HOH Top Goaltenders of All Time Preliminary Discussion Thread

[tarheelhockey]

However, when there are just 7 players on the whole team, it's much easier to allocate "credit" for defensive excellence. Even if you just give him his "fair share" for how much better than average the MAAA was at goal prevention he looks awesome (I haven't mentioned this but Iain Fyffe's system which takes league strength into account has him as easily the MLD's best goalie based on that same system I posted that concluded Nicholson was a fair bit behind Moran, Lesueur and Hern.

I'm not sure what "MLD's best goalie" has to do with this list. Proxy arguments were an annoyance on the defensemen list, and I hope that won't happen this time around.

Remember those newspaper articles I found on George Hainsworth, stating that he basically lollygagged around his crease while his teammates skated circles around the other end of the ice? That's why I don't trust the concept of giving goalies (or anyone) an equal "fair share" of credit for team defensive stats. Have you ever seen a team where every player was equally good?

And honestly, even if you were to "fudge" those numbers based on the assumption that Allan Cameron and James Stewart were incredible defensively and insulated him, he'd still end up with excellent point allocation figures.

That doesn't tell us how good he was.

that could be said for any goalie prior to about 1920 so that doesn't really bother me. Like any player at any position in any era, I am most interested in how dominant he was within the context of that era.

There's a slight difference as you get closer to 1920, in that we have actual accounts of what constituted a "good" goalie. That's not the case in Paton's day. We are basically just using our imagination when it comes to the details of what he did in net. This was never better illustrated than when he got the "best glove hand" award from Ultimate Hockey.

But you're right, it's an overarching issue of early-era goaltending. It's the only position that has changed so much that the fundamental skillset is no longer comparable.

One thing I can say is that it appears he was well ahead of the curve on the stickhandling side of things in addition to just stopping the puck.

At least that's something, though again it precludes comparison with almost any league-era goalie.

also - you meant to say 7th skater, right?

Yep. The phone corrects my spelling but not my math

 

[seventieslord]

I'm not sure what "MLD's best goalie" has to do with this list. Proxy arguments were an annoyance on the defensemen list, and I hope that won't happen this time around.

Sorry, I’m just saying that because you are in the MLD and were probably paying attention to that whole Moran/Nicholson/Hern thing so you’d have some sort of frame of reference.

Remember those newspaper articles I found on George Hainsworth, stating that he basically lollygagged around his crease while his teammates skated circles around the other end of the ice? That's why I don't trust the concept of giving goalies (or anyone) an equal "fair share" of credit for team defensive stats. Have you ever seen a team where every player was equally good?

No. But I’m saying that the defensemen and goalies, or point, cover point and goalie, have a “typical†share of credit for defensive success, and if you go by that he looks excellent. Assume he was highly sheltered and he still looks very good. And it could be one or the other, or the opposite too! The margin of error is actually very large, but worst case scenario, he had to still be very good.

 

[tarheelhockey]

No. But I’m saying that the defensemen and goalies, or point, cover point and goalie, have a “typical†share of credit for defensive success,

This is news to me. Is this system quantified somewhere?

Assume he was highly sheltered and he still looks very good. And it could be one or the other, or the opposite too! The margin of error is actually very large, but worst case scenario, he had to still be very good.

Worst case scenario is that he was the Hainsworth or Osgood of his era. Who's to say he wasn't?

Unless I have missed something, literally all we know about this guy is that he played on one of the first organized teams, and that team (predictably) was pretty good compared to their competition.

 

[seventieslord]

This is news to me. Is this system quantified somewhere?

I can't direct you anywhere, but I believe that the case for how much credit goes to defense and to goalies has been quantified in a logical way, yes.

Worst case scenario is that he was the Hainsworth or Osgood of his era. Who's to say he wasn't?

The defensive success of his team is too overwhelming. His defensemen would have to have sheltered him to an absolutely unprecedented level for him to have achieved these results being merely average. Yes, anything's possible, but with these factors being considered within reasonable ranges he comes out looking outstanding.

But hey, Hainsworth is going to make the top-40, and Osgood is going to be on a lot of people's top-60 list!

 

[Iain Fyffe]

makes him an interesting case. But top-40? That's really a tough thing to sell anyone on. If we have a few of the right people on the panel, though, he'll get on a few top-60s.

Yeah, I'd have trouble arguing for a top-40. Top-60 maybe. He's unfortunate that hockey wasn't organized until he was in his 30s. He played until the first season of the Stanley Cup, when he was 38 years old. Surely his ability to remain the best goaltender over this period at his age is a point in his favour.

