jigglysquishy
Registered User
That's not the question being asked though.
Price's last full season came at age 32. Luongo played almost 50% more games than him. Longevity absolutely plays a role in this project.
HOH Top 60 Goaltenders of All Time (2024 Edition) - Voting Results
- Thread starter Dr John Carlson
- Start date
Price's last full season came at age 32. Luongo played almost 50% more games than him. Longevity absolutely plays a role in this project.
Yozhik v tumane
Registered User
- Jan 2, 2019
- 2,026
- 2,171
Not saying you’re wrong about Price being the best of the bunch, but you might want to rephrase this. Luongo is 8 years older and Vasilevskiy 7 years younger than Price, both were/are all-star netminders and of course there were multiple points where you would have picked them above Price.
Obviously I meant, in their primes head to head, GMs/Coaches would pick Price at similar age.
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
Vasilevskiy didn't make a ballot there? Woof...
I guess the Broda case that I asked for several times must have been distributed privately haha - 8 top 3 ballots there. More than everyone except Vasy and Price, narrowly. And now, I guess we'll never get to hear it because he's been inducted.
Benedict leading the way in 1st place ballots this round after being almost at the very bottom last round is quite a turn of events for him...
I guess the Broda case that I asked for several times must have been distributed privately haha - 8 top 3 ballots there. More than everyone except Vasy and Price, narrowly. And now, I guess we'll never get to hear it because he's been inducted.
Benedict leading the way in 1st place ballots this round after being almost at the very bottom last round is quite a turn of events for him...
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
Quite odd for the guy coming in first to have such divergent voting.
Five candidates got first & last place votes.
Voters probably didn't want to distance Benedict too far from Vezina.
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
Perhaps. But it was expressly stated what a gap there was between them in the discussion I believe. I feel like a gap in pre-forward pass goalies carries a little bit more weight than some other gaps, but I'm also often nominated as the, uh, dunce of the week...so...
It's easy to compound problems in a situation like this.
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
It may have been stated but these are a couple of goalies no one has seen play, who played at a time when the game was completely different. Often lumped together as the best of that era.
Dr John Carlson
Registered User
Vote 5
18/19 voters
Top six get in.
Hellebuyck and Lehman go in on the first try. Smith the first 80s goalie to get in, right before we had a few more to the hopper in vote 6.
Holecek over Worters on the tiebreak, he was ahead on more ballots.
There's a big break in the aggregate list right up next, and the guys before the break are tightly packed together. So, with a larger group going through this week, we're gonna add them all in, which puts us up to 14 names. It's a lot, but we should be steady around that number for a few weeks going forward.
18/19 voters
| Goalie | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | 4th | 5th | 6th | 7th | 8th | 9th | 10th | NR | Total |
| Connor Hellebuyck | 5 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 129 | |||
| Hugh Lehman | 1 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 118 | ||
| Jiri Holecek | 5 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 111 | ||
| Roy Worters | 1 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 111 | |||
| Tiny Thompson | 1 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 108 | ||
| Billy Smith | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 104 | ||
| Tony Esposito | 2 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 94 | ||
| Harry Lumley | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 66 | ||
| George Hainsworth | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 58 | ||
| Grant Fuhr | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 7 | 43 | |||
| Hap Holmes | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 8 | 28 | ||||||
| Gump Worsley | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 10 | 20 |
Top six get in.
Hellebuyck and Lehman go in on the first try. Smith the first 80s goalie to get in, right before we had a few more to the hopper in vote 6.
Holecek over Worters on the tiebreak, he was ahead on more ballots.
There's a big break in the aggregate list right up next, and the guys before the break are tightly packed together. So, with a larger group going through this week, we're gonna add them all in, which puts us up to 14 names. It's a lot, but we should be steady around that number for a few weeks going forward.
Last edited:
Smith is not the first 80s goalie to go in- the myth of the anti-80s discrimination needs to end. Both 1 (Hasek, 1980-2011) and 2 (Roy, 1985-2003) on our list played substantial time in the 1980s, as did number 7 (Tretiak, 1968-1984).
jigglysquishy
Registered User
Fuhr at 1 and Hellebucyk NR do not match discussion at all
I literally had to read the post 5x to understand whose going in lol. You should really put a simplified "the top 6 go in this round" for us people who haven't had our coffee yet.
