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"

 

[overpass]

Here's a newspaper article from 1906 about a rule change that highlights a couple of points I hadn't considered about early goaltenders.

Montreal Gazette, Nov 26, 1906

Proposed changes in rules were discussed and one really important matter was agreed upon when it was settled that hereafter all players of the defending side can play a puck after it has rebounded off a goal tend's body or skates, but not when the goal tend has knocked it forward with his stick. This rule was one advocated in these columns three years ago, and one which had been favorably considered by players, but the conservatism of the local hockey magnates had prevented the point being definitely settled until now. It very often happens during a match that a player of one side will go up to a goal and shoot and that the puck will be stopped by the goal tend and rebound. All of the players of his side will then be offside, and the effect has been to give an opportunity for a second shot, which has not been earned by the opposing team. This rule should prove useful and of great help in keeping the game going, and it will also greatly reduce the necessity for faces close to the goals.

So before the 1906-07 season, if a shot rebounded forward off a goaltender, his teammates were forbidden to play the puck or the play would be called offside. The goaltender would have to either move forward to clear the puck himself, prepare for a shot from the rebound, or the play would be called offside if his teammate cleared the puck.

Under the offside rules, the goaltender was also forbidden to pass the puck forward to a teammate. Any pass to a teammate would have to be passed laterally or passed behind him. However, he could clear the puck down the ice as long as none of his teammates touched the puck before the opposing team.

If the play was called offside, the "face" (or face-off) would be held at the spot of the foul. Meaning that the face-off for a goaltender passing the puck offside was right in the scoring area.

The offside rules were amended at some point in the 00s or 10s to allow the goaltender to pass the puck forward within an area extending three feet out from the goal line. And in 1915, they were further amended to extend this area ten feet out from the goal line (source).

So when Paddy Moran entered senior hockey, he could not pass the puck forward to a teammate without it being called offside. In fact, his teammate couldn't even clear a rebound that travelled in a forward direction without it being called offside. And an offside call on the goaltender would be followed by a face-off at the point of the foul, i.e. in front of the goal.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Every Gerry Cheevers playoff game before he leaves to the WHA. I would do after, but he's 35+, it's a ton of games, and I'm busy with Christmas.

1968 Playoffs
Habs beat Bruins 2-1
Shots: Bruins 22 Habs 35
Bruins 0 Habs 1

The Windsor Star · ‎Apr 5, 1968

A major reason for Boston's fine showing this season involves a number of people, but no one more important than goal-keeper Gerry Cheevers. Cheevers seems to be taken for granted, but it should be pointed out that only quite recently did he become the outstanding puck-stopper which he was last night.

At any rate, Cheevers today is a first class goalkeeper - reliable, very hard-working, capable of repeated brilliance. He almost stole the game from Montreal last night.

Habs win 5-3
Shots: Bruins 20 Habs 41
Bruins 0 Habs 2

The Montreal Gazette · ‎Apr 8, 1968

The Bruins, who were saved from a worse setback mainly by the fine netminding of Gerry Cheevers.

Only several big saves by Cheevers kept Boston close in the first period against the Habs 15-7 margin in shots, including a solo breakaway by Yvan Cournoyer.

Habs win 5-2
Shots: Bruins 27 Habs 33
Bruins 0 Habs 3

The Montreal Gazette · ‎Apr 10, 1968

Cheevers appeared weak on both goals [in second period], but the scorers thought otherwise. "I don't think he expected me to shoot from there," said Provost. "I think he was waiting for a pass. But it was a good wrist shot."

Sinden refused to blame Cheevers for the setback, pointing out that Provost and Backstrom had beaten him on fine shots. However, he hinted strongly that Eddie Johnston will take over in the fourth game of the series here Thursday.

Habs win 3-2
Shots: Bruins 37 Habs 34
Bruins 0 Habs 4

The Montreal Gazette · ‎Apr 13, 1968

Harry Sinden put all his eggs in one basket and missed the Easier Bunny's treat of $2.25 to the quarter-final winners. He stayed with Gerry Cheevers even after the goalie had been beaten five times in the second and third games. As a result, the young coach got his first taste of playoff second-guessing after virtually announcing that he would go with Eddie Johnston Thursday.

A strong series, all things considered. A couple of bad goals in game 3 shouldn't detract that the Bruins got absolutely worked this series. Not only were they the heavy favourites, but they basically dominate all four games start to finish.


1969 Playoffs
Boston beats Toronto 10-0. Media is all over Esposito's 6 point game
Shots: Bruins 51 Leafs 40
Bruins 1 Leafs 0

The Windsor Star · ‎Apr 3, 1969

Siden Praises Work of Goalie Cheevers

Almost overlooked in the brawling was a four-goal performance by Phil Esposito and the spectacular goal-tending of Cheever. "The goaltender often is overlooked when you win 10-0" Sinden said, "but he was as quick and sharp as I've ever seen him. I don't think they would have scored on him if it had gone 10 periods."

Boston beats Toronto 7-0
Shots: Bruins 40 Leafs 22
Bruins 2 Leafs 0

The Calgary Herald · ‎Apr 5, 1969

Coach Harry Sinden, who alternated Cheevers and Eddie Johnston in goal during most of the regular season, named Cheevers to stay in the nets. "You have to go with the guy who has scored two straight shutouts," he said.

Bruins win 4-3
Shots: Bruins 43 Leafs 41
Bruins 3 Leafs 0

Bruins win 3-2. Game 3 was on Sunday so both games are covered in the Monday paper. Punch Imlach got fired and is the centre of media attention.
Shots: Bruins 30 Leafs 28
Bruins 4 Leafs 0

The Bulletin · ‎Apr 7, 1969

Ron Ellis and Dave Keon scored for the Leafs, but Boston goalie Gerry Cheevers held firm and denied Toronto the equalizer in the final period.

He gets okay praise. Esposito is the clear major star of the show. The series descends into brawls and much of the media attention is on potential suspensions. Going 17-0 across two games has surely got to be the record.

1969 Second Round
Habs win 3-2 in OT
Shots: Bruins 23 Habs 35
Bruins 0 Habs 1

The Montreal Gazette · ‎Apr 11, 1969

The Canadiens just couldn't fathom Gerry Cheevers' brilliant goaltending, the rock-em defence led by Ted Green and Bobby Orr, nor their lack of skating room against the visitors' steady fore-checking.

Cheevers was hot on great saves from Richard, Rousseau, Claude Provost and Lapperrier while getting help from defenceman Ted Green, who seemed to be stopping as many Montreal drives.

Habs win 4-3 in OT
Shots: Bruins 30 Habs 34
Bruins 0 Habs 2

Eddie Johnston plays over Cheevers

Bruins win 5-0
Shots: Bruins 31 Habs 34
Bruins 1 Habs 2

The Bulletin · ‎Apr 18, 1969

Goalie Gerry Cheevers has regained his reputation as an "untouchable" in the Stanley Cup playoffs.

Phil Esposito saluted Cheevers' performance with a five point effort on two goals and three assists.

Bruins win 3-2
Shots: Bruins 32 Habs 30
Bruins 2 Habs 2

The Montreal Gazette · ‎Apr 21, 1969

Thwarted by Boston's great defence and key saves by Goalie Gerry Cheevers.

Both Rogatien Vachon and Gerry Cheevers made their share of great saves.

Habs win 4-2
Shots: Bruins 42 Habs 25
Bruins 2 Habs 3

The Phoenix · ‎Apr 23, 1969

Cheevers, who faced only 25 shots all night, looked bad on Tremblay's weak slapshot that caught the lower right hand corner.

Sinden said he was considering using Ed Johnston instead of Cheevers in goal.

Habs win 2-1 in OT
Shots: Bruins 51 Habs 47
Bruins 2 Habs 4

The Phoenix · ‎Apr 25, 1969

Cheevers was equally brilliant, handling 45 shots, 18 in the first 20 minutes. He couldn't be faulted on either goal. Savard's was deflected in behind him off Bobby Orr's leg.

Okay series. Doesn't play game 2, has a bad game 5. But other than that some strong play. Esposito is the most praised Bruin by quite a bit.


1970 Playoffs
Bruins beat Rangers 8-2
Shots: Bruins 34 Rangers 38
Bruins 1 Rangers 0

The Windsor Star · ‎Apr 9, 1970

Gerry Cheevers had a strong game in the Boston goal.

As if the NHL still wasn't convinced that Bobby Orr and Phil Esposito are its top scorers, the two Boston Bruins marksmen Wednesday night combined for a total of seven points.

Bruins win 5-3
Shots: Bruins 39 Rangers 32
Bruins 2 Rangers 0

The Windsor Star · ‎Apr 10, 1970

The possible replacement of Gerry Cheevers by Eddie Johnston. Cheevers has a shoulder problem he aggravated in the opener though it didn't seem to both him Thursday night.

Rangers win 4-3
Shots: Bruins 29 Rangers 43
Bruins 2 Rangers 1

No relevant comments

Rangers win 4-2
Shots: Bruins 25 Rangers 39
Bruins 2 Rangers 2

Eddie Johnston plays

Bruins win 3-2
Shots: Bruins 28 Rangers 30
Bruins 3 Rangers 2

No relevant comments

Bruins win 4-1
Shots: Bruins 26 Rangers 34
Bruins 4 Rangers 2

The Montreal Gazette · ‎Apr 17, 1970

The Boston defence limited the Rangers to only a few shots at goalie Gerry Cheevers and none of them were dangerous.

Not much to pull from this series. Bobby Orr is the most praised Bruin, followed by Esposito, then a massive gulf to #3 in Ken Hodge. Cheevers gets pulled for a game and is barely mentioned at all after game 2.

