Round 2, Vote 1 (HFNYR Top Goalies All-Time)

[Crease]

Before we begin, just a recap on how Round 2 will operate:

Round 2

• The top 6 ranked players from the aggregate list will be posted in a thread
• Players will be listed in alphabetical order to avoid creating bias
• Player merits and rankings will be open for discussion and debate for a period of at least five (5) days. Administrator may extend the discussion period if it remains active
• Final voting will occur for two (2) days, via PM. Everyone ranks their top 6 players.
• Top 3 players will be added to the final results list
• Final results will be posted and the process repeated for the next 3 places with remaining players until a list of 6 goalies is obtained

These might be tweaked to allow longer or shorter debating periods depending on how the process moves along.

Additionally, there are a couple guidelines we'd ask that everyone agree to abide by:

• Please try to stay on-topic in the thread
• Please remember that this is a debate on opinions and there is no right or wrong. Please try to avoid words like "stupid" "dumb" "wrong" "sophistry" etc. when debating.
• Please treat other debaters with respect
• Please don't be a wallflower. All eligible voters are VERY HIGHLY encouraged to be active participants in the debate.
• Please maintain an open mind. The purpose of the debate is to convince others that your views are more valid. If nobody is willing to accept their opinions as flexible there really is no point in debating.

Eligible Voters (10):
bernmeister; Cake or Death; Chief; Crease; eKardz; haohmaru; Greg02; mike14; Ratelleitlikeitis; Screw You Rick Nash

All posters are encouraged to participate in the debates and discussions, but only those listed above will be eligible for the final votes.

Post #2 of every voting thread will contain the dates and candidates up for vote.

Click to read more...

 

[Crease]

Vote 1 will begin now and debates are scheduled to run through Sunday, August 3. You may PM votes to Crease starting on Friday, August 1.

I will be sending out confirmations when I receive ballots from the voters. Any voter who does not get a confirmation within 24 hours of submitting a ballot should assume I never received it and should either resubmit it or contact me to arrange a different method to submit the ballots.

Vote 1 will be for places 1 through 3 on the Top 6 list.

Here are the candidates, listed alphabetically:

Ed Giacomin
Dave Kerr
Henrik Lundqvist
Chuck Rayner
Mike Richter
John Vanbiesbrouck

 

[bernmeister]

Here are my preliminary 3.

I want to say I will keep an open mind if anyone wants to advocate for someone, but I'm not sure there is much wriggle room given the stats, etc.:

PRELIMINARY Vote 1 for places 1 through 3 on the Top 6 list.

Here are the candidates, listed alphabetically:

1 Henrik Lundqvist
2 Dave Kerr
3 Mike Richter

this is what I had on the prior thread

obviously no need to discuss King Henrik as 1 overall:

wanted to squeeze Giacomin + Villemure higher up, but didn't want to screw Kerr just cause he was before my time and Richter has solid #s.

 

[Kane One]

I think I'm leaning towards this for my top 3:

1. Henrik Lundqvist (obvious)
2. Ed Giacomin
3. Dave Kerr


Kerr never lead the league in wins, but he has lead the league in ties three times as a Ranger.

I planned on having Richter in the top 3, but he had more losses than wins in eight seasons. Kerr was a first and second team All-Star, while Richter never finished above fourth place.

If you compare the Ranger teams Richter and Kerr were on during their best seasons, Richter played on the vastly superior team, and it really isn't close.

--------

Now for Giacomin in second. He lead the league in wins in three straight seasons, was a first or second All-Star in five straight, and finished in the top ten in Hart voting three times.

Can someone explain Giacomin's 20 PIMs in 1975?

 

[Cake or Death]

Here are my preliminary 3.

I want to say I will keep an open mind if anyone wants to advocate for someone, but I'm not sure there is much wriggle room given the stats, etc.:

PRELIMINARY Vote 1 for places 1 through 3 on the Top 6 list.

Here are the candidates, listed alphabetically:

1 Henrik Lundqvist
2 Dave Kerr
3 Mike Richter

this is what I had on the prior thread

obviously no need to discuss King Henrik as 1 overall:

wanted to squeeze Giacomin + Villemure higher up, but didn't want to screw Kerr just cause he was before my time and Richter has solid #s.