He was essentially an 8th skater who stood in the net, so it's hard to identify exactly what he did better than his peers... and even harder to find common ground between him and goalies who adopted the traditional posture, equipment and role of a goalie.

My conclusion is that he was exceptional at clearing the puck with his stick, after using whatever body part was handy to make a save.

Unless I have missed something, literally all we know about this guy is that he played on one of the first organized teams, and that team (predictably) was pretty good compared to their competition.

This makes it sound like the quality of the team is somehow independent of its players.

If being the earliest organized team is a particular advantage, shouldn't McGill have been carrying that advantage by the time Paton and Stewart and Cameron came along? But McGill had fallen by the wayside in terms of quality by that time.

The defensive success of his team is too overwhelming. His defensemen would have to have sheltered him to an absolutely unprecedented level for him to have achieved these results being merely average. Yes, anything's possible, but with these factors being considered within reasonable ranges he comes out looking outstanding.

Somebody on the defence had to be outstanding; goals don't prevent themselves. Based on my research Paton and Cameron were given the lion's share of the credit at the time, and James Stewart was pretty fine too. It's certainly difficult to extract whose contribution was most important. It might be worth noting that Cameron and Stewart both played with the Crystals (without Paton) before joining the AAA, and that team had an excellent defensive record with them.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I can't direct you anywhere, but I believe that the case for how much credit goes to defense and to goalies has been quantified in a logical way, yes.

How so? It's hard for me to imagine a system that can reliably account for the effect of great defensemen on average goalies and vice versa, using only the scores of games. If one exists, I'd REALLY like to have access to it for the sake of this project.

The defensive success of his team is too overwhelming. His defensemen would have to have sheltered him to an absolutely unprecedented level for him to have achieved these results being merely average.

In that era, "unprecedented" has little meaning. In 1885, Paton's team outscored their opponents 18-4. How are we supposed to gauge the value Paton contributed to allowing less than a goal per game, when his team was scoring nearly 5 times as often as their opponents? We've all witnessed low-level games where goalies are little more than spectators, and it's not at all crazy to think that sort of thing happened in the Winter Carnival environment.

[/quote]But hey, Hainsworth is going to make the top-40, and Osgood is going to be on a lot of people's top-60 list![/QUOTE]

I would hope we can drill through the stats and get down to the narrative of those players' performances, where it becomes clear that the numbers are a smokescreen.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Remember those newspaper articles I found on George Hainsworth, stating that he basically lollygagged around his crease while his teammates skated circles around the other end of the ice?

I have trouble accepting that Hainsworth was sheltered. The chance that he was sheltered during every one of his 24 seasons of senior-level hockey simple remarkably small to me. He was too good for too long.

 

[seekritdude]

Im going to be one sad random poster if I dont see Irbe make this.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

In that era, "unprecedented" has little meaning. In 1885, Paton's team outscored their opponents 18-4. How are we supposed to gauge the value Paton contributed to allowing less than a goal per game, when his team was scoring nearly 5 times as often as their opponents?

He did play nine seasons of organized hockey. If his team dominates like that over that period of time, that's a pretty clear indication of the quality of said team. The three defenders on that team were given a great deal of credit at the time, so although it's impossible to be certain about anything, we can make reasonable estimations.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I have trouble accepting that Hainsworth was sheltered. The chance that he was sheltered during every one of his 24 seasons of senior-level hockey simple remarkably small to me. He was too good for too long.

Speaking specifically about his 1928 season, where he wrecked the record book. I was curious why he didn't make the top All Star team that season; after looking into it, he spent a considerable amount of time literally standing around watching his team dominate and wasn't THAT good when he was challenged. Good, but not as dominant as his numbers imply. If you want to see the articles, they're in the research thread for this project.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Speaking specifically about his 1928 season, where he wrecked the record book. I was curious why he didn't make the top All Star team that season; after looking into it, he spent a considerable amount of time literally standing around watching his team dominate and wasn't THAT good when he was challenged. Good, but not as dominant as his numbers imply. If you want to see the articles, they're in the research thread for this project.

Surely the man is more than that one season, especially when he has so many. Record books are of little use, because they have no context built into them. Even without being sheltered, Hainsworth's season in 27/28 isn't the greatest once context is considered.