18/19 votes - I think that's the first round we haven't had all 19 voters? Still great voting participation overall, which is good.
Nothing too surprising with the results.
Dr John Carlson
Registered User
Ah, my bad, I figured the italics made it clear. I will fix that.
I meant that he's the first goalie where the bulk of his resume came in the 80s.
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
Colloquially, this means "first 80's NHL goalie". Arguably, sure, Roy was an 80's goalie - but not really. He's not associated with that era, he played probably like - I don't know - less than 20% of his career games in that era.
But washing all the semantics away...it's a relief that it's Smith 1st. Hopefully some space is put between him and Fuhr.
I'm also curious about the Fuhr vote at 1.
Not because I want everyone to fall in line...but who made the case? I'm the lone Lumley voter at 1 because I found him to be so far ahead of all of these goalies (except Hellebuyck was reasonably close) and I made an impassioned case for him. It clearly had no effect, but that's life in land of canon...I can't expect reputation change in a week's time haha - but I went to bat hard for Lumley.
What was Fuhr's case? Did Tony O's two 1st place votes come from PreviousListPlacement/60 stats? Like, there was some talk about being well received against limited competition as I recall. But...
Overall, given how many ways this vote could have really made some - in my opinion, of course - horrific mistakes and adds............this is a surprisingly tolerable result for that list of goalies.
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
Also, the Worters vote is kind of appropriate in some way...if you're more of a "goalie MVP" voter, you had him high. Otherwise, you had him lower. No in between. Kind of interesting distribution there.
I'm actually a little surprised that Hap Holmes didn't do well. I think it's fairly clear that he should not have done well, but I'm still a bit surprised. Sometimes the fog of war guys get a boost because everyone else sucks and got dogged. But, not the case...
Also, we see the trend continue...we'll call it a "trend" and not the "B" word haha
The ol' "if you weren't on a list a decade ago, you'll take your lumps and you'll take them hard"...I don't know what some folks are scared of or trying to compensate for, but this is rough...
Vasilevskiy in vote 3. He had a majority of voters placing him top 4. Two-thirds had him top 6. No 7th, 8th, 9th, or 10th place votes. Followed by 6 (!) NR.
Vote 4, Vasilevskiy now has a full eight 1st or 2nd place votes...won the whole round, but still picked up a 10th and an NR. Against freakin' Broda and Worters and Holecek...and hell, Billy Smith who was hardly even the starter haha
Even Price to a degree, just about half the panel had him top 3 (one short of having the most top-3 ballots). Also found his way to 3 NRs.
Then here we went again with Hellebuyck. Absolutely dominant in the discussion, dominant in the voting...but a couple of nuke attempts way out of left field.
Games that already happened are history. The list is growing by 50%. Of all the places on the internet, I trust that this group will not "erase" anyone from the history books...you don't have to be so resistant to change that it compromises..........[the list, logic, whatever concept belongs here]...
I'm actually a little surprised that Hap Holmes didn't do well. I think it's fairly clear that he should not have done well, but I'm still a bit surprised. Sometimes the fog of war guys get a boost because everyone else sucks and got dogged. But, not the case...
Also, we see the trend continue...we'll call it a "trend" and not the "B" word haha
The ol' "if you weren't on a list a decade ago, you'll take your lumps and you'll take them hard"...I don't know what some folks are scared of or trying to compensate for, but this is rough...
Vasilevskiy in vote 3. He had a majority of voters placing him top 4. Two-thirds had him top 6. No 7th, 8th, 9th, or 10th place votes. Followed by 6 (!) NR.
Vote 4, Vasilevskiy now has a full eight 1st or 2nd place votes...won the whole round, but still picked up a 10th and an NR. Against freakin' Broda and Worters and Holecek...and hell, Billy Smith who was hardly even the starter haha
Even Price to a degree, just about half the panel had him top 3 (one short of having the most top-3 ballots). Also found his way to 3 NRs.