I can marginally understand someone placing Kerr ahead of Giacomin, though I have Giacomin well ahead of Kerr, but Richter ahead of Giacomin I cannot comprehend. If you look during Richter's career at his numbers against his peers, guys like Jim Carey, Daren Puppa and Sean Burke had more top 5 Vezina and AST placements than Richter did. Here, these are top 5 Vezina and top 5 AST placements during Richter's career:

Goalie | Seasons | Vez 5 | AST 5 | Total | Vezinas | 1AST | 2AST
Roy|14|9|7|16|2|3|1
Brodeur|10|8|7|15|1|1|2
Belfour|13|7|8|15|2|2|1
Hasek|12|6|7|13|6|6|0
Joseph|14|5|3|8|0|0|0
Moog|9|3|4|7|0|0|0
Carey|5|2|2|4|1|1|0
Puppa|10|2|2|4|0|0|1
Vanbiesbrouck|12|2|2|4|0|0|1
Barrasso|14|2|2|4|0|0|1
Burke|14|1|3|4|0|0|0
McLean|13|2|2|4|0|0|1
Cechmanek|3|1|2|3|0|0|1
Kolzig|14|2|1|3|1|1|0
Richter|14|2|1|3|0|0|0
Turco|3|1|1|2|0|0|1
Lalime|5|1|1|2|0|0|0
Theodore|7|1|1|2|1|0|1
Turek|7|1|1|2|0|0|1
Cheveldae|8|1|1|2|0|0|0
Osgood|10|1|1|2|0|0|1
Dafoe|11|1|1|2|0|0|1

Richter places tied for 13th with Kolzig and Cechmanek, the difference being Kolzig won a Vezina and a 1AST and Cechmanek won a 2AST, none of which Richter ever accomplished. Yes, you can argue Richter won a Cup, and that is true. But so did guys like Ranford and Vernon, who both also won a Smythe with their Cups. Would anyone suggest Ranford or Vernon are better than Giacomin?

Giacomin has a Vezina, two 1AST, three 2AST, and is almost a dead lock for another Vezina in 1967 if the Award wasn't awarded to the goalie on the team with lowest goals against. In 1966-67, Giacomin is 1AST, and 2nd in Hart voting with 17.81% of votes. Third in Hart voting is Bobby Hull at 6.56% and the nearest goalie to Giacomin is Denis DeJordy at 0.94%. So Giacomin is 1AST winner that year and no goalie is remotely near him in Hart voting. Safe bet he wins Vezina if it's voted on and not awarded to lowest goals against team.

To each his own, but to me there is a gap between Giacomin and Richter, and it isn't too small imho.

 

[haohmaru]

After much thought and debate about the #3 position, these are my thoughts about the top 3:

1. Henrik Lundqvist
2. Ed Giacomin
3. Dave Kerr

Richter is sentimental because we broke the curse, I had season tickets back then, his '93-94 playoff performance was, at times, crazy good, and his sweater hangs in the rafters. Kerr was hard for me to put in the top 3 because I've never seen him play. But his career Ranger numbers, a Cup, and having played in every game for quite a few seasons cements it.

 

[Crease]

I have Rayner clearly ahead of Kerr, and as high as 2nd. Here is an overview of Kerr's career. Notes on Rayner to come.

Overview of Kerr's Career

1930-1933 Montreal Maroons sign Kerr at the age of 20 fresh out of Montreal AAA. He bounces back and forth between the NHL and the minors. Each training camp, Kerr loses starting goalie battles to Flat Walsh and Normie Smith.

1934 Kerr, at 24, emerges from Montreal camp as the starting goaltender for the first time. Montreal finishes in the middle of the pack. Kerr ranks 7/9 in regular season GAA and 3/6 in playoff GAA.

1935 Kerr holds out in a contract dispute and Montreal does not invite him to camp. Montreal instead brings in veteran Alex Connell. The Rangers trade for Kerr, badly needing to replace a slumping Andy Aitkenhead. The Rangers finish middle of the pack. Kerr ranks 6/8 in regular season GAA and 5/6 in playoff GAA.

1936 The core of the Rangers was on their last legs. The Cooks, Frank Boucher, and Ching Johnson were by now almost out of the league. But the passing of the torch hadn't happened yet. The Rangers finished last in their division and miss the playoffs despite finishing above .500. Kerr ranks 5/8 in regular season GAA.

