Ranking the Best Non-HHOF Goaltenders

[seventieslord]

Yes, but i doubt theyd have voted had they not seen him play

try that poll in this section.

You might also want to try wording it in a way that more than his most ardent critics would answer in the negative. Something not slanted, like, "Should Mike Richter be in the HHOF?"

 

[Asheville]

try that poll in this section.

You might also want to try wording it in a way that more than his most ardent critics would answer in the negative. Something not slanted, like, "Should Mike Richter be in the HHOF?"

It's a poll....in the poll sub forum. Wouldnt kill the historians to take a stroll around the forums every now and then. I'm looking for broader responses to my query. Besides, this forum bows at the feet of a poster who puts Wayne Gretzky outside the Top 3 (4? 5?) of all time in the supposedly well respected rankings project and finds Henri Richard to be the superior playoff performer. I love this sub forum. So many incredibly smart people. But there's an air of arrogance that hangs over this place, evidenced in small part by a poster asking for a poll to be "brought over here.'

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Yes, but i doubt theyd have voted had they not seen him play

I wouldn't doubt that, based on my fifteen years here.

 

[seventieslord]

It's a poll....in the poll sub forum. Wouldnt kill the historians to take a stroll around the forums every now and then. I'm looking for broader responses to my query.

If you're looking for broader responses, then follow my advice.

Besides, this forum bows at the feet of a poster who puts Wayne Gretzky outside the Top 3 (4? 5?) of all time in the supposedly well respected rankings project and finds Henri Richard to be the superior playoff performer.

....ouch, man. is that what you think of us? Trust me when I say this, no one bows at that poster's feet. A few love him, many respect him, many more tolerate him, most others.... well, I'd break rules to complete that sentence.

I love this sub forum. So many incredibly smart people. But there's an air of arrogance that hangs over this place, evidenced in small part by a poster asking for a poll to be "brought over here.'

Call it what you want, but the history board has shown countless times to be a better source of knowledge and - surprise surprise - historical perspective than the main board.

 

[frisco]

OK then man, you go ahead and judge a goalie for being a starter in the NHL at age 39 then, ignoring the fact that no one wanted Barrasso at 39, or 38 for that matter (or as a full season starter at 37, 36, 35 or 34...) His five worst seasons were all over the place, at the ages of 21, 24, 26, 33 and 34

Also, quoting GAA finishes is as cheap as you can possibly get. You know better than this.

I didn't know Adjusted Goals Against Average was a horrible stat. I mean your post used GSAA which is, in my mind, hardly better.

Barrasso played age 18-37. Joseph 22-41. I don't see a reason to use 36 as a random cutoff point.

All I've read on the HF Boards when talking about players is "peak, peak, peak" over and over. Yet, you're pulling the "let's look at his worst years" and ignore the peak when talking about Barrasso.

My Best-Carey

 

[seventieslord]

I didn't know Adjusted Goals Against Average was a horrible stat. I mean your post used GSAA which is, in my mind, hardly better.

Ok, now I don't know if you're being intentionally obtuse, or if you actually don't realize that the adjusted GAA leaders in any given season, will simply match the actual GAA leaders.

If GAA was actually worth a damn, there'd be some value in comparing it across seasons, but what you did tells us nothing. There's absolutely no reason to use GAA for anything, when we have a superior stat: save percentage.

Barrasso played age 18-37. Joseph 22-41. I don't see a reason to use 36 as a random cutoff point.

I guess it depends on whether you think being good enough to be in the NHL is better than not being good enough to be in the NHL.

All I've read on the HF Boards when talking about players is "peak, peak, peak" over and over. Yet, you're pulling the "let's look at his worst years" and ignore the peak when talking about Barrasso.

My Best-Carey

Really? Show me where I ignored peak. I literally showed you their best 5 and worst 5 years. What is peak if not best five years?

If Barrasso played till he was 40, and played enough games at 39 to rack up bad numbers, then we could compare their entire careers but he didn't and it therefore wouldn't be a fair comparison.

 

[Marotte Marauder]

What Barrasso accomplished from age 18-26 is sufficient to be HHOF worthy.

