HOH Top 60 Goaltenders of All Time (2024 Edition) - Round 2, Vote 9

[blogofmike]

So much of Richter's reason for being here now is the 1994 run, so I think it's worthwhile to take a holistic look at it.

Obviously 1994 is the biggest reason, but he was Team USA's goalie from 1991-2002.

The highlights would be 1996 and 2002. 1991 was good. 1998 was rough, (as was the case for a lot of Team USA.)

In 1991 he gets the nod over Vanbiesbrouck and Pat Jablonski.

In 1996, he's the MVP, and is ahead of Guy Hebert (injury replacement for Vanbiesbrouck) and Vezina-winner Jim Carey on the depth chart.

In 1998, Richter doesn't look good, but he gets most of the playing time. Vanbiesbrouck is subbed in against the Czechs. Guy Hebert doesn't play.

In 2002's Olympics he was named to the media-selected All-Star Team, Mike Dunham gets a game against Finland, they let Tom Barrasso have Belarus, and it's Richter all the way in the elimination stage.

Since we already know about 1996 and 2002, here's some (spotty) highlights from 1991, which may have been forgotten:

USA 6, Sweden 3

Team USA goaltender Mike Richter, a New York Ranger, lost his shutout at 4:41 of the third period on a goal by former Montreal Canadiens star Mats Naslund.

'We had a few chances before they got into our end,' said Naslund. 'But North American players are better to execute scoring chances. We had a few but we missed the net, and we didn't really get on the rebounds. They took care of their chances.'

Team Sweden received goals from Kjell Samuelsson and Charles Berglund within 16 seconds in the third period to cut the lead to 5-3.

'I was still thinking about the second one, and it shouldn't have happened,' Richter said. 'But the guys put the puck in when they had to.'

Canada 6, USA 3
No notable comments about Richter

USA 4 Czechoslovakia 2
No notable comments about Richter

USA 2, USSR 1

CHICAGO -- Team USA, guided by the steady goaltending of Mike Richter, reserved a spot in the Canada Cup semifinals.

Alexei Zhamnov broke Richter's shutout bid 51 seconds into the final period, connecting on a 15-foot wrist shot from the left circle to pull the Soviets within 2-1. But Richter held them at bay the rest of the way, including a shot by Igor Kravchuk with eight seconds remaining.

'He was immense in the nets,' Taylor said of the New York Rangers goaltender.

Following that goal, the Soviets dominated the remainder of the period, outshooting Team USA 16-6. But while the Americans played sluggishly in the period, Richter excelled, stopping a barrage of five or six shots in a 30-second span midway through.

USA 4, Finland 3 (Vanbiesbrouck 13/16 saves, so obviously no Richter comments)

Knockout Stage
USA 7, Finland 3
Richter (30/33 saves), apparently no one cared to file a game report...

Canada 4, USA 1

Richter was spectacular in the first two periods, turning aside 20 shots. He made a brilliant save on Winnipeg's Dale Hawerchuk late in the second period when his team had a one man advantage.

Canada 4, USA 2

Dirk Graham scored into an empty net with 42 seconds remaining and Richter lifted for an extra attacker.

With the score tied 2-2 entering the third period, Canada opened with a prolonged assault on the U.S. defense.

Richter made excellent stops with Paul Coffey stationed on the crease, robbed Brendan Shanahan and then draped his stick across the goal line to stop a shot from Rick Tocchet.

Neither goaltender was required to match the number of spectacular saves of the first game. Richter stopped 38 shots while Ranford made 27 saves.

 

[seventieslord]

Are Liut's playoffs actually bad? Sure, from a W/L perspective they are not good, but I had no idea that he posted some absolutely unreal numbers a few times in the 80s.

Looking at the teams he was on and the kind of success they tended to have, I'm surprised that he's as good as 29-32, honestly. The way it gets talked about, I would have guessed 19-37 or something like that, without looking.

During his time with St. Louis, his .891 was a good 12 points better than the league average. His win threshold during this time was .902, just to go .500 over these five years. It's unrealistic to expect any goalie in the early 80s to maintain that number over the long term unless they have the Islanders in front of them. He performed at just below that level and therefore came out just below .500. It's a small sample but other goalies the Blues briefly tried in the nets went 0-2 with a .833 aggregate.

His Hartford time is a massive high followed by two lows, but overall comes to an 8-7 record and an .893 sv% that's 12 points better than the league average again. His easier win threshold of .894 (thanks to Hartford's much better shot suppression) is exactly what you expect: He performed at the level he needed to, in order to be .500 and was essentially .500. Other Hartford goalies went 2-5 with an .862.

That 1986 playoff was an outstanding performance, statistically. I did a doubletake when I saw his "GA%-" was 49. Basically he allowed goals at literally half the rate of the league average that season, over an 8-game sample. The Whalers scored just 29 goals in 10 games, including a superfluous 9 in game 3 vs. Quebec. Liut got hurt during game 3. Weeks couldn't save that one, then had a hell of a game 4 before the bottom fell out in game 5. Liut, up against Patrick Roy in legend mode, came back to post a shutout and then lost in game 7 OT - hard to fault him for this performance.

1987 and 1988 are nothing to write home about, but no one was doing any better either for Hartford, or at Liut's age (31 & 32). In 1988 Liut was the NHL's 2nd-oldest starting goalie and 4th in the league in GP.

1990 and 1991 are nothing special either, but of course by 1991 he was the 2nd-oldest goalie in the league and no one who played significant games was really even close to Liut and Lemelin in that regard, either. Beaupre clearly outperformed him in 1990 and he was no longer the difference-maker he once was.

But his playoffs through age 30 deserve a lot of respect - more than they usually get.

 

[rmartin65]

So Paddy Moran has the first goalie goal in 1906 then?

Without going through all my files, I believe the first goalie goal (at the Senior level) was scored by Fred Brophy of Montreal Westmount on 18 February 1905... against Quebec HC!

Unfortunately, that's it for Cup games. @rmartin65 has a lot more detail, but I do think Moran was absolutely tops in the sport from ~1905-1915.

In my mind, by about 1915, LeSeuer and Moran are the two names that can make a serious argument for best goalie of all time. And while I do have LeSueur ahead, I do think it's time for Moran.