1937 The new core emerges. Phil Watson and Neil Colville, at 22, as the centermen up front. Ott Heller, 21, as a valuable defender on the back end. The Rangers sneak into the playoffs with a sub-.500 record but go on a heck of a run. They lose the Stanley Cup to the #1 seeded Detroit Red Wings a decisive Game 5. Kerr ranks 2/10 in regular season GAA, but despite his regular season numbers garners no award recognition. Kerr ranks 1/8 in playoff GAA. His 248:35 shutout streak remains third-longest in playoff history.

1938 The new core continues to gain experience, and the Rangers establish themselves as one of the best teams in the NHL. Kerr ranks 2/8 in regular season GAA, and is awarded 2nd-Team All-Star for his efforts (behind Tiny Thompson). Teammates Cecil Dillon (RW) (1st-Team All-Star) and Art Coulter (D) (2nd-Team All-Star) also earn recognition. They are upset in the playoffs by the New York Americans. Kerr ranks 5/6 in playoff GAA.

1939 The Rangers again finish second to the Bruins in the regular season. No one else was close. Kerr ranks 3/8 in regular season GAA but a shoulder injury keeps him out of all but one game in the 7-game-battle against the Bruins in the first round of the playoffs.

1940 1940 was the year when it all came together for Kerr and the Rangers. One again, they were second to Boston in the regular season. But when they got another chance at Boston in the first round, they won this time. After going down 2-1 in the series, Kerr won back to back 1-0 shutouts to put the Rangers up 3-2 going home, where they closed it out. The Rangers beat Toronto in an anticlimactic final, and Kerr led all goalies with a 1.56 playoff GAA and 3 playoff shutouts. Kerr ranked 1/7 in regular season GAA and 1/6 in playoff GAA. He earned 1st-Team All-Star for his troubles. Teammates Bryan Hextall (RW) (1st-Team All-Star), Neil Colville (C) (2nd-Team All-Star) and Art Coulter (D) (2nd-Team All-Star) also get awards recognition. Interestingly, no Rangers receive Hart voting. Perhaps an indication of a very balanced lineup.

1941 The Rangers seem to suffer from a Stanley Cup hangover. Kerr's numbers drop significantly, and newspaper research indicates he struggled behind a defense absent injured Art Coulter. By season-end, Patrick was looking to overhaul the entire core and Kerr retired.

Notes No denying Kerr's peak was extraordinary. His run in the 1937 playoffs and his entire 1940 season are for the ages. But that was really about it for him. He reminds me of Timmy Thomas a bit. Late bloomer (didn't establish himself as a legit starter until his mid-20s), had only a handful of above-average seasons (1937, 1938, 1940), then fell right off the table and was out of the game before you could even blink. The seasons he did play above-average, he shined bright. But the rest of his resume is a bit of a dud. The HHOF committee seems to agree.

 

[Cake or Death]

I have Rayner clearly ahead of Kerr, and as high as 2nd. Here is an overview of Kerr's career. Notes on Rayner to come.

This is an incredibly difficult one to compare: one guy played on good teams, the other played on horrendous teams. If there was one thing, for me, that had tipped Kerr to the number three spot, it was excellent career playoff numbers.

I looked at every guys adjusted career GAA. Kerr's career GAA adjusts up to 2.70, which places him 24th best all-time on adjusted career GAA. Lundqvist is the only NYR goalie higher on that list (he's 10th in adj. GAA at 2.55). With Kerr having an excellent GAA all-time and seeing his regular season NYR GAA of 2.07 drop to 1.57 is pretty major (to me, at least). Rayner... he just flat played on abysmal teams. The fact that he won a Hart and went to game 7 of the Final with one of those abysmal teams is impossible to overlook, though.

 

[Crease]

This is an incredibly difficult one to compare: one guy played on good teams, the other played on horrendous teams. If there was one thing, for me, that had tipped Kerr to the number three spot, it was excellent career playoff numbers.

