HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

HOH Top 40 Goaltenders of All Time

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-21-2013, 06:04 PM
  #101
Chalupa Batman
Mod Supervisor
 
Chalupa Batman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 23,010
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Kirk McClean was probably the last of that kind
Kirk McLean is still my all-time favorite (even though I didn't nominate him for the top fifty ).

In the 1994 lockout, I painted my roller hockey mask to look just like his, and then they came back and he'd changed his mask.

Chalupa Batman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 06:27 PM
  #102
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,144
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco MacArthur View Post
Kirk McLean is still my all-time favorite (even though I didn't nominate him for the top fifty ).

In the 1994 lockout, I painted my roller hockey mask to look just like his, and then they came back and he'd changed his mask.
Oh dear... And ya, he really was a terrific Goaltender... grew up not far from my old neighbourhood in Willowdale back in Toronto, played (after my days with them) for the Don Mills Flyers as well in the then Metro Toronto Hockey League (now GTHL) as a kid. I could pick his game apart and know where he got pieces of it as a result, even though there was a full generation separating us. Certain schools of goaltending easy to detect at one time, fairly unique traits.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 06:32 PM
  #103
Mike Farkas
Hockey's Future Staff
Moron!
 
Mike Farkas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,995
vCash: 500
Thanks for the great response, Killion! I was hoping you'd catch that and offer some knowledge.

Mike Farkas is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 06:54 PM
  #104
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,144
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
Thanks for the great response, Killion! I was hoping you'd catch that and offer some knowledge.
I hope it helped some. I too bemoan on several levels the state of Goaltending however, Ive seen signs that we may be on the verge of a new era, younger, up & coming guys like Smith in Phoenix showing off some tricks that I havent seen for awhile. Being aggressive for starters, strong skater, good with his stick, quarterbacking the back end, actually communicating with his team mates instead of approaching the game like he's an island, playing the angles & moving towards the shooter instead of falling into the inverted 'V' on every single shot. Futures looking bright, but its going to take some time Im afraid. The league wants goals, people pay to see them.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 07:41 PM
  #105
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,741
vCash: 500
Jacques Plante

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
I don't mean to be so frank, but I've been around youth hockey a bit and it's really "garbage in, garbage out" - you see it start to creep into the craniums of those watching, I saw a thread on the main board not long ago, "what's up with Canada's goaltending" or something to that effect. The answer is: they're doing it wrong. Goaltending wasn't intended to be guess work.

It's almost seems like stats got involved in development one day..."ok, we just need to find a way to stop 9 out of 10 shots" - it's effective but it has no upside. Like C1958 said, it's the lowest common denominator, it produces cookie cutter goaltenders and it's confusing the people that aren't paying close enough attention to the game itself. Look at the "Top 10 Goalies" threads that pop up every 3 months on the main board, every time there's a different top-5, not just order, different names...it's not like it was even in the 90's where there was clear(er) tiers. I just wish I was old enough to have seen the evolution of the position and understood how it came to be this way. It's hard to grasp when I just start watching a game from the 70's or whatever, there's no context to what I'm watching. People confuse it with "bad" because it's not butterfly and it doesn't look "normal" and I know that's not the right answer. It's difficult because I don't think there's been such an evolution in any position since, say, 1980 like the position of goaltender. I wasn't around in the 70's and prior to properly and fully understand what happened and why...

It's weird, I dislike the butterfly, but I think what, say, Tim Thomas does is wrong. I think that's too inconsistent to be proper (as per the crucial goals he surrenders). So I clamor for a non-butterfly goalie and I get one, but I don't like him. God, does that make me a bad person?

I have a list of goalies in my head that I think their talent level is cut above...I call them "butterfly plus" (when appropriate) because they aren't like a Giguere - where it's nothing, no glove, no blocker, no lateral movement, no stickhandling, no reflexes, no rebound control, just a shooter tutor...Carey Price, Marc-Andre Fleury come immediately to mind. Both have more to them then "drop and hope".

What I really like is Martin Brodeur's style. Half stand-up, hybrid style. Great attention to detail, equipment to protect the body from injury (as opposed to equipment designed to protect the net from puck marks used by most), extreme anticipation skills - maybe the best ever, but no one seems to be able to match it. Not even his own son could figure it out.

C1958 - Fair to say that the teachings of Vladislav Tretiak and the late Warren Strelow were instrumental in shaping some of the finest goalies we've seen in recent times? Brodeur, Belfour, Kiprusoff, Nabokov come to mind. Adaptable to different situations, all of them. Unlike some of the Allaire guys that tend to flame out when the situations aren't just right.
The two you mention built on a foundation laid by Jacques Plante.