I look forward to the next goaltender that comes straight out of High School and does the same.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I don't look forward to a league that's weak enough to allow high schoolers to come in and dominate...(and then not be able to match it in their supposed physical/developmental peak on stronger teams)...

 

[frisco]

when we have a superior stat: save percentage.

Barrasso save percentage top 10 (6). Joseph (5).
Barrasso 1st or 2nd team AS three times. Joseph none.
Barrasso two Stanley Cups. Joseph none.
Barrasso five top 3 Vezina finishes. Joseph three.

If you really think Joseph hanging around at 41 to post a .869 save percentage in 21 games for the last place Leafs makes a real point in his favor I don't know...To me, Barrasso dominating the NHL at the same age Joseph was honing is craft in tier two Ontario junior with a 12-18 record and a GAA of 5.45 seems more telling.

Curtis Joseph was the ultimate compiler as a goalie. I admire his competiveness, had a cool nickname and he hung around forever and had a big profile as a Leaf but he never won anything of note and his accomplishments are lacklustre.

My Best-Carey

 

[The Wizard of Oz]

Basically everything he did outside of the NHL was otherworldly; he was a man among boys. I remember having high hopes for him for a long time. I guess in the end you'd have to say he underwhelmed, even though there's nothing wrong with being a legit starter for a decade - not many goalies actually do that, and fewer win a Vezina (and nearly a Hart).

At first Miller’s one of those “of course” guys. Vezina winner, big win totals, long time workhorse starter, Olympian MVP. Then you take a look at his career stats and accomplishments and it’s puzzling. Is it possible the team in front of him in Buffalo is to blame? After those Drury-Briere years its been a black hole. He might’ve had the worst d-core of anyone else in this thread.

 

[Neutrinos]

Barrasso save percentage top 10 (6). Joseph (5).
Barrasso 1st or 2nd team AS three times. Joseph none.
Barrasso two Stanley Cups. Joseph none.
Barrasso five top 3 Vezina finishes. Joseph three.

If you really think Joseph hanging around at 41 to post a .869 save percentage in 21 games for the last place Leafs makes a real point in his favor I don't know...To me, Barrasso dominating the NHL at the same age Joseph was honing is craft in tier two Ontario junior with a 12-18 record and a GAA of 5.45 seems more telling.

Curtis Joseph was the ultimate compiler as a goalie. I admire his competiveness, had a cool nickname and he hung around forever and had a big profile as a Leaf but he never won anything of note and his accomplishments are lacklustre.

My Best-Carey

Of course Barrasso's Vezina and All-Star Team finishes are going to be more impressive

Joseph's competition for such honours included Hasek, Roy, Brodeur, and Belfour

There were also more goalies in the league during Joseph's career to have to compete against

 

[seventieslord]

Barrasso save percentage top 10 (6). Joseph (5).
Barrasso 1st or 2nd team AS three times. Joseph none.
Barrasso two Stanley Cups. Joseph none.
Barrasso five top 3 Vezina finishes. Joseph three.

Ok, now you're talking some sense. But now, I need to point out to you that save percentage is a rate stat, so it's only half the equation here. Save percentage is like points per game for a forward. Minutes played for a goalie, is like GP for a forward. We often judge forwards largely by the total points they produce. This is the product of PPG and GP. What is the product of sv% and minutes? Essentially, Goals Saved Above Average. This is the best readily available simple goalie stat that goes back 60 years. It balances rewarding heavy workloads with rewarding high save rates.

Joseph:

1991-92 NHL 43 (2nd)

1992-93 NHL 57 (1st)

1993-94 NHL 37 (4th)

1999-00 NHL 19 (3rd)

2000-01 NHL 21 (6th)

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Barrasso:

1983-84 NHL 22 (6th)

1984-85 NHL 16 (7th)

1987-88 NHL 26 (1st)

1990-91 NHL 15 (6th)

1992-93 NHL 31 (4th)

1997-98 NHL 24 (2nd)

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

So at their respective bests, they were performing at about the same level. This whole thing started when I pointed out that Barrasso had the lowest lows from his class of goalies. You disagreed with that but it was true then, and it's true now. With Joseph, aside from an inexplicable 1995-96, you knew what you were going to get from him for 13 straight years (like Turgeon!) With Barrasso, he could be a Vezina finalist or he could be well-below average. You can't afford to have that kind of performance.

