HOH Top Goaltenders of All Time Preliminary Discussion Thread

[reckoning]

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.

Yeah, Rayner was the 9th I was thinking of. Maybe I'm overrating him, but I assumed he'd be a sure thing for a top-60 (though at least 10 spots behind Lumely, who's probably the lowest of the remaining 8.)

 

[reckoning]

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

In addition to the missing goalies already mentioned (Holocek, Lehman, Lesueur) Tony Esposito is also missing (I'd consider him a lock). Pete Peeters and Sean Burke would also deserve consideration, maybe on the third rung.

I think there's a few more European goalies that need to be considered, especially Viktor Konovalenko who was the top goalie in the U.S.S.R. during their run of dominance in international play in the mid-to-late 60s.

The rest is just difference of opinion. You've got Luongo, Richter and Vernon two groups lower than I'd have them, but that's what's going to be interesting about everybody's unique opinions coming together for this list.

 

[reckoning]

There's three post-expansion goalies that I see as being the most polarizing on this project, as in I could see them making the top 30 on some lists, and not making the top 60 on others:

Mike Liut: MS has called him the best goalie of the 80s. Going by regular season wins and Hart Trophy votes, you could make that case. But his save percentages don't show anything dominant over the rest, he wore out his welcome on a few teams, and his performances in big games was very underwhelming.

Roberto Luongo: The most ridiculed and maligned player on the main board of this site. Has had several seasons where he could be considered a legitimate MVP candidate, and has been primarily responsible for the success his teams have had. But those meltdowns in playoff blowout losses in recent years give reason to question his ability to stay focused and persevere through adversity.

Chris Osgood: Clutch goalie who provides solid dependable goaltending in big games, or average goalie fortunate enough to play on a powerhouse team? The debate on that has been going on for years on this site.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

In addition to the missing goalies already mentioned (Holocek, Lehman, Lesueur) Tony Esposito is also missing (I'd consider him a lock). Pete Peeters and Sean Burke would also deserve consideration, maybe on the third rung.

I think there's a few more European goalies that need to be considered, especially Viktor Konovalenko who was the top goalie in the U.S.S.R. during their run of dominance in international play in the mid-to-late 60s.

The rest is just difference of opinion. You've got Luongo, Richter and Vernon two groups lower than I'd have them, but that's what's going to be interesting about everybody's unique opinions coming together for this list.

If you're going to include Konovalenko, you needed to include Seth Martin, who generally outperformed him at the World Championships. Martin is the guy Tretiak and Holecek studied.

Dzurilla will probably make my top 60

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

If you didn't include Allan Cameron on your defenseman list, why would you include Tom Paton on your goalie list?

 

[vecens24]

If you didn't include Allan Cameron on your defenseman list, why would you include Tom Paton on your goalie list?

Eh, It's apples and oranges. There have been a lot more defensemen throughout history than goaltenders just by sheer numbers. I think those two things are kind of mutually exclusive.

As far as Paton, I'd lean against his inclusion in my personal top 60 at this time but I'm certainly willing to be swayed.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Eh, It's apples and oranges. There have been a lot more defensemen throughout history than goaltenders just by sheer numbers. I think those two things are kind of mutually exclusive.

As far as Paton, I'd lean against his inclusion in my personal top 60 at this time but I'm certainly willing to be swayed.

But Allan Cameron was the best defenseman in the world during the period between the Winter Carnival and the first awarding of the Stanley Cup. And isn't that exactly what Paton's case rests on, only as a goalie?

So far nobody has answered the question as to how old Paton was when he first started playing hockey. We know he was 29 years old at the 1883 Winter Carnival, the first tournament to even approach high level competive hockey

 

[tarheelhockey]

But Allan Cameron was the best defenseman in the world during the period between the Winter Carnival and the first awarding of the Stanley Cup. And isn't that exactly what Paton's case rests on, only as a goalie?

For that matter, shouldn't Archie McNaughton be a big contender for the forwards list?

 

[MXD]

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

Good way to start the project!

I disagree on a few things -- Mowers, Kerr in the same category just doesn't seem right -- but that's basically the whole point of the list!

 

[VanIslander]

We know he was 29 years old at the 1883 Winter Carnival, the first tournament to even approach high level competive hockey

Dang that's a whole decade before the first Stanley Cup. I treat anyone before 1893 the way I treat any Soviet before the class of 1972: fully accepting anyone of the date but depreciating a career the farther back in time it goes from that date. Players who played their whole careers before the first Stanley Cup have as huge question marks as Soviets of the fifties and early sixties generation.