I looked at every guys adjusted career GAA. Kerr's career GAA adjusts up to 2.70, which places him 24th best all-time on adjusted career GAA. Lundqvist is the only NYR goalie higher on that list (he's 10th in adj. GAA at 2.55). With Kerr having an excellent GAA all-time and seeing his regular season NYR GAA of 2.07 drop to 1.57 is pretty major (to me, at least). Rayner... he just flat played on abysmal teams. The fact that he won a Hart and went to game 7 of the Final with one of those abysmal teams is impossible to overlook, though.

I wonder how much Kerr's numbers benefit from (i) the strength of the teams in front of him and (ii) that he didn't hang around for the downside of his career. The only stretch of play where he carried his team was the 1937 playoffs.

 

[Cake or Death]

Notes No denying Kerr's peak was extraordinary. His run in the 1937 playoffs and his entire 1940 season are for the ages. But that was really about it for him. He reminds me of Timmy Thomas a bit. Late bloomer (didn't establish himself as a legit starter until his mid-20s), had only a handful of above-average seasons (1937, 1938, 1940), then fell right off the table and was out of the game before you could even blink. The seasons he did play above-average, he shined bright. But the rest of his resume is a bit of a dud. The HHOF committee seems to agree.

No doubt he retired young, but I don't think his numbers were all that average-like. During his time in NY, from 1934-35 to 1940-41, he had more wins and shutouts than any other goalie in that time and the second best GAA (he was behind HOFer Frank Brimsek, and ahead of HOFers Thompson and Hainsworth and Broda).

I also like his playoff resume. These are the top 5 goalies in playoff games played during Kerr's time in NY from 1934-35 to 1940-41:

Goalie | GP | W | L | T | GAA | SO
Turk Broda|36|18|18|0|1.88|4
Dave Kerr|32|17|13|2|1.57|7
Frank Brimsek|29|18|11|0|1.77|2
Tiny Thompson|23|8|15|0|2.30|4
George Hainsworth|16|7|9|0|2.34|2

Kerr did win us a Cup and his career NYR playoff numbers are excellent. He's right up there in GP and wins, and first in GAA and shutouts. And every guy he is up against right there is a Hall of Famer.

 

[Cake or Death]

I wonder how much Kerr's numbers benefit from (i) the strength of the teams in front of him and (ii) that he didn't hang around for the downside of his career. The only stretch of play where he carried his team was the 1937 playoffs.

I find that supremely difficult to say without seeing past teams play. The fact is, I had to go read up a good bit because that's the only way to truly appreciate how good a guy like Rayner was and how much of an incredible impact he had on some utterly bad teams. I mean you had to ask, how does Rayner get into the Hall with a losing record and read from there. And that prompted me to create an elaborate playoff scale, which ranked guys playoff performance against the quality of the teams they were on, curved on how well their numbers did or didn't improve from regular season to playoffs. With all that, I scored Rayner as the second best goalie in NYR history, but I also had Kerr 4th. For whatever all that is worth

P.S... Rayner didn't exactly 'hang around' either. He only played one more season than Kerr in NY and Kerr was only a year younger than Rayner when he retired. They played about the same amount of games over their careers.

 

[Cake or Death]

For the heck of it, here's a list of the 6 goalies' top 16.7% single season finishes in various categories. I kinda had to do top 16.7% when there were so many years of only 6 teams and finishing first overall (1 of 6 teams starters) is 16.7%. So to make it somewhat apples to apples, I used this top 16.7% across the board. i.e... the top finisher in a 6 team league (1948), I viewed as finishing top 2 in a 12 team league (1968), top 3 in an 18 team league (1988), etc.

Number of Seasons Ranked in the Top 16.7% in Various Categories:

Goalie | AST | Hart | Vez | GP | Wins | SO | GAA | TOT | Yrs*
Lundqvist|4|1|6|6|4|4|2|27|9
Giacomin|5|1|5**|4|4|5|1|25|10
Kerr|1|0|1|5|0|2|1|10|7
VBK|1|0|1|1|1|2|1|7|9
Richter|1|0|1|2|2|1|0|7|13
Rayner***|0|1|0|0|0|1|0|2|7

Perhaps this puts a little added perspective into how excellent Giacomin was and (IMHO) I feel there is a clear cut top 2 and then a 3-6 group behind them. While Kerr and Richter won Cups in that 3-6 group, you could easily argue that neither ever carried weak teams as far as VBK and Rayner did in 1986 and 1950. That Rayner made the Hall and won a Hart, both with losing records, indicates how excellent he was and how craptastic the NYR teams were when he was playing.