As for Vezina voting, it's actually a really interesting case. Joseph gave the best goaltending performance of 92-93, but only came 3rd in Vezina voting. He had the 2nd best performance of 91-92 but received no votes. He was 6th best in 00-01 but only 8th in voting. Only in 93-94 and 99-00 was he appropriately rewarded for his performance. As a Pierre turgeon fan, surely you can sympathize!

Barrasso, on the other hand, narrowly missed a deserved 1988 Vezina, but was only 6th best when he won in 1984, and only 4th and 8th best when he placed 2nd in 1986 and 1993. On the other hand, in 1991 and 1998 he probably deserved a few votes but received none.

In the whole, Joseph consistently earned fewer votes than his play merited, while Barrasso consistently earned more. Call it luck, circumstance, competition, season by season variance, over-reliance on eye test or reputation, I don't know, but something's up there.

if you really think Joseph hanging around at 41 to post a .869 save percentage in 21 games for the last place Leafs makes a real point in his favor I don't know...

No, I don't, never said I did, that would be absurd, but it's just as absurd to hold it against him. You can't hurt your career, your accomplishments, your Prime, by hanging around too long. And you can't just hang around too long because you want to. Someone needs to actually want to give you a job.

Curtis Joseph was the ultimate compiler as a goalie. I admire his competiveness, had a cool nickname and he hung around forever and had a big profile as a Leaf but he never won anything of note and his accomplishments are lacklustre.

Wow, this is rich coming from you after the arguments you've been embroiled in on this board. I guess he wasn't a gamer, eh? Wasn't as revered. Didn't play the game the right way.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

have we ever gotten to the bottom of why cujo was apparently held in much higher esteem year after year than by the press?

here are his respective top fives—

vezina record: 2, 3, 3, 4, 5

AST record: 4, 4, 5

now i can't account for why in '93 the GMs considered him the third best goalie, but the journalists considered him fourth (he flip-flopped with rookie potvin). not really a big deal though.

ditto '99. the GMs considered him the best goalie in the league after hasek, and he came really really close to taking a vezina from hasek; he even had more first place votes.

Place	Player	Tm	Votes	Vote%	1st	2nd	3rd
1	Dominik Hasek	BUF	73	54.07	8	10	3
2	Curtis Joseph	TOR	64	47.41	10	4	2
3	Byron Dafoe	BOS	58	42.96	8	4	6
4	Martin Brodeur	NJD	17	12.59	1	1	9
5	Ron Tugnutt	OTT	13	9.63	0	4	1
6	Guy Hebert	MDA	7	5.19	0	2	1
7	Ed Belfour	DAL	5	3.70	0	1	2
8	Arturs Irbe	CAR	1	0.74	0	0	1
8	Patrick Roy	COL	1	0.74	0	0	1

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

but looking at the AST votes, maybe stats were a big factor? at least they clearly were for the voters wrt tugnutt. he's close enough to dafoe in vezina voting that we're really talking about a couple of guys making the difference in their placements; of course those same two guys also got him dangerously close to hasek.

Place	Player	Tm	Votes	Vote%	1st	2nd	3rd	W	L	T/O	GAA	SV%
1	Dominik Hasek	BUF	220	78.57	35	13	6	30	18	14	1.87	.937
2	Byron Dafoe	BOS	121	43.21	10	19	14	32	23	11	2.00	.926
3	Ron Tugnutt	OTT	52	18.57	2	11	9	22	10	8	1.79	.925
4	Curtis Joseph	TOR	46	16.43	6	3	7	35	24	7	2.56	.910
5	Ed Belfour	DAL	36	12.86	0	8	12	35	15	9	1.99	.915
6	Martin Brodeur	NJD	21	7.50	3	0	6	39	21	10	2.29	.906
7	Arturs Irbe	CAR	4	1.43	0	1	1	27	20	12	2.22	.923
7	Patrick Roy	COL	4	1.43	0	1	1	32	19	8	2.29	.917

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

it's kind of interesting that that year the same voters thought he was the fourth most valuable player in the league (second among goalies, behind hasek) but at the same time only the fourth best goalie.

