HOH Top Goaltenders of All Time Preliminary Discussion Thread

[Hawkey Town 18]

Khabibulin over Luongo is...... simply inexcusable :

Agree, and I don't see much of a case for Miller either

 

[VanIslander]

Khabibulin over Luongo is...... simply inexcusable :

Khabibulin in Phoenix and at the 2002 Olympics was superior to anything I've ever seen from Luongo.

The Bulin Wall showed brilliance early in his career that Roberto never truly has.

I think Luongo has had a solid career but I don't hesitate to call Khabibulin the better goalie based on peak and career, accomplishments and clutch play, skill, determination and performance.

It's harder to compare guys I haven't seen play so much. It's easy with guys one has seen play a lot.

 

[VanIslander]

vecens24 has never agreed with anything I've said before. I don't expect him to now.

 

[vecens24]

vecens24 has never agreed with anything I've said before. I don't expect him to now.

Lol totally different evaluation style of players.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Khabibulin in Phoenix and at the 2002 Olympics was superior to anything I've ever seen from Luongo.

The Bulin Wall showed brilliance early in his career that Roberto never truly has.

I think Luongo has had a solid career but I don't hesitate to call Khabibulin the better goalie based on peak and career, accomplishments and clutch play, skill, determination and performance.

It's harder to compare guys I haven't seen play so much. It's easy with guys one has seen play a lot.

I get picking Khabibulin over Luongo if you place a very high emphasis on peak clutch play - he really was outstanding at the 2002 Olympics and during the 2004 Cup run. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.

I have no idea how you could say that Khabibulin's regular season play in Phoenix was better than Luongo's regular season play in his best seasons, or even close to it for that matter.

 

[MXD]

I get picking Khabibulin over Luongo if you place a very high emphasis on peak clutch play - he really was outstanding at the 2002 Olympics and during the 2004 Cup run. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.

I have no idea how you could say that Khabibulin's regular season play in Phoenix was better than Luongo's regular season play in his best seasons, or even close to it for that matter.

The problem is, Khabibulin over Luongo probably means Osgood over the likes of Curtis Joseph, which is something I'd rather not do at any point for anything, even if it's something that is definitely supportable. On the other hand, Osgood over Tiny Thompson (for a lack of a better example) would be utterly unsupportable.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

This is what I hate about these things. We haven't even begun and we are getting into pissing contests involving players who probably won't factor into the actual top 40...

Isn't the whole point to cross these bridges when we get to them?

Isn't the whole point that we debate comparisons that are difficult to make and maybe haven't been made?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

This is what I hate about these things. We haven't even begun and we are getting into pissing contests involving players who probably won't factor into the actual top 40...

Isn't the whole point to cross these bridges when we get to them?

Isn't the whole point that we debate comparisons that are difficult to make and maybe haven't been made?

I think some of these modern goalies that are being argued about have chances to be added. I had 6 active goalies on my final list; I think 4 of them in the top 40. Agree with you that comparing only recent players to each other here (in a "pissing contest" sort of way) isn't really helpful.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I think the most helpful thing at this stage, for me personally at least, are posts like "here is the case for X" where X is a player who hasn't been discussed much and could drop out of his appropriate range if many voters underrate him.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Here's something I was vaguely aware of but came across again:

From 1935-1956, the league leader in GAA (among goalies playing 75% of team games) was the 1st Team All Star 100% of the time. I'm pretty sure this trend doesn't hold up for 2nd Teamers though. Kind of throws a wrench into judging goalies of that time period doesn't it?

In the early 1930s, Charlie Gardiner regularly bucked the trend (or shall we say, there wasn't a trend yet?). And starting in 1957, Glenn Hall began to buck the trend.

 

[tarheelhockey]

^ That's a particularly tough nut to crack when you consider that GAA leaders were 1AS winners 100% of the time, but received a lot less than 100% of the votes. Some years the winner received nearly all first-place votes, and others he barely squeaked out a win. I have no idea whether that signifies votes being given based on stats, or merely under the influence of stats, or stats actually reflecting reality, or what.

