HOH Top 60 Goaltenders of All Time (2024 Edition)

[MXD]

To be fair: "Dryden and Sawchuk should be first and second" was a STOCK take from the late 70's through to late 80's.

I heard it countless times then (Plante was only mentioned by that French kid in our Western Canada B.C. town.)

So, if the poster is my age (55) or older, and has more dementia than i do then reintroduce them to Roy ("waw", close enuf) and Hasek ("hashek").

I guess the lesson here is to always go with what the French kids are saying. Especially the older kids.

 

[mrhockey193195]

Congrats and huge thank you to the team involved in this project! I've said it before, I'll say it until I'm blue in the face - the HOH board is THE gold standard of hockey history conversation, and the "Top Players of All Time" lists are canonical in my books. Incredible discussion and debate, and I'm always in awe of the rigor that goes into these projects.

On a personal & selfish note - seeing Lundqvist slot in a #12 all time was almost an emotional moment for me. My favorite player of all time - someone whose career I followed closely from his last couple seasons at Frolunda until his final game in the NHL - seeing him get that level of recognition from this group of hockey history experts is extremely validating and an immense source of pride.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Looking at the original individual lists, if I was a screener and didn't know Farkas was Farkas, I'd have rejected his rankings,

 

[Johnny Engine]

Like clockwork, every single project someone suggests we reject a list because it's weird and not because it forgot or disregarded an entire category of player, or included ineligible or duplicate players. And every single project I make this post.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Ya even though I mostly disagreed, having Farkas here was a great asset to the project. We don't need group think and having a fresh and insightful set of eyes is important. We shouldn't disqualify lists because they're different. We should disqualify lists if they miss eras or are being intentionally obtuse.

Having Roy at 10? Minority opinion but if you can defend it let's have it. Not having Roy or nobody from pre war or no modern? Ya that's a reject.

I still maintain the late Canadiens having Gretzky at 7 in the top 100 helped spur real quality conversation.

 

[Johnny Engine]

The reason I'm not in this project is because my list contained no players born between 1946 and 1964 (you wanna be on my list? ok, boomer), listed Arturs Irbe 5 times and Pasi Nurminen twice, and had Craig Ludwig and Kris Russell a #26 and #35 respectively. Screeners just couldn't handle the controversy.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Like clockwork, every single project someone suggests we reject a list because it's weird and not because it forgot or disregarded an entire category of player, or included ineligible or duplicate players. And every single project I make this post.

And what's the point?

That every list should be accepted, no matter how strange?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Ya even though I mostly disagreed, having Farkas here was a great asset to the project. We don't need group think and having a fresh and insightful set of eyes is important. We shouldn't disqualify lists because they're different. We should disqualify lists if they miss eras or are being intentionally obtuse.

Having Roy at 10? Minority opinion but if you can defend it let's have it. Not having Roy or nobody from pre war or no modern? Ya that's a reject.

I still maintain the late Canadiens having Gretzky at 7 in the top 100 helped spur real quality conversation.

Farkas is the goalie guru. His opinion is based on a lot of thought, observation and research. We all know that.

As I said, if a Joe Hockey Goalie sent that list in, it would have to be questioned. I'd say rejectable.