Tretiak and the Soviets added off ice and dry land training to the lessons learned from playing against Jacques Plante in 1965 and studying him before and after.

Strelow had his roots grounded in Jacques Plante as well.

Martin Brodeur goes back to his father Denis Brodeur :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Brodeur

and a loose collective of former minor pros and coaches that were contemporaries of Jacques Plante, some continuing with the Cojean Hockey School, started in the mid 1960's that gave Francois Allaire his first hockey job in the late 1970s. Warren Strelow worked with Martin Brodeur because of the link to this base.

You could see elements of Martin Brodeur's basic stance in his father's. Martin even started as a RH catching goalie like his dad. Photo at the Martin Brodeur Arena. Photos of Martin Brodeur as a youngster playing goalie:

www.martinbrodeur30.com

Francois Allaire is very good at what he does - getting goalies NHL ready in a short time span and keeping them at a high NHL level.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg DenisBrodeur1.jpg‎ (9.4 KB, 6 views)

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 09:32 PM
  #106
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,741
vCash: 500
Offensive Talent

Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
I hope it helped some. I too bemoan on several levels the state of Goaltending however, Ive seen signs that we may be on the verge of a new era, younger, up & coming guys like Smith in Phoenix showing off some tricks that I havent seen for awhile. Being aggressive for starters, strong skater, good with his stick, quarterbacking the back end, actually communicating with his team mates instead of approaching the game like he's an island, playing the angles & moving towards the shooter instead of falling into the inverted 'V' on every single shot. Futures looking bright, but its going to take some time Im afraid. The league wants goals, people pay to see them.
Changes, improvements in goaltending go hand in hand with changes and improvements in the offensive game and skill sets.

Growing number of players and teams capable of playing an east-west offence forces goalies to adapt to the changes you describe.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 09:45 PM
  #107
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,144
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Changes, improvements in goaltending go hand in hand with changes and improvements in the offensive game and skill sets.... Growing number of players and teams capable of playing an east-west offence forces goalies to adapt to the changes you describe.
Indeed. Ones criticisms or critiques' of the manner in which Goaltenders now play in adapting to these changes should be tempered somewhat as really refusing to change & evolve wasnt an option. Stagnation never is. Though current crops are decidedly lacking in a number of fundamentals, Im quite confident we'll see vast improvements, from just basic skating skills & rebound control, to stickwork & communication, a little more North-South with elements of Stand Up re-introduced in the coming years.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2013, 03:03 PM
  #108
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
I don't mean to be so frank, but I've been around youth hockey a bit and it's really "garbage in, garbage out" - you see it start to creep into the craniums of those watching, I saw a thread on the main board not long ago, "what's up with Canada's goaltending" or something to that effect. The answer is: they're doing it wrong. Goaltending wasn't intended to be guess work.

It's almost seems like stats got involved in development one day..."ok, we just need to find a way to stop 9 out of 10 shots" - it's effective but it has no upside. Like C1958 said, it's the lowest common denominator, it produces cookie cutter goaltenders and it's confusing the people that aren't paying close enough attention to the game itself. Look at the "Top 10 Goalies" threads that pop up every 3 months on the main board, every time there's a different top-5, not just order, different names...it's not like it was even in the 90's where there was clear(er) tiers. I just wish I was old enough to have seen the evolution of the position and understood how it came to be this way. It's hard to grasp when I just start watching a game from the 70's or whatever, there's no context to what I'm watching. People confuse it with "bad" because it's not butterfly and it doesn't look "normal" and I know that's not the right answer. It's difficult because I don't think there's been such an evolution in any position since, say, 1980 like the position of goaltender. I wasn't around in the 70's and prior to properly and fully understand what happened and why...

It's weird, I dislike the butterfly, but I think what, say, Tim Thomas does is wrong. I think that's too inconsistent to be proper (as per the crucial goals he surrenders). So I clamor for a non-butterfly goalie and I get one, but I don't like him. God, does that make me a bad person?

I have a list of goalies in my head that I think their talent level is cut above...I call them "butterfly plus" (when appropriate) because they aren't like a Giguere - where it's nothing, no glove, no blocker, no lateral movement, no stickhandling, no reflexes, no rebound control, just a shooter tutor...Carey Price, Marc-Andre Fleury come immediately to mind. Both have more to them then "drop and hope".

What I really like is Martin Brodeur's style. Half stand-up, hybrid style. Great attention to detail, equipment to protect the body from injury (as opposed to equipment designed to protect the net from puck marks used by most), extreme anticipation skills - maybe the best ever, but no one seems to be able to match it. Not even his own son could figure it out.