 

[MXD]

Here's something I was vaguely aware of but came across again:

From 1935-1956, the league leader in GAA (among goalies playing 75% of team games) was the 1st Team All Star 100% of the time. I'm pretty sure this trend doesn't hold up for 2nd Teamers though. Kind of throws a wrench into judging goalies of that time period doesn't it?

In the early 1930s, Charlie Gardiner regularly bucked the trend (or shall we say, there wasn't a trend yet?). And starting in 1957, Glenn Hall began to buck the trend.

Possible... However, in the "early" years, Tiny Thompson got that nod twice (for the first time). In the prior seasons, he had the lowest GAA twice. Every time, he didn't get an AST.

On closer look, the Bruins had a really sick team in those two prior years, while they were certainly not THAT dominant in 35-36. While not giving the nod to Thompson makes sense for 29-30 and 32-33 (seriously, look at those lineups -- Art Chapman was basically a spare part), giving the nod in 35-36 DOES make sense if we only look at strenght of team vs. goals allowed...

Which brings us to the following question : Could Tiny Thompson have been sortof overrated (looking at ATDers...) in the past?

 

[seventieslord]

Possible... However, in the "early" years, Tiny Thompson got that nod twice (for the first time). In the prior seasons, he had the lowest GAA twice. Every time, he didn't get an AST.

On closer look, the Bruins had a really sick team in those two prior years, while they were certainly not THAT dominant in 35-36. While not giving the nod to Thompson makes sense for 29-30 and 32-33 (seriously, look at those lineups -- Art Chapman was basically a spare part), giving the nod in 35-36 DOES make sense if we only look at strenght of team vs. goals allowed...

Which brings us to the following question : Could Tiny Thompson have been sortof overrated (looking at ATDers...) in the past?

yes, sort of... I think he's a poor man's Tony O.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Possible... However, in the "early" years, Tiny Thompson got that nod twice (for the first time). In the prior seasons, he had the lowest GAA twice. Every time, he didn't get an AST.

On closer look, the Bruins had a really sick team in those two prior years, while they were certainly not THAT dominant in 35-36. While not giving the nod to Thompson makes sense for 29-30 and 32-33 (seriously, look at those lineups -- Art Chapman was basically a spare part), giving the nod in 35-36 DOES make sense if we only look at strenght of team vs. goals allowed...

Which brings us to the following question : Could Tiny Thompson have been sortof overrated (looking at ATDers...) in the past?

I definitely think there is something to be said for the fact that Thompson was awarded the Vezina Trophy for having the lowest GAA in the league in 1932-33, but wasn't a 1st or 2nd Team All Star.

Another reason Thompson might have been overrated: He played through the entire 1930s, but got 3 of his 4 all star nods (including both 1st Teams) in the late 30s, after the competition got a lot weaker.

I was meaning to save this for Round 2, but since you brought it up:

John Ross Roach's last full season was 1932-33.
Charlie Gardiner died after 1933-34.
Alec Connell's last full season was 1934-35.
Roy Worters' last full season was 1935-36
George Hainsworth's last full season was 1935-36. He was 40 years old.

(1935-36 is when lowest goals against = 1st Teamer began)

You had a very strong generation of goalies all finish up at about the same time and not really be replaced until Frank Brimsek and Turk Broda emerged. Most of Tiny Thompson's recognition happened during the weak period in between:

1930-31 NHL NHL All-Star Team (2nd)
1934-35 NHL NHL All-Star Team (2nd)
1935-36 NHL NHL All-Star Team (1st)
1937-38 NHL NHL All-Star Team (1st)

To Thompson's credit, he had great longevity as the starting goalie of an excellent team.

yes, sort of... I think he's a poor man's Tony O.

Agree to an extent. I don't think he's that far below Tony O, though. But he does share similar strengths and weaknesses IMO. Edit: In case you didn't notice, I've been sold on Tony O of late.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

I think some of these modern goalies that are being argued about have chances to be added. I had 6 active goalies on my final list; I think 4 of them in the top 40. Agree with you that comparing only recent players to each other here (in a "pissing contest" sort of way) isn't really helpful.

