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

[Professor What]

I know very well the difference between Pekka and Tuukka, the importance of Giacomin and Fleury, the significancw of Liut and Richter,....

But Moran & Shesterkin... have historic value labels.

Please argue why they shouldn't be 1,2. The best of two eras of questionable goaltending.

Are you arguing that Sheterkin is better than Vasilevskiy? Because that's a no go in my eyes. He might have the best single season of the two of them, but Vasi has the next few, and has longevity that Shesterkin doesn't.

I realize that's not an argument against Shesterkin being in the top two for this round, but I think it's an excellent argument that he's being overrated in this post. I'd really like to hear the argument for how he's the best of the current era.

Also, I'm not sure how productive the post is. It seems to presuppose something and then put the burden of proof on anyone who disagrees. I feel more like the burden of proof is spread equally among everyone that wants to make an argument.

For the record I tend to agree with you more on Moran. I've become convinced that we got him and LeSueur backwards. So, to remedy that as much as possible by keeping them close, and because I think he's a very strong candidate this round (I think he should be tops this round regardless), I'm all for putting him at #1 in this round. I don't think that first thing I said is in very good form unless the second one is, but I think they go like hand in glove here.

 

[Professor What]

The last pair of contemporaries- Cheevers and Giacomin- is less interesting. I don’t really see a case for Cheevers, does anyone?

I meant to reply to this too and just realized that I didn't. I see Giacomin as being clearly ahead of Cheevers, but no, I don't see the argument for Cheevers. Most of the people I've known who rate him highly do so because of a novelty -- his mask. I mean, it's a cool story and all, but it's of zero substance.

I wouldn't exactly be mad if Giacomin went in here, but I'm not ready for him, and if I see a clear separation, that can't say anything good for Cheevers on my list.

 

[rmartin65]

while there's a thousand ways to interpret Fleury, one thing that I don't think is a good look is having Barrasso over him. But we can't un-ring that bell. That's one that we can probably chalk it up to Fleury being a current player (so he's lacking in Being-On-The-Previous-List/Against Average, but also he has a lot more highlights against him).

Respectfully, I'm not sure the bold is an entirely accurate charge for the list in general. Here is our current list as compared to the previous list (using 41 as a placeholder for guys who didn't make the Top 40 last time around):

Name	List Position	Previous List Position	Change
Dominik Hasek	1	2	1
Patrick Roy	2	1	-1
Jacques Plante	3	3	0
Terry Sawchuk	4	5	1
Martin Brodeur	5	6	1
Glenn Hall	6	4	-2
Vladislav Tretiak	7	8	1
Ken Dryden	8	7	-1
Frank Brimsek	9	9	0
Georges Vezina	10	10	0
Charlie Gardiner	11	11	0
Henrik Lundqvist	12	38	26
Bill Durnan	13	14	1
Ed Belfour	14	15	1
Andrei Vasilevskiy	15	41	26
Johnny Bower	16	19	3
Bernie Parent	17	17	0
Clint Benedict	18	12	-6
Roberto Luongo	19	36	17
Turk Broda	20	13	-7
Carey Price	21	41	20
Connor Hellebuyck	22	41	19
Hugh Lehman	23	24	1
Jiri Holecek	24	20	-4
Roy Worters	25	18	-7
Tiny Thompson	26	21	-5
Billy Smith	27	23	-4
Tony Esposito	28	16	-12
Harry Lumley	29	27	-2
George Hainsworth	30	22	-8
Grant Fuhr	31	25	-6
Hap Holmes	32	30	-2
Curtis Joseph	33	31	-2
Miika Kiprusoff	34	41	7
John Vanbiesbrouck	35	34	-1
Jonathan Quick	36	41	5
Percy LeSueur	37	35	-2
Tom Barrasso	38	29	-9
Rogie Vachon	39	33	-6
Sergei Bobrovsky	40	41	1
Gump Worsley	41	26	-15

And that's not even counting the guys who made the last list who haven't been added to our current edition- Rayner was 28 and will finish no higher (indeed, likely lower) than 42, Eddie Giacomin was 32 and will finish no higher than 42, Tim Thomas was 37 and will finish no higher than 47 (who knows, he's not even eligible yet), Connell was 39 and will finish no higher than 42, Liut was 40 and will finish no higher than 42.

Now is actually a pretty good time to compare the two lists, since we have just about the same number (40 vs 41). We've added 7 new goalies (using 40.5 as our "base" list quantity), which means about 17.3% of our current list was not on the last one.