C1958 - Fair to say that the teachings of Vladislav Tretiak and the late Warren Strelow were instrumental in shaping some of the finest goalies we've seen in recent times? Brodeur, Belfour, Kiprusoff, Nabokov come to mind. Adaptable to different situations, all of them. Unlike some of the Allaire guys that tend to flame out when the situations aren't just right.
How do you reconcile the disparate amount of success between Thomas/Giguere and Price/Fleury? It's as though you're more concerned with style than execution in your evaluation of goaltenders.

If Price and Fleury have a talent level that is a "cut above" that of Thomas and Giguere, then they certainly haven't used it well enough to offset the amount of hopes and prayers upon which Giguere bases his style. And the only situation that caused Giguere to "flame out" was the death of his father. As for Thomas doing it wrong - why has he not been figured out? Why didn't someone expose him a la Jim Carey? Why weren't there more "crucial goals" besides the Lapierre goal in Game 5 of the Finals (because really, that comment is bordering on Luongo's post-game gaffe)?

These are two NHL players with Conn Smythes and Stanley Cups; they're not blind squirrels who happened to find some nuts. You don't win those trophies by being "too inconsistent to be proper" or dropping and hoping. This is akin to taking shots at players for scoring garbage goals instead of pretty dekes on breakaways. To paraphrase The Lonely Island: Doesn't matter; had save.

If Carey Price and Marc-Andre Fleury can use a style that requires less talent yet allows them to carry a team to Game 7 of the Finals on less than two GPG, then why don't they? Why don't they have a signature series? Heck, why doesn't any butterfly goaltender have a series like Giguere against Detroit or Minnesota? Price and Fleury are pretty consistently worse in the playoffs. "Butterfly plus," but they lack the poise under pressure of a Thomas and a Giguere - and that's not exactly the highest of standards either.

It's not enough to be able to do something better; they actually have to do it better than the cookie cutter goaltenders for us to count it as a "plus."

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2013, 03:55 PM
  #109
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,741
vCash: 500
Time

Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
How do you reconcile the disparate amount of success between Thomas/Giguere and Price/Fleury? It's as though you're more concerned with style than execution in your evaluation of goaltenders.

If Price and Fleury have a talent level that is a "cut above" that of Thomas and Giguere, then they certainly haven't used it well enough to offset the amount of hopes and prayers upon which Giguere bases his style. And the only situation that caused Giguere to "flame out" was the death of his father. As for Thomas doing it wrong - why has he not been figured out? Why didn't someone expose him a la Jim Carey? Why weren't there more "crucial goals" besides the Lapierre goal in Game 5 of the Finals (because really, that comment is bordering on Luongo's post-game gaffe)?

These are two NHL players with Conn Smythes and Stanley Cups; they're not blind squirrels who happened to find some nuts. You don't win those trophies by being "too inconsistent to be proper" or dropping and hoping. This is akin to taking shots at players for scoring garbage goals instead of pretty dekes on breakaways. To paraphrase The Lonely Island: Doesn't matter; had save.

If Carey Price and Marc-Andre Fleury can use a style that requires less talent yet allows them to carry a team to Game 7 of the Finals on less than two GPG, then why don't they? Why don't they have a signature series? Heck, why doesn't any butterfly goaltender have a series like Giguere against Detroit or Minnesota? Price and Fleury are pretty consistently worse in the playoffs. "Butterfly plus," but they lack the poise under pressure of a Thomas and a Giguere - and that's not exactly the highest of standards either.

It's not enough to be able to do something better; they actually have to do it better than the cookie cutter goaltenders for us to count it as a "plus."
You are seriously under-estimating the time element. Fleury / Price were NHL starters soon after junior. Thomas / Giguere drifted thru various organizations - all over the hockey world in the case of Thomas before having some success.

Thomas or Giguere having greater poise than Fleury and Price in the playoffs. Well at comparable ages Thomas was NOT in the NHL - lacked talent and poise.

At age 25:

Tim Thomas - 0 NHL games so he was not exactly doing it.
J. S. Giguere - 182 NHL games plus his 1 CS playoff/ 21 games.Only led his team to the playoffs five times in 15 seasons

Carey Price - 273 + 26 layoff games, 4 playoffs
M.A Fleury - 302 games, 4 playoffs - 56 games, 1 SC.

Effectively Thonas and Giguere have no future upside yet the success level is already the same with Fleury and Price having the potential for app 25 - 30 more seasons.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2013, 06:41 PM
  #110
Mike Farkas
Hockey's Future Staff
Moron!
 