1970 Eastern Finals
Boston beats Chicago 6-3. Media is all over the Esposito vs Esposito matchup
Shots: Bruins 30 Hawks 35
Bruins 1 Hawks 0

The Montreal Gazette · ‎Apr 20, 1970

Gerry Cheevers came up with a steady effort in the Bruins' goal with 32 saves and was especially brilliant in the first two periods. He sprawled on every loose pick anywhere near his cage.

Bruins win 4-1
Shots: Bruins 32 Hawks 23
Bruins 2 Hawks 0

The Leader-Post · ‎Apr 22, 1970

Cheevers was as steady as he had to be, but he didn't see the action that Esposito did.

Bruins win 5-2
Shots: Bruins 33 Hawks 27
Bruins 3 Hawks 0

The Phoenix · ‎Apr 24, 1970

Both coaches - Billy Reay for Chicago and Harry Sinden for Boston - picked the third period save by Boston goalie Gerry Cheevers as the turning point of the game [on Magnuson from Mikita].

Bruins win 5-4
Shots: Bruins 54 Hawks 24
Bruins 4 Hawks 0

No relevant comments.

Esposito is the most praised Bruin this series, followed by Orr and Bucyk. Another series where the Bruins outplayed the opposition enough that Cheevers didn't have to be great.

1970 Stanley Cup Final
Boston beats St. Louis 6-1
Shots: Bruins 35 Blues 29
Bruins 1 Blues 0

The Phoenix · ‎May 4, 1970

The mutual problem of NHL coaches - how to stop the Bruins' Bobby Orr? Bowman applied a shadow to the superstar right defenceman, sacrificing the offensive value of left wingers Jim Roberts, Terry Crisp, and Tim Ecclestone.

"Heck we've got a goaltender too, "Sinden added referring to Gerry Cheevers, "with a little help from a cross-bar and a post." "Cheevers has had seven in a row about the same. Gerry's getting even."

Bruins win 6-2
Shots: Bruins 35 Blues 19
Bruins 2 Blues 0

No relevant comments

Bruins win 4-1
Shots: Bruins 46 Blues 21
Bruins 3 Blues 0

The Morning Record · ‎May 8, 1970

The Blues' forwards rarely bothered Boston netminder Gerry Cheevers.

Goalie Glenn Hall kept the Blues in the game with a number of remarkable saves.

Bruins win 4-3 in OT
Shots: Bruins 32 Blues 31
Bruins 4 Blues 0

Lewiston Evening Journal · ‎May 11, 1970

Both goalies, the loser Glenn Hall, and the winner Gerry Cheevers made stops that must have curled your hair.

The series was the Bobby Orr show. The Blues are not in games 1-3, but have a strong game 4. Glenn Hall has a great game 3 and 4, Cheevers is only needed in game 4.


Across the playoffs, Bobby Orr is the most praised Bruin followed by Phil Esposito. Johnny Bucyk a distant third for Boston and then a whole bunch after that. Best you can argue is Cheevers is fourth most praised Bruin this year.


1971 Playoffs
Bruins beat Montreal 3-1
Shots: Bruins 42 Habs 31
Bruins 1 Habs 0

The Sun · ‎Apr 8, 1971

It was goaltender Gerry Cheevers who was their most impressive performer.

Rookie Ken Dryden was at least as good as Boston's Cheevers.

If Cheevers hadn't had Yvan Cournoyer's number, the Bruins could be going into tonight's game one down instead of one up.

Habs win 7-5.
Shots: Bruins 36 Habs 37
Bruins 1 Habs 1

Eddie Johnston in goal. Bruins are up 5-1 halfway through the second and up 5-2 three minutes into the third. Orr gets ejected halfway through third period and Beliveau sets up heroic comeback. Would love to get a tape of this game.



Habs win 3-1
Shots: Bruins 38 Habs 31
Bruins 1 Habs 2

No relevant comments, but heaps of praise are at Dryden



Bruins win 5-2
Shots: Bruins 34 Habs 28
Bruins 2 Habs 2

The Montreal Gazette · ‎Apr 12, 1971

Gerry Cheevers was outstanding in the first period.

Dryden just might be the most important piece of property Canadiens own - if his work again the Bruins is any indication.

Bruins win 7-3
Shots: Bruins 56 Habs 27
Bruins 3 Habs 2

No relevant comments

Habs win 8-3
Shots: Bruins 32 Habs 43
Bruins 3 Habs 3

The Leader-Post · ‎Apr 16, 1971

Boston coach Tom Johnson said goalie Gerry Cheevers "usually is a little sharper than he was tonight, but I didn't notice anybody particularly sharp."

Habs win 4-2
Shots: Bruins 48 Habs 34
Bruins 3 Habs 4

The Leader-Post · ‎Apr 19, 1971

Rookie goalie Ken Dryden turned in another spectacular performance Sunday.

Bobby Orr and Ken Dryden are by far the most praised players this series. Media is all over Dryden. Esposito second most praised Bruin. Bucyk third. Cheevers is just kind of there.


1972 Playoffs
Bruins beat Leafs 5-0
Shots: Bruins 29 Leafs 27
Bruins 1 Leafs 0

The Telegraph · ‎Apr 6, 1972

Espo, Cheevers Shine

[Coach Tom Johnson] had special praise for goalie Gerry Cheeevrs, who turned aside 27 shots in recording the shutout. Johnson said Cheeveres would be in goal again tonight. "Cheevers was sharp tonight," Johnson said. "It was one of his better games of the season."

King Clancy, the 69-year-old Toronto coach, agreed with the praise of Cheevers, but gave credit to Esposito for the victory.

Leafs win 4-3 in OT
Shots: Bruins 40 Leafs 22
Bruins 1 Leafs 1

No relevant comments

Bruins win 2-0
Shots: Bruins 35 Leafs 30
Bruins 2 Leafs 1

Eddie Johnston plays

Bruins win 5-4
Shots: Bruins 36 Leafs 42
Bruins 3 Leafs 1

Eddie Johnston plays

Bruins win 3-2
Shots: Bruins 37 Leafs 28
Bruins 4 Leafs 1

Daytona Beach Morning Journal · ‎Apr 12, 1972

Parent, a former Bruins, turned in a spectacular performance as he kicked out 33 shots. Boston goalie Gerry Cheevers also had a strong game with 26 saves.

He only plays in 2 of the 4 wins and generally plays okay. It's the Esposito and Orr show again. Cheevers isn't top 5.


1972 Semifinals
Bruins beat Blues 6-1
Shots: Bruins 44 Blues 26
Bruins 1 Blues 0

Eddie Johnston plays

Bruins win 10-2
Shots: Bruins 44 Blues 26
Bruins 2 Blues 0

No relevant comments

Bruins win 7-2
Shots: Bruins 38 Blues 29
Bruins 3 Blues 0

Eddie Johnston plays

Bruins win 5-3
Shots: Bruins 27 Blues 36
Bruins 4 Blues 0



The first series so far where Esposito and Orr are not the most praised players (it's Bucyk!). Orr second, Espo third. Johnston and Cheevers split starts.

1972 Stanley Cup Finals
Bruins beat Rangers 6-5
Shots: Bruins 28 Rangers 29
Bruins 1 Rangers 0

The Phoenix · ‎May 1, 1972

Giacomin and Cheevers were both called upon to make key saves.

Bruins win 2-1
Shots: Bruins 25 Rangers 28
Bruins 2 Rangers 0

Eddie Johnston plays

Rangers win 5-2
Shots: Bruins 34 Rangers 39
Bruins 2 Rangers 1

The Phoenix · ‎May 5, 1972

[coach Tom] Johnson didn't fault goaltender Gerry Cheevers on the early goals - "We gave their point men too many wide-open opportunities".

Bruins win 3-2
Shots: Bruins 38 Rangers 26
Bruins 3 Rangers 1

Eddie Johnston plays

Bruins win 3-0
Shots: Bruins 27 Rangers 33
Bruins 4 Rangers 1

The Michigan Daily · ‎May 12, 1972

The Rangers buzzed furiously around Cheevers, but were unable to finish their plays.

Orr is the most praised player this series, followed by Hodge and Esposito. Cheevers is praised more than Johnston, but splitting starts in a playoff game isn't what you want to see.




Across everything, Cheevers is capable of giving you a good game here and there. Maybe he's even ahead of Giacomin. But at no point is he a true (positive) difference maker. He's always behind Orr and Esposito. And usually behind one of Bucyk and Hodge if not both.

Getting stuck in a split-start role isn't good to matter how you put it. That Johnston generally keeps up with him (and is nowhere near this list) is just not a good look.

Yes, Cheevers is trusted on Team Canada. Yes, he wins the goalie award in the WHA in 1973. But across the 1968-1972 playoffs there's just very little meat on the bones. 1968 and 1969 are probably his strongest runs.