Then here we went again with Hellebuyck. Absolutely dominant in the discussion, dominant in the voting...but a couple of nuke attempts way out of left field.
Games that already happened are history. The list is growing by 50%. Of all the places on the internet, I trust that this group will not "erase" anyone from the history books...you don't have to be so resistant to change that it compromises..........[the list, logic, whatever concept belongs here]...
MXD
Partying Hard
- Oct 27, 2005
- 51,749
- 17,663
Hellebuyck right after Price (as of Nov. 24) is a pretty bad collective take. Like, I kinda regret ranking him at all just for the end result, even if it wouldn't have changed a thing.
And I was amongst the lowest on Price.
Last edited:
Dr John Carlson
Registered User
Vote 6
19/19 voters
Top 4 going in. There's a big break in the aggregate list after the next four names, so we'll take 4 from here, 4 from there, and we're all square.
I added one last ballot this morning on my phone, and editing a table on mobile is dreadful. The data should all be good, and the top 4 are going through regardless because the last ballot didn't impact their numbers enough, but if you spot a mistake let me know.
19/19 voters
| Goalie | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | 4th | 5th | 6th | 7th | 8th | 9th | 10th | NR | Total |
| Tony Esposito | 6 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 130 | ||
| Harry Lumley | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 115 | |||
| George Hainsworth | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 102 | |
| Grant Fuhr | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 97 | ||
| Curtis Joseph | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 79 | |
| Miikka Kiprusoff | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 78 | |||
| Jonathan Quick | 1 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 75 | ||
| John Vanbiesbrouck | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 7 | 66 | ||
| Hap Holmes | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 63 | ||
| Rogie Vachon | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 57 | |||
| Tom Barrasso | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 55 | |||
| Percy LeSueur | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 7 | 46 | |||
| Gump Worsley | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 11 | 44 | |||
| Chuck Rayner | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 9 | 37 |
Top 4 going in. There's a big break in the aggregate list after the next four names, so we'll take 4 from here, 4 from there, and we're all square.
I added one last ballot this morning on my phone, and editing a table on mobile is dreadful. The data should all be good, and the top 4 are going through regardless because the last ballot didn't impact their numbers enough, but if you spot a mistake let me know.
jigglysquishy
Registered User
Huge spread on voting. I'm really curious on the Worsley at 1 vote. I don't think anyone said anything positive about him
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
Professor What
Registered User
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
Yeah, that's what stood out most to me too. Where did that come from?
I'm a little (pleasantly) surprised that Lumley got to 8 top-3 votes, second most of the round. Unfortunately, it's behind Esposito in that regard, but it wasn't hard to see that coming. He was all-but-admitted last round. At least now he's down away with less reliable guys, as opposed to the previous list where he was up there with rock solid performers. That's a win for all of us as it's a better representation of the player.
The spread on Hainsworth is interesting. Folks might be a little surprised to note that I'm NOT one of those 4 NRs on him. Not that I had him high by any means, but...
It's too bad we couldn't get a bigger gap between Billy Smith and Grant Fuhr once again. It's another one where I can't really figure out the criteria used to justify the claim. A third of the panel thought he was a top-3 goalie on this list, so there must be something...somewhere...
Professor What
Registered User
Espo slipped a bit for me in that round, which I guess was why I was surprised there. As for Fuhr... I don't get it either.
jigglysquishy
Registered User
Fuhr has a stretch, roughly the 1987 playoffs through the 1988 playoffs, where he is on top of the goalie world.
His best playoffs in 1987; certainly his most praised. A few months later he's the starting goalie for Canada at the Canada Cup. Then he has his best regular season in 1987-88.
Now, he goes from Oilers super-team to Canadian super-team to Oilers super-team. At no point is he amongst the top 3 praised players on the team.
But he's the goalie for three championships in twelve months, plays his best stretch of hockey, and gets his most favourable award voting. I really do think it comes down to that stretch weighing so heavily in people's minds.
I say that as someone who didn't have him top five and actually had him behind Barrasso.