Mike Farkas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,995
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
How do you reconcile the disparate amount of success between Thomas/Giguere and Price/Fleury? It's as though you're more concerned with style than execution in your evaluation of goaltenders.
In addition to what C1958 said. This is the part that prevents one from getting sucked into the numbers and the hype and all that noise. I'm concerned with style and skill because that factors into sustainability and adaptability. Many goalies can play in Boston's system as it stands right now...as we see Tuukka Rask's start with a 0.96 GAA and .958 save pct. though it's only been two games, it's just a sign of things to come there. It doesn't matter who really, it's gonna happen. The GMs were right when they left Tim Thomas out of the league for a decade, he's not a late bloomer, he's not any of that, he's just a right-place-right-time goalie that has since quit that right place, right time team...look back at the 2011 playoffs, look at some of the goals he gave up...they're just awful. He makes some terrific saves, sure, but they're often a product of his own messes. I'm not buying it.

It fits in the numbers game that many people play here...before Julien/after Julien, Isn't Tuukka Rask's save pct. higher under Julien than even Thomas'? I mean, no matter how you spin it, he's right there with a supposed top-40 goalie of all-time over the course of four years or whatever it's been. And I'm sure if everything stays the same, Rask will break Thomas' save pct. record* (just like Brian Elliott did). It's a hoax, I hate to say it. The only reason why Thomas is here is because he had one playoffs (in 18 years since being drafted) where - again - he made more work for his team and himself along the way. Through every series but the Philadelphia one...he outright lost many games in that playoffs...that's not something Jonathan Quick, for instance, ever allowed to happen to his team. His performance was a cut above that of Thomas' in 2011. Quick never put a series in serious jeopardy, was excellent in almost every single game and when he wasn't excellent he was superb. Thomas - like his entire career to date - was very inconsistent, up and down, soft goals, hard saves, massive gaffes, gets a goal to bail him out, whatever the case was...whether it was the President's Trophy winning Canucks or the average Montreal Canadiens, teams got to him big time and put the whole thing in serious peril for the Bruins at every pass.

But what's gonna happen is, we're gonna take a guy that could be in his 18th NHL season and go, "well, two good seasons out of a potential 18...give to him, look at his default Conn Smythe and those shiny save pct. numbers" I know it's a history board, but we got pick our head up here and look forward just a minute. Don't we see these numbers spiking up here and there with some weird names? Two goalies that were pushed out by their former teams, Brian Elliott and Mike Smith both went over .930 last year. A goalie with no NHL experience went over .930 in 2010. Career backups and fringe NHLers like Jason LaBarbera, Dan Ellis and Ty Conklin have a few .920 seasons or better while playing a fair amount of time. Brian Boucher's shutout streak. Giguere's playoff shutout streak was awesome when it happened...until what felt like 24 hours later when his backup beat it...

Is it really going unnoticed that these weird things are happening, usually on the same handful of teams? We're really that laser-focused on statistics and not the on-ice product that we can't pump the brakes and go, "well, hold on, let's think about this a minute" - Roman Cechmanek has more elite seasons in the NHL than Tim Thomas does, but Cechmanek is rightfully regarded as a joke, while Thomas is regarded as a top-40 goalie of all-time? What the hell are we talking about here? Maybe if Cechmanek's team could score for him in the 2002 playoffs (2 goals all playoffs long - well, not very long) maybe he could have strung together a flimsy playoffs and made this list too...based on Tim Thomas, Cechmanek might have been just goal-support away from being on this list already...(Thomas got 3 and a quarter goals per game in the 2011 playoffs, for reference, a meaty number that wasn't aided much by the power play). I know you can sit here and play the "what if" game all day, but we're gonna realize in a few years just how badly we compromised our list with a goalie like Thomas' inclusion. You know what, maybe even Alec Connell too...what is our pursuit of him really? That goals against average? He's rarely regarded as a difference maker on his teams (minus one great playoffs in 1935, hmm, this is sounding familiar...) - it's a numbers grab and we'll get our finest writers on the case to develop a plausible backstory. Connell was probably Osgood-esque...looked awful, product of the system, no fundamentals, but numbers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
If Price and Fleury have a talent level that is a "cut above" that of Thomas and Giguere, then they certainly haven't used it well enough to offset the amount of hopes and prayers upon which Giguere bases his style. And the only situation that caused Giguere to "flame out" was the death of his father. As for Thomas doing it wrong - why has he not been figured out? Why didn't someone expose him a la Jim Carey? Why weren't there more "crucial goals" besides the Lapierre goal in Game 5 of the Finals (because really, that comment is bordering on Luongo's post-game gaffe)?
Price and Fleury, as a for instance, are far more talented than Thomas / Giguere, it's not remotely close either. Fleury has some issues with consistency, which probably the most important goalie trait right now, but Thomas is the opposite of consistent and Giguere has limited adaptability, so I'd still easily take either of the two younger goalies - far more upside there. Fleury plays on a team that pretends their the 1983 Edmonton Oilers, Fuhr didn't have great numbers, neither does Fleury. The one year the Pens actually attempted something structural on their side of the red line was in 2008, let's see when Fleury had his best save pct. numbers...of course he's not gonna be up there numbers-wise with these Thomas', Rinne's, Smith's etc. They don't play the same way...just like Fuhr didn't have Billy Smith's numbers, the Islanders played a more conservative game, better defense, were more careful with the puck...so, why, is he on the list? He must have impressed someone that's paying attention...look at the adaptability to play in different eras, different teams, different schemes, etc. Smith was never exposed to the elements, though he was very good in his own right. This is another instance where you must have an idea of how to evaluate talent to make the proper read. Why not just throw Smith out as a "system goalie"? Why not just throw Fuhr out as a goalie that couldn't allow fewer than three and a third goals per game? Why not Cechmanek? Why not Osgood? Why not Giguere?

Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
These are two NHL players with Conn Smythes and Stanley Cups; they're not blind squirrels who happened to find some nuts. You don't win those trophies by being "too inconsistent to be proper" or dropping and hoping. This is akin to taking shots at players for scoring garbage goals instead of pretty dekes on breakaways. To paraphrase The Lonely Island: Doesn't matter; had save.
Don't agree with the last line at all. Someone that's interested in stats and not the game doesn't care about how the save is made, how the goal is scored, how the plus is applied vs. a minus, they want the digit, then they'll play with that. It's too late in the process to make it useful. It's like the dolts that don't use a piece of paper to "save a tree" - well, it's too ******' late for that isn't it...? You missed the crucial part, you missed the tree getting chopped up, you have the aftermath in your hand and it's easier to digest. It's easier to not use paper and think you're actually making a difference than it is to chain yourself to a tree. It's easier to take the numbers and think you're (not you, specifically, qpq) understanding the situation than it is to understand the situation that created the number.

Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
If Carey Price and Marc-Andre Fleury can use a style that requires less talent yet allows them to carry a team to Game 7 of the Finals on less than two GPG, then why don't they? Why don't they have a signature series? Heck, why doesn't any butterfly goaltender have a series like Giguere against Detroit or Minnesota? Price and Fleury are pretty consistently worse in the playoffs. "Butterfly plus," but they lack the poise under pressure of a Thomas and a Giguere - and that's not exactly the highest of standards either.
Thomas and Giguere are far from flawless under pressure. This is another thing that is lost in the numbers game that is played. Fleury was remarkable in 2008, for instance. And a positive difference maker in all but one series in 2009. When the chips were down for Giguere, he crumbled, surrendering 20 goals in the Finals to New Jersey. Wasn't a top-3 player on his team in 2007. Thomas handed off many games to his opponents in 2011, has one playoff series win in his career outside of 2011 despite playing in the same conditions that produced favorable regular season results (including being managed to a minimum number of games) but could not be duplicated in the playoffs despite 4 additional seasons under those conditions - one playoff series win...quit before he allotted himself another chance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
It's not enough to be able to do something better; they actually have to do it better than the cookie cutter goaltenders for us to count it as a "plus."
No, it's not enough to just have the ability to do something. Fleury has actually done it, and Price has never been on a team that allowed him a way to do it (still, took Thomas to the brink of brinks in the first round in 2011...which we're a single deflected shot away from not having this discussion at all...that's how you can tell you're not talking about an all-time great, because he was one shot away from not being brought up at all...can any other goalie say that on this list?). The "plus" is a reference to ability not career stats, of course, and we'll see in the long-term what's worth more...but I think we'll look back on the list after we see what the next 5 or so years have in store and go, "damn...what a goof we made with [this], [that] and [the other]"

Mike Farkas is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2013, 06:59 PM
  #111
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,923
vCash: 500
I disagree with a lot of it, Mike, and I think Thomas and Giguere are much better goaltenders than you've given them credit for being, but I still love that post.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2013, 10:09 PM
  #112
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 7,646
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
In addition to what C1958 said. This is the part that prevents one from getting sucked into the numbers and the hype and all that noise. I'm concerned with style and skill because that factors into sustainability and adaptability. Many goalies can play in Boston's system as it stands right now...as we see Tuukka Rask's start with a 0.96 GAA and .958 save pct. though it's only been two games, it's just a sign of things to come there. It doesn't matter who really, it's gonna happen. The GMs were right when they left Tim Thomas out of the league for a decade, he's not a late bloomer, he's not any of that, he's just a right-place-right-time goalie that has since quit that right place, right time team...look back at the 2011 playoffs, look at some of the goals he gave up...they're just awful. He makes some terrific saves, sure, but they're often a product of his own messes. I'm not buying it.

