Top 10 goalies of all-time (please specify)

[Muttley*]

And come on, New Jersey was a powerhouse in 2000. Ironically, the only time they were better was in 2001, when they lost to Roy and the Avs in the cup finals.

Not really. They were consistent underachievers up to that point. For two years in a row they had 100+ point seasons and were the #1 seed, only to lose to the #8 seed in the 1st round 2 years in a row. They had only won 1 playoff series up to that date, since winnnig the Cup in 1995.

 

[Stephen]

So are you telling me that no Canuck fans remember their trip to the Finals in 94? Nobody remembers Giguere's playoff performance in 03 because he didn't win the Cup?

Is Roy's win after 9 seconds of OT really better than Marty's loss after 125 minutes plus of shutout hockey? The fact is Brodeur's OT games go an average of about 18 minutes over his career, while Roy's only go about 12 minutes.

No, I'm saying winners are inevitably celebrated more than losers. And your examples with the Canucks and Giguere prove my point. Non Canucks fans will look back on the 94 team and think about how great they were. Giguere's 03 playoff run was the best display of goaltending of all time, bar none, but because of the little fact that he didn't win that game seven, his reputation is lessened.

Do you remember Felix Potvin's 3 1-0 shoutouts against the Chicago Blackhawks in 1994?

And yes, Roy's consecutive OT record is better than Martin Brodeur's OT losses, because they were losses. One is a winner, and the other is a loser. It's circumstance that Roy's team's were better at scoring, but that's not going to diminish his accomplishments, just like I'm not going to point at the fact that Brodeur played those OT games with a pretty decent defensive team in front of him.

How was New Jersey a "powerhouse" in 2000 with 103 points, and Montreal with 102 points in 93 is just another Patrick Roy miracle?

You're going to tell me that the 2000 and 2001 New Jersey Devils weren't the best Devils teams you've ever iced? Brodeur in his prime. Stevens, Niedermayer in their prime along with a young Brian Rafalski. Alexander Mogilny, Claude Lemieux brought in at the deadline. Patrik Elias, Jason Arnott, Petr Sykora on the big line, Scott Gomez for secondary scoring. Character players everywhere. The Devils came back with the same roster in 2001 basically and finished with 111 points.

Montreal was an overachiever that year. Their roster was a shadow of the 2000 Devils. Look at what their record was like the year before and the year after. A core of Muller, Damphousse, an old Brian Bellows, a young John Leclair, Eric Desjardins and Mathieu Schneider hardly matches up with what the Devils were working with.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Yeah, I know and agree. But most of the goalies listed in this thread have not faced Lemieux or Gretzky in their prime.

I'm not sure why this was even brought up in the first place.

But Hall, Sawchuk and Plante had to face guys like Howe, Geoffrion, Richard, Beliveau, Bobby Hull, Mikita and Lindsay in their prime. Parent and Dryden got the Orr generation. Gardiner got Charlie Conacher, Bill Cook and Howie Morenz. Every goalie, no matter the generation, had to face great players.

Someone earlier made a boneheaded, unresearched comment about how Dryden never faced LaFleur, and I called him on it.

 

[Stephen]

Not really. They were consistent underachievers up to that point. For two years in a row they had 100+ point seasons and were the #1 seed, only to lose to the #8 seed in the 1st round 2 years in a row. They had only won 1 playoff series up to that date, since winnnig the Cup in 1995.

They were posting 100 point seasons for five years in a row between 1997 and 2001. The fact that they were underachieving in the playoffs and getting knocked out by Ottawa and the like doesn't mean they weren't a great team with Hall of Famers littered throughout their roster.

 

[arrbez]

Someone earlier made a boneheaded, unresearched comment about how Dryden never faced LaFleur, and I called him on it.

Perhaps I'm a bonehead too...but other than practise, when DID Dryden face Lafleur? Were they not on the same team for Dryden's entire career?

 

[Muttley*]

They were posting 100 point seasons for five years in a row between 1997 and 2001. The fact that they were underachieving in the playoffs and getting knocked out by Ottawa and the like doesn't mean they weren't a great team with Hall of Famers littered throughout their roster.

Actually, you now have the benefit of hindsight.

As much as people marginalize the Devils now, back then Brodeur wasn't even considered a HOF candidate. It was the middle of the height of the Brodeur being "overrated" and a "product of the system" era. Scott Stevens was still adding to his resume and Niedermayer was largely being ignored...if you even consider him for the HOF.

Brodeur & Stevens are definite, but what other HOF'ers littered their roster?

 

[Stephen]

Actually, you now have the benefit of hindsight.