In addition to new players, we've also seen some players on the last list climb a decent amount- Lundqvist went from 38 to 12, a change of 26. Luongo went from 36 to 19, a jump of 17.

As players have climbed, we've also seen, as one would expect, some dramatic falls. Not even getting to the guys I mentioned earlier who made the last list but are still waiting (Rayner is going to fall at least 14, Giacomin at least 10), Worsley dropped 15, Esposito dropped 12, Hainsworth dropped 8, Broda 7, Worters 7, Benedict 6, Fuhr 6, Vachon 6, Thompson 5.

In other words, we might not have deviated as much as you would have liked to see, but I don't think it is fair to say that the group has been resistant to change overall.

Where I do think we weren't as flexible as we could have been is at the top. No swings bigger than 2 in the top 11, the same 11 guys in the top 11 in both editions. Is it because of a hesitancy to depart from the previous list? Perhaps, that wouldn't surprise me. But it is also possible that people feel more informed about those players and so their opinions are more solidified.

EDIT: I noticed an error with Tom Barrasso- I missed that he was 29th on our previous list, while my table had showed him at 41. That mistake has been fixed.

 

[Professor What]

Respectfully, I'm not sure the bold is an entirely accurate charge for the list in general. Here is our current list as compared to the previous list (using 41 as a placeholder for guys who didn't make the Top 4 last time around):

Name	List Position	Previous List Position	Change
Dominik Hasek	1	2	1
Patrick Roy	2	1	-1
Jacques Plante	3	3	0
Terry Sawchuk	4	5	1
Martin Brodeur	5	6	1
Glenn Hall	6	4	-2
Vladislav Tretiak	7	8	1
Ken Dryden	8	7	-1
Frank Brimsek	9	9	0
Georges Vezina	10	10	0
Charlie Gardiner	11	11	0
Henrik Lundqvist	12	38	26
Bill Durnan	13	14	1
Ed Belfour	14	15	1
Andrei Vasilevskiy	15	41	26
Johnny Bower	16	19	3
Bernie Parent	17	17	0
Clint Benedict	18	12	-6
Roberto Luongo	19	36	17
Turk Broda	20	13	-7
Carey Price	21	41	20
Connor Hellebuyck	22	41	19
Hugh Lehman	23	24	1
Jiri Holecek	24	20	-4
Roy Worters	25	18	-7
Tiny Thompson	26	21	-5
Billy Smith	27	23	-4
Tony Esposito	28	16	-12
Harry Lumley	29	27	-2
George Hainsworth	30	22	-8
Grant Fuhr	31	25	-6
Hap Holmes	32	30	-2
Curtis Joseph	33	31	-2
Miika Kiprusoff	34	41	7
John Vanbiesbrouck	35	34	-1
Jonathan Quick	36	41	5
Percy LeSueur	37	35	-2
Tom Barrasso	38	41	3
Rogie Vachon	39	33	-6
Sergei Bobrovsky	40	41	1
Gump Worsley	41	26	-15

And that's not even counting the guys who made the last list who haven't been added to our current edition- Rayner was 28 and will finish no higher (indeed, likely lower) than 42, Eddie Giacomin was 32 and will finish no higher than 42, Tim Thomas was 37 and will finish no higher than 47 (who knows, he's not even eligible yet), Connell was 39 and will finish no higher than 42, Liut was 40 and will finish no higher than 42.

Now is actually a pretty good time to compare the two lists, since we have just about the same number (40 vs 41). We've added 7 new goalies (using 40.5 as our "base" list quantity), which means about 17.3% of our current list was not on the last one.

In addition to new players, we've also seen some players on the last list climb a decent amount- Lundqvist went from 38 to 12, a change of 26. Luongo went from 36 to 19, a jump of 17.

As players have climbed, we've also seen, as one would expect, some dramatic falls. Not even getting to the guys I mentioned earlier who made the last list but are still waiting (Rayner is going to fall at least 14, Giacomin at least 10), Worsley dropped 15, Esposito dropped 12, Hainsworth dropped 8, Broda 7, Worters 7, Benedict 6, Fuhr 6, Vachon 6, Thompson 5.

In other words, we might not have deviated as much as you would have liked to see, but I don't think it is fair to say that the group has been resistant to change overall.

Where I do think we weren't as flexible as we could have been is at the top. No swings bigger than 2 in the top 11, the same 11 guys in the top 11 in both editions. Is it because of a hesitancy to depart from the previous list? Perhaps, that wouldn't surprise me. But it is also possible that people feel more informed about those players and so their opinions are more solidified.