'00 is also interesting. cujo is third for the vezina but fifth in AST. but here you can kind of see that the difference between him and belfour and brodeur, who he was ahead of for vezina voting but behind in AST voting, isn't huge.

Place	Player	Tm	Votes	Vote%	1st	2nd	3rd	W	L	T/O	GAA	SV%
1	Olaf Kolzig	WSH	110	78.57	14	13	1	41	20	11	2.24	.917
2	Roman Turek	STL	79	56.43	9	9	7	42	15	9	1.95	.912
3	Curtis Joseph	TOR	23	16.43	2	3	4	36	20	7	2.49	.915
4	Ed Belfour	DAL	14	10.00	2	0	4	32	21	7	2.10	.919
5	Martin Brodeur	NJD	8	5.71	0	1	5	43	20	8	2.24	.910
6	Tommy Salo	EDM	5	3.57	1	0	0	27	28	13	2.33	.914
6	Patrick Roy	COL	5	3.57	0	1	2	32	21	8	2.28	.914
8	Dominik Hasek	BUF	4	2.86	0	1	1	15	11	6	2.21	.919
9	Brian Boucher	PHI	3	2.14	0	0	3	20	10	3	1.91	.918
10	Jeff Hackett	MTL	1	0.71	0	0	1	23	25	7	2.40	.914

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

we're really just talking about three GMs preferring joseph to either of them. but in a sample of just 28 GMs, that can make a difference between third or fifth.

by the same token, i think because in the '90s there was so much unanimity about who the best goalies were most years, the few stray vezina votes that joseph got were really magnified.

'94, 4th in vezina off just four votes (1 third place AST vote, finished 8th)

'97, 5th in vezina off just two votes (1 third place AST vote, finished 8th)

a single third place AST vote placed him eighth. that really shows how everyone agreed who the best goalies were. in the smaller pool of (then) 26 GMs, stray cujo votes got him to the top five.

but once the field opens up in the period between hasek's and brodeur's vezina/AST1 reigns, stray cujo vezina votes become what they are, which is stray votes. in '01, he he got two vezina votes and finished 8th. no AST votes. one stray vote placed him 10th in '02 and that was the end of him getting any awards recognition.

which is all to say that cujo's vezina record looks a lot better than maybe it really should have, due to statistical noise, a small sample, and playing in an era where a few goalies got the lion's share of the attention every year. only in two years, '93 and '99, was he one of those goalies. GMs seemed to generally value him higher than AST voters, but other than the case of tugnutt in '99, that discrepancy really just seems to be a couple of guys being really high on cujo... maybe the same two or three guys being repeatedly high on him for multiple years?

 

[frisco]

Of course Barrasso's Vezina and All-Star Team finishes are going to be more impressive

Joseph's competition for such honours included Hasek, Roy, Brodeur, and Belfour

There were also more goalies in the league during Joseph's career to have to compete against

I'd agree except their careers overlapped for thirteen seasons.

My Best-Carey

 

[frisco]

Joseph:

1991-92 NHL 43 (2nd)

1992-93 NHL 57 (1st)

1993-94 NHL 37 (4th)

1999-00 NHL 19 (3rd)

2000-01 NHL 21 (6th)

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Barrasso:

1983-84 NHL 22 (6th)

1984-85 NHL 16 (7th)

1987-88 NHL 26 (1st)

1990-91 NHL 15 (6th)

1992-93 NHL 31 (4th)

1997-98 NHL 24 (2nd)

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

So at their respective bests, they were performing at about the same level. This while thing started when I pointed out that Barrasso had the lowest lows from his class of goalies. You disagreed with that but it was true then, and it's true now. With Joseph, side from am inexplicable 1995-96, you knew what you were going to get from him for 13 straight years (like Turgeon!) With Barrasso, he could be a Vezina finalist or he could be well-below average. You can't afford to have that kind of performance.