As much as people marginalize the Devils now, back then Brodeur wasn't even considered a HOF candidate. It was the middle of the height of the Brodeur being "overrated" and a "product of the system" era. Scott Stevens was still adding to his resume and Niedermayer was largely being ignored...if you even consider him for the HOF.

Brodeur & Stevens are definite, but what other HOF'ers littered their roster?

Fine, if not Hall of Famers, all-stars for sure.

Between 1997 and 2001, New Jersey had guys like these playing for them at one point or another:

Niedermayer
Gilmour
Andreychuk
Brodeur
Stevens
Rafalski
Mogilny
Gomez
Elias
Arnott
Sykora
Holik
Madden
Daneyko
Guerin

so it's defnitely not like they were an underachieving team squeaking into the playoffs every year.

 

[Stephen]

Perhaps I'm a bonehead too...but other than practise, when DID Dryden face Lafleur? Were they not on the same team for Dryden's entire career?

I was wondering that myself.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

The problem with this calculation is that it is based on save %. Save % is a team statistic, the quality of shots that goaltenders face vary greatly.

That's fine, and I actually discuss the limitations of the Goal Differential statistic in the thread which I linked to. Bottom line - if you're not a save percentage fan, you're not going to be a Goal Differential fan. And that's fine. This statistic is exactly what it is - no more, and no less.

If you'd rather look at how he was viewed at the time (and I know that you do), Roy did win three Vezinas in four seasons. That's decently dominant as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Muttley*]

so it's defnitely not like they were an underachieving team squeaking into the playoffs every year.

No, they had an easy time making the playoffs, but they were an underachieving team in the playoffs and couldn't get past the first round.

That's why they can't be classified as a 'powerhouse' back in the spring of 2000, which is why the weren't favored in 2000 to begin with, which is why we are having a discusssion in the first place.

 

[Pwnasaurus]

For anyone who hasn't seen him, go watch film of Hall. Then go watch film of other goalies of the time period. Night and Day. Hall was going down on the ice making saves whilst others were ole'ing. Plante might have made the mask popular by convincing Dick Irvin (think he was still coaching when Plante showed him he could still see all the angles), but Hall's athletic style set the bar.

 

[NOTENOUGHJTCGOALS]

No, they had an easy time making the playoffs, but they were an underachieving team in the playoffs and couldn't get past the first round.

That's why they can't be classified as a 'powerhouse' back in the spring of 2000, which is why the weren't favored in 2000 to begin with, which is why we are having a discusssion in the first place.

I hope you're not implying that Brodeur was a choker. I may not like Brodeur much but he was a big game player. The reasons they were underachieving in the playoffs were hardly his fault.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

If you look at Roy's goals-above average relative to an average NHL goaltender of his era, he's actually nearly as dominant during his peak as Hasek was during his.

(A mod would have to bump my goal differential thread if it needs to be reopened, because it's an older one: http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=253883)

Roy topped out in the high 40s per season, Hasek in the low 50s. Considering how dominant Hasek was in his era, I think it's fair to say that Roy was pretty dominant in his time as well.

Roy was playing on the best defensive team of the era. Hasek was playing on a would be bottom dweller. Roy was great, I wouldn't rank him 5th all-time if he wasn't, but he was never near Hasek good.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Roy was playing on the best defensive team of the era. Hasek was playing on a would be bottom dweller.

How much of that is the chicken, and how much is the egg? Obviously Roy contributed some to the Canadiens' "best defensive team of the era" status, but how much? 20%? 50%? 80%?

And how much of Hasek's statistics were driven by the Sabres' knowledge in what they had, and building their team and strategy around their goaltending?

 

[haakon84]

Its unfair for people to rank Brodeur now. I don't see how you can say he is not the best goalie of his generation. I think Hasek and Roy dominated during Brodeur's early years up until he was about 29.

 

[Weztex]

Pick those five, dress watever order you want and you have it.

Roy
Sawchuk
Plante
Brodeur
Hasek

for the next five I'd put

Hall
Durnan
Dryden
Hainsworth
Benedict/Broda/Parent

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

How much of that is the chicken, and how much is the egg? Obviously Roy contributed some to the Canadiens' "best defensive team of the era" status, but how much? 20%? 50%? 80%?

And how much of Hasek's statistics were driven by the Sabres' knowledge in what they had, and building their team and strategy around their goaltending?

Depends when we're talking about, it's hard to say, early in his career he only had a marginal edge on Hayward, but, as Roy got better, his back-ups got worse. And even if Roy is worth 80 percent, then his Goal differential is closer to 30-35.

Hasek on the other hand, building a strategy on the fact that your goalie dominates games does nothing but improve how stats reflect his ability.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Depends when we're talking about, it's hard to say, early in his career he only had a marginal edge on Hayward, but, as Roy got better, his back-ups got worse. And even if Roy is worth 80 percent, then his Goal differential is closer to 30-35.