* I basically cut this down to what amounted to full seasons played. For example, I counted Richter's short first and last season as one season and didn't count VBK's first two seasons at all since he only played a total of 4 games those two seasons combined.

** Since the Vezina was awarded to the goalie on the lowest scoring team up to 1981, not the best goalie, I heavily researched every season prior to 1981. I had Giacomin winning in 1967 and placing second the three years following. I also placed Kerr second in 1938, though second that year is not top 16.7 percentile as there were 8 teams in 1938.

*** Screwed by being on horrible teams. Poor guy

 

[bernmeister]

Thanks guys for giving me much to consider. Too swamped now. later...

 

[haohmaru]

I have Rayner clearly ahead of Kerr, and as high as 2nd. Here is an overview of Kerr's career. Notes on Rayner to come.

I can't possibly put Rayner ahead of Kerr - regardless of what team(s) were in front of him. Rayner didn't have a single season where he won more games than he lost. He had a magical run winning the Hart and losing in the Final in OT in '49-50, but I can't see how a guy who had a losing record every single year is in the top 3 of all time in NYR history.

The Rangers have had a **** record when it comes to centers. Their goalie legacy is actually pretty decent, but in my eyes Rayner doesn't sniff the top 3. Or 4.

(edit) and let me take this a step further - Rayner, by all accounts, was a really good goalie with the ultimate misfortune of playing for crap teams and actually elevating one of those to an improbable (failed by the slimmest of margins) Cup run.

But, "best goalie in franchise history" is about more than ability. It's also about legacy. Time served. Cups. Consistency. Wins. I think Rayner is in the top 6. Probably top 5. Not top 3.

 

[Cake or Death]

I can't possibly put Rayner ahead of Kerr - regardless of what team(s) were in front of him. Rayner didn't have a single season where he won more games than he lost. He had a magical run winning the Hart and losing in the Final in OT in '49-50, but I can't see how a guy who had a losing record every single year is in the top 3 of all time in NYR history.

The Rangers have had a **** record when it comes to centers. Their goalie legacy is actually pretty decent, but in my eyes Rayner doesn't sniff the top 3. Or 4.

(edit) and let me take this a step further - Rayner, by all accounts, was a really good goalie with the ultimate misfortune of playing for crap teams and actually elevating one of those to an improbable (failed by the slimmest of margins) Cup run.

But, "best goalie in franchise history" is about more than ability. It's also about legacy. Time served. Cups. Consistency. Wins. I think Rayner is in the top 6. Probably top 5. Not top 3.

That's legit, but for the heck of it I will pose an interesting counter-point. Gump Worsley picks up after Rayner. Worsley is dealing with the same muddled management and generally posts fairly terrible numbers. A barrage of losing seasons, high GAA, horrific playoff numbers ... 5 wins, 15 losses, GAA of 4.04 in the playoffs as a NYR. Worsley then trots off to Montreal and suddenly is posting world beater numbers in the playoffs and wins 4 Cups in 5 years. On a good team, clearly Worsley could excel and play well, even winning 4 Cups and a couple of Vezinas, yet the Rangers made him, by numbers, look pretty darn bad.

The Rangers were a mismanaged disaster for a good long stretch, and Rayner was right in the middle of it. If the HOF committee, who watched Rayner play in his day, felt Rayner's play was good enough to induct him despite a losing record, not to mention his three 2nd AST selections with losing records, the dude had to be pretty badass.

I might agree with you that he doesn't go top three. I am of the mindset that you shouldn't punish a guy for being on a bad team, but you also shouldn't punish a guy for being on a good team either. But if someone did want to rank Rayner real high, I may or may not agree, but I'd have a hard time arguing against their opinion. His HOF induction alone indicates that the eye test of those who actually watched him play hold his on ice performance in incredibly high esteem. I say this simply because of the 6 we are voting on, Rayner, Giacomin, and Lundqvist eventually, are honestly the only three HOFers. To me, Lundqvist and Giacomin are 1-2. The 3-6 spots are not quite as easy to place for me. But that's just my take.