 

[blogofmike]

A compilation of Wikipedia Stats

1902
Quebec 4-4 (T-3rd of 5)

Name	Club	GP	GA	SO	GAA
Billy Nicholson​	Montreal​	8	15	2	1.7
Bouse Hutton​	Ottawa​	8	15	2	1.7
Archie Lockerby​	Victorias​	6	15		2.5
Paddy Moran​	Quebec​	8	34		4.3
Fred Munro​	Victorias​	2	10		5.0
Patrick O'Reilly​	Shamrocks​	8	62		7.8

1903
Quebec 3-4 (4th of 5)

Name	Club	GP	GA	SO	GAA
Archie Lockerby​	Victorias​	3	6		2.0
Billy Nicholson​	Montreal​	7	19	1	2.7
Bouse Hutton​	Ottawa​	8	26	2	3.3
Jim Nichol​	Victorias​	5	27		5.4
Paddy Moran​	Quebec​	7	46		6.6
Patrick O'Reilly​	Shamrocks​	8	56		7.0

1904
Quebec 5-1 (1st 0f 5, Quebec wins CAHL title largely because Ottawa resigns from the league)

Name	Club	GP	GA	SO	GAA
Hutton, John Bouse	Ottawa	4	15		3.8
Nichol, Jim	Victorias	8	48		6.0
Moran, Paddy	Quebec	6	37		6.2
Waugh, Oliver	Montreal	5	32		6.4
Brophy, Fred	Montreal	1	8		8.0
Mike Kenny	Shamrocks	4	35		8.8
S. Price	Montreal	1	9		9.0
James Cloran	Shamrocks	3	39		13.0

1905
Quebec 8-2 (2nd of 5.5)

Name	Club	GP	GA	SO	GAA
Nathan Frye	Victorias	8	32		4.0
Oliver Waugh	Montreal	9	42		4.7
Paddy Moran	Quebec	9	45		5.0
Mike Kenny	Shamrocks	9	62		6.9
Fred Brophy	Westmount	6	49		8.2
Edgar Darling	Westmount	3	26		8.7
Joseph Cattarinich	Le National	4	42		10.5

ECAHA
1906
Quebec 3-7 (4th of 6)

Name	Club	GP	GA	SO	GAA
Menard, Henri	Wanderers	10	38		3.8
Hague, Billy	Ottawa	10	42		4.2
Brophy, Fred	Montreal	10	63		6.3
Frye, Nathan	Victorias	8	52		6.5
Moran, Paddy	Quebec	10	70		7.0
Mike Kenny	Shamrocks	8	64		8.0
Waugh, Oliver	Victorias	2	21		10.5
Brennan, Jack	Shamrocks	2	26		13.0

1907
Quebec 2-8 (5th of 6)

Name	Club	GP	GA	SO	GAA
Riley Hern	Wanderers	10	39		3.9
Percy LeSueur	Ottawa	10	54		5.4
Nathan Frye	Victorias	10	70		7.0
Charles Doddridge	Quebec	4	30		7.5
George White	Montreal	10	83		8.3
Paddy Moran	Quebec	6	58		9.7
Neil Currie	Shamrocks	10	120		12.0

1908
Quebec 5-5 (3rd of 6)

Name	Club	GP	GA	SO	GAA
Billy Nicholson	Shamrocks	10	49		4.9
Percy LeSueur	Ottawa	10	51		5.1
Riley Hern	Wanderers	10	52		5.2
Nathan Frye	Victorias	1	7		7.0
Paddy Moran	Quebec	10	74		7.4
Wyn Robinson	Victorias	9	71		7.9
Chuck Tyner	Montreal	1	9		9.0
Dave Finnie	Montreal	5	48		9.6
Archie Lockerby	Montreal	4	48		12.0

1909
Quebec 3-9 (3rd of 4)

Name	Club	GP	GA	SO	Avg.
Riley Hern	Wanderers	12	61		5.1
Percy LeSueur	Ottawa	12	63		5.3
Bill Baker	Shamrocks	12	103		8.6
Paddy Moran	Quebec	12	106		8.8

1910 (CHA)
24 GA in 4 games with All-Montreal (6.00 GAA)


1910 (NHA)
Haileybury 4-8 (T-4th of 7)

Name	Club	GP	GA	SO	GAA
Nicholson, Billy	Haileybury	1	3		3.0
Hern, Riley	Wanderers	12	41	1	3.4
Lindsay, Bert	Renfrew	12	54		4.5
Winchester, Jack	Shamrocks	5	26		5.2
LeSueur, Percy	Ottawa	12	66	1	5.5
Moran, Paddy	Haileybury	11	80		7.3
Broughton, George	Shamrocks	5	43		8.6
Cattarinich, Joe	Canadiens	3	23		7.7
Groulx, Teddy	Canadiens	9	77		8.6
Jones, Chief	Cobalt	12	104		8.7
Baker, Bill	Shamrocks	2	26		13.0

1911
Quebec 4-12 (5th of 5)

Name	Club	GP	GA	SO	Avg.
Georges Vezina	Canadiens	16	62	0	3.9
Percy LeSueur	Ottawa	16	69	1	4.3
Riley Hern	Wanderers	16	88	0	5.5
Paddy Moran	Quebec	16	97	0	6.1
Bert Lindsay	Renfrew	16	101	0	6.3

1912
Quebec 10-8 (1st of 4)

Name	Club	GP	GA	SO	Avg.
Vezina, Georges	Canadiens	18	66		3.7
Moran, Paddy	Quebec	18	79		4.4
Broughton, George	Wanderers	6	27	1	4.5
LeSueur, Percy	Ottawa	18	93		5.2
Boyce, Art	Wanderers	12	69		5.8

1912 Cup Challenge vs Moncton
Quebec outscores Moncton 17-3 over 2 games (1.50 GAA for Moran)

1912 East vs West Exhibition
PCHA Stars outscore Art Ross Stars 23-12 over 3 games (7.67 GAA for Moran)

1913
Quebec 16-4 (1st of 6)

Name	Club	GPI	W	L	T	Min	GA	SO	GAA
Benedict, Clint​	Ottawa​	10	2	1	0	275	16	1	3.49
Moran, Paddy​	Quebec​	20	16	4	0	1204	75	1	3.73
Vezina, Georges​	Canadiens​	20	9	11	0	1217	81	1	3.99
Boyce, Art​	Wanderers​	18	9	8	0	966	67		4.16
LeSueur, Percy​	Ottawa​	18	7	10	0	934	65	0	4.18
Holmes, Hap​	Toronto​	15	6	7	0	779	58	1	4.47
Nicholson, Billy​	Tecumsehs​	20	7	13	0	1228	98	0	4.79C
Marchand, Ray​	Toronto​	8	3	4	0	421	37	0	5.27E
Cadotte, Bert​	Wanderers​	6	1	2	0	234	23	0	5.90

Stanley Cup Challenge vs Sydney
Quebec outscores Sydney 20-5 over 2 games (2.50 GAA for Moran)

1913 Cup Challenge (Deleted by Dusty Finish because the Quebec Bulldogs were pro wrestling heels who couldn't admit they lost)
Victoria Aristocrats outscore Quebec 16-12 in a 2-1 series win. (5.33 GAA for Moran)

1914
Quebec 12-8 (3rd of 6)

Name	Club	GP	GA	SO	Avg.
Holmes, Hap	Toronto	20	65	1	3.3
Vezina, Georges	Canadiens	20	65	1	3.3
Benedict, Clint	Ottawa	7	23		3.3
Moran, Paddy	Quebec	20	73	1	3.7
LeSueur, Percy	Ottawa	13	48	1	3.7
Rankin, Reg	Ontarios	1	4		4.0
Nicholson, Billy	Wanderers	10	52		5.2
Hebert, Sammy	Ontarios	19	108		5.7
Cross, Jack	Ontarios	1	6		6.0
Leblanc, Alex	Wanderers	4	26		6.5
Warwick, George	Wanderers	3	23		7.6
Boyce, Art	Wanderers	3	24		8.0

1915
Quebec 11-0 (3rd of 6)

Name	Club	GP	GA	SO	Avg.
Benedict, Clint	Ottawa	20	65		3.3
Vezina, Georges	Canadiens	20	81		4.1
Holmes, Hap	Toronto	20	84		4.2
Moran, Paddy	Quebec	20	85		4.3
McCarthy, Charlie	Wanderers	19	82		4.3
LeSueur, Percy	Ontarios-Shamrocks	19	96		5.1
Boyce, Art	Wanderers	2	6		7.20

1916
Quebec 10-12-2 (3rd of 5)

Name	Club	GP	GA	SO	Avg.
Clint Benedict	Ottawa	24	72	1	3.0
Georges Vezina	Canadiens	24	76		3.2
Paddy Moran	Quebec	22	82		3.7
Percy LeSueur	Toronto	23	92	1	4.0
Bert Lindsay	Wanderers	23	110	1	4.8
Hap Holmes	Toronto	1	6		6.0
Billy Hague	Wanderers	1	6		6.0
Harry Rochon	Quebec	2	16		8.0

1917

Name	Club	GP	GA	SO	Avg.
Gordon Keats​	Toronto​	2	5		2.5
Clint Benedict​	Ottawa​	18	50	1	2.8
Georges Vezina​	Canadiens​	20	80		4.0
Art Brooks​	Toronto​	4	16	1	4.0
Billy Nicholson​	Toronto​	10	40	1	4.0
Ossie Lang​	Ottawa​	1	5		5.0
Sammy Hebert​	Quebec/Ottawa​	15	84		5.6
Howard Lockhart​	228th Battalion​	12	69	1	5.8 †
Bert Lindsay​	Wanderers​	15	96		6.4
Paddy Moran​	Quebec​	6	50		8.3
Billy Hague​	Wanderers​	4	41		10.3

I understand the narrative that Quebec was hopeless without Moran. But it looks like they were also hopeless with him too, and a Charles Doddridge could could take his place without missing a beat.

In Inter-League Play play, especially if you count 1913's deleted series, Moran is fine against the softer Atlantic challengers, but he's smoked by the Western ones.

I've read the quotes compiled by @rmartin65 upthread, but I'm still not getting the sense that Moran was a gamebreaker for his time.

