And for a gulf in reputations to that extent, you'd think you'd be able to find some actual statistical evidence to back it up. That Lindbergh's greatness would be borne out in the statistics (or at least some of the statistics!) relative to Froese. But that didn't happen - and in fact it's quite the opposite.
I don't think it's the opposite, even based on the stats. It's entirely fair to ask that question of whether Lindbergh's reputation is possibly overinflated, as it's not unusual in cases where careers are cut short too early, but I do think Lindbergh was clearly the more talented goalie and Froese's reputation was mainly bolstered by one great season (as is general consensus), and that conclusion is defensible given the statistical record.
You're trying to make a talent argument (Lindbergh may have been only "pretty good"), and you're using performance stats as evidence, but talent and performance are not the same thing. Performance is only relevant as far as it reflects talent, and there are very good reasons to suggest that for an extended period of time from his injury in 1983 to the end of the 1983-84 season, Pelle Lindbergh was not performing at anywhere near his actual talent level.
Here's the breakdown:
| Period | W | L | T | GAA | Sv% |
| 1982-83 (Before wrist injury) | 16 | 7 | 3 | 2.70 | 0.902 |
| 1982-83 (After wrist injury) | 7 | 9 | 0 | 4.07 | 0.849 |
| 16 | 14 | 3 | 4.11 | 0.859 |
| Rest of career | 58 | 25 | 7 | 2.91 | 0.901 |
(Note: All those numbers above are including playoffs)
The binomial probability of an .892 career goalie making 1192 or fewer saves on 1393 consecutive shots is .00002. The evidence seems pretty undeniable that injuries and personal struggles in that year and a half significantly disrupted Lindbergh's performance, and the obvious conclusion is that his results during that extended down period show primarily that something was wrong with him, not that he lacked elite talent, given the excellent results both before and after.
Some additional points:
1. NHL seasons don't happen in a vacuum. Lindbergh was a highly touted prospect (the first European goalie ever drafted by the NHL), he was representing Sweden internationally as a teenager, he was named the best goalie in the AHL in his first taste of North American action. Pretty much everything in his career through age 21 indicated that he had elite potential. Of course prospects don't always pan out or have linear development paths, but if we're trying to evaluate the talent level of a guy who played his last career game at age 26 they are definitely points in his favour.
2. Lindbergh was pretty unanimously the best Swedish goalie of his generation, and he played at a time when North American goaltending was pretty thin. I don't see any evidence at all to think that North American goaltending was surpassing European goaltending in the early to mid-'80s (if anything I'd maybe argue the opposite), so the idea that one of Europe's best was actually nothing special against a relatively weak talent pool doesn't strike me as particularly plausible, just a priori.
3. All Flyer goalies not named Froese or Lindbergh from 1982-83 to 1985-86 combined to go 25-18-4, 3.66, .877. That's not really overwhelming evidence of a huge defensive lift, it's worse than what the third goalies were doing in places like Long Island, Washington or Chicago. Keenan's system helped for sure, but it's a bit of an exaggeration to say that he was completely responsible for those goaltending results, and I do think that Hobnobs is correct that the Flyers likely peaked defensively in 1985-86 or later (they were actually quite a young team in Lindbergh's Vezina season, with an average skater age weighted by GP of just 23.7 in the 1985 playoffs).
4. Bob Froese had a strong 1985-86 season, but the rest of his performance in this period was definitely clearly a level below. In particular, his 1984-85 season was greatly aided by one of the weakest strength of schedules I've ever seen for a goalie with 15 or more GP (-0.52 as measured by
Hockeygoalies.org). In that season, 48% of his shots faced came against the terrible Rangers and Penguins, and he posted a .946 against those two teams combined compared to a much more pedestrian .883 against the rest of the league.
In summary, Froese is probably a bit underrated given his actual results, even in an appropriate team context, but saying he was better all four seasons doesn't really reflect reality. Lindbergh had periods when he was off his game and performing much worse than Froese, but when healthy and in form I think he was more or less always the better goalie.