As for Vezina voting, it's actually a really interesting case. Joseph gave the best goaltending performance of 92-93, but only came 3rd in Vezina voting. He had the 2nd best performance of 91-92 but received no votes. He was 6th best in 00-01 but only 8th in voting. Only in 93-94 and 99-00 was he appropriately rewarded for his performance. As a Pierre turgeon fan, surely you can sympathize!

Barrasso, on the other hand, narrowly missed a deserved 1988 Vezina, but was only 6th best when he won in 1984, and only 4th and 8th best when he placed 2nd in 1986 and 1993. In the other hand, in 1991 and 1998 he probably deserved a few votes but received none.

In the whole, Joseph consistently earned fewer votes than his play merited, while Barrasso consistently earned more. Call it luck, circumstance, competition, season by season variance, over-reliance on eye test or reputation, I don't know, but there's something's up there.

All I've heard on the HF boards is how stats are meaningless (GAAA is a good stat not a perfect one overrating goalies who played a lot) and nothing is as sacrosanct as the almighty, omnipotent voting for AS and awards. Also, a player's peak seven seasons are all that matters and you can throw away the rest of his career and that hanging around for a long time was an unpardonable sin along with not having a "signature" playoff run.

So I try to play ball and go along and now it is all about statistical measures and how many down seasons a guy had and rationalizations on how voters just didn't get it right and why Cujo just was way better than his Vezina voting record and Barrasso, of course, the opposite. Just too funny.

My Best-Carey

 

[Neutrinos]

I'd agree except their careers overlapped for thirteen seasons.

My Best-Carey

Barrasso finished top 10 in Vezina voting 7 times, but 5 of them were before Joseph was even in the NHL

Barrasso gets credit in '93 for finishing runner-up in Vezina voting, and for being named a 2nd Team All-Star, however, a quick glance at the stats shows that Joseph was clearly the superior goalie that season

 

[frisco]

Ok, now you're talking some sense. But now, I need to point out to you that save percentage is a rate stat, so it's only half the equation here. Save percentage is like points per game for a forward. Minutes played for a goalie, is like GP for a forward. We often judge forwards largely by the total points they produce. This is the product of PPG and GP. What is the product of sv% and minutes? Essentially, Goals Saved Above Average. This is the best readily available simple goalie stat that goes back 60 years. It balances rewarding heavy workloads with rewarding high save rates.

I guess in keeping with board tradition, this is where I do the obligatory dismissing of the statistical measure used.

GSAA isn't the be all end all. Is Dan Bouchard really the 18th best goalie of all-time? Tony Esposito the greatest ever? Chico Resch ahead of Carey Price? Mike Palmateer in a virtual tie with Vachon in the 35th spot? Kelly Hrudey placing above Kiprusoff, Liut, Holtby, Cheevers, Giacomin? Only two of the top 50 seasons ever posted in the last decade (Thomas at #24, Price #50)? Bob Froese's 1985-86 season as one of the top 30 in NHL history?

My Best-Carey

 

[seventieslord]

All I've heard on the HF boards is how stats are meaningless (GAAA is a good stat not a perfect one overrating goalies who played a lot) and nothing is as sacrosanct as the almighty, omnipotent voting for AS and awards.

You would look a lot better here if you actually argued about what people have actually said to you instead of this nonsense.

GSAA should reward goalies who play a lot. You wouldn't give the Vezina to a player who had a .946 sv% but only played 28 games. On the other hand, you wouldn't give it to a guy who played 76 games with a .912. If there's guy between those extremes who managed a heavy workload and performed well, that's the sweet spot.

Also, a player's peak seven seasons are all that matters and you can throw away the rest of his career and that hanging around for a long time was an unpardonable sin along with not having a "signature" playoff run.

OK, I can see you are still emotionally scarred from the Pierre Turgeon conversation. Don't forget that I am more sympathetic to Turgeon's case than anyone except you and two other people. But let's be clear - no one ever told you that hanging around a long time is an unpardonable sin. Find me one person who ever said that to you, and I will personally call them an idiot and take a flaming infraction on your behalf.