 

[rmartin65]

A compilation of Wikipedia Stats

1902
Quebec 4-4 (T-3rd of 5)

Name	Club	GP	GA	SO	GAA
Billy Nicholson​	Montreal​	8	15	2	1.7
Bouse Hutton​	Ottawa​	8	15	2	1.7
Archie Lockerby​	Victorias​	6	15		2.5
Paddy Moran​	Quebec​	8	34		4.3
Fred Munro​	Victorias​	2	10		5.0
Patrick O'Reilly​	Shamrocks​	8	62		7.8

1903
Quebec 3-4 (4th of 5)

Name	Club	GP	GA	SO	GAA
Archie Lockerby​	Victorias​	3	6		2.0
Billy Nicholson​	Montreal​	7	19	1	2.7
Bouse Hutton​	Ottawa​	8	26	2	3.3
Jim Nichol​	Victorias​	5	27		5.4
Paddy Moran​	Quebec​	7	46		6.6
Patrick O'Reilly​	Shamrocks​	8	56		7.0

1904
Quebec 5-1 (1st 0f 5, Quebec wins CAHL title largely because Ottawa resigns from the league)

Name	Club	GP	GA	SO	GAA
Hutton, John Bouse	Ottawa	4	15		3.8
Nichol, Jim	Victorias	8	48		6.0
Moran, Paddy	Quebec	6	37		6.2
Waugh, Oliver	Montreal	5	32		6.4
Brophy, Fred	Montreal	1	8		8.0
Mike Kenny	Shamrocks	4	35		8.8
S. Price	Montreal	1	9		9.0
James Cloran	Shamrocks	3	39		13.0

1905
Quebec 8-2 (2nd of 5.5)

Name	Club	GP	GA	SO	GAA
Nathan Frye	Victorias	8	32		4.0
Oliver Waugh	Montreal	9	42		4.7
Paddy Moran	Quebec	9	45		5.0
Mike Kenny	Shamrocks	9	62		6.9
Fred Brophy	Westmount	6	49		8.2
Edgar Darling	Westmount	3	26		8.7
Joseph Cattarinich	Le National	4	42		10.5

ECAHA
1906
Quebec 3-7 (4th of 6)

Name	Club	GP	GA	SO	GAA
Menard, Henri	Wanderers	10	38		3.8
Hague, Billy	Ottawa	10	42		4.2
Brophy, Fred	Montreal	10	63		6.3
Frye, Nathan	Victorias	8	52		6.5
Moran, Paddy	Quebec	10	70		7.0
Mike Kenny	Shamrocks	8	64		8.0
Waugh, Oliver	Victorias	2	21		10.5
Brennan, Jack	Shamrocks	2	26		13.0

1907
Quebec 2-8 (5th of 6)

Name	Club	GP	GA	SO	GAA
Riley Hern	Wanderers	10	39		3.9
Percy LeSueur	Ottawa	10	54		5.4
Nathan Frye	Victorias	10	70		7.0
Charles Doddridge	Quebec	4	30		7.5
George White	Montreal	10	83		8.3
Paddy Moran	Quebec	6	58		9.7
Neil Currie	Shamrocks	10	120		12.0

1908
Quebec 5-5 (3rd of 6)

Name	Club	GP	GA	SO	GAA
Billy Nicholson	Shamrocks	10	49		4.9
Percy LeSueur	Ottawa	10	51		5.1
Riley Hern	Wanderers	10	52		5.2
Nathan Frye	Victorias	1	7		7.0
Paddy Moran	Quebec	10	74		7.4
Wyn Robinson	Victorias	9	71		7.9
Chuck Tyner	Montreal	1	9		9.0
Dave Finnie	Montreal	5	48		9.6
Archie Lockerby	Montreal	4	48		12.0

1909
Quebec 3-9 (3rd of 4)

Name	Club	GP	GA	SO	Avg.
Riley Hern	Wanderers	12	61		5.1
Percy LeSueur	Ottawa	12	63		5.3
Bill Baker	Shamrocks	12	103		8.6
Paddy Moran	Quebec	12	106		8.8

1910 (CHA)
24 GA in 4 games with All-Montreal (6.00 GAA)


1910 (NHA)
Haileybury 4-8 (T-4th of 7)

Name	Club	GP	GA	SO	GAA
Nicholson, Billy	Haileybury	1	3		3.0
Hern, Riley	Wanderers	12	41	1	3.4
Lindsay, Bert	Renfrew	12	54		4.5
Winchester, Jack	Shamrocks	5	26		5.2
LeSueur, Percy	Ottawa	12	66	1	5.5
Moran, Paddy	Haileybury	11	80		7.3
Broughton, George	Shamrocks	5	43		8.6
Cattarinich, Joe	Canadiens	3	23		7.7
Groulx, Teddy	Canadiens	9	77		8.6
Jones, Chief	Cobalt	12	104		8.7
Baker, Bill	Shamrocks	2	26		13.0

1911
Quebec 4-12 (5th of 5)

Name	Club	GP	GA	SO	Avg.
Georges Vezina	Canadiens	16	62	0	3.9
Percy LeSueur	Ottawa	16	69	1	4.3
Riley Hern	Wanderers	16	88	0	5.5
Paddy Moran	Quebec	16	97	0	6.1
Bert Lindsay	Renfrew	16	101	0	6.3

1912
Quebec 10-8 (1st of 4)

Name	Club	GP	GA	SO	Avg.
Vezina, Georges	Canadiens	18	66		3.7
Moran, Paddy	Quebec	18	79		4.4
Broughton, George	Wanderers	6	27	1	4.5
LeSueur, Percy	Ottawa	18	93		5.2
Boyce, Art	Wanderers	12	69		5.8

1912 Cup Challenge vs Moncton
Quebec outscores Moncton 17-3 over 2 games (1.50 GAA for Moran)

1912 East vs West Exhibition
PCHA Stars outscore Art Ross Stars 23-12 over 3 games (7.67 GAA for Moran)

1913
Quebec 16-4 (1st of 6)

Name	Club	GPI	W	L	T	Min	GA	SO	GAA
Benedict, Clint​	Ottawa​	10	2	1	0	275	16	1	3.49
Moran, Paddy​	Quebec​	20	16	4	0	1204	75	1	3.73
Vezina, Georges​	Canadiens​	20	9	11	0	1217	81	1	3.99
Boyce, Art​	Wanderers​	18	9	8	0	966	67		4.16
LeSueur, Percy​	Ottawa​	18	7	10	0	934	65	0	4.18
Holmes, Hap​	Toronto​	15	6	7	0	779	58	1	4.47
Nicholson, Billy​	Tecumsehs​	20	7	13	0	1228	98	0	4.79C
Marchand, Ray​	Toronto​	8	3	4	0	421	37	0	5.27E
Cadotte, Bert​	Wanderers​	6	1	2	0	234	23	0	5.90

Stanley Cup Challenge vs Sydney
Quebec outscores Sydney 20-5 over 2 games (2.50 GAA for Moran)

1913 Cup Challenge (Deleted by Dusty Finish because the Quebec Bulldogs were pro wrestling heels who couldn't admit they lost)
Victoria Aristocrats outscore Quebec 16-12 in a 2-1 series win. (5.33 GAA for Moran)

1914
Quebec 12-8 (3rd of 6)

Name	Club	GP	GA	SO	Avg.
Holmes, Hap	Toronto	20	65	1	3.3
Vezina, Georges	Canadiens	20	65	1	3.3
Benedict, Clint	Ottawa	7	23		3.3
Moran, Paddy	Quebec	20	73	1	3.7
LeSueur, Percy	Ottawa	13	48	1	3.7
Rankin, Reg	Ontarios	1	4		4.0
Nicholson, Billy	Wanderers	10	52		5.2
Hebert, Sammy	Ontarios	19	108		5.7
Cross, Jack	Ontarios	1	6		6.0
Leblanc, Alex	Wanderers	4	26		6.5
Warwick, George	Wanderers	3	23		7.6
Boyce, Art	Wanderers	3	24		8.0

1915
Quebec 11-0 (3rd of 6)

Name	Club	GP	GA	SO	Avg.
Benedict, Clint	Ottawa	20	65		3.3
Vezina, Georges	Canadiens	20	81		4.1
Holmes, Hap	Toronto	20	84		4.2
Moran, Paddy	Quebec	20	85		4.3
McCarthy, Charlie	Wanderers	19	82		4.3
LeSueur, Percy	Ontarios-Shamrocks	19	96		5.1
Boyce, Art	Wanderers	2	6		7.20

1916
Quebec 10-12-2 (3rd of 5)

Name	Club	GP	GA	SO	Avg.
Clint Benedict	Ottawa	24	72	1	3.0
Georges Vezina	Canadiens	24	76		3.2
Paddy Moran	Quebec	22	82		3.7
Percy LeSueur	Toronto	23	92	1	4.0
Bert Lindsay	Wanderers	23	110	1	4.8
Hap Holmes	Toronto	1	6		6.0
Billy Hague	Wanderers	1	6		6.0
Harry Rochon	Quebec	2	16		8.0

1917

Name	Club	GP	GA	SO	Avg.
Gordon Keats​	Toronto​	2	5		2.5
Clint Benedict​	Ottawa​	18	50	1	2.8
Georges Vezina​	Canadiens​	20	80		4.0
Art Brooks​	Toronto​	4	16	1	4.0
Billy Nicholson​	Toronto​	10	40	1	4.0
Ossie Lang​	Ottawa​	1	5		5.0
Sammy Hebert​	Quebec/Ottawa​	15	84		5.6
Howard Lockhart​	228th Battalion​	12	69	1	5.8 †
Bert Lindsay​	Wanderers​	15	96		6.4
Paddy Moran​	Quebec​	6	50		8.3
Billy Hague​	Wanderers​	4	41		10.3

I understand the narrative that Quebec was hopeless without Moran. But it looks like they were also hopeless with him too, and a Charles Doddridge could could take his place without missing a beat.

In Inter-League Play play, especially if you count 1913's deleted series, Moran is fine against the softer Atlantic challengers, but he's smoked by the Western ones.

