Where do you rank Martin Brodeur all time among goalies?

[User9992]

Some people believe that Luongo is better than Brodeur

 

[FrankSidebottom]

Some people believe that Luongo is better than Brodeur

Luongo is probably not better, but neither that far away from Brodeur.

 

[Xirik]

Luongo is probably not better, but neither that far away from Brodeur.

sounds like you are pumping his tires.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

10-15. I have Hasek, Roy, Tretiak, Thompson, Hainsworth, Hextall, Plante, Sawchuck, Dryden and Luongo ahead of him.

10-15. I have Hasek, Roy, Tretiak, Thompson, Hainsworth, Hextall, Plante, Sawchuck, Dryden and Luongo ahead of him.

 

[Weztex]

10-15. I have Hasek, Roy, Tretiak, Thompson, Hainsworth, Hextall, Plante, Sawchuck, Dryden and Luongo ahead of him.

10-15. I have Hasek, Roy, Tretiak, Thompson, Hainsworth, Hextall, Plante, Sawchuck, Dryden and Luongo ahead of him.

Hextall? The one time Vezina winner who received 3 single Hart votes in his whole career?

There’s no argument for Thompson, Hainsworth and Luongo either. Even in bad faith it would be impossible to justify.

 

[teravaineSAROS]

And youth hockey in Canada is at its weakest position since World War II.

Quebec used to be the heart of hockey and now hockey is a cultural side item. There's no Roy or Lafleur or Richard or Beliveau or Lemieux. This generations equivalents went into soccer, other sports, or didn't take up sports at all.

It's not as easy as "today is the best"

Obviously it's going to feel like Canada got worse because others got more competitive. If we were to remove the Russians and most Europeans along with a lot of Americans... Quebecois players would suddenly be a lot more prevalent in the NHL again.

Coincidentally people say professional boxing got a lot worse after the Cold War once Eastern Europeans (along with other countries generally getting better) started competing because it's not just mainly an American sport anymore.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Obviously it's going to feel like Canada got worse because others got more competitive. If we were to remove the Russians and most Europeans along with a lot of Americans... Quebecois players would suddenly be a lot more prevalent in the NHL again.

Coincidentally people say professional boxing got a lot worse after the Cold War once Eastern Europeans (along with other countries generally getting better) started competing because it's not just mainly an American sport anymore.

There's a lot more to it than that. No one says Canada was weak in the early mid 90s, despite the NHL being fully international. The main reasons are:

* Declining birthrate. There are less NHL aged (18-35) Canadian born males now than in 1990, and about the same as in 1960. A smaller pool to pull from will result in a lower talent pool.

* Declining popularity of hockey. As recently as 1990, hockey was the unquestioned king in Canadian sports for youth participation. Throughout the 90s, basketball and soccer exploded in popularity, with football making strong gains too. If you were athletic in the 80s in Canada, you almost certainly played competitive hockey. Now, hockey is fighting with basketball for #2 for youth participation in Canada (soccer is first), with large urban centres like Toronto it is clearly behind basketball for youth participation. A guy like Nate Darling, if he was born 15 years earlier, would be in the NHL. Most of Canada's growth is in new Canadian/children of immigrants. This group overwhelmingly chooses sports other than hockey. Andrew Wiggins would be a start in the NHL if born a generation before.

* Rising cost of hockey. Population growth is exceeding the rate of new rinks being built. Equipment is very expensive, and ice time cost is insane. More and more hockey interested males are pushed out because their families are not wealthy enough.

* Youth organization. Basketball and football are fully integrated into the school system. Costs are lower as many of the inherent costs within the sport are absorbed by the schools. Hockey, at high levels, is fully private so everything from ice team to equipment to travel is wholly born by parents. The avenue to success require either private schooling, some form of billeting for a teenager, and eventually the CHL where you are travelling across 1/3 of the country at 16.

* Urbanization. Many of hockey's greats hail from small towns where ice time is plentiful and the local pond is a training grounds. As more and more Canadians live in large urban centres, the availability of pond hockey will naturally decline

* Declining athleticism. There are more and more entertainment opportunities for children these days. My dad's options were hockey or hockey. I could pick a sport or play video games or play on a computer. My kids have access to the whole entertainment world on YouTube or the internet. As more things compete for time, there will be more and more kids who could have played pro hockey who simply have interests elsewhere.

* Loss of cultural relevance. Hockey is still very popular in Anglo-Canada, but is no longer #1 in Franco-Canada. I have cousins who played high level soccer in Montreal. A generation before, they would have been hockey players. In immigrant groups, hockey struggles for relevance. Hockey went from an integral part of the Canadian identity in the 1980s, to a side affair for half the country in 2020. As more and more of Canada is made up of visible minority groups hockey will continue to fall in popularity. And the hockey community as a whole has done very little to bring these groups into the fold.

We will continue to see hockey decline in popularity in Canada. Basketball is more popular than ever in Canada, with Canada producing more NBA players than anyone besides the USA. Soccer will continue to dominate youth participation.

This isn't a trend that is going to reverse. Hockey will just play a smaller and smaller role in Canada as time goes on.

 

[nergish]

 

[centipede2233]

There's a lot more to it than that. No one says Canada was weak in the early mid 90s, despite the NHL being fully international. The main reasons are:

* Declining birthrate. There are less NHL aged (18-35) Canadian born males now than in 1990, and about the same as in 1960. A smaller pool to pull from will result in a lower talent pool.