If you believe Moran was absolutely tops in the sport for that ~decade, what causes you to have LeSueur ranked over him? I think Moran started his peak earlier, and ended it later. LeSueur definitely had some years were he was probably the better player (1907 and 1911 (I think) come to mind), but on the balance of their careers, I just think the case for Moran is stronger.

Don't get me wrong, I am not anti-LeSueur; but the more I look at it, the more I read the neutral papers (avoiding Ottawa and Quebec City), the more it really seems to me like Moran was definitely considered to be the superior player.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I'm not sure what to do, so I'll just try to talk my way into something here...

I talk about Pekka RInne quite a bit in the prelim thread, namely here. He has some good aspects (mobility, glove), he has some very weak aspects (shots from the left, blocker, rebound control). He's much more popular among fans than he is goalie coaches. (Some of that, here).

I like Rask better. Rask is an excellent puck tracker, had lightning quick pads, but was a poor skater. I think that's all been well established at this point. Let's take a look at some Rask tape, which I don't think we've really done yet.

One thing that's a little bit interesting about Rask is that he really bucked the trend of slip-and-slide goalies of the time...there were sloppy sliders (Thomas), super sliders (Quick), desperation/over-play sliders (Fleury), etc. but Rask bucked that trend. Rask had a very low center of gravity and he stayed in a lot of plays as a result. It's a bit of a struggle to find great examples with appropriate camera angles, so I'll try my best...

Let's look here...



You watch Rask make a sudden change butterfly save here. He's going to make a rushed push with his right skate. But he quickly has to correct that movement because that may have pushed him out of the way of the puck. BAM. He just parks it. Then directs the puck to safety. It's subtle, but it can prove beneficial.

Desperation saves generate rebounds at a higher rate than routine saves.



Rask telescopes out and make a great stop. Where does he go after his post to post save? Well...that's just it. It's really just post to post. He stays in the net.

A bit of shooter tracking here, but in a different way. It's not hard to find him fighting to see through traffic for puck tracking purposes. That's pretty obvious stuff. But watch how he plays this low-angle rush off the wall...



TOR16 is a LHS on the right wall. Rask checked to see what else is available because this shooter isn't a threat. He has a guy on his back post and he's basically gonna claim some responsibility for that. But as that option disappears, Rask snaps to the new biggest threat.

That interior skate, that right toe has opened up...the post skate is now loaded. He's going to explode* into the Leafs cruising down the slot.

* - of course, he can't explode very well (physically) because of his skating. So he uses his mental acuity and otherwise really strong technique to compensate for his biggest physical/technical weakness.

In other words, many other goalies at this time were not amazing anticipators/processors. Many were not amazing technically either. But they compensated for it after the fact with ginormous gesticulations. Rask was sort of the opposite. It's small potatoes because the stat is tight and not great, but the top two save pct. goalies of DPE 2.0 (2010-2017) both played sort of like this (Rask and Cory Schneider).

Of course, Rask played in Save Pct. Pump Land, but he got what he got in a way that was sustainable and scalable. That's why he was able to keep it going (Vezina consideration, SCF appearance, best GAA) outside of that era as well.

Does it have drawbacks? Well, yeah...nothing is perfect.



Even less graphically, better shuffle ability might help get a cover here...



At the end of the day, give me mental processing and positioning. And I don't want to sell him as a "boring" cardboard cut-out goalie like, say, Schneider was. There are huge reflex pluses with Rask.



He really battled hard to upfront to ensure he wasn't operating from a deficit to start. Then he still competed through the save process to compensate for his square wheels.

 

[overpass]

From this thread where I logged shots/saves totals from newspapers for 1940s/1950s playoff games:

Playoff goaltending in the 40s and early 50s - save percentages

I posted this earlier in the goalie project thread. I'm going to put it in it's own thread as well, where I can update it if/when I get additional information. I've already added some missing games from the Boston Globe and other papers, and the playoff shot totals from 1943-44 through 1954-55...

forums.hfboards.com

Dave Kerr in the 1940 playoffs, and his opponents

I found shot totals for 5 of the 6 NYR vs BOS games, and 2 of the 6 NYR vs TOR games.

Goalie	Playoff	W	L	T	TOI	GA	GAA	SA	SV	SV%	SA/60
Dave Kerr	1940	5	2	0	454	11	1.60	205	194	0.946	27.1
Frank Brimsek	1940	2	3	0	300	11	2.20	107	96	0.897	21.4
Turk Broda	1940	0	2	0	154	5	1.95	54	49	0.907	21.1

And these are the stats for the games where I don't have the shot totals. Not too much difference between the games.

Goalie	Playoff	W	L	T	TOI	GA	GAA
Dave Kerr	1940	3	2	0	315.5	9	1.71
Frank Brimsek	1940	0	1	0	60	4	4.00
Turk Broda	1940	2	2	0	255.5	9	2.11

So the Rangers were actually outshot by 6 shots/game on average by their opponents! Kerr's save percentage of 0.946 was outstanding compared to Broda and Brimsek, who were down around 0.900. Kerr must have stolen this Cup for the Rangers, right?

It's not so uncommon for a Cup winner to be outshot in the playoffs by 3-4 shots/game. See the 2017 Penguins, 2011 Bruins, 1990 Oilers, 1971 Habs, 1967 Leafs, 1961 Hawks. But no Cup winner has been outshot by as many as 6 shots/game.

Can we reconcile these numbers with the findings by @jigglysquishy that the game reports didn't praise Kerr in particular among his Ranger teammates?

Maybe we can. I don't know about the 1940 Rangers in particular, but the Rangers of the 30s, especially the line of Frank Boucher, Bill Cook, and Bun Cook, were remembered for their distinctive style of play. They weaved around and passed the puck in all directions, didn't dump the puck in, and excelled at puck possession. Much like the Soviet national teams would later do. In the 1972 Summit Series, Foster Hewitt commented that the Soviet style of passing and never giving up the puck was much like the old Rangers of the 1930s (whose games he had also called). Other old-timers made the same observation. (One term that was used to describe both was "checkerboard passing". It's an interesting search term if you're looking for the history of passing, possession, anti-dump-and-chase hockey.)