 

[seventieslord]

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

Brimsek and Gardiner belong in the top list (they are in the second), and Esposito, who is not mentioned at all, belongs in the top one as well.

And Connell should be a borderline guy. I have never seen anything convincing that puts him in the Worters/Thompson/Hainsworth/Gardiner realm.

 

[steve141]

International players

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)

[List omitted for brevity]

Good list! However, if I’m reading this right you are only including one goaltender who did not play in NA leagues. Seems a bit lopsided for an all-time list to me.

For completeness sake here’s a list of the five non-NA goaltenders who I feel would be the strongest candidates for a top 60, apart from Tretiak.

Jiri Holecek

• Voted best goaltender at the WC five times, more than any other player.
• Three time world champion
• Represented Czechoslovakia 164 times (a record for Czech goalies)
• Played 488 Czechoslovak Elite League games and won six championships
• Czechoslovak Golden Hockey Stick award for the best player in 1974
• Considered better than Tretiak by many Europeans

More reading: http://internationalhockeylegends.blogspot.se/2007/10/jiri-holecek.html

Vladimir Dzurilla

• Voted best goaltender at the WC 1965.
• Represented Czechoslovakia 139 times
• Played a record 571 Czechoslovak Elite League games
• Found himself in the shadow of Holecek, despite being an excellent goaltender himself
• Most known in NA for shutting out Canada in a 1-0 match during the 1976 Canada Cup

More reading: http://www3.bc.sympatico.ca/worldcuphockey/vladimirdzurilla.html

Viktor Konovalenko

• Won eight WC and two Olympic gold medals.
• Represented Soviet 118 times, allowed only 227 goals for a GAA of 1.92. 25 shutouts.
• Was named MVP of the Soviet league 1970.
• Played 450 domestic league games. Named Soviet All-Star seven times, despite never playing on a champion team.

More reading: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=17783663&postcount=3

Peter “Pekka†Lindmark

• Named best goalie at the WC 1981 and 1986.
• Two WC gold medals (1987, 1991)
• Represented Sweden 174 times.
• Named SEL MVP 1981, Guldhjälmen (Swedish Ted Lindsey Award) 1987

Leif “Honken†Holmqvist

• Best goalie at the 1969 WC
• Represented Sweden a record 202 times.
• One of only three players to get the Guldpucken (Swedish Hart) twice.
• Seven consecutive Swedish All-star Teams

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Dang that's a whole decade before the first Stanley Cup. I treat anyone before 1893 the way I treat any Soviet before the class of 1972: fully accepting anyone of the date but depreciating a career the farther back in time it goes from that date. Players who played their whole careers before the first Stanley Cup have as huge question marks as Soviets of the fifties and early sixties generation.

1893 is an arbitrary cut-off. There's no evidence that that year forms some kind of line where players before it should be discounted any more than players after it. I addressed this at my blog here, here and here.

 

[vecens24]

Brimsek and Gardiner belong in the top list (they are in the second), and Esposito, who is not mentioned at all, belongs in the top one as well.

And Connell should be a borderline guy. I have never seen anything convincing that puts him in the Worters/Thompson/Hainsworth/Gardiner realm.

Totally agreed here.

I have Connell pretty much right at the threshold for making this list right now in my preliminary top 60. Connell vs. LeSueur is a very difficult thing for me to reconcile at the moment. Part of me kinda wants to assume Connell was better because he was inducted into the HHOF earlier despite playing later, but that isn't exactly the best way to guess I'd say.

Also I have no idea how to statistically reconcile goalies from the low scoring 20s. For instance, Hainsworth and Connell's careers overlapped pretty much entirely. Connell was induced to the HHOF in 1958, and Hainsworth was inducted in 1961, despite Hainsworth almost always being statistically better, winning the Vezina those three times (when it was awarded statistically). Both won two Stanley Cups. Does that mean that Connell was more well thought of? Then Worters was inducted WAY later in 1969 (although Worters being inducted later makes a little more sense since he played for all those bad teams). Worters is pretty much definitely better in my opinion than Hainsworth. Worters beat Hainsworth in Hart voting each of the years that Hainsworth won the Vezina, including the Hart Trophy in 1929 and 2nd in Hart voting in 1928). I don't know. It's a tough cookie to crack right now.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Then Worters was inducted WAY later in 1969 (although Worters being inducted later makes a little more sense since he played for all those bad teams). Worters is pretty much definitely better in my opinion than Hainsworth. Worters beat Hainsworth in Hart voting each of the years that Hainsworth won the Vezina, including the Hart Trophy in 1929 and 2nd in Hart voting in 1928). I don't know. It's a tough cookie to crack right now.