* Declining popularity of hockey. As recently as 1990, hockey was the unquestioned king in Canadian sports for youth participation. Throughout the 90s, basketball and soccer exploded in popularity, with football making strong gains too. If you were athletic in the 80s in Canada, you almost certainly played competitive hockey. Now, hockey is fighting with basketball for #2 for youth participation in Canada (soccer is first), with large urban centres like Toronto it is clearly behind basketball for youth participation. A guy like Nate Darling, if he was born 15 years earlier, would be in the NHL. Most of Canada's growth is in new Canadian/children of immigrants. This group overwhelmingly chooses sports other than hockey. Andrew Wiggins would be a start in the NHL if born a generation before.

* Rising cost of hockey. Population growth is exceeding the rate of new rinks being built. Equipment is very expensive, and ice time cost is insane. More and more hockey interested males are pushed out because their families are not wealthy enough.

* Youth organization. Basketball and football are fully integrated into the school system. Costs are lower as many of the inherent costs within the sport are absorbed by the schools. Hockey, at high levels, is fully private so everything from ice team to equipment to travel is wholly born by parents. The avenue to success require either private schooling, some form of billeting for a teenager, and eventually the CHL where you are travelling across 1/3 of the country at 16.

* Urbanization. Many of hockey's greats hail from small towns where ice time is plentiful and the local pond is a training grounds. As more and more Canadians live in large urban centres, the availability of pond hockey will naturally decline

* Declining athleticism. There are more and more entertainment opportunities for children these days. My dad's options were hockey or hockey. I could pick a sport or play video games or play on a computer. My kids have access to the whole entertainment world on YouTube or the internet. As more things compete for time, there will be more and more kids who could have played pro hockey who simply have interests elsewhere.

* Loss of cultural relevance. Hockey is still very popular in Anglo-Canada, but is no longer #1 in Franco-Canada. I have cousins who played high level soccer in Montreal. A generation before, they would have been hockey players. In immigrant groups, hockey struggles for relevance. Hockey went from an integral part of the Canadian identity in the 1980s, to a side affair for half the country in 2020. As more and more of Canada is made up of visible minority groups hockey will continue to fall in popularity. And the hockey community as a whole has done very little to bring these groups into the fold.

We will continue to see hockey decline in popularity in Canada. Basketball is more popular than ever in Canada, with Canada producing more NBA players than anyone besides the USA. Soccer will continue to dominate youth participation.

This isn't a trend that is going to reverse. Hockey will just play a smaller and smaller role in Canada as time goes on.

Your right on declining athleticism and cost. Today kids have the internet, it’s so easy to lose yourself in an online game or YouTube for a day. When Roy and brodeur grew up, you called your friends to play hockey or baseball…

 

[Xirik]

Guess I trust The best Goalie right now saying Brodeur is the best of all time then the HFboards.

 

[Chips]

I wonder how much the split comes down to age of voters. I wonder how many people w him top three watched much ancient hockey


As people say with skaters the game has changed so much, but especially goaltending. I don’t see how you compare many of them, and I only personally care about modern and near-modern hockey 90s-now, so count me as voting top 3 lol

 

[Took a pill in Sbisa]

The way I see it is Hasek #1, Roy #2 and a few goalies that can all have arguments to be #3.
I have Brodeur in that group and voted 'Top-5'. I wouldn't argue with anyone that has Plante, Hall, Sawchuk, Tretiak at #3

 

[BraveCanadian]

Back when they tracked save percentage on an abacus. It's near impossible to make these comparisons.

This line of thinking really quickly falls apart when people are always claiming that goaltenders are so much better now than in the past... and yet the top 3 of all time are from the stone age?

 

[wasunder]

I’d have him third with a bias as I’m too young to have witnessed guys like plante, hall, fuhr. But said top five as th there seems to be a good argument to rotate those guys around. I feel Roy and Hasek are solidified in the 1-2 spots

 

[JackSlater]

Top 20, but I didn't like the way the last option was worded.

 

[Cup or Bust]

Hard not to put him in the top 3-5 goalies of the last 40 years based on his success.

 

[rogking65]

Hard not to put him in the top 3-5 goalies of the last 40 years based on his success.

you are ignoring his failures. His resume is built on wins but he holds the record for most career losses as well.Give credit for being a great stickhandler but average when it came to stopping pucks

 

[Video Nasty]

you are ignoring his failures. His resume is built on wins but he holds the record for most career losses as well.Give credit for being a great stickhandler but average when it came to stopping pucks

I’ve done my fair share of arguing against Brodeur depending on the topic, but come on, you don’t really believe this, do you?

No matter how flawed the voting can be sometimes, no matter how much extra credit voters gave to goalies like Brodeur who won a lot of games, and no matter how many times he didn’t lead the league in SV%, his resume is still that of a 9 time Vezina finalist which includes being a 4 time winner and 3 times the direct runner up. He was a 3 time Hart finalist. He generally upped his game for the playoffs (he was better at stopping pucks then).

When you play 1266 games, you’re going to lose some games. It’s not a crime that he owns the record for most losses. He played 222 more games than Luongo and has a whopping 5 losses more. Luongo had 91 overtime/shootout losses compared to Brodeur’s 49. There’s your difference right there. Every netminder below him with at least 300 losses played anywhere from 200-400 games fewer.

The way you talk, you would think he’s Fleury. Brodeur isn’t in my top 3-5 like so many others, but the guy’s resume is not something that relies on mere Wins and shouldn’t be downplayed because he also has the most losses.

 

[The Macho King]

Top 10...but like 8 or 9th



Plante, Dryden, Sawchuk, Hall and Parent all make it easy to debate

Parent? One of these is not like the others.

Plante, Sawchuk, Hall, are clearly better. Dryden and Tretiak right in his range. Put him around 7 or 8 but can see the argument of him at 6.