While the Cook brothers and Boucher were all retired in 1940, their coach Lester Patrick was still managing the team. And Boucher himself was taking over as bench coach for the first time. If the Rangers still played that puck possession, passing style, they may well have been like the Soviets in that they focused on shot quality over shot quantity.

The Rangers were also heavily outshot by the Wings in the two 1941 playoff games for which I have shots.

Goalie	Playoff	W	L	T	TOI	GA	GAA	SA	SV	SV%	SA/60
Dave Kerr	1941	0	2	0	132	5	2.27	77	72	0.935	35.0
Johnny Mowers	1941	2	0	0	132	3	1.36	50	47	0.940	22.7

And they were heavily outshot in the three 1939 playoff games for which I have shots (Kerr was injured).

Goalie	Playoff	W	L	T	TOI	GA	GAA	SA	SV	SV%	SA/60
Bert Gardiner	1939	1	2	0	254	6	1.42	119	113	0.950	28.1
Frank Brimsek	1939	2	1	0	254	5	1.18	90	85	0.944	21.3

Combined 1939-1941 Rangers playoff games for which I have shots. Across 12 games, the Rangers were outshot by 8.6 shots per game!

Goalie	Playoff	W	L	T	TOI	GA	GAA	SA	SV	SV%	SA/60
Rangers	1939-1941	6	6	0	701.5	22	1.88	401	379	0.945	34.3
Opponent	1939-1941	6	6	0	701.5	24	2.05	301	277	0.920	25.7

So these Rangers may well have been the Cup winner that was outshot the most. I'm not sure this moves the needle for me on Dave Kerr, because I think this shot deficit was likely because their style of play generated quality rather than quantity for scoring chances. But I'll put this information out there for the rest of the panel to consider, and for the record.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Every John Ross Roach playoff game

1922 Playoffs
Toronto (Roach) defeats Ottawa 5-4 in a two-game total-goal series

The Border Cities Star · ‎Mar 13, 1922

[In the third period] the locals sent everyone up on the attack and Stuart, stationed at centre ice, was the nearest to Roach, in goal. Benedict was given a busy time, both on long-range shots and others from close in, but he turned them all away, although he was lucky a couple of times.

Toronto and Ottawa tie 0-0

The Montreal Gazette · ‎Mar 14, 1922

Roach had more stops to make than in any game of his career [text is cut off but it says something to the effect of Roach being the best Toronto goaler ever]

1922 Stanley Cup Finals
Vancouver beats Toronto 4-3 in a best-of-five series
Toronto 0 Vancouver 1

No relevant comments (media is all over Hugh Lehman though)

Toronto wins 2-1 in OT
Toronto 1 Vancouver 1

The Montreal Gazette · ‎Mar 22, 1922

John Ross Roach had another of his good nights in the nets, in fact, it might be termed his best display of the season. While he did not have as many shots to handle as his older rival, he certainly did not have to take a back seat to Lehman as far as spectacular work is concerned.

Vancouver wins 3-0
Toronto 1 Vancouver 2

The Morning Leader · ‎Mar 24, 1922

[in the second period] Vancouver showed more on the attack and gave Roach a lot of work.

Toronto wins 6-0
Toronto 2 Vancouver 2

No relevant comments.

Toronto wins 5-1
Toronto 3 Vancouver 2

The Border Cities Star · ‎Mar 29, 1922

Very seldom did the west champions get in close on Roach after the locals had obtained their three-goal lead.

They did not have as many shots on Lehman as the Westerners had on Roach.

A strong series, especially the last two games. Lehman gets more praise, but as the series goes on the tide does slowly turn to Roach. Overall, quite a respectable playoffs. He's a rookie and stands toe-to-toe with Benedict and Lehman and walks away with a Cup and media praise.


1925 Playoffs
Montreal beats Toronto 3-2 in a two-game total-goal series

The Morning Leader · ‎Mar 12, 1925

Morenz Shines For Champs In Win Over Irish

Morenz was robbed of a goal by Roach when the St. Pat's net custodian rushed out and blocked.

Habs win 2-0 to win series 5-2

No specific quote, but it is presented a bit as a Morenz vs. Roach matchup. Morenz and Cleghorn star and multiple Roach saves are noted.


1929 Playoffs
Rangers (Roach) and Americans (Worters) tie 0-0 in a two-game total-goal series

No relevant comments.

Rangers win 1-0 in double OT

The Montreal Gazette · ‎Mar 22, 1929

The Rangers were just about entitled to the verdict. They made more excursions down towards Worters and were much more dangerous in front of the cage.

The wonderful work of the rival goalies, John Ross Roach and Roy Worters, stood out as the big feature of a rousing sizzling game, the Rangers net guardian making 57 stops against 48 by Worters.

The Americans uncorked a smashing attack as soon s the middle sessions tarted, Roach having to show his best form to prevent a score.

Rangers beat Leafs 1-0 in a two-game total-goal series

The Border Cities Star · ‎Mar 25, 1929

Roach Too Good

Frank Boucher was a tower of strength in the Ranger defence, breaking up many plays by his fine stickwork in centre ice. Johnny Roach, ex-Toronto player in the Ranger net, also played an important role in the net.

Rangers win 2-1 in OT to win series 3-1

Saskatoon Star-Phoenix · ‎Mar 27, 1929

John Ross Roach, Ranger goalie who perhaps did more than any one else to defeat the Leafs, was traded by Toronto to New York early this season.

There was action galore [in the third period] when the Leafs milled wildly in front of Roach, but the little wizard proved his mettle time and time again.

1929 Stanley Cup Final
Bruins (Thompson) beat Rangers 2-0 in a best-of-three series

The Border Cities Star · ‎Mar 29, 1929

The Bruins were simply not to be denied and after outshooting the Rangers two to one in the opening period in which Roach distinguished himself by making a number of clever saves on close-in shots.

Bruins win 2-1
Shots: Bruins 37 Rangers 32

The Border Cities Star · ‎Mar 30, 1929

Boston clearly demonstrated their superiority over Rangers in the final contest by outplaying them both ways, practically throughout the entire game.

Roach was called upon to excel himself.

A very strong run. The Bruins walk all over the Rangers in the finals and, if not for Roach, it would have been a blow-out. He's the most praised Ranger across the playoffs, with Frank Boucher right there with him. Time and time again I come across Frank Boucher getting the highest praise in the playoffs.