I appreciate you took the time to go to Wikipedia for the stats, but Goals Against Average is a garbage stat in general, and it is worse for this era, when there is a lack of reliable shot data and, at least through 1909, goalies served their own penalties (though, admittedly, goalie penalties were not exceedingly common).

I mean, look at this list of guys who led the whole league in GAA - guys who (hopefully) this is the last time they are mentioned in this project: Anthony Stolarz (2023-2024), Linus Ullmark (2022-2023), Alex Nedeljkovic (2020-2021), Jordan Binnington (2018-2019), Carter Hutton (2017-2018), Ben Bishop (2015-2016), Josh Harding (2013-2014), Craig Anderson (2012-2013), Brian Elliott (2011-2012).

That's not great company, right? This doesn't look like a stat that is truly representative of great goaltender play.

I've read the quotes compiled by @rmartin65 upthread, but I'm still not getting the sense that Moran was a gamebreaker for his time.

Respectfully, how? What kinds of quotes are you looking for?

 

[rmartin65]

1912 East vs West Exhibition
PCHA Stars outscore Art Ross Stars 23-12 over 3 games (7.67 GAA for Moran)



1913 Cup Challenge (Deleted by Dusty Finish because the Quebec Bulldogs were pro wrestling heels who couldn't admit they lost)
Victoria Aristocrats outscore Quebec 16-12 in a 2-1 series win. (5.33 GAA for Moran)


In Inter-League Play play, especially if you count 1913's deleted series, Moran is fine against the softer Atlantic challengers, but he's smoked by the Western ones.

I got curious, so I did a quick newspaper scan. This isn't comprehensive, and largely pulls from Western sources (so they are unlikely to be biased in favor of Moran).

1912 Eastern All Stars vs Western All Stars
Game 1: April 2, 1912: 10-4 Western Stars

The Province, 3 April 1912 Page 10

“Paddy Moran’s performance at the other net was also spectacular and he received plenty of applause”

“Moran was showing great form in goal and saved repeatedly”

“Frank Patrick made a great rush but Moran saved when a goal seemed certain”

Vancouver Daily World, 3 April 1912 Page 14

“Paddy Moran let ten goals slip by, but they came as a result of splendid efforts in combination, when quick passes from one side of the ice to another were converted into goals before the Quebec goalkeeper had an opportunity to realize his position and successfully defend his station. While he was letting ten go through, there were ten hundred he didn’t let slip in; he was as busy as a squirrel in nut time, and his work pleased the fans greatly”

Daily News Advisor, 3 April 1912 Page 8

“At that it was anybody’s game until within ten minutes of the finish, but the Easterners showed the effects of their long trip across the continent, and they were exhausted at the finish, while the Pacific Coast players kept up a bombardment at the other end and had Paddy Moran, goalkeeper of Quebec’s Stanley cup holders, who is in the cage for the Eastern All-Stars, stopping them from all angles”

Game 2: April 4, 1912: 8-2 Western Stars

The Province, 6 April 1912 Page 14

“The western team after the first period outplayed and out-skated their opponents in every position on the ice and would have ran up a much larger score only for the magnificent work of Paddy Moran in goal. Moran had all his work cut out for him and he performed creditably. Shots were poured in on him from all quarters and although he let eight of them get past he was in no way to blame for the big score hung up”

Vancouver Daily World, 6 April 1912 Page 14

“It would be hard to differentiate in the merits of the home aggregation, every man on the team playing a splendid game, while Ross, Shore and Paddy Moran were easily the most effective workers on the visiting septette”

Game 3: 6 April 1912: 6-5 Eastern Stars

Daily News Advisor, 7 April 1912 Page 20

“Moran, in the nets for the Eastern group, is deserving of compliment. He seemed a bit off during the first few minutes of play, but, when he tumbled into the qui vive, after the first few minutes, he was right there and saved many and diverted many and awkward shot”

1913 Quebec vs Victoria Series
Game 1: 24 March 1913: 7-5 Victoria

The Vancouver Sun, 25 March 1913 Page 9

“Coast champions down Quebec before record crowd by 7 goals to 5- Moran plays in sensational form”

Victoria Daily Times, 25 March 1913 Page 8

“It took the Senators two period to solve this bulwarks, and in the last period, only Moran’s phenomenal work in the nets kept the score down to one goal”

“Moran a star”

“Paddy Moran and Joe Malone were the pick of the Quebec team”

Vancouver Daily World, 25 March 1913 Page 14

“While seven goals escaped Paddy Moran’s guard, there were a hundred billeted for the net which didn’t, and the Ancients’ brilliant net guardian had no need to be ashamed of his record on the evening’s play. One goal he might have saved, that of Rowe on a long shot from the extreme left boards, but the others were impossible”

Game 2: 27 March 1913: 6-3 Quebec

Victoria Daily Times, 28 March 1913 Page 8

“Moran a Marvel”

“Paddy Moran never played greater hockey than last night, while Tommy Smith and Joe Malone are travelling at the form that busted all records in the east. Moran got everything”

Vancouver Daily World, 28 March 1913 Page 16

“Paddy Moran gave a brilliant exposition of the fine points of guarding the nets”

“Paddy Moran, the brilliant net-guardian of the Quebec Hockey Club…”

“Moran’s Work Brilliant”

“It was more to Paddy Moran’s brilliant display in the net than to anything else that Quebec can attribute its victory. Victoria had the great goal-keeper stopping them from every angle, up in the air and down at his feet, from far out and close in, and the three goals which escaped his attention were impossible of salvation. Looking upon his work last night, it is easy to see the reason for Quebec’s great victory in the National Hockey Association, after starting out with a team all shot to pieces and built up of youngsters to a large degree”

Calgary Herald, 28 March 1913 Page 11

“Victoria had every bit as many shots on the goal as Quebec did, but Moran was simply invincible”

Ottawa CItizen, 28 March 1913 Page 6

“Paddy Moran was the star of last night’s fixture, he saving Quebec an overwhelming beating”

Sault Star, 28 March 1913 Page 5

“Quebec last night, in a six man game of hockey, defeated the champion Victorias six to three. The result was chiefly due to Moran’s work in goal”

Game 3: 30 March 1913: 6-1 Victoria

Victoria Daily Times, 31 March 1913 Page 8

“Moran was the same stonewall in the nets, and the veteran saved many a score”


Seems like Moran pretty well out West, even if his teams didn't.

 

[jigglysquishy]

I just don't see the argument for Cheevers at this point. Going through the playoff reports, I was hoping to get something good, but outside 1968 and a little bit of 1969, there's just nothing. A very distant 5th place AS finish is his best award voting. I don't think he'd be top 5 in Conn Smythe voting for me in either 1970 or 1972.

For those playoff runs he's behind Orr, Esposito, Bucyk, and Hodge. But it's not just being behind them. It's a general absense of praise and he splits starts.

Are the 1979 challenge games and 74 WHA SS that strong?

Like he's clearly behind Fleury for me and I don't like Fleury.

 

[Professor What]

I just don't see the argument for Cheevers at this point. Going through the playoff reports, I was hoping to get something good, but outside 1968 and a little bit of 1969, there's just nothing. A very distant 5th place AS finish is his best award voting. I don't think he'd be top 5 in Conn Smythe voting for me in either 1970 or 1972.

For those playoff runs he's behind Orr, Esposito, Bucyk, and Hodge. But it's not just being behind them. It's a general absense of praise and he splits starts.

Are the 1979 challenge games and 74 WHA SS that strong?

Like he's clearly behind Fleury for me and I don't like Fleury.

To the bolded, it's an extremely small sample size, and I think it's folly to take too much from them.

I agree on the Fleury comparison too. And I'm with you that I don't like Fleury. He won't be on my ballot either.

 

[blogofmike]

I appreciate you took the time to go to Wikipedia for the stats, but Goals Against Average is a garbage stat in general, and it is worse for this era, when there is a lack of reliable shot data and, at least through 1909, goalies served their own penalties (though, admittedly, goalie penalties were not exceedingly common).

I mean, look at this list of guys who led the whole league in GAA - guys who (hopefully) this is the last time they are mentioned in this project: Anthony Stolarz (2023-2024), Linus Ullmark (2022-2023), Alex Nedeljkovic (2020-2021), Jordan Binnington (2018-2019), Carter Hutton (2017-2018), Ben Bishop (2015-2016), Josh Harding (2013-2014), Craig Anderson (2012-2013), Brian Elliott (2011-2012).

That's not great company, right? This doesn't look like a stat that is truly representative of great goaltender play.

GAA has noise. But I am curious as to why GAA is garbage and adjectives are golden?

Here are the guys listed as GAA leaders on hockeyreference:

2024: Anthony Stolarz was a 2nd stringer with 27 games. The starter who was 3rd in GAA, was a Vezina finalist. And Sergei Bobrovsky's already on the list.

2023: Linus Ullmark: 1st team all-star and Vezina winner. If he had longevity, he'd make the list with seasons like this.

2022: Igor Shesterkin: currently up for debate, and should go high this round.

2021: Nedeljkovic 23 games. 2nd place was a 3rd team all star and Vezina finalist. Fleury was in 3rd, Vasilevskiy in 8th. Rask in 9th

2020: Tuukka Rask: 2nd Team All Star, Vezina Finalist, now up for debate

2019: Jordan Binnington 5th in Vezina voting, despite only playing 32 games. Vasilevskiy wins his only Vezina, coincidentally with the best GAA of his career (unless you count a 13 game season).

2018: Carter Hutton 32 games. Marc-Andre Fleury is tied for 2nd over 46 games and is 4th in AS voting, 5th in Vezina voting.