You're right, there is a few, the 30-40 range is significantly weaker than expected. (I'm so used to getting value goalies in the ATD that I expect there to be quality at that point, but, instead, there's just lots of guys I don't think highly of.)

And I agree with the sentiment that I'd rather see arguments for a player at this point than against. Negativity just drags the process down.

On that note, I know there used to be a bio on Jiri Kralik, but I can't find it anymore.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

You're right, there is a few, the 30-40 range is significantly weaker than expected. (I'm so used to getting value goalies in the ATD that I expect there to be quality at that point, but, instead, there's just lots of guys I don't think highly of.)

And I agree with the sentiment that I'd rather see arguments for a player at this point than against. Negativity just drags the process down.

On that note, I know there used to be a bio on Jiri Kralik, but I can't find it anymore.

Kralik bio from AAA2010:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=28563157&postcount=603

And you're right that it's more important to make cases for players now. If a player finishes too high in round 1, there will be plenty of time to criticize him in round 2. If he finishes too low in round 1, his name might not come up soon enough.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Thanks. Not sure if Kralik is top 40 material, but he good enough to be in the discussion.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Thanks. Not sure if Kralik is top 40 material, but he good enough to be in the discussion.

Likewise. I'm hoping we'll have the opportunity to discuss more non-NHL Europeans than the the traditional ATD group of Tretiak and Holecek and maybe Dzurilla.

Kralik and Lindmark are both worth looking at more closely IMO. I mean - look at how strong the European presence in goal is in the NHL now that all the best European goalies are here. Makes sense that there were probably some great goalies in Europe in the 1980s, right?

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

I have Dzurilla as a clear top 40.

The thing that makes Kralik so interesting is that his career would probably look a lot better if he wasn't behind two superior goalies for 3/4ths of his career.

I have Lindmark, Konovalenko and Seth Martin as late entries on my list who proved their worth internationally.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

I accidentally submitted a top 63. Just ignore the last 3, I just hated cutting PUPPA!

 

[vecens24]

I have Dzurilla as a clear top 40.

The thing that makes Kralik so interesting is that his career would probably look a lot better if he wasn't behind two superior goalies for 3/4ths of his career.

I have Lindmark, Konovalenko and Seth Martin as late entries on my list who proved their worth internationally.

I have Lindmark, don't have Konovalenko, and I honestly have no idea on Seth Martin. He is by far the weirdest case in this study in my opinion. Part of me wishes that I had thrown him on the end just to get more discussion on him, but still I just have absolutely no idea if he slots into top 40 or falls out of the top 100. My range on him is just crazy.

One interesting thing about him is that he seems to be, along with Jacques Plante, among the first people in the era to wear a mask because he had to get surgery after taking a slap shot off the face in 1959. He's a really interesting guy that I'd love to see someone make a case for.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Both Konovalenko and Martin made it primarily because I started to not like the options from 55-65. Martin is interesting because only Tretiak and Holocek have better international records. But he only had a brief stint in the NHL. I cant help but wonder why he didn't get the chance. I also included him because I realized I simply cant rank Kono above him.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I just read up some more on Seth Martin, and it really seems like the reason he didn't make the NHL is because he could make just as much money working for Cominco (a metal works company?) out west, and he had more job security there. He could still play amateur hockey (where he is regarded as the best goalie in Allan Cup history) and international hockey (where he, a Canadian, was the most highly regarded goalie in Europe in the 1960s).