1930 Playoffs
Rangers and Sens tie 1-1 in a two-game total-goal series. Frank Boucher is out with an injury.

The Montreal Gazette · ‎Mar 21, 1930

Roach Is Star In Goal

John Ross Roach, however, takes the lion's share of the credit for an uncannily brilliant performance.

Superb exhibition of goal tending by John Ross Roach.

Again it was Roach who rose to the occasion when his teammates in front failed him.

Rangers win 5-2. With a shoulder in a brace, Frank Boucher returns and puts up a two-point night. Ching Johnson has a broken jaw.

No relevant comments


Canadiens (Hainsworth) beat Rangers 2-1 in quadruple OT in a two-game total-goal series

The Calgary Daily Herald · ‎Mar 29, 1930

[In overtime] Canadiens still had the edge, more so as the Rangers penalties depleted their ranks, but could not manage to get through the New Yorkers defence often enough to trouble Roach.

Habs win 2-0

The Montreal Gazette · ‎Mar 31, 1930

Brilliance of John Roach that prevented the Frenchmen from piling up a prodigious score

Canadien squad dominated the play and peppered Roach with more than twice as many shots as Hainsworth was called on to stop.

Time and again they swept in on Roach alone, received passes in front of the Ranger net, and broke away three abreast with only one man to beat. But each time it was either their anxiety to score, the brilliance of Roach, or the desperate checking of the Rangers that prevented a score.

1931 Playoffs
Rangers beat Maroons (Kerr) 5-1 in a two-game total-goal series

The Calgary Daily Herald · ‎Mar 25, 1931

Roach, whose sterling work had held the Montrealers at bay in the thrilling second period. That Maroons failed to score In the middle stanza was due entirely to Roach

Rangers win 3-0 to win series 8-1

Edmonton Journal · ‎Mar 27, 1931

Roach In the New York nets spoiled the best attacks the Maroons could muster

Black Hawks (Gardiner) beat Rangers 2-0 in a two-game total-goal series

The Leader-Post · ‎Mar 30, 1931

Roach played a sensational game in the New York net but he was the victim of almost perfectly played shots by the Black Hawks, who were clearly superior and their defencemen performed so effectively that Gardiner had only 22 saves to 37 by Roach.

Black Hawks win 1-0

Saskatoon Star-Phoenix · ‎Apr 1, 1931

Setting up a record unequalled in modern hockey, curly haired Chuck Gardiner, youthful Chicago goal guardian, blanked the Rangers in two successive games, even though he was bombarded with a fusillade of 45 shots last night.

Across both 1930 and 1931 Roach gets some pretty immense praise, often cited as the best player on the team. Two very strong runs.

1932 Playoffs
Habs (Hainsworth) beat Rangers 4-3 in a best-of-five series
Rangers 0 Habs 1

No relevant comments

Rangers win 4-3 in triple OT
Rangers 1 Habs 1

Le Miroir (French) · ‎Mar 27, 1932

Hainsworth and Roach, brilliant in nets

Rangers win 1-0
Rangers 2 Habs 1

Ottawa Citizen · ‎Mar 28, 1932

The tiring Canadiens were unable to beat Roach and the close-checking New York defence.

Rangers win 5-2
Rangers 3 Habs 1

No relevant comments

1932 Stanley Cup Finals
Leafs (Chabot) beat Rangers 6-4 in a best-of-five series

No relevant comments

Leafs win 6-2

The Leader-Post · ‎Apr 8, 1932

They swooped in upon John Ross Roach and the odds against the agile little goalie were terrific.

Leafs win 6-4
Shots: Leafs 56 Rangers 36

No relevant comments

1932 isn't nearly as strong as 1930 and 1931, but a big part of that comes into the Rangers getting outplayed hard in the finals.


1933 Playoffs
Red Wings (Roach) beat Maroons (Kerr) 2-0 in a two-game total-goal series

The Montreal Gazette · ‎Mar 27, 1933

Maroons' sporadic sweeps into Detroit territory to force Goalie John Ross Roach to heights of brilliance to save.

Kerr had a total of 30 shots to stop. Roach had but 26, but many of the shots on the Detroit net were from close in.

Red Wings win 3-2

Ottawa Citizen · ‎Mar 29, 1933

John Ross Roach, ace Detroit goalie.

Rangers (Aitkenhead) beat Detroit 2-0 in a two-game total-goal series

Saskatoon Star-Phoenix · ‎Mar 31, 193

Loose defensive work on the part of the Detroit rearguard men and the indifferent back checking by the forward put Roach "on the spot" [I believe this refers to a breakaway] six times during the speedy contest. Each time when the Ranger snipers broke through with only the dapper little Roach to beat he saved in magnificent fashion.

Rangers win 4-3 to win series 6-3

Saskatoon Star-Phoenix · ‎Apr 3, 1933

Goalie Aitkenhead played a spectacular match. The Wings time and again, using five-man onslaughts, drove in on him, and he kicked the puck back from all angles. At the other end of the rink, Goalie John Ross Roach, former Ranger play, had less work, making only 15 stops as compared with Aitkenhead's 34.

I came away quite impressed with Roach across these years. He comes in hot with a Stanley Cup final appearance as a rookie and consistently has strong playoff runs. He gets lots of praise on the Rangers.

 

[jigglysquishy]

So I've now gone through all the playoff games of the four 1925-1940 goalies up (Connell, Roach, Kerr, Chabot). Connell (1935) and Kerr (1937) have all time great playoff runs. Roach doesn't have a single run to compare, but across the entirety of their playoff careers he might just be the most praised goalie. For me, Chabot is clearly last.

Frank Boucher comes up time and time again as a playoff monster, controlling possession and dictating the game. Chabot's peak coincides with his time behind Boucher. Then John Ross Roach comes to the Rangers and excels. And then Aitkenhead (who likely didn't make it on anyone's preliminary top 80) comes to the Rangers and plays by far the best hockey of his career. Kerr's peak is on the Rangers. How much does Frank Boucher, arguably the best playoff performer of the era, play into multiple goalies having the best runs of their careers?