So you're implying by this that Hasek is 100% responsible for his goal differential?

And Brian Hayward was a better goaltender than people give him credit for today.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

So you're implying by this that Hasek is 100% responsible for his goal differential?

And Brian Hayward was a better goaltender than people give him credit for today.

I agree that Hayward was good, but, the point is, he's nowhere near a top 10 list. So for him to be roughly equal to Roy says that early in his career Roy was not as responsible for his success as he was latter in his career.

100%? No, that's too absolute. But, I will say this, of goalies with a high differential, you'll probably never find anyone more responsible for it than Hasek.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

I agree that Hayward was good, but, the point is, he's nowhere near a top 10 list. So for him to be roughly equal to Roy says that early in his career Roy was not as responsible for his success as he was latter in his career.

I've never said that Hayward was anything more than a quality backup, or at best an above-average starter.

But would you consider the possibility that the Canadiens felt that Roy was more valuable to them if he were rested and ready for the playoffs? It's not like Hayward ever played more than a few games in the playoffs over that time (other than 1987 when Roy struggled early as a sophomore).

100%? No, that's too absolute. But, I will say this, of goalies with a high differential, you'll probably never find anyone more responsible for it than Hasek.

Since that's obviously impossible to determine, I can't really comment.

But the point isn't whether or not Hasek was dominant. We agree on that. The question is whether Roy was dominant during his peak years.

 

[Stephen]

No, they had an easy time making the playoffs, but they were an underachieving team in the playoffs and couldn't get past the first round.

That's why they can't be classified as a 'powerhouse' back in the spring of 2000, which is why the weren't favored in 2000 to begin with, which is why we are having a discusssion in the first place.

That's like saying today's Ottawa Senators aren't a powerhouse, because they have trouble in the playoffs, or the mid 90s Wings weren't a powerhouse because they got knocked out by San Jose and Toronto. For all their faults, the Devils were a feared team even in those days when they were losing in the first round.

 

[Muttley*]

That's like saying today's Ottawa Senators aren't a powerhouse, because they have trouble in the playoffs, or the mid 90s Wings weren't a powerhouse because they got knocked out by San Jose and Toronto. For all their faults, the Devils were a feared team even in those days when they were losing in the first round.

Whether one agrees or disagrees that they were truly a powerhouse, that has nothing to do with the fact that they were not favored in 2000.

 

[BM67]

And yes, Roy's consecutive OT record is better than Martin Brodeur's OT losses, because they were losses. One is a winner, and the other is a loser. It's circumstance that Roy's team's were better at scoring, but that's not going to diminish his accomplishments, just like I'm not going to point at the fact that Brodeur played those OT games with a pretty decent defensive team in front of him.

So you would say that Brodeur's 6 save win to eliminate Toronto was better goaltending than his 40 save 3 OT loss to Dallas in the Finals?

You're going to tell me that the 2000 and 2001 New Jersey Devils weren't the best Devils teams you've ever iced? Brodeur in his prime. Stevens, Niedermayer in their prime along with a young Brian Rafalski. Alexander Mogilny, Claude Lemieux brought in at the deadline. Patrik Elias, Jason Arnott, Petr Sykora on the big line, Scott Gomez for secondary scoring. Character players everywhere. The Devils came back with the same roster in 2001 basically and finished with 111 points.

Montreal was an overachiever that year. Their roster was a shadow of the 2000 Devils. Look at what their record was like the year before and the year after. A core of Muller, Damphousse, an old Brian Bellows, a young John Leclair, Eric Desjardins and Mathieu Schneider hardly matches up with what the Devils were working with.

They were such a powerhouse that they had to fire their coach with 8 games left in the season.

How good the Devils were is beside the point that they had to beat a 98 point Florida team, a 100 point Toronto team that had home ice, a 103 point Flyers team that had home ice, and the defending champion in 102 point Dallas to win the Cup. Add to that they had to overcome hot goalies in 3 of those series and one is left wondering how much less "than Roy like" he could be and still win the Cup. I bet on it being a little better than "nothing close".

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

I've never said that Hayward was anything more than a quality backup, or at best an above-average starter.

But would you consider the possibility that the Canadiens felt that Roy was more valuable to them if he were rested and ready for the playoffs? It's not like Hayward ever played more than a few games in the playoffs over that time (other than 1987 when Roy struggled early as a sophomore).



Since that's obviously impossible to determine, I can't really comment.

But the point isn't whether or not Hasek was dominant. We agree on that. The question is whether Roy was dominant during his peak years.

Roy was great, but at his peak competition was weak and his team was strong, so, I'd say, not dominant.