HOH Top Goaltenders of All Time Preliminary Discussion Thread

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Holeceks and Dzurillas losses against Finland was mentioned. If I remember right they had only one each in bigger games (of course thats one more than Tretiak but still...) . Other losses from their time was with Nadrchal and Crha.

Tretiak could have a bad game and his team would still roll over anyone other than Canada or Czechoslovakia because the Soviet skaters (especially the forwards) were so dominant. If Holecek or Dzurilla had a bad game, Czechoslovakia was in serious trouble. It's not exactly the same situation.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Dryden / Holecek

I made the Dryden/Holecek comparison because both had relatively short primes in the 1970s, both were absolutely dominant against their primary competition, both had struggles against a very specific opponent possibly due to style of play (Holecek against Canada, Dryden against the USSR). No, I didn't rank Holecek as high as Dryden, but I think it's a useful point of reference.

Thanks for the long post VMBM. This project really needs more European posters who are familiar with history. Interesting that you say the Czechs won gold in 1977 despite their goaltending, but if Holecek is going to be dinged for playing relatively poorly then, shouldn't Tretiak, as well? The 5-1 gap in "best goaltender awards" in favor of Holecek when they competed head to head is huge. (Tretiak won the award twice after Holecek was done).

Ken Dryden was the ideal goalie to play against big physical teams that crashed the net - Bruins, Flyers, Islanders, to an extent the Leafs and Hawks.

Holecek was ideal to play the Soviets so in a limited WHC he would look better than Tretiak but Tretiak was able to handle the variety of Canadian hockey and the other European teams much better.

Note about Rogie Vachon. VMBM is right about Vachon. As the 1976 Canada Cup progressed the stamina issues started to surface.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

I'm particularly looking forward to learning more about the European goaltenders during this project - I think that, when all is said and done, my pre-rank rankings will show that I'm lacking in education.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Ken Dryden was the ideal goalie to play against big physical teams that crashed the net - Bruins, Flyers, Islanders, to an extent the Leafs and Hawks.

Holecek was ideal to play the Soviets so in a limited WHC he would look better than Tretiak but Tretiak was able to handle the variety of Canadian hockey and the other European teams much better.

Why do you say that Tretiak was better against other European teams? Holecek had to play those same teams in the World Championships and was generally thought to have outperformed Tretiak, right? It couldn't have all been against the Soviets. True, the Czechoslovaks sometimes lost to weaker teams, but how much of that can be blamed on Holecek? Tretiak could afford to have a weak game and his team would win anyway; Holceck really couldn't. Remember, we are talking about when both played at the same time in the mid-late 70s. Tretiak does have more longevity as a top player than Holecek.

Agree with you that Dryden was better suited to play against the NHL style of the 70s than the Soviet style, and that Holecek was better suited to play against the East-West Soviet style. Notice in Pelletier's profile, he talks about Holecek staying deep in his net, because coming out to challenge Soviet shooters would get you burned.

Where I disagree with you (and I'm sure quite a few others) is that I don't know that being well suited to play against the 70s NHL is that much more important than being well suited to play against 70s Europe, considering the NHL since the 1980s has been something of a mix between the two styles.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Sent my list. You guys weren't kidding about it being hard to compose and leaving a feeling of zero confidence. I'm pretty sure I could torch my own list pick-by-pick in a debate with myself.

Main problem I had: trying to merge mental lists of different eras, considering the vastly different methods of comparison over time. Never mind that the era-by-era lists change every time I think about them, but it's damn near impossible to compare Luongo to Lumley and LeSueur on any kind of objective basis. I'll be very interested to see how we develop arguments in the second part of this project.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Sent my list. You guys weren't kidding about it being hard to compose and leaving a feeling of zero confidence. I'm pretty sure I could torch my own list pick-by-pick in a debate with myself.

Main problem I had: trying to merge mental lists of different eras, considering the vastly different methods of comparison over time. Never mind that the era-by-era lists change every time I think about them, but it's damn near impossible to compare Luongo to Lumley and LeSueur on any kind of objective basis. I'll be very interested to see how we develop arguments in the second part of this project.

I have no confidence in my list after pick #2.