I've gone through almost 1000 playoff game reports now and Boucher might be the second-most praised player in total 1905-1945 (behind Nighbor).

If you believe Moran was absolutely tops in the sport for that ~decade, what causes you to have LeSueur ranked over him? I think Moran started his peak earlier, and ended it later. LeSueur definitely had some years were he was probably the better player (1907 and 1911 (I think) come to mind), but on the balance of their careers, I just think the case for Moran is stronger.

Don't get me wrong, I am not anti-LeSueur; but the more I look at it, the more I read the neutral papers (avoiding Ottawa and Quebec City), the more it really seems to me like Moran was definitely considered to be the superior player.

I know you (and I) wanted Moran and LeSueur up together so we could compare. I think you made the same comment in the pre-merger project too.

My main reason for LeSueur ahead is that he's spoken of more fondly in the 1915-1925 lists, but contemporary on contemporary I can see Moran being ahead. I haven't taken a head-to-head approach.

But I will be voting Moran #1 this round.

 

[overpass]

Chuck Rayner's playoff save percentages

I have shot totals for 17 of Rayner's 18 playoff games,

Goalie	Playoff	W	L	T	TOI	GA	GAA	SA	SV	SV%	SA/60
Chuck Rayner	1948-1950	8	9	0	1074	45	2.51	542	497	0.917	30.3
Harry Lumley	1948-1950	8	4	0	759	26	2.06	266	240	0.902	21.0
Bill Durnan	1948-1950	0	3	0	180	9	3.00	77	68	0.883	25.7
Gerry McNeil	1948-1950	1	1	0	135	5	2.22	45	40	0.889	20.0
Combined NYR opponents	1948-1950	9	8	0	1074	40	2.23	388	348	0.897	21.7

On average, Rayner faced 8.6 shots per game more than his opposing counterpart in goal. His save percentage was 20 points higher (0.917 to 0.897). At face value, these numbers look very good for Rayner.

But is it possible the Rangers were still playing a style of game that focused on quality over quantity in 1950, as they were in 1940? I don't have any direct evidence that the Rangers of this era were doing so. And it was after a major rule change (the red line was added in 1943) that could have disrupted their style of play.

On the other hand, the late 40s and early 50s Rangers organization, right down through minor league and junior affiliates, was managed by Frank Boucher and the players from the 1940 Cup winner. Lynn Patrick took over from Boucher as coach for the big club, and coaches for their minor league and junior clubs included Neil and Mac Colville, Alf Pike, Phil Watson, Dutch Hiller, Babe Pratt, Alex Shibicky, Ott Heller, Clint Smith, and Bryan Hextall, though not all at the same time. Art Coulter was literally the only 1940 Ranger regular who didn't coach after retirement*.

Considering this high degree of continuity of management between the 1950 and 1940 Rangers, and the fact that even their junior hockey prospects played on Ranger affiliated teams coached by former Ranger players, it's very possible that a distinctive Ranger style of play was passed on across a decade. If so, Rayner may well have been at a disadvantage in quantity of shots, but not in quality of shots.

*Kerr himself coached a team in the Toronto Commercial league while managing hotels during his post-playing career, but never coached big league affiliated hockey.

 

[rmartin65]

So I've now gone through all the playoff games of the four 1925-1940 goalies up (Connell, Roach, Kerr, Chabot). Connell (1935) and Kerr (1937) have all time great playoff runs. Roach doesn't have a single run to compare, but across the entirety of their playoff careers he might just be the most praised goalie. For me, Chabot is clearly last.

Frank Boucher comes up time and time again as a playoff monster, controlling possession and dictating the game. Chabot's peak coincides with his time behind Boucher. Then John Ross Roach comes to the Rangers and excels. And then Aitkenhead (who likely didn't make it on anyone's preliminary top 80) comes to the Rangers and plays by far the best hockey of his career. Kerr's peak is on the Rangers. How much does Frank Boucher, arguably the best playoff performer of the era, play into multiple goalies having the best runs of their careers?

I've gone through almost 1000 playoff game reports now and Boucher might be the second-most praised player in total 1905-1945 (behind Nighbor).

These playoff recaps have been incredibly helpful- thank you for your efforts!

I'm very intrigued by your comment that Roach may have been the most praised of the four 1925-1940 goalies eligible this round. I came across the following quote in the Vancouver Daily World, 22 March 1922 Page 12, while doing some post-1910 Moran research-

An Ottawa gentleman, writing to The World, speaks very highly of the ability of this chap Roach who is guarding the Toronto nets from the attacks of the Vancouver sharpshooters in the present big series. He says in part: 'You have doubtless heard the praises, east and west, of one John Ross Roach, goalkeeper extraordinary of St. Patrick's. He doesn't quite tally with the praises showered on him- about 90 per cent better, that's all. And this year, his first year in professional company, too. I have seen most of them in the past ten years- Paddy Moran, Vezina, Holmes, Lehman, Benedict, Lindsay, Forbes- and I must admit handing the palm to Roach. I hope you have an opportunity to see him here long. Lehman is a wonder, I'll admit; Holmes is extra good. I have always admired Vezina, who had been my model, although he is now getting along in years. I am not one who is changed by a good game or two on the part of a goaltender, but I think Roach takes the gold-headed cane'

Now, it's one quote from one unnamed guy. I don't know how much stock to put into it, but he's got most of the right names there for the 1912-1922 time period, right? Of that list of 8 names, we have talked about/are talking about 6 of them. And, for what it is worth, Bert Lindsay certainly had his admirers in his day, so Forbes is really the only one that seems out there for me.

Anyway, I'm less interested in the mention of Roach being the best this guy saw, but that he's been added in with this list of names that looks pretty good to how we understand the goalies of the time period, and that this is still so early in Roach's career- he's only 22, and like the unnamed Ottawa gentleman wrote, in his first year of pro hockey. A quick search took me to an article from the Saskatoon Daily Star from 14 November 1921-

Toronto, Nov 14- Several local senior teams have been hot on the trail of John Ross Roach, goalkeeper extraordinary of last year's Granite team, and the fans will know next Tuesday what decision Roach will make, as on that night he intends to turn out with either Granites or Aura Lee. He has announced that he will remain with the team that he practices with first. THere will be many anxious moments for the officials of both clubs between now and next Tuesday, as Roach is regarded as without a peer among amateur goalers"

Looking at Wikipedia, he went 8-2 in the OHA in the 1920-1921 season, his first (really?) in Senior hockey. There is already at least one other guy on our list who played in the OHA that year: George Hainsworth. @Dr John Carlson , I believe you went through Hainsworth's OHA career, do you have anything on Roach's time in that league?

