HOH Top 40 Goaltenders of All Time

[TheDevilMadeMe]

This is the final list of the top goaltenders from all of hockey history, as determined by the History of Hockey community at HFBoards:

Rank	Player	Height	Weight	Born	Died	Career	Nationality
1	Patrick Roy	6'1"	210	1965		1985-2003	Canada
2	Dominik Hašek	6'1"	165	1965		1980-2011	Czech
3	Jacques Plante	6'0"	175	1929	1986	1952-1975	Canada
4	Glenn Hall	5'11"	190	1931		1951-1971	Canada
5	Terry Sawchuk	5'11"	190	1929	1970	1949-1970	Canada
6	Martin Brodeur	6'2"	216	1972		1991-2015	Canada
7	Ken Dryden	6'4"	207	1947		1970-1979	Canada
8	Vladislav Tretiak	6'0"	200	1952		1968-1984	Russia
9	Frank Brimsek	5'9"	170	1913	1998	1938-1950	USA
10	Georges Vézina	5'6"	185	1887	1926	1910-1925	Canada
11	Charlie Gardiner	6'0"	176	1904	1934	1927-1934	Canada
12	Clint Benedict	5'11"	185	1892	1976	1912-1931	Canada
13	Walter "Turk" Broda	5'9"	165	1914	1972	1935-1951	Canada
14	Bill Durnan	6'0"	190	1916	1972	1944-1950	Canada
15	Ed Belfour	6'0"	215	1965		1989-2008	Canada
16	Tony Esposito	5'11"	185	1943		1967-1984	Canada
17	Bernie Parent	5'10"	170	1945		1965-1979	Canada
18	Roy Worters	5'3"	135	1900	1957	1925-1937	Canada
19	Johnny Bower	5'9"	170	1924		1945-1970	Canada
20	Jiří Holeček	5'11"	163	1944		1964-1981	Czech
21	Cecil "Tiny" Thompson	5'10"	160	1903	1981	1928-1941	Canada
22	George Hainsworth	5'6"	150	1895	1950	1923-1937	Canada
23	Billy Smith	5'10"	185	1950		1971-1989	Canada
24	Hugh Lehman	5'8"	168	1885	1961	1908-1928	Canada
25	Grant Fuhr	5'10"	201	1962		1981-2000	Canada
26	Lorne "Gump" Worsley	5'7"	180	1929	2007	1952-1974	Canada
27	Harry Lumley	6'0"	195	1926	1998	1943-1960	Canada
28	Chuck Rayner	5'11"	190	1920	2002	1940-1953	Canada
29	Tom Barrasso	6'3"	210	1965		1983-2003	USA
30	Harry "Hap" Holmes	5'10"	170	1892	1941	1912-1928	Canada
31	Curtis Joseph	5'10"	182	1967		1989-2009	Canada
32	Eddie Giacomin	5'11"	180	1939	2002	1965-1978	Canada
33	Rogie Vachon	5'7"	170	1945		1967-1982	Canada
34	John Vanbiesbrouck	5'8"	175	1963		1981-2002	USA
35	Percy LeSueur	5'7"	150	1881	1962	1905-1916	Canada
36	Roberto Luongo	6'3"	180	1979		1998-present	Canada
37	Tim Thomas	5'11"	201	1974		1997-2012	USA
38	Henrik Lundqvist	6'1"	195	1982		2001-present	Sweden
39	Alec Connell	5'9"	150	1902	1958	1924-1937	Canada
40	Mike Liut	6'2"	195	1956		1977-1992	Canada

[TBODY] [/TBODY]
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

​

Links to all the discussion threads that went into making this list:
Round 2 Voting Results
Round 2, Vote 1 Discussion
Round 2, Vote 2 Discussion
Round 2, Vote 3 Discussion
Round 2, Vote 4 Discussion
Round 2, Vote 5 Discussion
Round 2, Vote 6 Discussion
Round 2, Vote 7 Discussion
Round 2, Vote 8 Discussion
Round 2, Vote 9 Discussion
Round 2, Vote 10 Discussion

Links to the preliminary discussion threads before voters submitted their lists:
Rules Discussion Thread
Goalies Before 1950 Research Thread link dead
Final Preliminary Discussion Thread

Links that explain the creation of the aggregate list that formed the basis of discussion. This data was released at the end of the project:
Round 1 Voting Results (Aggregate List)
Round 1 Screening Process
Participants Survey (filled out at the end of the project)

Listed here are the individual voting records of all participants:
Bring Back Scuderi
Canadiens1958
ContrarianGoaltender
DaveG
Dennis Bonvie
Dreakmur
Hawkey Town 18
foame
intylerwetrust
Jagorim Jarg
Johnny Engine
MadArcand
Mike Farkas
MXD
Nalyd Psycho
pappyline
quoipourquoi
reckoning
seventieslord
steve141
Sturminator
Taco MacArthur
tarheelhockey
TheDevilMadeMe
tony d
VanIslander
vecens24

Click to read more...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Please post any general comments here; leave the voting threads to the goalies available for discussion that round.