 

[Rob Scuderi]

Seeing as everyone's in the same boat, it seems curious so many of us wanted to start this project before the forwards...

I guess we had no idea what we were getting into

 

[Canadiens1958]

1970's NHL

Why do you say that Tretiak was better against other European teams? Holecek had to play those same teams in the World Championships and was generally thought to have outperformed Tretiak, right? It couldn't have all been against the Soviets. True, the Czechoslovaks sometimes lost to weaker teams, but how much of that can be blamed on Holecek? Tretiak could afford to have a weak game and his team would win anyway; Holceck really couldn't. Remember, we are talking about when both played at the same time in the mid-late 70s. Tretiak does have more longevity as a top player than Holecek.

Agree with you that Dryden was better suited to play against the NHL style of the 70s than the Soviet style, and that Holecek was better suited to play against the East-West Soviet style. Notice in Pelletier's profile, he talks about Holecek staying deep in his net, because coming out to challenge Soviet shooters would get you burned.

Where I disagree with you (and I'm sure quite a few others) is that I don't know that being well suited to play against the 70s NHL is that much more important than being well suited to play against 70s Europe, considering the NHL since the 1980s has been something of a mix between the two styles.

In the 1970s NHL and before, the goalie also had to have the ability to play the blasters from the point which required forward movement and not losing their position. This was Holecek's problem as he played too deep. Dzurilla on the other hand kept venturing further out and out until he got caught by Sittler. Tretiak found the balance which is why he succeeded against the NHL in the seventies. By the eighties the European goalies had learned to play the blasters from the point, the necessary forward movement combined with the lateral movement.

Holecek's weakness has to be considered given that other European goalies were able to adjust.

 

[MXD]

... Is it Glenn or Chico?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

In the 1970s NHL and before, the goalie also had to have the ability to play the blasters from the point which required forward movement and not losing their position. This was Holecek's problem as he played too deep. Dzurilla on the other hand kept venturing further out and out until he got caught by Sittler. Tretiak found the balance which is why he succeeded against the NHL in the seventies. By the eighties the European goalies had learned to play the blasters from the point, the necessary forward movement combined with the lateral movement.

No disagreements here.

Holecek's weakness has to be considered given that other European goalies were able to adjust.

This is where I think there might be a double standard, and it's pretty common. Ken Dryden never adjusted against the Soviets did he? But we don't pay all that much attention to how he did against the Soviets because it comprises, what, 1% of his resume? Holecek's games against Canada comprise an even smaller part of his resume, right?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

... Is it Glenn or Chico?

We've gotten both; I think we're standardizing all of them to "Glenn"

 

[Michael Farkas]

... Is it Glenn or Chico?

He goes by Chico almost exclusively today it seems, can't speak for his playing days.

EDIT: Oops, whatever TDMM says.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

He goes by Chico almost exclusively today it seems, can't speak for his playing days.

EDIT: Oops, whatever TDMM says.

It's really not a big deal. Mispelled last names are more annoying to deal with.

 

[Michael Farkas]

This is where I think there might be a double standard, and it's pretty common. Ken Dryden never adjusted against the Soviets did he? But we don't pay all that much attention to how he did against the Soviets because it comprises, what, 1% of his resume? Holecek's games against Canada comprise an even smaller part of his resume, right?

To that effect though, TDMM, should there not be a double standard (so to speak)? 99% of Dryden's resume (the inverse of the aforementioned 1%) is against the NHL which represented the highest national level of play in the world at the time. 99% of Holecek's resume was against, what, at best the 4th best league in the world at the time?

That's why - I'd guess - the times when these teams "cross" is so important. It effectively decides whether Player X is a big fish in a medium-sized pond or a moderate fish in a puddle. Standard "fair or unfair" caveat applies to that last sentence.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

To that effect though, TDMM, should there not be a double standard (so to speak)? 99% of Dryden's resume (the inverse of the aforementioned 1%) is against the NHL which represented the highest national level of play in the world at the time. 99% of Holecek's resume was against, what, at best the 4th best league in the world at the time?