It fits in the numbers game that many people play here...before Julien/after Julien, Isn't Tuukka Rask's save pct. higher under Julien than even Thomas'? I mean, no matter how you spin it, he's right there with a supposed top-40 goalie of all-time over the course of four years or whatever it's been. And I'm sure if everything stays the same, Rask will break Thomas' save pct. record* (just like Brian Elliott did). It's a hoax, I hate to say it. The only reason why Thomas is here is because he had one playoffs (in 18 years since being drafted) where - again - he made more work for his team and himself along the way. Through every series but the Philadelphia one...he outright lost many games in that playoffs...that's not something Jonathan Quick, for instance, ever allowed to happen to his team. His performance was a cut above that of Thomas' in 2011. Quick never put a series in serious jeopardy, was excellent in almost every single game and when he wasn't excellent he was superb. Thomas - like his entire career to date - was very inconsistent, up and down, soft goals, hard saves, massive gaffes, gets a goal to bail him out, whatever the case was...whether it was the President's Trophy winning Canucks or the average Montreal Canadiens, teams got to him big time and put the whole thing in serious peril for the Bruins at every pass.

But what's gonna happen is, we're gonna take a guy that could be in his 18th NHL season and go, "well, two good seasons out of a potential 18...give to him, look at his default Conn Smythe and those shiny save pct. numbers" I know it's a history board, but we got pick our head up here and look forward just a minute. Don't we see these numbers spiking up here and there with some weird names? Two goalies that were pushed out by their former teams, Brian Elliott and Mike Smith both went over .930 last year. A goalie with no NHL experience went over .930 in 2010. Career backups and fringe NHLers like Jason LaBarbera, Dan Ellis and Ty Conklin have a few .920 seasons or better while playing a fair amount of time. Brian Boucher's shutout streak. Giguere's playoff shutout streak was awesome when it happened...until what felt like 24 hours later when his backup beat it...

Is it really going unnoticed that these weird things are happening, usually on the same handful of teams? We're really that laser-focused on statistics and not the on-ice product that we can't pump the brakes and go, "well, hold on, let's think about this a minute" - Roman Cechmanek has more elite seasons in the NHL than Tim Thomas does, but Cechmanek is rightfully regarded as a joke, while Thomas is regarded as a top-40 goalie of all-time? What the hell are we talking about here? Maybe if Cechmanek's team could score for him in the 2002 playoffs (2 goals all playoffs long - well, not very long) maybe he could have strung together a flimsy playoffs and made this list too...based on Tim Thomas, Cechmanek might have been just goal-support away from being on this list already...(Thomas got 3 and a quarter goals per game in the 2011 playoffs, for reference, a meaty number that wasn't aided much by the power play). I know you can sit here and play the "what if" game all day, but we're gonna realize in a few years just how badly we compromised our list with a goalie like Thomas' inclusion. You know what, maybe even Alec Connell too...what is our pursuit of him really? That goals against average? He's rarely regarded as a difference maker on his teams (minus one great playoffs in 1935, hmm, this is sounding familiar...) - it's a numbers grab and we'll get our finest writers on the case to develop a plausible backstory. Connell was probably Osgood-esque...looked awful, product of the system, no fundamentals, but numbers.



Price and Fleury, as a for instance, are far more talented than Thomas / Giguere, it's not remotely close either. Fleury has some issues with consistency, which probably the most important goalie trait right now, but Thomas is the opposite of consistent and Giguere has limited adaptability, so I'd still easily take either of the two younger goalies - far more upside there. Fleury plays on a team that pretends their the 1983 Edmonton Oilers, Fuhr didn't have great numbers, neither does Fleury. The one year the Pens actually attempted something structural on their side of the red line was in 2008, let's see when Fleury had his best save pct. numbers...of course he's not gonna be up there numbers-wise with these Thomas', Rinne's, Smith's etc. They don't play the same way...just like Fuhr didn't have Billy Smith's numbers, the Islanders played a more conservative game, better defense, were more careful with the puck...so, why, is he on the list? He must have impressed someone that's paying attention...look at the adaptability to play in different eras, different teams, different schemes, etc. Smith was never exposed to the elements, though he was very good in his own right. This is another instance where you must have an idea of how to evaluate talent to make the proper read. Why not just throw Smith out as a "system goalie"? Why not just throw Fuhr out as a goalie that couldn't allow fewer than three and a third goals per game? Why not Cechmanek? Why not Osgood? Why not Giguere?