I know you (and I) wanted Moran and LeSueur up together so we could compare. I think you made the same comment in the pre-merger project too.

Yeah... unfortunately, it didn't happen this time around. Maybe next time (in a decade, haha).

My main reason for LeSueur ahead is that he's spoken of more fondly in the 1915-1925 lists, but contemporary on contemporary I can see Moran being ahead. I haven't taken a head-to-head approach.

I definitely think it is close between those two. I have found that a lot of the pro-LeSueur (relative to the Moran/LeSueur debate) press comes from either ex-teammates or the local papers; Ottawa papers preferred LeSueur, Quebec City preferred Moran, and- to me- it feels like Montreal prefers Moran.

But, really, at the end of the day, it feels like they were considered the top dogs in the nets for their careers, while guys like Hern, Nicholson, and Winchester were in that next tier. And the guys who I think were the top hockey minds of the time- Lester and Frank Patrick- seem to agree, since they each named those two (and Frank also gave a shout out to Bouse Hutton, who I personally have a very hard time getting a good sense of) as the best of their era/playing career. I think they should be close to each other on our list and I think they should both be considerably higher than they are ultimately going to end up.

But I will be voting Moran #1 this round.

Me too, unsurprisingly. The only "flaw" I can see on his record is that he played a long time ago... and I don't think that we should actually be looking at that as a flaw.

 

[overpass]

As I said in my posts on Kerr and Rayner, the Rangers of the 1940s and 1950s were led by alumni from their 1940 Cup winning team. And I suggested there may have been a distinctive Ranger style of play, where they lost the shot battle but made it up by winning on shooting/save percentages.

Here's a look at the regular season statistics starting in the 1955-56 season to see if the Rangers did tend to follow this statistical pattern. Team shot numbers aren't available until 1959-60, so I used the sum of goalie shots against for 55-56 through 58-59, which would exclude empty net goals.

The bottom line is yes, while the Rangers were managed and coached by the 1940 Rangers, they definitely tended to get outshot by their opponents, but they had better shooting percentages/save percentages than their opponents. I think it's likely that this statistical pattern was because of a distinctive Ranger style of play that carried into the early 60s. Possibly originally established by Lester Patrick and carried on by his players (including his son).

Here are the stats for the Rangers, running through the end of Emile Francis and Ed Giacomin's time in New York. Goals for and against, shots for and against, percentages for and against, and the for/against ratio of each of these.

Season	GM	Coach	GF	GA	SF	SA	SH%	SH% against	Goal Ratio	Shot Ratio	Percentage Ratio
1955-56	Muzz Patrick	Phil Watson	204​	203​	1877​	2574​	10.9%​	7.9%​	1.00​	0.73​	1.38​
1956-57	Muzz Patrick	Phil Watson	184​	227​	1872​	2346​	9.8%​	9.7%​	0.81​	0.80​	1.02​
1957-58	Muzz Patrick	Phil Watson	195​	188​	1981​	2289​	9.8%​	8.2%​	1.04​	0.87​	1.20​
1958-59	Muzz Patrick	Phil Watson	201​	217​	2099​	2247​	9.6%​	9.7%​	0.93​	0.93​	0.99​
1959-60	Muzz Patrick	Watson/Pike	187​	247​	2135​	2353​	8.8%​	10.5%​	0.76​	0.91​	0.83​
1960-61	Muzz Patrick	Alf Pike	204​	248​	2127​	2607​	9.6%​	9.5%​	0.82​	0.82​	1.01​
1961-62	Muzz Patrick	Doug Harvey	195​	207​	2016​	2329​	9.7%​	8.9%​	0.94​	0.87​	1.09​
1962-63	Muzz Patrick	Muzz Patrick/Sullivan	211​	233​	1978​	2658​	10.7%​	8.8%​	0.91​	0.74​	1.22​
1963-64	Muzz Patrick	Red Sullivan	186​	242​	2230​	2627​	8.3%​	9.2%​	0.77​	0.85​	0.91​
1964-65	Emile Francis	Red Sullivan	179​	246​	2006​	2375​	8.9%​	10.4%​	0.73​	0.84​	0.86​
1965-66	Emile Francis	Sullivan/Francis	195​	261​	2163​	2285​	9.0%​	11.4%​	0.75​	0.95​	0.79​
1966-67	Emile Francis	Emile Francis	188​	189​	2201​	2194​	8.5%​	8.6%​	0.99​	1.00​	0.99​
1967-68	Emile Francis	Emile Francis	226​	183​	2465​	2127​	9.2%​	8.6%​	1.23​	1.16​	1.07​
1968-69	Emile Francis	Emile Francis	231​	196​	2846​	2189​	8.1%​	9.0%​	1.18​	1.30​	0.91​
1969-70	Emile Francis	Emile Francis	246​	189​	2734​	2134​	9.0%​	8.9%​	1.30​	1.28​	1.02​
1970-71	Emile Francis	Emile Francis	259​	177​	2795​	2185​	9.3%​	8.1%​	1.46​	1.28​	1.14​
1971-72	Emile Francis	Emile Francis	317​	192​	2811​	2014​	11.3%​	9.5%​	1.65​	1.40​	1.18​
1972-73	Emile Francis	Emile Francis	297​	208​	2699​	2117​	11.0%​	9.8%​	1.43​	1.27​	1.12​
1973-74	Emile Francis	Emile Francis	300​	251​	2584​	2239​	11.6%​	11.2%​	1.20​	1.15​	1.04​
1974-75	Emile Francis	Emile Francis	319​	276​	2714​	2229​	11.8%​	12.4%​	1.16​	1.22​	0.95​

The 1940 Rangers are bolded in the table above.

There were ups and downs from season to season, but in general, the Rangers under Muzz Patrick - before Emile Francis - got outshot by opponents but had higher shooting percentages/save percentages. And the first season in this dataset, 1955-56, showed this pattern the most.