 

[seventieslord]

good list so far.

 

[WarriorOfGandhi]

man, you guys are really mailing it in this time around.

 

[Gobo]

YES! St. Patrick got the #1 spot!

Woooooo!

 

[Jabroni]

YES! St. Patrick got the #1 spot!

Woooooo!

Yes, but the voting was VERY close. Roy and Hasek are partically tied. 1a and 1b.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I think "number" would be a useless but somewhat neat addition to the "goaltenders" table because most goalies didn't change that much and most goalies use the same basic set of numbers and it would add a slight novelty to it that very few would enjoy.

*Ducks a punch thrown by TDMM*

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I think "number" would be a useless but somewhat neat addition to the "goaltenders" table because most goalies didn't change that much and most goalies use the same basic set of numbers and it would add a slight novelty to it that very few would enjoy.

*Ducks a punch thrown by TDMM*

If you want to commit to researching the numbers of all the guys added (including the pre-NHL and European goalies), then I can add the column. It's the only "category" that isn't easily found on wikipedia or hockeydb. As is, we didn't even find the numbers for all the defensemen from last year's list, and nobody seems to care.

 

[pdd]

Hall above Sawchuk...

 

[King Forsberg]

Glad to see Roy get the number one spot. Not that Hasek doesn't deserve it, but he gets overrated sometimes.

 

[Zippy316]

It's laughable Brodeur is at number six....

But why should I even bother arguing...

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

It's laughable Brodeur is at number six....

But why should I even bother arguing...

Care to elaborate?????

 

[Doctor No]

It's laughable Brodeur is at number six....

But why should I even bother arguing...

Well, you didn't bother arguing when everyone else was putting together well-reasoned and sound arguments. And you probably haven't read those well-reasoned and sound arguments, either.

So I wouldn't expect that you'd bother at this point.

Seriously - we worked our ***** off for this. Don't come in here and piss all over it with flippant remarks.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

Well, you didn't bother arguing when everyone else was putting together well-reasoned and sound arguments. And you probably haven't read those well-reasoned and sound arguments, either.

So I wouldn't expect that you'd bother at this point.

Seriously - we worked our ***** off for this. Don't come in here and piss all over it with flippant remarks.

Thank you

 

[Zippy316]

Care to elaborate?????

Well, his career speaks for itself. I wasn't around to hear all the arguments, nor do I really want to look back on them.

People are always going to bring up the "he had a great team around him argument." However, post-lockout to up until this season, he bailed some Devils teams out that had a lot of holes. It wasn't until last season that the Devils actually had a great team top-to-bottom, and they went to the SCF.

I'd be willing to bet the main focus against him was the team around him, but Brodeur was just as crucial to that team as they were to him. His play made the trapping system work just as much as the players in front of him.

It's really hard to compare guys from completely different eras especially guys who played in the 50s and 60s compared to guys who played now. My question is what were the main points for putting guys like Sawchuk, Hall, and Plante above Brodeur? That had to be some kind of collective agreement on why they were better than him, I guess that would make me understand it better...

 

[Doctor No]

Well, his career speaks for itself. I wasn't around to hear all the arguments, nor do I really want to look back on them.

People are always going to bring up the "he had a great team around him argument." However, post-lockout to up until this season, he bailed some Devils teams out that had a lot of holes. It wasn't until last season that the Devils actually had a great team top-to-bottom, and they went to the SCF.

I'd be willing to bet the main focus against him was the team around him, but Brodeur was just as crucial to that team as they were to him. His play made the trapping system work just as much as the players in front of him.

It's really hard to compare guys from completely different eras especially guys who played in the 50s and 60s compared to guys who played now. My question is what were the main points for putting guys like Sawchuk, Hall, and Plante above Brodeur? That had to be some kind of collective agreement on why they were better than him, I guess that would make me understand it better...

The two bolded statements contradict one another.

The threads are there - go read them. Respect the effort that was put into this project (even if you don't agree with the result).

Yes, it's really hard to compare players from different eras. However, if you're going to do an all-time ranking, it's a requirement (as hard as it may be).

 

[Zippy316]

The two bolded statements contradict one another.

The threads are there - go read them. Respect the effort that was put into this project (even if you don't agree with the result).

Yes, it's really hard to compare players from different eras. However, if you're going to do an all-time ranking, it's a requirement (as hard as it may be).

I don't want to divulge into every nook and cranny of the arguments, but I'm just curious to know the main pieces. There had to be a few main points that made some people vote those guys over Brodeur, whether it be winning percentage, teams, award voting, or whatnot.