Thomas and Giguere are far from flawless under pressure. This is another thing that is lost in the numbers game that is played. Fleury was remarkable in 2008, for instance. And a positive difference maker in all but one series in 2009. When the chips were down for Giguere, he crumbled, surrendering 20 goals in the Finals to New Jersey. Wasn't a top-3 player on his team in 2007. Thomas handed off many games to his opponents in 2011, has one playoff series win in his career outside of 2011 despite playing in the same conditions that produced favorable regular season results (including being managed to a minimum number of games) but could not be duplicated in the playoffs despite 4 additional seasons under those conditions - one playoff series win...quit before he allotted himself another chance.



No, it's not enough to just have the ability to do something. Fleury has actually done it, and Price has never been on a team that allowed him a way to do it (still, took Thomas to the brink of brinks in the first round in 2011...which we're a single deflected shot away from not having this discussion at all...that's how you can tell you're not talking about an all-time great, because he was one shot away from not being brought up at all...can any other goalie say that on this list?). The "plus" is a reference to ability not career stats, of course, and we'll see in the long-term what's worth more...but I think we'll look back on the list after we see what the next 5 or so years have in store and go, "damn...what a goof we made with [this], [that] and [the other]"
Where did these imaginary 4 additional years of equal conditions come from?

Tim Thomas has only 4 seasons total in the playoffs. The first one, in 2008, the Bruins were 25th out of 30 in scoring. In the 4 losses to Montreal in the playoffs the Bruins scored 3 goals. In 2009, the Bruins scored 5 goals in their 4 losses to Carolina. Thomas GAA was 1.85, the best in the playoffs.

Yes, it will seem a goof in five years. We should have just gone with the obvious best list available.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2013, 02:07 AM
  #113
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,511
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
Many goalies can play in Boston's system as it stands right now...as we see Tuukka Rask's start with a 0.96 GAA and .958 save pct. though it's only been two games, it's just a sign of things to come there.
Yes, I'm sure Lundqvist's 4.03 and .877 is also just a sign of things to come, right?

MadArcand is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2013, 07:10 AM
  #114
Mike Farkas
Hockey's Future Staff
Moron!
 
Mike Farkas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,995
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
Where did these imaginary 4 additional years of equal conditions come from?

Tim Thomas has only 4 seasons total in the playoffs. The first one, in 2008, the Bruins were 25th out of 30 in scoring. In the 4 losses to Montreal in the playoffs the Bruins scored 3 goals. In 2009, the Bruins scored 5 goals in their 4 losses to Carolina. Thomas GAA was 1.85, the best in the playoffs.

Yes, it will seem a goof in five years. We should have just gone with the obvious best list available.
Now goal-support comes into it...? That's going to have a negative impact on Thomas' 2011. And he only has 4 total playoffs because his coach elected a player with no prior NHL playoff experience to lead the charge.

@MadArcand - Even if it is, he's been stellar every year he's been in the league to date. He actually has a track record.

Mike Farkas is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2013, 05:14 PM
  #115
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 7,646
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
Now goal-support comes into it...? That's going to have a negative impact on Thomas' 2011. And he only has 4 total playoffs because his coach elected a player with no prior NHL playoff experience to lead the charge.

@MadArcand - Even if it is, he's been stellar every year he's been in the league to date. He actually has a track record.
"Thomas got 3 and a quarter goals per game in the 2011 playoffs, for reference, a meaty number that wasn't aided much by the power play"

That's a quote from your post. Granted, it was in one of the earlier chapters of the post, so perhaps you had forgotten it. But you brought goal-support into it first.

His coach elected to use the goalie with the best SP and GAA in the league that season who got the chance to play because Thomas was injuried and needed off-season surgery.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2013, 05:20 PM
  #116
Mike Farkas
Hockey's Future Staff
Moron!
 
Mike Farkas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,995
vCash: 500
I'm aware of what I wrote. I just think that Thomas gets a pass for outright losing games and then getting bailed out by an awful lot of even strength scoring...that's all...Cechmanek didn't get that...that's why we're not talking about him...

Just out of morbid curiosity, if Ari Ahonen came in to the 2000 season and led the league in GAA and save pct. behind the Devils trap that you pick on so much...how much would we hear about that regarding your staunch anti-Brodeur stance? I think that would be the first thing stuffed into your musket...