The Czechoslovakian league was the clearcut 3rd best domestic league in the world and a huge chunk of Holecek's resume comes from international tournaments against the best non-Canadian players in the world at the time, including all those Soviets who gave Canada such a scare in 1972. Ignoring the World Championships for Holecek is no better than ignoring the NHL playoffs for Dryden, in my opinion.

That's why - I'd guess - the times when these teams "cross" is so important. It effectively decides whether Player X is a big fish in a medium-sized pond or a moderate fish in a puddle. Standard "fair or unfair" caveat applies to that last sentence.

After the 1972 Summit Series, I strongly disagree that only games against Canada matter. The Soviet National Team proved itself to be not that far behind Canada over a very large sample of games over the decades. For example, the Soviets gave the dynasty Montreal Canadiens more trouble than any NHL team at the time did. Only the semi-dynasty Flyers really had the number of the Soviets.

 

[Michael Farkas]

The Czechoslovakian league was the clearcut 3rd best domestic league in the world and a huge chunk of Holecek's resume comes from international tournaments against the best non-Canadian players in the world at the time, including all those Soviets who gave Canada such a scare in 1972. Ignoring the World Championships for Holecek is no better than ignoring the NHL playoffs for Dryden, in my opinion.



After the 1972 Summit Series, I strongly disagree that only games against Canada matter. The Soviet National Team proved itself to be not that far behind Canada over a very large sample of games over the decades. For example, the Soviets gave the dynasty Montreal Canadiens more trouble than any NHL team at the time did. Only the semi-dynasty Flyers really had the number of the Soviets.

I originally put 3rd, then I wasn't sure if Sweden was considered better or on par at the time...still figuring out the international game and scene pre-USSR breakup...

I also should note, that by "these teams cross" I meant international competition in general - notably, best-on-best tournaments. Not just Canada v. Czechoslavkia games.

It's guys like Holecek and Dzurilla that I really have to do my homework on. Sometimes I get a tiny bit uncomfortable about their level of competition at the time. But I should really hold my commentary until I've done further research anyhow...

 

[Canadiens1958]

Battling

This is where I think there might be a double standard, and it's pretty common. Ken Dryden never adjusted against the Soviets did he? But we don't pay all that much attention to how he did against the Soviets because it comprises, what, 1% of his resume? Holecek's games against Canada comprise an even smaller part of his resume, right?

Difference is that Ken Dryden battled thru his weakness and held the Soviets scoreless in the 3rd period of games 6 and 8 of the Summit Series allowing his team to win.

Holecek was replaced. You could see him sag in 1976. Conversely what is overlooked about Tretiak in Game 1 of the 1972 Summit Series is that he battled and rallied after Canada took a 2-0 lead by the 6:32 mark of the first period. Tretiak sags and the series plays out differently. Watch the available videos.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I originally put 3rd, then I wasn't sure if Sweden was considered better or on par at the time...still figuring out the international game and scene pre-USSR breakup...

I also should note, that by "these teams cross" I meant international competition in general - notably, best-on-best tournaments. Not just Canada v. Czechoslavkia games.

It's guys like Holecek and Dzurilla that I really have to do my homework on. Sometimes I get a tiny bit uncomfortable about their level of competition at the time. But I should really hold my commentary until I've done further research anyhow...

Holecek was the primary goalie for Czechoslovakia from 1971-1978. During that time at the World Championships:

USSR: 5 golds, 2 silvers, 1 bronze
CSSR: 3 golds, 4 silvers, 1 bronze
Sweden: 0 golds, 2 silvers, 5 bronze, 1 no medal

I don't see a case for Sweden being close at the time.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Holecek was the primary goalie for Czechoslovakia from 1971-1978. During that time at the World Championships:

USSR: 5 golds, 2 silvers, 1 bronze
CSSR: 3 golds, 4 silvers, 1 bronze
Sweden: 0 golds, 2 silvers, 5 bronze, 1 no medal

I don't see a case for Sweden being close at the time.

Is there any reason to suspect that Swedish domestic league play was comparably stronger than their national team's performances would suggest?

Purely a devil's advocate question.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Is there any reason to suspect that Swedish domestic league play was comparably stronger than their national team's performances would suggest?

Purely a devil's advocate question.