 

[bernmeister]

After much thought and debate about the #3 position, these are my thoughts about the top 3:

1. Henrik Lundqvist
2. Ed Giacomin
3. Dave Kerr

Richter is sentimental because we broke the curse, I had season tickets back then, his '93-94 playoff performance was, at times, crazy good, and his sweater hangs in the rafters. Kerr was hard for me to put in the top 3 because I've never seen him play. But his career Ranger numbers, a Cup, and having played in every game for quite a few seasons cements it.

Without carefully scrutinizing it all, had false impression Richter had passed Giacomin in more categories, and this appears to not be the case.

Hank remains obvious 1.
Richter is bumped.
floor is open for which 2 of Giacomin, Kerr, and Raynor deserve top 3.

will comment more on Fri or so.

 

[Greg02]

Here are my thoughts on all the head to head matchups of the goalies on our list and under what scenarios you'd choose each one. I'd love to hear any thoughts or disagreements.

Lundqvist vs Giacomin:

It's remarkable how similar they are in accomplishments. Both have a loss in the cup finals. Lundqvist has five Vezina nominations, Giacomin has five AST selections. Giacomin has a 2nd place in Hart voting, Lundqvist has a 3rd. They both have fairly substantial tenures. However, outside their top five years, Lundqvist has the edge. You probably want Lundqvist over Giacomin unless you weigh actual award wins extremely heavily (e.g. ASTs >>> Vezina Nominations). With accomplishments so close to each other, you probably want them right next to each other in your rankings.

Lundqvist vs Rayner:

Rayner has those three years of AST selections, a Hart, and another year where he finished 4th in Hart voting. Obviously he played behind god-awful teams, never having a winning record. But he got the Rangers to the cup finals in 1950, losing 4-3 in OT. You have Rayner ranked over Lundqvist if you heavily weigh awards accomplishments like the Hart, and lean more towards peak than longevity. In most situations you'd pick Lundqvist.

Lundqvist vs Kerr:

If you're a huge peak guy, you love Kerr. He has that one outstanding season that REALLY makes his case. Additionally, if you put a lot into cups, Kerr owns a ring. But you need to weigh those two things disproportionately to place Kerr above Hank.

Lundqvist vs Richter:

In order to make the case that Richter is above Lundqvist, you need to weigh winning the cup super heavily. Richter has longevity, but not at a high level. Hard to give him too many points for that. If you have Richter above Lundqvist, I think you have to have Kerr at number one, and your list would look something like Kerr, Richter, Lundqvist, Giacomin, Beezer, Rayner (heavily punishing Rayner for losing).

Lundqvist vs Vanbiesbrouck:

It's Lundqvist. I don't see any argument for this.

Giacomin vs Rayner:

This is very similar to Lundqvist vs Rayner, but stripped away of the buffer of extra years of excellence outside of Giacomin's top five seasons. If you have Rayner above Giacomin you're leaning hard on a Hart win over a Hart runner up- and that Hart win came in a year where Rayner still failed to capture the 1AST. But maybe you really believe in Rayner's excellence and attribute it all to the team.

Giacomin vs Kerr:

You like Kerr over Giacomin if you weigh peak more than prime and weigh cups quite heavily. It's a heavy weight, but not to the point where it's completely unreasonable I think.

Giacomin vs Richter:

Same exact thing as Lundqvist vs Richter. I cannot fathom a ranking where you place Richter over Giacomin but behind Lundqvist.

Giacomin vs Vanbiesbrouck:

It's Giacomin.

Rayner vs Kerr:

This is the big battleground in my opinion. Rayner didn't have enough years of garnering awards votes that it becomes a little silly to pick Kerr's one big year. Rayner has the HHOF nod, the Hart, and more years at top play. Kerr not being in the Hall hurts, but remember we ranked Cecil Dillon over Bun Cook. Dillon had the awards voting though, which Kerr doesn't really. If you're not sure if you're a peak vs prime guy, you very well may tiebreak to Kerr's cup. I think Rayner was probably the better player, but Kerr was more successful. It's a really tough call.

Rayner vs Richter:

If you're placing Richter above Rayner, then fundamentally you believe that this is about things like legacies and winners. Richter won. Rayner didn't. Rayner was the better goalie relative to the rest of the league.