 

[overpass]

Questions for the SIHR-enthusiasts here: Was Tom Paton's dominance at the goaltender position in his era enough to get him on the list? Was he far ahead of all other goalies, or just the best in a small group of goalies in an era where the game was just starting to catch on with the general public?

Tom Paton was the man who introduced hockey to Toronto. It's fair to say the game wasn't very widespread in his day.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Tom Paton was the man who introduced hockey to Toronto.

According to Paton, anyway. Toronto was a relative late-comer to the sport, not having the optimum climate for hockey in the outdoor-rink era.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Speaking specifically about his 1928 season, where he wrecked the record book. I was curious why he didn't make the top All Star team that season; after looking into it, he spent a considerable amount of time literally standing around watching his team dominate and wasn't THAT good when he was challenged. Good, but not as dominant as his numbers imply. If you want to see the articles, they're in the research thread for this project.

Stan Fischler and I (via e-mail communication) have come to the (possibly) reasonable conclusion that it was "style of play" bias against Hainsworth (positionally sound, non-flashy goalie, on a good defensive team)...Worters played for a worse team and did more for them, evidently...I couldn't vouch for it personally though, I'm not 100 years old...

 

[kmad]

Stan Fischler isn't a guy you want to name drop.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Stan Fischler and I (via e-mail communication) have come to the (possibly) reasonable conclusion that it was "style of play" bias against Hainsworth (positionally sound, non-flashy goalie, on a good defensive team)...Worters played for a worse team and did more for them, evidently...I couldn't vouch for it personally though, I'm not 100 years old...

While that's quite possible, we know for a fact that Worters faced a ton of rubber in New York while Hainsworth was almost comically sheltered in Montreal, and had the age-old problem of letting in ill-timed softies after long periods of boredom. That really tilts the "most valuable goalie" argument in Worters' favor.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Stan Fischler isn't a guy you want to name drop.

In a vacuum, probably not. I agree. But there's very few people that are within "range" of Hainsworth/Worters left...Fischler could have legitimately gotten first-hand reports/knowledge/etc. of those two when he first started covering hockey...while most of us are multiple "hands" away from such information...it was worth a try...

 

[seventieslord]

It's a team that had an extended run of dominance, and whose defensive corps (Paton, Cameron, Stewart) remained pretty constant while the forward lineup turned over much more.

right, I noticed this too.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Post #121

Note that I was only commenting on the defensive players, not the forwards. I didn't find any information that the AAA forwards were particular good defensively, or that they forechecked aggressively. My comments were based on what the defensive players did when the opponents were in the attacking zone.


Again to be clear, I didn't find any evidence of an aggressive forecheck. I found that the defenders (point/cover-point) played aggressively in their own end, which is of course not the same thing.

Refer you to post #121 - tarheelhockey, last paragraph.

In your blog, you advanced the theory that Montreal AAA pioneered an aggressive style of defense that kept other teams bottled up in their own end. Frankly, I think that explanation is a much more feasible explanation for Paton's success than that he was a brilliant goalie whose team happened to have 400-500% goal scoring margins.

 

[reckoning]

Going through goalies who had their peak during the O6 era, there's nine who are obvious choices for everyone's top 60 list, but there's a few more who are debatable. So I just wanted to toss out some names of goalies from that era who might be considered "borderline" for the top 60, and get some feedback from everyone here on their credentials. Especially interested in hearing comments from any posters here who actually saw these goalies play back in the pre-expansion days.


Roger Crozier: He'll almost certainly make my list. Had a phenomenal rookie season, led an underdog Wings team to the Cup Final the next year, and helped bring respectability to the expansion Sabres in their formative years. Health issues throughout his career prevented him from accomplishing as much as he could have.

Sugar Jim Henry: Never won a Cup or a 1st All-Star selection, but put together a very solid respectable career. Unfortunately, WWII robbed him of a few years just when he was career as a starter was getting set.

Charlie Hodge: Likely would've had a much longer accomplished career had expansion occurred 10 years earlier. Impressive record from his time in Montreal, but how much of that was due to the team in front of him?

Gerry McNeil: Only 4 full-time seasons in the NHL, but made the Final in each of them. Shortness of his NHL time is the big question mark.

Johnny Mowers: No candidate for this list had his chances hurt more by the War than Mowers. Was the best goalie in the league in '42-'43, winning the Vezina, 1st All-Star Team selection, and likely would've won the Conn Smythe had it been around for his play leading Detroit to the Cup. Who know what would've happened if not for the War. Would he have contended with Durnan as best goalie of the next few years?