Let me make this as clear as possible so that you don't look foolish in the future arguing against strawmen.

Did Pierre turgeon make his legacy or HHOF case any better by hanging around and increasing his career points total by 16% after 2000-01? No. But it doesn't make him any worse, either.

Did Curtis Joseph make his legacy or HHOF case any better by hanging around and increasing his career win total by 15% after 2003-04? No. But it doesn't make him any worse, either.

I think what you may be missing here is that it's easy using a stat like GSAA, to demonstrate that a goalie made below-average contributions, but there's no way to easily determine that for a forward. Every point scored is another positive added to a counting stat. But it's easily arguable that Turgeon post-lockout was creating negative value or at least below-average value by producing what he did in the roles and opportunities he was given. In both cases, his and Joseph's, it's not their fault that they wanted to keep playing and someone took a chance on them. They'd earned that chance with the careers they'd already had.

So I try to play ball and go along and now it is all about statistical measures and how many down seasons a guy had and rationalizations on how voters just didn't get it right and why Cujo just was way better than his Vezina voting record and Barrasso, of course, the opposite. Just too funny.

Both are important. What you were actually told many times is that stats are meaningless the way you presented them. And when stats and award voting have such a discrepancy between them, it's absolutely important to try to understand whether there was a good reason for that or not.

I guess in keeping with board tradition, this is where I do the obligatory dismissing of the statistical measure used.

GAAA isn't the be all end all. Is Dan Bouchard really the 18th best goalie of all-time? Tony Esposito the greatest ever? Chico Resch ahead of Carey Price? Mike Palmateer in a virtual tie with Vachon in the 35th spot? Kelly Hrudey placing above Kiprusoff, Liut, Holtby, Cheevers, Giacomin? Only two of the top 50 seasons ever posted in the last decade (Thomas at #24, Price #50)? Bob Froese's 1985-86 season as one of the top 30 in NHL history?

My Best-Carey

GSAA is logically the best single simple stat, and nothing you said changes this. It's nothing more than level of play times sample size.

The fact that you go straight to career totals just underscores that you've learned little from your past arguments in this section.

No, I wouldn't put Dan Bouchard 18th all-time (post-60 NHL only, that is), or Resch ahead of price, or Palmateer 35th, but those were all excellent goalies. And Esposito has an arguable case for the most statistically accomplished regular season goalie of all-time. But, notice when those guys all played. The expansion era until the mid 80s was a time of great disparity from team to team. When looking at goalie stats, the highs tended to be higher and the lows lower. This is why any adjusted save percentage attempts make Parent, Dryden and Esposito look like 3 of the 5 best of all-time, and further analysis is required. GSAA career totals (and top seasons of all time) is therefore going to skew towards players from that time (also, higher scoring eras are going to see higher results; 10% better than average in a 3.5 GAA environment vs 10% above average in a 2.5 GAA environment). Also, back then goalies flamed out fast and never got the chance to post many negative numbers where goalies of the last 30 years did. So career totals are highly imperfect, as they always are. Still, looking at any goalie on a season by season basis to see where they ranked among their peers has a lot of value. I could see great value in a GSAA-vsx type rating. This would bring the Bouchards and Palmateers back to earth and focus more on who was the best in their prime.

 

[frisco]

Barrasso gets credit in '93 for finishing runner-up in Vezina voting, and for being named a 2nd Team All-Star, however, a quick glance at the stats shows that Joseph was clearly the superior goalie that season

Joseph 29-28-9 3.02/.911
Barrasso 43-14-5 3.01./.901

I wouldn't say Joseph was clearly superior. There's a reason why the voters went the direction they did.

My Best-Carey

 

[frisco]

Did Curtis Joseph make his legacy or HHOF case any better by hanging around and increasing his career win total by 15% after 2003-04? No. But it doesn't make him any worse, either.

