is only as good as the discussion. With discussion having died off I think we need to face reality on the project.

It sucks. I've poured a ton of time into this. But I can't ignore what's actually (not) happening.

Not posting doesn’t mean abandoning nor not following the project. I’ve almost read every single post, from the Vote 1 thread to this one. The truth is, discussions often have been harsh, abrasive and not welcoming.

I think I have a good knowledge in hockey history. A lot of posters here are much more knowledgeable that I am on the subject and I really enjoy reading their input. It allowed me to reevaluate many of the goalies that came up so far. But reading opinions get belittled by a handful of posters was enough to discourage me to post in a most active way. I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one.

That said I appreciate the effort @Dr John Carlson @Professor What and you are putting into this. I will continue to read the threads and vote which, to me anyway, is participating.

 

[Dr John Carlson]

We've talked it over and we're going to continue pushing for 60. This week will proceed normally with voting ending this Sunday at midnight, but the remaining rounds will be two weeks each. This was probably needed anyway with Christmas and New Year's around the corner.

We were just a bit hesitant to raise the idea of extending this round for another week because the last time we did that, there was little extra discussion, and we dropped a voter for the first time too. But yes, discussion was very tame this week, including from me. I'd be lying if I said my hunger to dive into the papers was as strong as it was at the beginning of the project due to how things have turned out the past few weeks. But we will continue as best as we can!

 

[Michael Farkas]

I like Barrasso more than Fleury. I think Worsely should get the nod over Vachon. Bobrovsky's two Vezinas are misleading... there are a number of Vezina-less guys I would take over him. Rask has the great regular seasons in pretty optimal environments but also some melt-downs in the playoffs. People say they like Dave Kerr, and I remember liking him when making my initial list (more than all the Rangers goalies except Hank) but can someone convince me it's time for him?

I am opposite on these 1 on 1's. I'd take Fleury over Barrasso. Vachon over Worsley. Both have a lot of similarities, but I think the other guy has an edge in most ways. But at this point in the project, it's more or less a bowl of gibberish haha - you can make a case for anyone.

I'm a fan of Kerr, but this was a heavy travel week for me. With another week, I could make a case. Not sure if I'd be able to fit it under the wire for this one...I don't know if it would move the needle anyhow, as others have mentioned/hinted at, there's a bit of a restrictive covenant on guys like that moving too much haha

 

[Professor What]

I am opposite on these 1 on 1's. I'd take Fleury over Barrasso. Vachon over Worsley. Both have a lot of similarities, but I think the other guy has an edge in most ways. But at this point in the project, it's more or less a bowl of gibberish haha - you can make a case for anyone.

I'm a fan of Kerr, but this was a heavy travel week for me. With another week, I could make a case. Not sure if I'd be able to fit it under the wire for this one...I don't know if it would move the needle anyhow, as others have mentioned/hinted at, there's a bit of a restrictive covenant on guys like that moving too much haha

I wish you'd had time to dig into Kerr. I like him too. He's going to make the top half of my ballot after I've considered everything and given all of these guys a fresh look.

 

[The Pale King]

We didn't really talk about Rinne at all this week. I had him high on my vote this week but if he sticks around, Rinne vs Rask seems like an obvious area for discussion next round.

 

[Professor What]

We didn't really talk about Rinne at all this week. I had him high on my vote this week but if he sticks around, Rinne vs Rask seems like an obvious area for discussion next round.

Rinne made my ballot about midway. I like him a lot better than Rask, but that can wait for now.

 

[MXD]

Will cast shortly. Useful round nonetheless. I was possibly a bit too high on Dave Kerr, possibly a bit too low on Connell (and I definitely reckon now that I probably inverted Connell and JRR on my Round 1 list), to a point where I don't think having Dave Kerr ahead of Chuck Rayner makes any sense considering their respective place in the pecking order of netminders during their career, and the level of said netminders (unless you had ALL of Brimsek, Broda, Durnan and Lumley much lower than they went -- there's a decent (and that's a euphemism for "totally accurate" ) case to be made that Lumley's lone case vs Rayner was longevity).

Granted, the gap between those two (Kerr and Rayner) will be shorter than what it SHOULD be, but that's because there's a few guys that shouldn't be up for voting.