2017: Sergei Bobrovsky: already listed. Vezina winner and 1st team all star

2016: Ben Bishop. 2nd team All Star, Vezina finalist

2015: Carey Price: All the awards. Already listed

2014: Josh Harding - 29 games. Rask was the only high GP guy near the top and he won the Vezina.

2013: Craig Anderson - 24 games (of 48), I believe missing time when his wife got cancer. Still 5th in All Star votes and 4th in Vezina voting. Bobrovsky wins the Vezina, tied for 4th with Rask.

2012: Brian Elliott 38 games, but still 5th in AS and Vezina voting. 2nd place would be Jonathan Quick (already listed).

Seems like the honest assessment would be that All-Star voters, Vezina voters (GMs), and HFBoards voters appreciate having a low GAA with high GP count.

If you think the GAA leader doesn't correlate with great goaltending, how often does the GAA leader on the high end correlate with a great season? Paddy Moran is a little closer to Al Rollins than he is to Jacques Plante. Except that Al Rollins, to his credit, greatly outperformed his backups, As opposed to Moran, who was outperformed by them every time someone else played.

For all of the noise inherent in the stat, GAA is far superior to giving Moran credit for someone saying "While he was letting ten go through, there were ten hundred he didn’t let slip in."

Respectfully, how? What kinds of quotes are you looking for?

Well if you're asking, something like "Charles Doddridge got beat for 15 or 16 goals yet again, because that's how bad the Quebec defense must be if we're forgiving Paddy Moran for his super high GA counts. In no way was some guy we've never heard of, (and is definitely lower on the all time list than a Jordan Binnington,) 2.2 goals a game BETTER than the best goalie in the world while playing on the same team."

Surely, Paddy Moran was a crowd pleaser. A spectacle, yes, but playing in a time when spectacles were less spectacular (Clint Benedict is just now teaching the world how to fall to one's knees to make a save, and we still have years to go before audiences are terrified of Boris Karloff simply walking in bandages). But Moran gives me the feel of an Allen Iverson, a player who captivated players and fans alike, but wasn't as impactful as he looked when it came to helping a team win.

 

[overpass]

So far we have four goaltenders on the list who were above (i.e. worse than) league average for GAA in their NHL careers. Gump Worsley, Roy Worters, Grant Fuhr, and Harry Lumley.

The European and pre- NHL goaltenders on the list were all below league average for GAA.

Based on the numbers posted by @blogofmike, Moran's GAA relative to league average was worse than any goaltender on the list so far. Hockey-reference uses a league average of 3.00 for their adjusted GAA. Using that metric, I have Moran at 3.20, slightly worse than Worsley (3.14) and Worters (3.12).

So we have to consider the Quebec teams that Moran played for. Frankly I have a hard time evaluating those Quebec teams and players. It's clear that they aren't remembered as much as the old Ottawas Wanderers, Canadiens, or Toronto's. Their player base and fan base, the small anglophone community of Quebec city, is completely off the radar of the hockey community and has been for over one hundred years. Only Joe Malone is remembered for his goal scoring feats, and that only because of the statistical record.

 

[rmartin65]

GAA has noise. But I am curious as to why GAA is garbage and adjectives are golden?

Because one is easily influenced by team and the other is the actual opinions of people who watched them play? In my opinion one of the great credits to this project thus far is that we haven't been beholden to stats; we are looking at newspaper reports, @Michael Farkas is doing film work, etc, but we aren't just lining up goals against average or save percentages and saying 'welp, this guy had better stats then that guy, so he must be the superior player'.

You like Fleury, right? The guy who had a 3.02 GAA and .909 SV% versus his backup's 2.41 and .923 in 2016-2017? Fleury got beat by his backup 1 year, he shouldn't be on our list right now I guess.

Here are the guys listed as GAA leaders on hockeyreference:

2024: Anthony Stolarz was a 2nd stringer with 27 games. The starter who was 3rd in GAA, was a Vezina finalist. And Sergei Bobrovsky's already on the list.

So... Stolarz- the backup- had a lower GAA than the starter, who was the Vezina finalist and is already on our list? How exactly is that different than the Moran/Doddridge situation? Doddridge played half the games Moran did, Stolarz played 46.5% of the games Bobrovskiy did. Seems like a pretty comparable situation to me.

2023: Linus Ullmark: 1st team all-star and Vezina winner. If he had longevity, he'd make the list with seasons like this.

Ullmark doesn't have longevity/seasons like this because he wasn't that good. Looks at his stats in Buffalo. Then look at them in Boston. Look at the other Boston goalies. I mean, the year after Ullmark had the lowest GAA he lost his net to Swayman who posted near-idential stats.

2022: Igor Shesterkin: currently up for debate, and should go high this round.

Don't look now, but Shesterkin has a .907 SV% and 3.08 GAA while his backup (a 39 year/old Jonathan Quick) has a .915 and 2.47. Is Quick a better goalie than Shesterkin in 2024-2025?

2021: Nedeljkovic 23 games. 2nd place was a 3rd team all star and Vezina finalist. Fleury was in 3rd, Vasilevskiy in 8th. Rask in 9th

#2 was Philipp Grubauer behind a powerhouse Colorado team. What's he up to now? 3-9 with a .879 SV% and 3.50 GAA. Still not looking good for stats, IMO.

2020: Tuukka Rask: 2nd Team All Star, Vezina Finalist, now up for debate

Yep, another one of the Boston goalies. Rask was also beaten in 2010-2011 by Tim Thomas (GAA 2.00 for Thomas to 2.67 for Rask). aten in 2018-2019 by Jaroslav Halak in GAA 2.34 to 2.48.

2019: Jordan Binnington 5th in Vezina voting, despite only playing 32 games. Vasilevskiy wins his only Vezina, coincidentally with the best GAA of his career (unless you count a 13 game season).

Beaten in GAA by Ville Husso 2.56 to 3.13 in 2021-2022

2018: Carter Hutton 32 games. Marc-Andre Fleury is tied for 2nd over 46 games and is 4th in AS voting, 5th in Vezina voting.

So Hutton coming in first doesn't matter because Fleury came in second?

2017: Sergei Bobrovsky: already listed. Vezina winner and 1st team all star

Yep. As noted above, Stolarz would have a season with a better GAA than Bobrovskiy while on the same team.

I can go on for the rest of them if you'd like- I'm sure at least some of them were never outplayed at some point by their backup- but I'm going to move on for now.

Seems like the honest assessment would be that All-Star voters, Vezina voters (GMs), and HFBoards voters appreciate having a low GAA with high GP count.

Sure... I don't disagree with that, and I don't believe I ever said otherwise. I said it's a garbage stat, not that people didn't value it.

If you think the GAA leader doesn't correlate with great goaltending, how often does the GAA leader on the high end correlate with a great season? Paddy Moran is a little closer to Al Rollins than he is to Jacques Plante. Except that Al Rollins, to his credit, greatly outperformed his backups, As opposed to Moran, who was outperformed by them every time someone else played.

And yet his team kept going back to him in net. That's strange, right? Quebec must have liked losing then.

I don't know. I really don't have an explanation. I can only say what I see- that the papers and comments from those that played with and against Moran make it sound like he was either the best of his era or second best.

If you feel like GAA is more important than what those who lived through it and experienced it wrote, then I won't stop you.

For all of the noise inherent in the stat, GAA is far superior to giving Moran credit for someone saying "While he was letting ten go through, there were ten hundred he didn’t let slip in."

No one is asking you to accept that as truth. I think we all know hyperbole when we see it.

Well if you're asking, something like "Charles Doddridge got beat for 15 or 16 goals yet again, because that's how bad the Quebec defense must be if we're forgiving Paddy Moran for his super high GA counts. In no way was some guy we've never heard of, (and is definitely lower on the all time list than a Jordan Binnington,) 2.2 goals a game BETTER than the best goalie in the world while playing on the same team."

So basically you want quotes dogging his backup? That will carry more sway for you than the literal pages of quotes of Moran being referred to as the all-star/king of goalkeeps/one of the best (or the best) of his time?

Surely, Paddy Moran was a crowd pleaser. A spectacle, yes, but playing in a time when spectacles were less spectacular

Ah, now he's just a spectacle. I guess he just fooled all those people into believing he was good for over a decade.

Without watching them, you feel comfortable making that assessment? We should trust your opinion, seemingly derived from GAA and the lack of shame cast upon Charles Doddridge over the opinions of Frank and Lester Patrick? Russell Bowie?

(Clint Benedict is just now teaching the world how to fall to one's knees to make a save, and we still have years to go before audiences are terrified of Boris Karloff simply walking in bandages).

I can't believe that myth is still going around- goalies were getting in trouble for dropping to their knees in the 1890s. It wasn't something new.

But Moran gives me the feel of an Allen Iverson, a player who captivated players and fans alike, but wasn't as impactful as he looked when it came to helping a team win.

Except Moran led Quebec HC to a league title in 1904, and Stanley Cups in 1912 and 1913. He was in net for the Stanley Cup winning game more than Fleury! Or Price, or Bobrovskiy, or Shesterkin, or.....

 

[rmartin65]

I just don't see the argument for Cheevers at this point. Going through the playoff reports, I was hoping to get something good, but outside 1968 and a little bit of 1969, there's just nothing. A very distant 5th place AS finish is his best award voting. I don't think he'd be top 5 in Conn Smythe voting for me in either 1970 or 1972.

For those playoff runs he's behind Orr, Esposito, Bucyk, and Hodge. But it's not just being behind them. It's a general absense of praise and he splits starts.

Are the 1979 challenge games and 74 WHA SS that strong?

Like he's clearly behind Fleury for me and I don't like Fleury.