I have no idea how you would compare the quality of the different leagues except for how they looked when the best of each league (the National Teams) competed against each other. I suppose its possible that a nation wouldn't choose its best to play on the National Team, but I don't think that regularly happened in reality.

Sweden's National Team was hurt by the fact that Borje Salming was unavailable to play at the World Championships, but he also wasn't playing in their domestic league.

Internationally, from about 1965 to 1985, there was a clear pecking order in Europe:

1) USSR
2) CSSR
3) Sweden
4) The rest

For a brief period in the 70s, CSSR looked to be almost USSR's equal, though some of that was probably due to better coaching.

In the mid 80s, Sweden seems to have surpassed CSSR (probably a combination of Sweden getting better and CSSR declining), and Finland really caught up too.

Here's a site with all the medalists from the World Championships: http://www.rauzulusstreet.com/hockey/world/worldchamp.html

 

[Bear of Bad News]

I suppose its possible that a nation wouldn't choose its best to play on the National Team, but I don't think that regularly happened in reality.

An alternative hypothesis could be that Sweden's "second team" (the best of the players who wouldn't name the national team) are closer to the "first team" than we would see in the USSR or CSSR.

(I'm not advocating that hypothesis, in case it comes up later).

 

[Canadiens1958]

Development

I have no idea how you would compare the quality of the different leagues except for how they looked when the best of each league (the National Teams) competed against each other. I suppose its possible that a nation wouldn't choose its best to play on the National Team, but I don't think that regularly happened in reality.

Sweden's National Team was hurt by the fact that Borje Salming was unavailable to play at the World Championships, but he also wasn't playing in their domestic league.

Internationally, from about 1965 to 1985, there was a clear pecking order in Europe:

1) USSR
2) CSSR
3) Sweden
4) The rest

For a brief period in the 70s, CSSR looked to be almost USSR's equal, though some of that was probably due to better coaching.

In the mid 80s, Sweden seems to have surpassed CSSR (probably a combination of Sweden getting better and CSSR declining), and Finland really caught up too.

Here's a site with all the medalists from the World Championships: http://www.rauzulusstreet.com/hockey/world/worldchamp.html

The pecking order also reflects the European teams willingness to tour North America to improve their game. Soviets toured Canada and the USA regularly from the late fifties onwards, The Czechs toured a bit. Swedes less, Finns rarely.

 

[tarheelhockey]

An alternative hypothesis could be that Sweden's "second team" (the best of the players who wouldn't name the national team) are closer to the "first team" than we would see in the USSR or CSSR.

(I'm not advocating that hypothesis, in case it comes up later).

Or that one national team was simply much better organized than the other, or that talent was distributed differently in the domestic leagues (ie, all the best players on one team vs general parity).

I don't know anywhere near enough about these leagues to know whether these theories have merit. Just want to be sure we aren't drawing errant conclusions based on a relatively narrow pool of evidence.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Or that one national team was simply much better organized than the other, or that talent was distributed differently in the domestic leagues (ie, all the best players on one team vs general parity).

I don't know anywhere near enough about these leagues to know whether these theories have merit. Just want to be sure we aren't drawing errant conclusions based on a relatively narrow pool of evidence.

I don't know much about the organization of the Swedish league, but I know that the USSR and CSSR each had a dominant domestic team in the 1970s that didn't always win, but was clearly better than the other domestic teams. Nothing compared to the USSR in the 1980s though, where the Red Army just took whichever players it liked from the other domestic teams.

Regardless, the USSR and CSSR were so far ahead of Sweden in the 1970s internationally, I find it hard to believe any scenario where they didn't have significantly more top end talent.

An alternative hypothesis could be that Sweden's "second team" (the best of the players who wouldn't name the national team) are closer to the "first team" than we would see in the USSR or CSSR.

(I'm not advocating that hypothesis, in case it comes up later).

I don't know whether this is true or false, but is it relative for the project? Any non-NHL goalie we are even going to consider is going to be on his country's "first team."

 

[Bear of Bad News]

I don't know whether this is true or false, but is it relative for the project? Any non-NHL goalie we are even going to consider is going to be on his country's "first team."

It would raise the level of the country's domestic league.