Rayner vs Vanbiesbrouck:

It's hard to give the nod to Beezer here, but this is the point where I think I should say something about him. To put Beezer above Rayner you need to heavily weigh winning, to the point where it's more like you're penalizing Rayner for being on losing teams more than you're arguing for Beezer on his own merits. Either that or you weigh a Vezina way more than 2ASTs, which would be silly.

Kerr vs Richter:

It's Kerr. Oddly enough, Richter has arguments against the top three on my list, but it's mainly centered around '94. But Kerr has '40 and that tremendous season. I don't think you can put Richter above him.

Kerr vs Vanbiesbrouck:

If you have Beezer above Kerr, you also have Lundqvist, Giacomin, and Rayner above Kerr. Which is reasonable. I think this is the point where Kerr's peak starts looking dominant, but you can take a look at the other quality years that Beezer put in and nudge him above.

Richter vs Vanbiesbrouck:

This is the second battleground, but it doesn't matter as much because neither should be in the top three. It basically comes down to Cup vs Vezina.

 

[Cake or Death]

Richter vs Vanbiesbrouck:

This is the second battleground, but it doesn't matter as much because neither should be in the top three. It basically comes down to Cup vs Vezina.

I personally never found this a battleground, always thought VBK was the better goalie. IMO, you have to move one guy over the other based on him winning something team-based, on a very stacked team I might add. In '94 VBK was not on nearly as good of a team as Richter, but VBK still won 2nd AST, placed 2nd in Vezina voting behind Hasek and ahead of Roy, and was a Hart finalist that season. Removing team achievements, and strictly from an individual goaltending standpoint, who was honestly better that season?

I love Richter and mad props to him and the entire team on winning the Cup. I mean Richter is as class act as they come and you cannot help but love the guy. But the Cup aside, he was never a top 5 goalie in the league, and during his career Richter placed top 5 in AST and Vezina voting less times than Puppa, Carey, Barrasso, Burke and, yes, even VBK lol. Richter never had that one killer season where he was in the top echelon and managed to even win a single 2nd AST selection, something some not-so-stellar goalies like Turek and Dafoe managed during Richter's career.

IDK.. I just see VBK as the better goalie. As I did when I watched their two entire careers. Richter won a Cup, but so did a lot of goalies who won on very good teams and never won much else. But when you look at some of the important individual goalie honors, VBK won those and had some seasons where he was among the top echelon goalies. A 1st AST, a 2nd AST, a Hart finalist, a Vezina winner, and two time Vezina finalist are all on VBK's resume. Richter, by comparison, was a one-time Vezina finalist. Just my own personal view. But I think were it not for expansion and an obscure rule removing VBK from the team, I have a sneaking hunch Lundqvist is chasing VBK as the all-time winningest NYR goalie.

 

[Greg02]

I'm probably not the person to be arguing this, as I have Beezer over Richter in my rankings currently, but I do have them close. If we weren't only considering their careers as Rangers, Beezer would be the clear choice, but as is he has a Vezina and a couple seasons where award voting seems to put him in the 5-10 range of goalies. Richter has years, wins, and a cup. Plus he was stealing a significant number of starts from a prime Beezer. It's not good enough for me, but I can see why someone would choose Richter.

I'm not too interested in getting into this right now because it's pretty clear to me that they'll be five and six.

 

[Cake or Death]

I'm probably not the person to be arguing this, as I have Beezer over Richter in my rankings currently, but I do have them close. If we weren't only considering their careers as Rangers, Beezer would be the clear choice, but as is he has a Vezina and a couple seasons where award voting seems to put him in the 5-10 range of goalies. Richter has years, wins, and a cup. Plus he was stealing a significant number of starts from a prime Beezer. It's not good enough for me, but I can see why someone would choose Richter.

I'm not too interested in getting into this right now because it's pretty clear to me that they'll be five and six.

Oh, I am not directing my post at you. I try to respect that everyone has differing opinions and perspectives. Just more generally stating my feelings for whoever. Like Crease had stated some strong points for Rayner which got me to look into things a lot deeper. It got me to move Rayner up tbh. So I do appreciate when people offer their viewpoints and I read every sentence you'd posted and gave it consideration. The Richter - VBK one just prompted a response, but that was certainly not directed at you. I mean you didn't even state one guy over the other.