Al Rollins: I have no idea what to do with him. Would there be a case for him if not for those two high finishes in Hart Trophy voting? And how much weight do we give to those? It was a unique situation, a goalie winning MVP on the worst team in league. Was he that great, or was it a consolation prize in recognition of the horrible situation he was in on that team?

 

[MXD]

Going through goalies who had their peak during the O6 era, there's nine who are obvious choices for everyone's top 60 list, but there's a few more who are debatable. So I just wanted to toss out some names of goalies from that era who might be considered "borderline" for the top 60, and get some feedback from everyone here on their credentials. Especially interested in hearing comments from any posters here who actually saw these goalies play back in the pre-expansion days.


Roger Crozier: He'll almost certainly make my list. Had a phenomenal rookie season, led an underdog Wings team to the Cup Final the next year, and helped bring respectability to the expansion Sabres in their formative years. Health issues throughout his career prevented him from accomplishing as much as he could have.

Sugar Jim Henry: Never won a Cup or a 1st All-Star selection, but put together a very solid respectable career. Unfortunately, WWII robbed him of a few years just when he was career as a starter was getting set.

Charlie Hodge: Likely would've had a much longer accomplished career had expansion occurred 10 years earlier. Impressive record from his time in Montreal, but how much of that was due to the team in front of him?

Gerry McNeil: Only 4 full-time seasons in the NHL, but made the Final in each of them. Shortness of his NHL time is the big question mark.

Johnny Mowers: No candidate for this list had his chances hurt more by the War than Mowers. Was the best goalie in the league in '42-'43, winning the Vezina, 1st All-Star Team selection, and likely would've won the Conn Smythe had it been around for his play leading Detroit to the Cup. Who know what would've happened if not for the War. Would he have contended with Durnan as best goalie of the next few years?

Al Rollins: I have no idea what to do with him. Would there be a case for him if not for those two high finishes in Hart Trophy voting? And how much weight do we give to those? It was a unique situation, a goalie winning MVP on the worst team in league. Was he that great, or was it a consolation prize in recognition of the horrible situation he was in on that team?

9?

To be honest, I do only count 8, but I'm not that woken up yet, so... We might be disagreeing on Rayner (Top-60, just not a lock as far as im concerned) however.

Of your list, I'd say that the one with the best shot is Crozier.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Just trying to simplify my thought process, here is what I have so far. Feedback would be appreciated if someone seems misplaced or missing.

(alpha order)

Obvious, indisputable locks

Belfour
Benedict
Bower
Broda
Brodeur
Dryden
Durnan
Fuhr
Hall
Hasek
Parent
Plante
Roy
Sawchuk
Smith
Thompson
Tretiak
Vezina
Worters

Strong candidates
Barrasso
Brimsek
Connell
Gardiner
Giacomin
Hainsworth
Hern
Holmes
Joseph
Lumley
Rayner
Worsley

Borderline
Chabot
Cheevers
Crozier
Henry
Hextall
Hutton
Kerr
Kiprusoff
Lundqvist
Moran
Mowers
Roach
Rollins
Smith
Thomas
Vachon
Vanbiesbrouck

Dark Horses
Cude
Dzurilla
Edwards
Giguere
Karakas
Khabibulin
Kolzig
Lindbergh
Liut
Luongo
Maniago
Moog
Osgood
Paton
Puppa
Resch
Richter
Theodore
Turco
Vernon

 

[Johnny Engine]

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but you left out Holocek, and he's a lock in my eyes.

 

[Rob Scuderi]

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but you left out Holocek, and he's a lock in my eyes.

No question. No other goalie has a record at the World Championships that rivals his (and it actually mattered when he played). I'm hoping someone has info on his domestic career as I know next to nothing about it (beside the grabby accolades like one-time POTY). Golden Stick or Izvestia voting perhaps?

Also I think Brimsek comfortably moves up a group to locks from strong candidates. I had Worsley in the ATD and am certainly a fan, but I think he belongs with those names you have much more than Brimsek does. He just stands out for me in that group.

 

[vecens24]

tarheel:

Holecek is one guy you missed, as well as Hugh Lehman, who is probably somewhere between lock and very strong candidate.

Brimsek is absolutely an indisputable lock over Broda. There's a good chance Brimsek ends up in my top 10. Gardiner should also be a lock.

THat's just semantics though. Lehman and Holecek being listed are the important things. Percy LeSueur should be somewhere on that list too, probably within the borderline candidates.