My main point was Barrasso and Joseph played 19 years. I think of Joseph was age 22-41 and Barrasso 18-37. To just ignore Joseph's failures post age 36 (and actually giving him credit for hanging around) was disingenuous. You recognized Barrasso's age 21 season as one of his worst (and it was) but thought it was prudent to ignore Joseph's age 39 season. I just disagree.

My Best-Carey

 

[Neutrinos]

Joseph 29-28-9 3.02/.911
Barrasso 43-14-5 3.01./.901

I wouldn't say Joseph was clearly superior. There's a reason why the voters went the direction they did.

My Best-Carey

Yeah, because Barrasso lead the league in wins playing for a loaded Pens team

Joseph lead the league in:

Saves
Shots Against
SV%
Goalie Point Shares
Goals Allowed Adjusted
Goals Saved Above Average

His Goalie Point Shares for that season were 16.2
2nd that season was Belfour at 13

His Goals Saved Above Average was 57
2nd that season was Belfour at 39

In fact, his 16.2 Point Shares that season were 2nd behind only Lemieux (16.8)
3rd that season were Mogilny and Selanne at 13.4

1992-93 NHL Leaders | Hockey-Reference.com

 

[crobro]

Pete Peeters
Reggie Lemelin
Andy Moog
Arturs Irbe
Don Edwards
Don Beaupre

 

[seventieslord]

My main point was Barrasso and Joseph played 19 years. I think of Joseph was age 22-41 and Barrasso 18-37. To just ignore Joseph's failures post age 36 (and actually giving him credit for hanging around) was disingenuous. You recognized Barrasso's age 21 season as one of his worst (and it was) but thought it was prudent to ignore Joseph's age 39 season. I just disagree.

My Best-Carey

That's definitely a mischaracterization of what I'm saying. I don't think giving credit to Joseph is necessary at all. I think that by saying, "Did Curtis Joseph make his legacy or HHOF case any better by hanging around and increasing his career win total by 15% after 2003-04? No." makes that pretty clear.

Look at all the times a goalie 38-40 has played at least 40 games in a season. By far, the median, average, expected result is that a 38-40 year old goalie will be bad. Joseph did exactly what you would think a goalie would do with that workload on that team at that age.

Player Season Finder | Hockey-Reference.com

Barrasso's age 21, 24 and 26 seasons are inexcusable. Not by age, not by inexperience, nothing. In 86-87 he was a 3-year veteran who had already won a vezina and followed it up with another excellent season and then a decent one. Then lays an absolute egg (allowing the team to draft... yep, you guessed it....) and then went back to being the league's best goalie the following season. That level of unpredictability in a goaltender is very dangerous when you have an otherwise good team with a chance to go on a run (which Barrasso basically had his entire prime). A goalie like Joseph gave his teams a chance every year from 1992-2004. Barrasso (like a much, much better version of Mike Vernon) was a major reason his teams had a bad season or playoff when they did.

I think he's a great goalie overall, a possible HHOFer, possibly even the best goalie not in the HHOF (the first words of the first post I made replying to you were 'maybe, maybe not'). But he is 100%, unequivocally, without a doubt, guilty of lower lows during his prime seasons, than any other potential HHOF goalie. By far. (assuming you do not consider Mike Vernon a "potential HHOF goalie". I do not.)

 

[frisco]

Barrasso's age 21, 24 and 26 seasons are inexcusable. Not by age, not by inexperience, nothing. In 86-87 he was a 3-year veteran who had already won a vezina and followed it up with another excellent season and then a decent one.

Barrasso's bad seasons at 21/24/26.

21-The Sabres were the worst team in the league and Barrasso played 46 games. He wasn't great but it was an ugly year all-around. Three head coaches. Barrasso went 17-23, one of the two years in his entire career that he finished under .500 (out of fourteen seasons) where he had at least 20 decisions. He's only 21, Joseph was probably still in Wilcox, SK at that age.

24-Bad year but he only played 24 games. His daughter was given a 10% chance to live and he left the team to be with her for cancer treatments. I'm not going to hold this one against him. He also underwent wrist surgery that year.

26-I don't know if going 25-22-9 with a .885 save percentage is a bad year. His backups combined for .871 percentage and he did win the Stanley Cup.

My Best-Carey