It certainly is, and I think even the Hart voting isn't as straightforward as you have it here. In modern times the Hart is essentially seen as for the best player, but it seems to me in earlier years it was more of a "most valuable" award in the sense that an excellent player on an otherwise bad team can be more valuable than an excellent player on an otherwise good team. Without that player, the otherwise bad team would have been much worse off, relatively speaking.

It seems players like Worters and Gardiner may have gotten more admiration because they played on bad teams, not necessarily because they were better players. Goaltenders in particular would be more noticeable on a bad team, because they'd have more shots to stop and more chances for spectacular saves.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Goalies as an MVP

It certainly is, and I think even the Hart voting isn't as straightforward as you have it here. In modern times the Hart is essentially seen as for the best player, but it seems to me in earlier years it was more of a "most valuable" award in the sense that an excellent player on an otherwise bad team can be more valuable than an excellent player on an otherwise good team. Without that player, the otherwise bad team would have been much worse off, relatively speaking.

It seems players like Worters and Gardiner may have gotten more admiration because they played on bad teams, not necessarily because they were better players. Goaltenders in particular would be more noticeable on a bad team, because they'd have more shots to stop and more chances for spectacular saves.

The Hart represented the MVP well into the seventies. True for goalies as well. Al Rollins - 1953-54 Hart was the result of a season where he gave the Hawks a chance to win or tie going into the 3rd period of over 40 games - an example of value to a team.

Yet Al Rollins was far from the best player or goalie of the fifties.

 

[VanIslander]

1893 is an arbitrary cut-off. There's no evidence that that year forms some kind of line where players before it should be discounted any more than players after it. I addressed this at my blog here, here and here.

A lot of hockey historians disagree with you. Many books cover hockey history from that point because the Stanley Cup was a significant development worthy of remembrance, signifying a common goal representing the pinnacle of achievement, a championship trophy that the best teams played for (or wanted to play for, in cases where rejected, ie., American amateur and pro teams that were rejected in the early years).

There is a real gap in hockey coverage in history books between the Winter Carnival references and the Stanley Cup challenges. It's nice that you help fill the gap.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Research and Sources

Rather interesting turn in the thread. The Montreal Gazette is not the only source for hockey information during the pre Stanley Cup era.

1888 season was also covered by The Montreal Daily Herald. Jan 13, 1888 game was covered extensively on page 5:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=tOudhMTPpwUC&dat=18880114&printsec=frontpage&hl=en

Other Montreal or Quebec newspapers are listed:

http://news.google.com/newspapers/#M

Other contemporary newspapers accounts from Montreal newspapers may be available.

Comparing the dueling and other accounts may be advantageous.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Rather interesting turn in the thread. The Montreal Gazette is not the only source for hockey information during the pre Stanley Cup era.

1888 season was also covered by The Montreal Daily Herald. Jan 13, 1888 game was covered extensively on page 5:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=tOudhMTPpwUC&dat=18880114&printsec=frontpage&hl=en

Other Montreal or Quebec newspapers are listed:

http://news.google.com/newspapers/#M

Other contemporary newspapers accounts from Montreal newspapers may be available.

Comparing the dueling and other accounts may be advantageous.

It absolutely is. I was just going with the Gazette for simplicity, to demonstrate what I was trying to demonstrate. Any research should be multi-sourced if possible.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Hockey Reporting

Hockey reporting changed drastically after the advent of television and the tv version of Hockey Night in Canada. Facts and stats came to the forefront. The initial boxscores were developed.

Going back to the origins of hockey, the newspaper reports are prose with no audio or visual balance that was later provided by radio and television.

Some of the early features included describing scoring opportunities as opposed to shots/saves, finding a balance between individual and team play and variable interpretations of sportsmanship. All within the context of existing rules and known strategies.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Hockey reporting changed drastically after the advent of television and the tv version of Hockey Night in Canada. Facts and stats came to the forefront. The initial boxscores were developed.

Going back to the origins of hockey, the newspaper reports are prose with no audio or visual balance that was later provided by radio and television.

Some of the early features included describing scoring opportunities as opposed to shots/saves, finding a balance between individual and team play and variable interpretations of sportsmanship. All within the context of existing rules and known strategies.