 

[Crease]

Taking into account both ability and results, these are how the candidates shake out for me (alphabetically):

Tier 1 Giacomin, Lundqvist

Tier 2 Kerr, Rayner

Tier 3 Richter, Vanbiesbrouck

Has Lundqvist, at this point in his career, definitely surpassed Giacomin? Giacomin has those five straight years with a post-season All-Star nod. That is a heck of a stretch. The knock on him is that he didn't do much outside those five years, and his playoff numbers are a bit disappointing. How much of that is attributed to his mental fortitude, and how much is attributed to Francis riding him hard during those regular seasons when every other team was running tandems?

I still need to sort out Kerr and Rayner.

ADMIN NOTE: You may begin PMing me your vote tomorrow (Friday), and I will be accepting ballots through Sunday.

 

[Cake or Death]

Taking into account both ability and results, these are how the candidates shake out for me (alphabetically):

Tier 1 Giacomin, Lundqvist

Tier 2 Kerr, Rayner

Tier 3 Richter, Vanbiesbrouck

Has Lundqvist, at this point in his career, definitely surpassed Giacomin? Giacomin has those five straight years with a post-season All-Star nod. That is a heck of a stretch. The knock on him is that he didn't do much outside those five years, and his playoff numbers are a bit disappointing. How much of that is attributed to his mental fortitude, and how much is attributed to Francis riding him hard during those regular seasons when every other team was running tandems?

I still need to sort out Kerr and Rayner.

ADMIN NOTE: You may begin PMing me your vote tomorrow (Friday), and I will be accepting ballots through Sunday.

Those three tiers look pretty spot on. Has Hank definitely surpassed Eddie? To me, for sure. I view the five AST selections vs Lundqvist's two as relatively equal. Eddie has 5 top 2 AST finishes mostly against 12 teams, Hank has 5 top 5 finishes against 30 teams. Both were 5 times with top 1/6 placement. But Hank's play, to me, has more consistent length of excellence. First 5 years of his career, 3x Vezina finalist, 2x last 4 years. The man has been top tier fairly consistently. 9 straight seasons and not once has he been worse than 6th in Vezina voting. I mean what's even an 'off' year for Hank... the .912 SV%? He won nearly 40 games and led the league in shutouts that season lol.

 

[Greg02]

Has Lundqvist, at this point in his career, definitely surpassed Giacomin? Giacomin has those five straight years with a post-season All-Star nod. That is a heck of a stretch. The knock on him is that he didn't do much outside those five years, and his playoff numbers are a bit disappointing. How much of that is attributed to his mental fortitude, and how much is attributed to Francis riding him hard during those regular seasons when every other team was running tandems?

Lundqvist also has five years of Vezina nominations, including a win. I think that even if you take Giacomin's five best years over Lundqvist's, the rest of Hank's resume more than makes up the difference. I think this year's cup run probably provided the last bit of separation.

 

[haohmaru]

Giacomin's 5 straight AS appearances are an achievement, but let's keep in mind there was *A LOT* less competition (# of teams (12 or 14 vs 30) and # of goalies) to choose from.

Lundqvist's yearly Vezina standings > Giacomin's AS appearances, IMHO just because of that.

 

[Chief]

I figured Lundqvist would be atop a lot of lists. Here's why he's not atop mine: with the exclusion of this past off-season, Lundqvist has not played as well in the playoffs as he has during regular seasons. Richter didn't do that at every turn in the playoffs either but he did it more times IMHO. The stats don't tell the whole story. Being a money goalie is about making the key saves.

And, yes, the Cup matters to me. Maybe if the Rangers had more than 4 Cups, it wouldn't matter as much to me...but they don't.

Richter was great in the Cup year. That year he made all the big saves. And he didn't just win because he had a great team in front of him. In 96 Richter led the US team to the Gold Medal in the World Cup and that was a US squad that wasn't stacked at ever position. Guys like Bryan Smolinski made the squad.

And Richter was the MVP of the tournament. Comparing Richter to Chris Osgood is simply unjustified.

Sure Richter didn't win the Vezina but he was up against 3 of the greatest of all time in Hasek, Roy and Brodeur. As far as other individual awards, like the Hart, Richter wasn't the best player on his team. Messier and Leetch attracted the spotlight when people were looking for reasons why the Rangers were successful. Richter also had worse defensive defenses in front of him than Lundqvist and he never played behind a defensive system.