I think the only two cases for Cheevers I've seen recently are the two quoted below-

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.

@Crosby2010 made a case for Cheevers (for the Hall of Fame) in this thread a couple days ago

I don't think you were directing this my way, but I can answer it regardless. Goalies have a pretty high standard for the HHOF. Out of the three positions (forward, defense, goal) goaltending is the one that easily has the least amount of controversial picks. Defense used to be a pretty high standard too, but there have been some questionable ones, although forwards are easily the most lenient category. Nevertheless, goaltenders are still the toughest nut to crack to get into the HHOF.

Cheevers first. I am alright with him in there. Might be in for the opposite reasons as another weakish (but worthy) HHOFer in Chuck Rayner. Rayner was normally on terrible teams and only played in the playoffs twice, but was more decorated in the regular season than Cheevers with a Hart trophy and three 2nd team all-stars. Cheevers was on good teams that went deep but doesn't have the individual accolades in the regular season. Both got in for different reasons. For starters Cheevers has a good record at 227-104-76. That doesn't include the 3.5 years he played in the WHA right in his prime years. That being said, when you factor in he only once played in 50 games in an NHL season, those are pretty good numbers for his career. He never led the NHL in any notable category but he did in his full years in the WHA, leading in shutouts all three times. Take that anyway you'd like, and I am not one to say that the WHA adds anything to a career, but if Cheevers is playing in 50-60 games in the NHL per year is he getting some more love with 1st/2nd team all-stars? Maybe. Hard decade in the 1970s to crack that, but either way he's more in the mix. But that didn't matter to him. He made his money in the playoffs. 53-34 playoff career. Two Cups, 4 trips to the Cup final and he played excellent in the 1969 playoffs which was basically the Stanley Cup final in the semis vs. Montreal. He had a 1.68 GAA that postseason. 3 shutouts and a .947 sv%. That's impressive. The Cup in 1970 was all his, the one in 1972 was shared with Johnston in the playoffs but Cheevers was in net during the final Cup clinching game and got a shutout. It was Johnston, not Cheevers, in net for Game 2 of the 1971 series vs. Montreal where they blew a 5-1 lead. Maybe things are different if Cheevers is in there, who knows. Maybe things are different if Cheevers is in net for Game 7 in 1979 too. You never know.

Either way, he was a reliable goalie when it mattered. Similar to Fuhr perhaps? I think it mattered that Cheevers wasn't on the 1972 Summit Series team. He most likely has the starters position to lose. And while he had that disastrous game in 1979 in the Challenge Cup, the fact he was picked shows you he was still relevant. He gets in, and he's more central to his teams winning that someone like Osgood. Might be more like Fleury in that way, which isn't bad.

Vachon I mentioned already why I think he belongs. I think he's a better individual goalie than Cheevers. Had success with winning Cups, then went to an awful team and really carried them on his back. When push came to shove he was picked for the 1976 Canada Cup and thrived in that tournament. His numbers are better than Cheevers. Beezer is another goalie who has two top 5 Hart finishes (3rd, 5th) compared to Vachon (2nd, 4th). I don't know if there is another goalie with that kind of Hart voting record that is on the outside looking in, and Beezer's playoff record leaves a lot to be desired which is what has kept him out, I think. So I just don't think there is a weakness in Vachon's career that omits him.

I'll confess that he's not high on my list this round. But a possible point in his favor is how quick he made the Hall of Fame; relative to his retirement date (so ignoring any kind of mandatory waiting period), Cheevers was admitted quicker than several players this panel has liked- for example, it took Bower 7 years, Durnan 14 years, Brimsek 16 years, Benedict 19 years, Lumley 19 years, etc.

It doesn't really match with his awards record or the review of the papers we have been presented with so far (and, you know, he had a worse GAA than his backup- Eddie Johnston- in 1970-1971), but it seems like at least one group of people who watched Cheevers thought very highly of him, and I think we should keep that in mind.

 

[rmartin65]

Like seemingly at least a few others, I'm unsure of how to deal with Shestyorkin. I think that if we were doing this list 3-5 years from now, he'd be an easy selection (provided he more-or-less maintained his level of play) quite probably going higher than the spots he's in the discussion for now.

But we aren't doing the list 3-5 years from now, we are doing it now, and in my opinion, we should only be looking at what he has already accomplished. And as I mentioned earlier, I think that means also looking at his time in the KHL- we've already given some guys "credit" for their work in the AHL (Bower and Lumley come to mind pretty quickly), so I don't think it is out of line to suggest Shestyorkin should get some value from his KHL time.

I don't have the time right now to go through papers/internet for his KHL time, so stats (from Wikipedia) will have to suffice for the time being-

Shestyorkin made his KHL debut in 2013-204, playing 9 games. He'd play a handful of games in 2014-2015 (6 games) and 2015-2016 (7 games) before establishing himself as a starter in 2016-2017, and he would be named to what I understand to be the equivalent of the KHL's post-season all star team in 2017, though Vasiliy Koshechkin would win the best goalkeeper award (voted on by the coaches).

Of course, the KHL didn't have a murderer's row of goalies that year; Ben Scrivens led the league in wins (Shesterkin second), Pavel Francouz led in save percentage (Shestyorkin third), Aleksandr Yeryomenko led in GAA (Francouz 2nd, Ilya Sorokin 3rd, Shestyorkin 4th), and Yeryomenko led in shut-outs (Shestyorkin tied for second with Scrivens).

Shestyorkin had a less impressive (though I would still argue solid) 2017-2018 KHL season, though- again- I'd argue the goaltender competition wasn't great. Emil Garipov led in wins (Shestyorkin not in the top 5), Francouz led in save percentage (Shestyorkin not in the top 5), Lars Johansson led in GAA (Shestyorkin 4th, also behind Mikko Koskinen and Ilya Sorokin), and Ryan Zalopsky led in shut outs (Shestyorkin tied for third with Stanislav Galimov and Ilya Yezhov, also being Ilya Sorokin). Pavel Francouz would win the award for best goalkeeper that year.

Shestyorkin's third and final season in the KHL as a regular would be in 2018-2019. While I'd argue that it didn't measure up to his 2016-2017 season, I think it was likely better than 2017-2018. Again Shestyokin finished outside the top 5 in wins (Jakub Kovar), but he finished first in save percentage and GAA, and finished tied (with Ilya Konovalov) for second in shut-outs (behind Ilya Sorokin). Juha Antero Metsola would win best goalkeeper that year.

All in all, I think Shestyorkin should get some value out of these seasons; it's not like he is only working with only 4 seasons, we've got another 3 as a starter in what was arguably the second best league in the world at the time. And, despite his youth, the stats make it look like he was top 5 goalie in the KHL over those 3 years.

As a brief aside- while Shestyorkin has been better in the NHL, Sorokin actually looks more impressive (again, statistically/awards-wise) in the KHL. Sorokin was apparently named best goalkeeper in 2016, and was the best player of the playoffs in 2019. If I have time over the next couple of days I may look into what the sentiment looked like online/in the papers.

Back to Shestyorkin. It may not move the needle a ton (none of these seasons are what 'd call historically great), but it does assuage my concerns a bit when it comes to his longevity. We have at least 9 years as a high-functioning starting goalie (yeah, it is a small sample size, but I have like his 2019-2020 season as well). That seems ok for this range considering his peak. I haven't worked out exactly where to place him on my ballot this round, but I am pretty comfortable in stating that I was too low on him on my preliminary list, and that he is definitely ahead of a couple guys for me this round.

 

[rmartin65]

Goalies in Stanley Cup deciding games:

Name	Wins	Losses	Win Percentage
Alec Connell	2 (1927, 1935)	0	100.00
Lorne Chabot	2 (1928, 1932)	0	100.00
Paddy Moran	2 (1912, 1913)	0	100.00
Mike Richter	1 (1994)	0	100.00
Gerry Cheevers	2 (1970, 1972)	2 (1977, 1978)	50.00
Dave Kerr	1 (1940)	1 (1937)	50.00
Marc-Andre Fleury	1 (2009)	2 (2008, 2019)	33.33
John Ross Roach	1 (1922)	2 (1929, 1932)	33.33
Igor Shesterkin	0	0	0.00
Mike Liut	0	0	0.00
Pekka Rinne	0	1 (2017)	0.00
Ed Giacomin	0	1 (1972)	0.00
Chuck Rayner	0	1 (1950)	0.00
Tuukka Rask	0	2 (2013, 2019)	0.00

Let me know if anything looks amiss; I'll be happy to correct any errors.

 

[blogofmike]

Because one is easily influenced by team and the other is the actual opinions of people who watched them play? In my opinion one of the great credits to this project thus far is that we haven't been beholden to stats; we are looking at newspaper reports, @Michael Farkas is doing film work, etc, but we aren't just lining up goals against average or save percentages and saying 'welp, this guy had better stats then that guy, so he must be the superior player'.

No, we need to account for everything. We can't just ignore that he gave a ton of goals.

You like Fleury, right? The guy who had a 3.02 GAA and .909 SV% versus his backup's 2.41 and .923 in 2016-2017? Fleury got beat by his backup 1 year, he shouldn't be on our list right now I guess.

Like MAF? Not really. But can you imagine him making the list if he NEVER beat his backup? We compare people to backups all the time. @seventieslord used an even smaller sample in a Mike Liut playoff post earlier - where were the complaints then?

So... Stolarz- the backup- had a lower GAA than the starter, who was the Vezina finalist and is already on our list? How exactly is that different than the Moran/Doddridge situation? Doddridge played half the games Moran did, Stolarz played 46.5% of the games Bobrovskiy did. Seems like a pretty comparable situation to me.