Breaking it down to Muzz Patrick's tenure as GM to Emile Francis's tenure as GM:

GM	GF	GA	SF	SA	SH%	SH% against	Goal Ratio	Shot Ratio	% Ratio
Muzz Patrick	1767​	2012​	18315​	22030​	9.6%​	9.1%​	0.88​	0.83​	1.06​
Emile Francis	2757​	2368​	28018​	24088​	9.8%​	9.8%​	1.16​	1.16​	1.00​

Patrick's teams were outshot by their opponents by 17%, but their shooting percentages were 6% higher than their opponents.

Francis's teams outshot their opponents by 16%, and their percentages were equal to their opponents. Based on these numbers, I would say the Rangers' style of trying to win with the percentages came to an end when Emile Francis took over.

Here are the numbers for the Rangers during Muzz Patrick's time as GM, broken down by the head coach.

Coach	GF	GA	SF	SA	SH%	SH% against	Goal Ratio	Shot Ratio	Percentage Ratio
Phil Watson	826​	891​	8287​	9945​	10.0%​	9.0%​	0.93​	0.83​	1.11​
Alf Pike	347​	433​	3719​	4396​	9.3%​	9.8%​	0.80​	0.85​	0.95​
Doug Harvey	195​	207​	2016​	2329​	9.7%​	8.9%​	0.94​	0.87​	1.09​
Muzz Patrick	106​	118​	1010​	1343​	10.5%​	8.8%​	0.90​	0.75​	1.19​
Red Sullivan	293​	363​	4181​	4360​	7.0%​	8.3%​	0.81​	0.96​	0.84​

Every one of the coaches except Red Sullivan (who was not a 1940 Rangers) had a poor shot ratio but was much better on the percentages. Under Watson, Harvey, and Patrick, the Rangers shot at a considerably higher percentage than their opponents. Muzz Patrick had the strongest such pattern while wearing both hats as coach and GM, as the Rangers shot a scorching 10.5% but only had 75% as many shots as their opponents. Phil Watson was close behind, with the Rangers shooting 10.0% but only having 83% as many shots as their opponents.

So I would conclude that yes, the Rangers from the time of Lester Patrick all the way to the early 60s played a style where they were outshot and aimed to win through winning the percentages.

 

[blogofmike]

Are Liut's playoffs actually bad? Sure, from a W/L perspective they are not good, but I had no idea that he posted some absolutely unreal numbers a few times in the 80s.

Looking at the teams he was on and the kind of success they tended to have, I'm surprised that he's as good as 29-32, honestly. The way it gets talked about, I would have guessed 19-37 or something like that, without looking.

Yeah, they don't speak nicely:

Liut was a first-team NHL All-Star in 1981 in St. Louis. He was Canada’s goalie in the Canada Cup that year. In 1987 with the Whalers, Liut was named a second-team All-Star.

“But how many games has he won in the playoffs the last three years or so,” asked Hartford Whalers General Manager Ed Johnston a few days after he traded Liut to Washington March 5 for Yvon Corriveau. “Not many.”

Hockey in May Is New Experience for Liut, Capitals

That being said, I was high on Vanbiesbrouck, so it's not really his W-L numbers...

During his time with St. Louis, his .891 was a good 12 points better than the league average. His win threshold during this time was .902, just to go .500 over these five years. It's unrealistic to expect any goalie in the early 80s to maintain that number over the long term unless they have the Islanders in front of them. He performed at just below that level and therefore came out just below .500. It's a small sample but other goalies the Blues briefly tried in the nets went 0-2 with a .833 aggregate.

Glen Hanlon came on in relief of Liut and ate those two losses. Over those 2 games, Mike Liut had a save percentage of .200 against a 30-win .450 Chicago team.

Also keep in mind the quality of opposition, which if I recall, was an issue for you with Denis Savard's playoffs (though Savard kept up his playoff scoring pace against the Smythe DIvision).

But that Chicago series kind of gives you a picture of playoff Liut. The .874 save percentage isn't horrific, but in 6 Playoff games, 3 Quality Starts, 3 Really Bad Starts (if they qualify, given the quick hooks). Things snowballed on him really fast sometimes. He's an .874 goalie who doesn't have a single game close to .874.

Blues-era Liut is roughly 60% of his playoff games.

In 39 games he has

2 quick pulls where he has a .200 save percentage against a .450 team. (Liut is 0-0, but team is 0-2, losing 6-5, and 7-4)
10 games where he allows 5+ GA (0-10 record)
6 4-GA games (1-5)

That's a lot of games where he almost literally can't make a save, or where he's forcing his team to score 5+ goals to win.

His Hartford time is a massive high followed by two lows, but overall comes to an 8-7 record and an .893 sv% that's 12 points better than the league average again. His easier win threshold of .894 (thanks to Hartford's much better shot suppression) is exactly what you expect: He performed at the level he needed to, in order to be .500 and was essentially .500. Other Hartford goalies went 2-5 with an .862.

1986 was a very good run, but over time, Liut giveth and Liut taketh away.

1986 Habs
Mike Liut .945
Steve Weeks .875

1987 Nords
Mike Liut .842
Steve Weeks .955

Aggregate vs 86 Habs/87 Nords
Liut .888
Weeks .895

1988 Habs
Mike Liut: .866
Richard Brodeur (age 35): .862

That 1986 playoff was an outstanding performance, statistically. I did a doubletake when I saw his "GA%-" was 49. Basically he allowed goals at literally half the rate of the league average that season, over an 8-game sample. The Whalers scored just 29 goals in 10 games, including a superfluous 9 in game 3 vs. Quebec. Liut got hurt during game 3. Weeks couldn't save that one, then had a hell of a game 4 before the bottom fell out in game 5. Liut, up against Patrick Roy in legend mode, came back to post a shutout and then lost in game 7 OT - hard to fault him for this performance.

There's a lot to like about 1986 (also 1984, even if it's Norris teams). It is a superfluous 9, but it was 9-4, they did come through for him when Liut had an average game.

Of course that average game followed two more spectacular ones, so overall..."Whalers goalie Mike Liut has been the most effective goalie in the playoffs to date. His saves were the main reason Hartford swept the high-powered Nordiques in the first round."