The earliest box scores showing shots and saves that I've seen date from the late 1910s in the Manitoba senior league. It's a shame it didn't catch on sooner.

Even very early game reports often used a boxscore-type format. The lineups were listed in a standard format, and the goals were summarized by half, often with a time listed as well.

 

[Killion]

Some of the early features included describing scoring opportunities as opposed to shots/saves, finding a balance between individual and team play and variable interpretations of sportsmanship. All within the context of existing rules and known strategies.

Yes it truly was, ergo without reliable source inf the modern day statisticians job in quantifying any given players merit or importance isnt impossible, but should be asterisked (and Oberlisked, for good measure like). And as far as Goaltending is concerned? Id say Paton doesnt even belong in the rankings at all; as in whatsoever. He wasnt a "goalie" by the same measure that we today or even those who played in the 19 double 0's would recognize. No equipment, no net. Some kinda hybrid Defenceman freakshow. Not havin any of it.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Stand-up

Yes it truly was, ergo without reliable source inf the modern day statisticians job in quantifying any given players merit or importance isnt impossible, but should be asterisked (and Oberlisked, for good measure like). And as far as Goaltending is concerned? Id say Paton doesnt even belong in the rankings at all; as in whatsoever. He wasnt a "goalie" by the same measure that we today or even those who played in the 19 double 0's would recognize. No equipment, no net. Some kinda hybrid Defenceman freakshow. Not havin any of it.

I have felt for a long time that goalies that never played hockey under the Benedict Rule - flopping allowed to make saves, should be considered in a distinct group.

 

[Killion]

New Rule;

I have felt for a long time that goalies that never played hockey under the Benedict Rule - flopping allowed to make saves, should be considered in a distinct group.

... I like it. And so it shall be.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Top 5 Hart finishes 1924-2012

name|1st|2nd|3rd|4th|5th|total
Martin Brodeur|0|0|3|2|2|7
Dominik Hasek|2|1|2|0|0|5
Glenn Hall|0|0|0|2|3|5
Roy Worters|1|1|0|1|1|4
Patrick Roy|0|1|1|1|1|4
Terry Sawchuk|0|0|1|3|0|4
Tony Esposito|0|1|1|1|0|3
Frank Brimsek|0|1|1|0|1|3
Bill Durnan|0|1|1|0|1|3
Ken Dryden|0|1|0|2|0|3
Harry Lumley|0|1|0|1|1|3
Al Rollins|1|1|0|0|0|2
Chuck Rayner|1|0|0|1|0|2
Rogie Vachon|0|1|1|0|0|2
Mike Liut|0|1|1|0|0|2
Jacques Plante|1|0|0|0|1|2
Bernie Parent|0|1|0|1|0|2
John Ross Roach|0|0|2|0|0|2
Miikka Kiprusoff|0|0|1|1|0|2
John Vanbiesbrouck|0|0|1|0|1|2
Charlie Hodge|0|0|0|1|1|2
Jose Theodore|1|0|0|0|0|1
Johnny Bower|0|1|0|0|0|1
Ed Giacomin|0|1|0|0|0|1
Pete Peeters|0|1|0|0|0|1
Grant Fuhr|0|1|0|0|0|1
Roberto Luongo|0|1|0|0|0|1
Jim Henry|0|0|1|0|0|1
Gump Worsley|0|0|1|0|0|1
Pelle Lindbergh|0|0|1|0|0|1
Ed Belfour|0|0|1|0|0|1
Henrik Lundqvist|0|0|1|0|0|1
Tiny Thompson|0|0|0|1|0|1
Turk Broda|0|0|0|1|0|1
Gerry McNeil|0|0|0|1|0|1
Roger Crozier|0|0|0|1|0|1
Don Edwards|0|0|0|1|0|1
Kirk MacLean|0|0|0|1|0|1
Curtis Joseph|0|0|0|1|0|1
Olaf Kolzig|0|0|0|1|0|1
Roman Cechmanek|0|0|0|1|0|1
Steve Mason|0|0|0|1|0|1
Ryan Miller|0|0|0|1|0|1
Pekke Rinne|0|0|0|1|0|1
Mike Palmateer|0|0|0|0|1|1
Sean Burke|0|0|0|0|1|1
Ilya Bryzgalov|0|0|0|0|1|1
Tim Thomas|0|0|0|0|1|1
Jonathan Quick|0|0|0|0|1|1

Planning on doing something similar with All Star and Vezina Votes