Mike Farkas is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2013, 05:40 PM
  #117
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 7,646
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
I'm aware of what I wrote. I just think that Thomas gets a pass for outright losing games and then getting bailed out by an awful lot of even strength scoring...that's all...Cechmanek didn't get that...that's why we're not talking about him...

Just out of morbid curiosity, if Ari Ahonen came in to the 2000 season and led the league in GAA and save pct. behind the Devils trap that you pick on so much...how much would we hear about that regarding your staunch anti-Brodeur stance? I think that would be the first thing stuffed into your musket...
Ah, the classic "what if" argument.

Let's just say Ari Ahonen is no Tuuka Rask.

And how do you compare Cechmanek, with his .909 SP in the dead puck years to Thomas and his all-time best .933 SP in the playoffs? .909, that's why were not talking about him.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2013, 11:50 PM
  #118
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,941
vCash: 500
Here's the top 40 based on "career span." Did we adequately represent all eras?

up to 1904: none
1905-1907: 1
1908-1909: 2
1910-1911: 3
1912-1916: 5
1917-1922: 4
1923-1924: 5
1925: 7
1926: 6
1927: 7
1928: 8
1929-1931: 6
1932-1937: 5
1938-1939: 3
1940-1941: 4
1942: 3
1943-1944: 4
1944: 5
1945-1948: 6
1949-1950: 7
1951: 6
1952-1953: 7
1954-1960: 6
1963: 5
1964: 6
1965-1966: 8
1967: 10
1968-1969: 11
1970: 12
1971: 11
1972-1973: 10
1974-1975: 9
1976-1978: 8
1977-1978: 9
1979: 8
1980: 7
1981: 9
1982: 8
1983-1984: 8
1985-1988: 7
1989: 9
1990: 8
1991-1992: 9
1993-1997: 8
1998-2000: 9
2001-2003: 8
2004: 6
2005-2008: 7
2009: 6
2010-2011: 5
2012: 4

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2013, 11:58 PM
  #119
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,591
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Here's the top 40 based on "career span." Did we adequately represent all eras?

up to 1904: none
1905-1907: 1
1908-1909: 2
1910-1911: 3
1912-1916: 5
1917-1922: 4
1923-1924: 5
1925: 7
1926: 6
1927: 7
1928: 8
1929-1931: 6
1932-1937: 5
1938-1939: 3
1940-1941: 4
1942: 3
1943-1944: 4
1944: 5
1945-1948: 6
1949-1950: 7
1951: 6
1952-1953: 7
1954-1960: 6
1963: 5
1964: 6
1965-1966: 8
1967: 10
1968-1969: 11
1970: 12
1971: 11
1972-1973: 10
1974-1975: 9
1976-1978: 8
1977-1978: 9
1979: 8
1980: 7
1981: 9
1982: 8
1983-1984: 8
1985-1988: 7
1989: 9
1990: 8
1991-1992: 9
1993-1997: 8
1998-2000: 9
2001-2003: 8
2004: 6
2005-2008: 7
2009: 6
2010-2011: 5
2012: 4
to say for sure, I'd want to see this list redone with only the years counted where the goalies were highly relevant, not just active. The seemingly overrepresented 1967-1975 years would get knocked down a notch, for starters.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2013, 11:59 PM
  #120
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,941
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
to say for sure, I'd want to see this list redone with only the years counted where the goalies were highly relevant, not just active. The seemingly overrepresented 1967-1975 years would get knocked down a notch, for starters.
If you want it done, why don't you take the time to do it?

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-29-2013, 12:06 AM
  #121
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,591
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
If you want it done, why don't you take the time to do it?
can't take what I don't have

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-29-2013, 12:13 AM
  #122
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
If you want it done, why don't you take the time to do it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
can't take what I don't have
I want to thank both of you for finding the time to tally up these votes.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-29-2013, 12:46 AM
  #123
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,941
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
I want to thank both of you for finding the time to tally up these votes.
We love you too.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-29-2013, 10:45 AM
  #124
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 31,687
vCash: 500
Regarding the Tim Thomas debate above, it is worth noting that Tuukka Rask is probably going to end up being one of his generation's elite. He, Price, Quick and Schneider seem to have each carved out a pretty solid reputation in the under-27 category.

We had a similar conversation about Belfour and his backups.

tarheelhockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2013, 08:55 AM
  #125
Hawkman
Moderator
 
Hawkman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,131
vCash: 500
You guys definitely got the top 35 right. Good job!

Hawkman is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:58 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.