Taking down the Nords in the first round was pretty good, though it should be noted that: 'I think we have to realize what the situation was last year,' said Whalers netminder Mike Liut. 'They had a lot of injuries and if we had as many, it could happen to us. They're certainly going to try to make amends for all the abuse they had to live with.'

His numbers are great, but it's not like he's not getting help - or like he didn't move out of the way of the series-winning shot:

1987 and 1988 are nothing to write home about, but no one was doing any better either for Hartford, or at Liut's age (31 & 32). In 1988 Liut was the NHL's 2nd-oldest starting goalie and 4th in the league in GP.

1990 and 1991 are nothing special either, but of course by 1991 he was the 2nd-oldest goalie in the league and no one who played significant games was really even close to Liut and Lemelin in that regard, either. Beaupre clearly outperformed him in 1990 and he was no longer the difference-maker he once was.

But his playoffs through age 30 deserve a lot of respect - more than they usually get.

In 1987 he more or less gives back all the goals he saved in 1986. The #4 vs #1 upset goes the other way. Instead of stringing together solid games against a good offense, he gets murdered by the #20 offensive team (after his usually solid Game 1.) The Whalers have only 1 GF in each of games 3 and 4 in Quebec, but that means they scores 4.25 GF in the other games and only came out .500 because of some superfluous goals allowed.

In 1988 his save percentage is indistinguishable from a 35-year old Richard Brodeur who doesn't have it any more, and Liut is 1-1, with the win coming because the Whalers win a 7-5 game against Patrick Roy. (Fun fact: also the first time an Adams Division #1 seed beat the #4 seed.)

In 1990 he is solid enough against the Rangers, but that's basically the only positive series of consequence in Washington (and the Caps were a strong defensive team).

----

And as an aside, @Michael Farkas may sees something to this tidbit considering how often newspapers say he was beaten on a rebound:

His secret of success? 'It's simply reflexes,' Liut said. 'The thing you've got to make sure of is to be well-balanced for the first shot.'

And if anyone has first goal data, I'd also be interested to see if Liut thrived when his team scored first, and was more likely to fold if they didn't.

----

All that said, Liut did seem to make a difference in the regular season fortunes of many of his teams, and I think I would prefer him to a Chuck Rayner.

 

[Professor What]

Where are we with Giacomin now? Dude's been getting beat up in the votes for a few rounds now, and I still don't have him top 5. Was it some sort of freak accident that we had him as high in the aggregate?

 

[jigglysquishy]

Shesterkin has been the #2 amongst players for best goalie the last two years

NHLPA Player Poll 2023-24

The players gave their takes on the NHL's hottest topics.

www.nhlpa.com

NHLPA Player Poll 2022-23 | NHLPA.com

www.nhlpa.com

His 2022 season was tremendous. 2022 and 2024 were really strong playoffs. Peak on peak I think him and Moran are tops for the rest of the project.

Obviously 4 seasons is 4 seasons. It's enough to not have him go this round. But I do think he's actually that good and has been in conversation for best goalie in the world for 4 seasons now.

 

[Dr John Carlson]

Looking at Wikipedia, he went 8-2 in the OHA in the 1920-1921 season, his first (really?) in Senior hockey. There is already at least one other guy on our list who played in the OHA that year: George Hainsworth. @Dr John Carlson , I believe you went through Hainsworth's OHA career, do you have anything on Roach's time in that league?

Not all that much since he only played one season of senior hockey. I think I posted the most interesting bits on him in my Hainsworth post, but I can re-post them here. He was praised pretty much right from the jump:

[John Ross] Roach, subbing for the best amateur goal tender in Ontario, made good with a vengeance. He looked so much better than expected that the fans may be inclined to overestimate him a bit, but just the same he is one grand little good janitor. He stays on the job nicely, never goes to sleep, and any time the front doorstep needs a cleaning he comes on right out.

The above quote is referring to Charlie Stewart as the 'best amateur goal tender in Ontario,' a name I mentioned a few times in my George Hainsworth bio a few rounds back. Roach was subbing in as a replacement on the Aura Lee team, despite being a Toronto Granite for this entire 20-21 season. So, I guess it's more accurate to say he went 9-2 in his first senior season.

[Roach,] by the way, is a goalie of such a calibre that he would break the heart of any team by his sensational saves. He is uncanny in his cleverness in outguessing the oncoming puck carrier and the few times that the Kitchener forwards did get in the defense, in the earlier portion of the game, he came out and blocked beautifully. You've got to stickhandle right into the goal to beat him.

I think Roach was pretty good, and was pretty good for a long time. I'd certainly have him above Lorne Chabot, who I think was a guy who was just good for a long time, rather than pretty good. Worth noting that when the coaches voted for their own all star team in 1935, his Vezina year, they didn't have Chabot as 1st or 2nd team goalie, preferring Thompson and Worters respectively. I also remember finding an article that mentioned him in passing as a reason for why the Vezina shouldn't just be given out to the leader in goals allowed, but damn, I can't find it anywhere in my notes, so I'll have to disregard that memory. Chabot's a guy who has a strong amateur resume, but I didn't dive into that at all, as I didn't think his NHL career was all that interesting to warrant it. A task for me in the future.

---

A few other thoughts about the rest of the goalies...

- If you liked Percy LeSueur at all, there's really no reason not to like Paddy Moran too, right? I certainly think so, and we have a few pre-merger project participants who think so too. LeSueur's name power has endured for longer, and I'd guess that's mostly because he was more prominent within the game after his playing career was over. But Moran's resume is just as strong. They both won back to back Cups in the middle of their NHA careers, and I find it a point in Moran's favour that he did so with perhaps the most notorious loafer of his day in Tommy Smith up front.

- I think I'll probably cave and rank Shesterkin highly. His talent is undeniable. One of the things that really interested me early in the project when I looked at Andrei Vasilevskiy's NHLPA player poll results was that Shesterkin was almost immediately considered the next best dude, even over Connor Hellebuyck - the caveat being they were only separated by a few percentage points. And his Rangers team depends on him so much. For peak performance, it's him and Moran at the top this week.

- Cheevers might be the name I'm most interested in this week. I can't pin down how I feel about him. @Dennis Bonvie maybe has some thoughts?