I'm just curious as to what those arguments were, I'm open to changing my opinion, but I'm just curious to see the validity of the argument for those guys?

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

Well, his career speaks for itself. I wasn't around to hear all the arguments, nor do I really want to look back on them.

People are always going to bring up the "he had a great team around him argument." However, post-lockout to up until this season, he bailed some Devils teams out that had a lot of holes. It wasn't until last season that the Devils actually had a great team top-to-bottom, and they went to the SCF.

I'd be willing to bet the main focus against him was the team around him, but Brodeur was just as crucial to that team as they were to him. His play made the trapping system work just as much as the players in front of him.

It's really hard to compare guys from completely different eras especially guys who played in the 50s and 60s compared to guys who played now. My question is what were the main points for putting guys like Sawchuk, Hall, and Plante above Brodeur? That had to be some kind of collective agreement on why they were better than him, I guess that would make me understand it better...

So read back and you'll find those arguments. Or, maybe, someone here has the patience to summarize them for your edification.

I do do know one thing, though. This isn't a thread for people to post propaganda for their favorites. The people in here have put in a lot of work studying these guys and weighing their careers in an effort to come to some kind of consensus on a ranking for them. Having someone come in and dump on their work while offering NOTHING constructive themselves is more than a bit irritating.

 

[Doctor No]

That's fine - if someone wants to regurgitate the salient points made back then, they're free to do so.

However, let's do it in the overall (stickied) thread. None of the players are Vote 3 eligible, and therefore, it's off-topic here.

You'll gain a lot of understanding by reading through both threads - and you'll probably gain an appreciation for the players who finished ahead of Brodeur in the rankings. It wasn't an easy vote.

EDIT: thanks to TDMM for moving these.

 

[Zippy316]

That's fine - if someone wants to regurgitate the salient points made back then, they're free to do so.

However, let's do it in the overall (stickied) thread. None of the players are Vote 3 eligible, and therefore, it's off-topic here.

You'll gain a lot of understanding by reading through both threads - and you'll probably gain an appreciation for the players who finished ahead of Brodeur in the rankings. It wasn't an easy vote.

EDIT: thanks to TDMM for moving these.

Way too many things to read through. Had I actually read throughout the discussion, I might have been able to actually read through them, but I didn't. No one remembers or has a brief recollection on the main pieces that separated Brodeur from the five above him?

 

[Doctor No]

Way too many things to read through. Had I actually read throughout the discussion, I might have been able to actually read through them, but I didn't. No one remembers or has a brief recollection on the main pieces that separated Brodeur from the five above him?

Like I said in the post you quoted, if someone wants to regurgitate the salient points made back then, they're free to do so.

I won't be doing it; I've already told you where to find it. "TL;DR" doesn't play well for me.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Way too many things to read through. Had I actually read throughout the discussion, I might have been able to actually read through them, but I didn't. No one remembers or has a brief recollection on the main pieces that separated Brodeur from the five above him?

I would gladly give a quick run down to someone who appreciated the hard work put into the process and respected the people involved. But you are acting so childishly I wonder why I'm dignifying you with any response at all.

 

[Zippy316]

I would gladly give a quick run down to someone who appreciated the hard work put into the process and respected the people involved. But you are acting so childishly I wonder why I'm dignifying you with any response at all.

I'm not downplaying the hard work involved I just don't understand what arguments could've actually put those guys ahead of Brodeur. Granted, it's totally different time periods, but Brodeur has literally everything going in his favor, so there had to be one or two major things that made Brodeur's accomplishments seem much more minimal to the majority. I didn't exactly read every part of the argument either, and I'm sure you guys probably analyzed the statistics of the statistics. That plus something I'm missing that puts those guys over Brodeur, I'm just wondering what exactly that is.

I'll admit, my first comment probably was a bit childish, but I read through parts of the threads or at least peaked at them, so I guess it was a bit naive and misconceived. It's clear you guys put a lot of time and effort into that, but that statement was made before realizing that.

 

[seventieslord]

Brodeur has literally everything going in his favor, .

Those of us who spent the time doing this didn't think so.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Time

I'm not downplaying the hard work involved I just don't understand what arguments could've actually put those guys ahead of Brodeur. Granted, it's totally different time periods, but Brodeur has literally everything going in his favor, so there had to be one or two major things that made Brodeur's accomplishments seem much more minimal to the majority. I didn't exactly read every part of the argument either, and I'm sure you guys probably analyzed the statistics of the statistics. That plus something I'm missing that puts those guys over Brodeur, I'm just wondering what exactly that is.

I'll admit, my first comment probably was a bit childish, but I read through parts of the threads or at least peaked at them, so I guess it was a bit naive and misconceived. It's clear you guys put a lot of time and effort into that, but that statement was made before realizing that.

In the amount of time it took to make your posts, read the answers, think of replies, etc you could have read the threads involved, seen the arguments and rebuttals.