I found that I largely agreed with the old list on the top goalies. I had the same top 8, for example, and all within one rank of where they finished last time. It wasn't because I felt handcuffed by that list, though I was certainly aware of it, and I questioned at one point if I had a lack of imagination. I (and the group as a whole) did seem to relatively sour on Hall as compared to the others, but we still had the same top eight and fairly close to the same order, while no one else was close to that eight. I feel safe in saying that there's a consensus top 8. So, the more I think about it, the more satisfied I am with the top of my list, and also the top of this list.

I think that Lundqvist is the guy since those guys that has had the best shot at disrupting that group, but I also think it's fair that we ruled that he hadn't done it. He's a heck of a goalie that really stands out because of a weaker surrounding class, but I just don't see the argument as compared to Dryden, for example. I think what could be interesting is if Vasilevskiy has something of a resurgence for 2 or 3 years and then this list is done again after that. That or Hellebuyck having some real playoff success with continued regular season performance would shake things up, and I think all of us would be there for that.

And @Michael Farkas I'd also say that I think you had a lot to do with the fall by Esposito. Your arguments certainly had a lot to do with him sliding in my opinion. I might not take some of that as far as what you do, but I definitely think you made some points.

 

[seventieslord]

Fleury played on the strongest teams, but Rinne and Rask weren’t exactly playing on poor teams

That entirely depends on what you mean by stronger teams. Fleury may have played on stronger teams overall when it comes to giving him the ability to rack up wins and Stanley cups. But Rinne and Rask played on stronger teams when it comes to making the goalie look good and getting him good individual stats.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I meant to reply to this too and just realized that I didn't. I see Giacomin as being clearly ahead of Cheevers, but no, I don't see the argument for Cheevers. Most of the people I've known who rate him highly do so because of a novelty -- his mask. I mean, it's a cool story and all, but it's of zero substance.

I wouldn't exactly be mad if Giacomin went in here, but I'm not ready for him, and if I see a clear separation, that can't say anything good for Cheevers on my list.

In Cheevers favor:

Last goalie to play every game (72) in a pro season, 1964-65 Rochester Americans. Also won the AHL championship that year and had the best GAA. and most wins (48) in an AHL season ever.

In 1967 expansion draft, Bruins let Bernie Parent and Doug Favell go but kept Cheevers.

In 1972 he went 32 consecutive games without a loss, an NHL record.

In 1974 he outplayed Tretiak in the WHA summit series with the Soviets.

In 1976 he was the backup goalie for team Canada in the Canada Cup behind Rogie Vachon.

In 1979, he played the final and decisive game of the Challenge Cup for Canada. Yes, Canada lost, but Cheevers was 39 at the time and Canada's hockey bosses still thought enough of Cheevers to throw him into the biggest game of the year.

 

[VanIslander]

Rinne was THE best player on the ice in many Preds games whereas Rask less often was the difference maker.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Yes! Yes!

Sorry - wrong thread (the Kraken just scored). Love Rinne.

 

[VanIslander]

 

[rmartin65]

On 12 January 1905 (Page 3), the Sault Star published a pretty neat piece that explains the positions- their responsibilities, what makes a good player at that position, etc.

Goal is one of the most important positions on a team. A man with a sharp eye is absolutely essential for that place. He also needs to be able to move quickly on his skates to be able to place his body in front of whatever shot may be made on goal, and he must also be able to use his stick quickly to "clear", by which is meant the removing of the puck from the immediate vicinity of the goal so that there will be no danger of it being forced in by the opposing forwards who, if well trained, will follow in on their shots for that very purpose, which often results successfully. In fact, some forwards depend more on the following in to score than they do on the shooting.

The point is generally a big husky fellow, though the custom of having such a man in that position is now dying out, the same as it is no longer always the thing to have a big man on first base in base-ball. A man who is a fast skater and a good stickhandler is better than one who depends on his weight to stop the opposing forwards.

The cover-point position is the most important of the positions in front of goa [sic]. A strong, fast skater, who is a good check and a good stick-handler as well, is needed there. A good cover-point player will always, when he gets the puck, start forward with it and give his own forwards a chance to form in line for a rush, and then he will pass the rubber to one of them.

The rover is generally the fastest skater on the team. He is able to play defence or forward, and will always step into the vacant position when any of the other men are ruled off.

The forwards are the fast skaters and good stick-handlers. They must have a well developed system of team play, which is the only effective way of getting the puck past a strong defence. They must be able to shoot well, and do it while skating at full speed. Each forward is expected to check his own man, get away from him when one of his own team has the puck, and cover him when the other team has it to prevent his getting it"