Martin had several offers to play in the NHL but none bettered the security he had with his job at Cominco in Trail. However in 1967 at age 34 after fifteen years as one of the world’s best amateurs, Martin accepted an offer from the NHL’s St. Louis Blues for whom he shared duties with the great Glenn Hall. In thirty games Martin recorded a 2.59 goals average playing for the Blues just one season (the year the Blues reached the Stanley Cup final) before returning to Trail and the Smokies.

http://www.bcsportshalloffame.com/inductees/inductees/bio?id=221&type=person

It seems that Canada dropping out of the World Championships had as much influence on Martin joining the NHL as the 1967 expansion:

In 1968 the NHL doubled in size by expanding from 6 to 12 teams. With the continuing Canadian struggles about the professional-amateur status debate in international hockey souring and ultimately ending Canadian participation in international hockey, Martin opted to give the National Hockey League a try.

With the St. Louis Blues he backed up Glenn Hall, one of the greatest goaltenders in hockey history. Martin appeared in 30 games, posting a 8-10-7 record with a 2.59 GAA. By no means did set the league on fire, but he did hold his own.

Outrageous NHL salaries were still a few years away. Happy enough with his one season in the NHL, Martin returned home to Trail where he returned to his job at Cominco, making comparable money to the NHL, and returned to play with the local senior team.

Apparently, part of the reason Martin left the NHL after only one year is because he didn't want to lose his firefighter's pension:

Seth Martin played for the St. Louis Blues in 1967–1968 where they made it to the Stanley Cup Finals but lost in four straight to the Montreal Canadiens.
After the season Martin had to choose between continuing his NHL career and keeping his firefighters pension. He chose the latter and moved back to Trail, British Columbia but continued to play hockey and eventually coach.

Martin was probably the last Canadian to choose to play amateur hockey because he could make a better living working his other job outside the NHL.

Here's some info on how highly regarded Martin was in Europe. He was widely considered the best international goalie in Europe in the 1960s and Tretiak chose Martin, not his countryman Konovalenko to emulate:

Every young player must have someone to look up to, to idolize, to desire to become as good. Vladislav Tretiak, the first great Russian goaltender, chose to aspire to be as great of an international goaltender as Canada's incomparable Seth Martin over such early Russian goaltenders as Viktor Konovalenko and Nikolay Puchkov.

The Russians new him very well during their international clashes in the 1960s. He routinely impressed them with his consistency and style. They respected him and feared him perhaps more than any other Canadian amateur during this time period. They thought of Martin as being the supreme goaltender, and copied his style to train future Russian netminders, including a young Vladislav Tretiak. Martin would become the role model for Tretiak and Soviet goalies of the future.

But other nations also studied Martin, most notably Czechoslovakia. Czech goaltending legend Jiri Holecek, who later influenced Vladimir Dzurilla and Dominik Hasek, closely watched Martin.

The Canadian national team was never good enough to challenge to professionals from the Soviet Union, but they admirably and valiantly represented the nation. Martin was undoubtedly the MVP of the "Nats." Without his strong goaltending, Canada would never have captured what they did during the 1960s.

In 1968 the NHL doubled in size by expanding from 6 to 12 teams. With the continuing Canadian struggles about the professional-amateur status debate in international hockey souring and ultimately ending Canadian participation in international hockey, Martin opted to give the National Hockey League a try.
...
Says hockey researcher Ron Boileau:

"The Europeans think of Seth Martin as much as we think of Vladislav Tretiak here in Canada."

Reading the above, I think Seth Martin should be ranked quite a bit higher than his contemporaries in international hockey, Viktor Konovalenko and Leif "Honken" Holmqvist. Is that enough to make a top 60 list? It was for me.

 

[Theokritos]

Reading the above, I think Seth Martin should be ranked quite a bit higher than his contemporaries in international hockey, Viktor Konovalenko and Leif "Honken" Holmqvist.

I don't think their international record is close either. Martin was honoured as either the best goaltender or the all-star goaltender (or both) in 4 out of the 5 World Championships/Olympics he played in. Holmqvist and Konovalenko were honoured just once each even though Holmqvist participated 7 times and Konovalenko 9 times.

BTW, for a perspective: Punch Imlach thought Holmqvist was good enough for the AHL during the O6 era. And Martin seems to have been considerably better than Holmqvist.

 

[MadArcand]

Say, is there a deadline for the 60-name list submission?