Ullmark doesn't have longevity/seasons like this because he wasn't that good. Looks at his stats in Buffalo. Then look at them in Boston. Look at the other Boston goalies. I mean, the year after Ullmark had the lowest GAA he lost his net to Swayman who posted near-idential stats.

Don't look now, but Shesterkin has a .907 SV% and 3.08 GAA while his backup (a 39 year/old Jonathan Quick) has a .915 and 2.47. Is Quick a better goalie than Shesterkin in 2024-2025?

#2 was Philipp Grubauer behind a powerhouse Colorado team. What's he up to now? 3-9 with a .879 SV% and 3.50 GAA. Still not looking good for stats, IMO.

Yep, another one of the Boston goalies. Rask was also beaten in 2010-2011 by Tim Thomas (GAA 2.00 for Thomas to 2.67 for Rask). aten in 2018-2019 by Jaroslav Halak in GAA 2.34 to 2.48.

Beaten in GAA by Ville Husso 2.56 to 3.13 in 2021-2022

So Hutton coming in first doesn't matter because Fleury came in second?

Yep. As noted above, Stolarz would have a season with a better GAA than Bobrovskiy while on the same team.

I can go on for the rest of them if you'd like- I'm sure at least some of them were never outplayed at some point by their backup- but I'm going to move on for now.

Sure... I don't disagree with that, and I don't believe I ever said otherwise. I said it's a garbage stat, not that people didn't value it.

This is an irrational argument of a point you (possibly) don't support. The argument seems to be going to an unnecessary extreme (goals allowed don't matter at all!) to prop up Moran.

No one is saying GAA is precise. A backup having a small advantage over a starter doesn't usually win you the Vezina. All those clever writers and GMs seem to know this based on voting.

Again, showing that someone was marginally ahead of someone else proves nothing. The goalies we like tend to be good at preventing goals. We can and have looked at team situations and accounted for players who had a higher degree of difficulty.

And yet his team kept going back to him in net. That's strange, right? Quebec must have liked losing then.

We're not arguing that he didn't belong in the league, just that he isn't more impactful all-time than a lot of great goaltenders.

I don't know. I really don't have an explanation. I can only say what I see- that the papers and comments from those that played with and against Moran make it sound like he was either the best of his era or second best.

If you feel like GAA is more important than what those who lived through it and experienced it wrote, then I won't stop you.

No one is asking you to accept that as truth. I think we all know hyperbole when we see it.

Surely we have to account for it. Why is Paddy Moran the one goalie in history for whom we throw out the metrics we use for everyone else?

What's your opinion of say, Mike Richter? And if it's low, are you holding him accountable for things Paddy Moran gets a free pass for?

So basically you want quotes dogging his backup? That will carry more sway for you than the literal pages of quotes of Moran being referred to as the all-star/king of goalkeeps/one of the best (or the best) of his time?

Ah, now he's just a spectacle. I guess he just fooled all those people into believing he was good for over a decade.

Without watching them, you feel comfortable making that assessment? We should trust your opinion, seemingly derived from GAA and the lack of shame cast upon Charles Doddridge over the opinions of Frank and Lester Patrick? Russell Bowie?

Or take it all into account. The man gave up a TON of goals relative to his peers. If we didn't have stats and were going by newspaper accounts alone, we might think Pavel Bure was more impactful than Wayne Gretzky.

I can't believe that myth is still going around- goalies were getting in trouble for dropping to their knees in the 1890s. It wasn't something new.

It was something they had to get away with. Not an approved tool of the trade.

Jan. 9: Boucher earns NHL-record fifth straight shutout | NHL.com (EDIT: It's a Today in NHL History thing, it makes sense, I swear!)

Except Moran led Quebec HC to a league title in 1904, and Stanley Cups in 1912 and 1913. He was in net for the Stanley Cup winning game more than Fleury! Or Price, or Bobrovskiy, or Shesterkin, or.....

Goalies in Stanley Cup deciding games:

Name	Wins	Losses	Win Percentage
Alec Connell	2 (1927, 1935)	0	100.00
Lorne Chabot	2 (1928, 1932)	0	100.00
Paddy Moran	2 (1912, 1913)	0	100.00
Mike Richter	1 (1994)	0	100.00
Gerry Cheevers	2 (1970, 1972)	2 (1977, 1978)	50.00
Dave Kerr	1 (1940)	1 (1937)	50.00
Marc-Andre Fleury	1 (2009)	2 (2008, 2019)	33.33
John Ross Roach	1 (1922)	2 (1929, 1932)	33.33
Igor Shesterkin	0	0	0.00
Mike Liut	0	0	0.00
Pekka Rinne	0	1 (2017)	0.00
Ed Giacomin	0	1 (1972)	0.00
Chuck Rayner	0	1 (1950)	0.00
Tuukka Rask	0	2 (2013, 2019)	0.00

Let me know if anything looks amiss; I'll be happy to correct any errors.

It's a good thing we have a non-garbage stat like Wins to show us what's what. And we're going the (technically correct) way of only counting the Cup games Moran played against the overmatched Maritimes teams and ignoring the games where he played for the "World Championship" and they beat the pants off of him, scoring at a level they couldn't achieve against the New Westminster Royals. That's not ALL on Moran, but we seem to be holding these newspaper accounts up as a significant accomplishment for reasons that escape me.

But hey, "While he was letting ten go through, there were ten hundred he didn’t let slip in." So long as you use that standard for everyone else too.

 

[Professor What]

Like seemingly at least a few others, I'm unsure of how to deal with Shestyorkin. I think that if we were doing this list 3-5 years from now, he'd be an easy selection (provided he more-or-less maintained his level of play) quite probably going higher than the spots he's in the discussion for now.

But we aren't doing the list 3-5 years from now, we are doing it now, and in my opinion, we should only be looking at what he has already accomplished. And as I mentioned earlier, I think that means also looking at his time in the KHL- we've already given some guys "credit" for their work in the AHL (Bower and Lumley come to mind pretty quickly), so I don't think it is out of line to suggest Shestyorkin should get some value from his KHL time.

I don't have the time right now to go through papers/internet for his KHL time, so stats (from Wikipedia) will have to suffice for the time being-

Shestyorkin made his KHL debut in 2013-204, playing 9 games. He'd play a handful of games in 2014-2015 (6 games) and 2015-2016 (7 games) before establishing himself as a starter in 2016-2017, and he would be named to what I understand to be the equivalent of the KHL's post-season all star team in 2017, though Vasiliy Koshechkin would win the best goalkeeper award (voted on by the coaches).

Of course, the KHL didn't have a murderer's row of goalies that year; Ben Scrivens led the league in wins (Shesterkin second), Pavel Francouz led in save percentage (Shestyorkin third), Aleksandr Yeryomenko led in GAA (Francouz 2nd, Ilya Sorokin 3rd, Shestyorkin 4th), and Yeryomenko led in shut-outs (Shestyorkin tied for second with Scrivens).

Shestyorkin had a less impressive (though I would still argue solid) 2017-2018 KHL season, though- again- I'd argue the goaltender competition wasn't great. Emil Garipov led in wins (Shestyorkin not in the top 5), Francouz led in save percentage (Shestyorkin not in the top 5), Lars Johansson led in GAA (Shestyorkin 4th, also behind Mikko Koskinen and Ilya Sorokin), and Ryan Zalopsky led in shut outs (Shestyorkin tied for third with Stanislav Galimov and Ilya Yezhov, also being Ilya Sorokin). Pavel Francouz would win the award for best goalkeeper that year.

Shestyorkin's third and final season in the KHL as a regular would be in 2018-2019. While I'd argue that it didn't measure up to his 2016-2017 season, I think it was likely better than 2017-2018. Again Shestyokin finished outside the top 5 in wins (Jakub Kovar), but he finished first in save percentage and GAA, and finished tied (with Ilya Konovalov) for second in shut-outs (behind Ilya Sorokin). Juha Antero Metsola would win best goalkeeper that year.

All in all, I think Shestyorkin should get some value out of these seasons; it's not like he is only working with only 4 seasons, we've got another 3 as a starter in what was arguably the second best league in the world at the time. And, despite his youth, the stats make it look like he was top 5 goalie in the KHL over those 3 years.

As a brief aside- while Shestyorkin has been better in the NHL, Sorokin actually looks more impressive (again, statistically/awards-wise) in the KHL. Sorokin was apparently named best goalkeeper in 2016, and was the best player of the playoffs in 2019. If I have time over the next couple of days I may look into what the sentiment looked like online/in the papers.

Back to Shestyorkin. It may not move the needle a ton (none of these seasons are what 'd call historically great), but it does assuage my concerns a bit when it comes to his longevity. We have at least 9 years as a high-functioning starting goalie (yeah, it is a small sample size, but I have like his 2019-2020 season as well). That seems ok for this range considering his peak. I haven't worked out exactly where to place him on my ballot this round, but I am pretty comfortable in stating that I was too low on him on my preliminary list, and that he is definitely ahead of a couple guys for me this round.

I'd feel better about the KHL years if I knew how it compares in strength to the old AHL. Bower and Lumley played in an era where AHL goaltending could be stronger because there were so few spots up for grabs in the NHL. I know that politics are a problem for Russian players in recent years and that it's not so easy for young players to get to North America, but I'm not sure that I see the KHL as being that much stronger than the AHL now. And there are 64 active goalie spots in the NHL today. I don't want to punish players for what politicians do, but I'm just not convinced that short of total dominance, a player in the KHL is proving much.

It probably sounds like I'm hating on Shesterkin. I'm not trying to. I think he's ridiculously talented, but I just don't see enough meat on the bone. That said, he probably should have made my initial list, but I still feel like it's too early for him. I do have him ahead of Cheevers now though. I really don't like the case for Cheevers.