Round 2, Vote 2 (HOH Top Goaltenders)

[overpass]

At one point, they had the best two defensemen (Sprague Cleghorn and Eddie Gerard), and the best defensive forward (Frank Nighbor) in the world, all playing close to 60 minutes per game (as was the norm back then). Cleghorn was replaced by young King Clancy, not much of a downgrade. They played an early trap/counterattack system built around Frank Nighbor's hook check (basically getting low to the ice and hooking the puck off the opponent's stick from a distance - Nighbor had perfect timing with it), which was especially devastating with no forward pass allowed.

To be specific, Cleghorn was in Ottawa for the 1919 and 1920 seasons only. During those seasons, Ottawa allowed 53 goals (second best was 78) and 64 goals (second best was 106). The 1920 edition of the team, with Benedict, Cleghorn, Gerard, Nighbor, Denneny, Darragh, Broadbent, and George Boucher as a super-sub, were probably the best team of all time as of 1920 and IMO were the best team until the 1938-39 Bruins.

While Cleghorn was only there for two seasons, Nighbor was a constant at centre for almost Benedict's entire tenure in Ottawa, from 1916 on, and was the key to their kitty-bar-the-door defensive system. Ottawa also typically had strong defenders - over the years, Benedict's starting defenders in Ottawa were some combination of Art Ross, Hamby Shore, Gerard, Cleghorn, Boucher, and King Clancy.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

To be specific, Cleghorn was in Ottawa for the 1919 and 1920 seasons only. During those seasons, Ottawa allowed 53 goals (second best was 78) and 64 goals (second best was 106). The 1920 edition of the team, with Benedict, Cleghorn, Gerard, Nighbor, Denneny, Darragh, Broadbent, and George Boucher as a super-sub, were probably the best team of all time as of 1920 and IMO were the best team until the 1938-39 Bruins.

While Cleghorn was only there for two seasons, Nighbor was a constant at centre for almost Benedict's entire tenure in Ottawa, from 1916 on, and was the key to their kitty-bar-the-door defensive system. Ottawa also typically had strong defenders - over the years, Benedict's starting defenders in Ottawa were some combination of Art Ross, Hamby Shore, Gerard, Cleghorn, Boucher, and King Clancy.

Yeah, makes it really hard to figure out just how good Benedict was, in my opinion. He was obviously an all-time great and one of the best of his era. He had excellent longevity (though not unique for his era - Georges Vezina and Hugh Lehman had great longevity too).

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Would you mind making a quick defense of that position? He's been almost ignored in this thread.

He's essentially Ken Dryden with career value.

He statistically dominated behind a dominant team. Doing everything that was asked of him to ensure victory. Yes, there is a case that he's a product of his team. But he also looks a lot like Sawchuk with less of a dip outside of his peak. His play with the Maroons shows that he wasn't just a product of the team and that he can play an important role on a winner and wasn't just carried. And on the Darraugh era Sens he was also very good, even if not great.

But what it comes down to is, all the praise and all the question marks of Dryden apply to Benedict. Only Benedict has 10 quality seasons outside the insane peak.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Yeah, makes it really hard to figure out just how good Benedict was, in my opinion. He was obviously an all-time great and one of the best of his era. He had excellent longevity (though not unique for his era - Georges Vezina and Hugh Lehman had great longevity too).

I tend to view that longevity of the generation to be a sign of a quality generation. We see it with Sawchuk, Plante and Hall and with Roy, Hasek and Brodeur.

 

[tarheelhockey]

It is the only complete and the only reliable measure for the early O6 and pre Red Line golaies.

If GAA is now considered a reliable measure of performance, that's news to me. It's a team stat, plain and simple.

Ranking goalies on GAA is like ranking skaters on wins. I thought we were past that here.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

If GAA is now considered a reliable measure of performance, that's news to me. It's a team stat, plain and simple.

Ranking goalies on GAA is like ranking skaters on wins. I thought we were past that here.

The problem, as I see it anyway, is that there's no other stat to judge goaltenders from the early days. The farthest back I've seen save percentages tallied is the '52-'53 season. Post '52 it's easy enough to look at a goalie's save pct, look at the average for the era, then draw common-sense conclusions from it. But what about the goalies from before '52? The only stats you really have are GAA and won/loss. How do you gauge a goaltender from, say, 1932?

 

[tarheelhockey]

The problem, as I see it anyway, is that there's no other stat to judge goaltenders from the early days. The farthest back I've seen save percentages tallied is the '52-'53 season. Post '52 it's easy enough to look at a goalie's save pct, look at the average for the era, then draw common-sense conclusions from it. But what about the goalies from before '52? The only stats you really have are GAA and won/loss. How do you gauge a goaltender from, say, 1932?

One thing I'm certain of -- the solution is not to take a team stat and force it to carry the load.

If the stats aren't enlightening, my personal favored approach is to do the research to find out what happened with this player on a season-by-season, or if necessary game-by-game basis. It takes more time, but it gives you a result that is at least defensible.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

How do you gauge a goaltender from, say, 1932?

All Star votes and contemporary newspaper accounts of people who saw them play. Unfortunately, there were no All Star teams when Benedict played and newspaper accounts take work to find

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

One thing I'm certain of -- the solution is not to take a team stat and force it to carry the load.

If the stats aren't enlightening, my personal favored approach is to do the research to find out what happened with this player on a season-by-season, or if necessary game-by-game basis. It takes more time, but it gives you a result that is at least defensible.

That would be the traditional method, of course. What you run into, though, is it's immediately labeled "anecdotal" and thus invalid by those who live and die by metrics. It seems to be a no-win situation.

 

[tarheelhockey]

That would be the traditional method, of course. What you run into, though, is it's immediately labeled "anecdotal" and thus invalid by those who live and die by metrics. It seems to be a no-win situation.

Those who live and die by metrics don't have a leg to stand on when evaluating early goalies. That's just a reality of the surviving historical record.

Ranking goalies on GAA is no more useful than ranking them by height. There is no causative connection between the performance and the number, especially when we get down to a difference of 0.01.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

Those who live and die by metrics don't have a leg to stand on when evaluating early goalies. That's just a reality of the surviving historical record.

And yet still they weigh in on it

 

[tarheelhockey]

Echoing a lot of comments made throughout this project, I'm finding it hard to pin down a ranking here. Day-to-day my list is very fluid as new arguments come to light.

Here is a cheat-sheet I put together to try and simplify what I would consider to be some of the most important aspects of the rankings. This is posted for my own edification as much as anything... please help me improve it if you see something that seems "off"! I don't want to influence the voting with flawed information.

Name | Seasons | Peak years | Peak ranking among peers | League championships | Olympic/CC/Summit golds | Major awards | Other factors
Clint Benedict|17|1919-24 (6)|1 or 2 (Vezina)|3|n/a|0|Surrounded by elite defensive players on a dynasty
Frank Brimsek|10|1938-43 (6)|1 or 2 (Durnan)|2|n/a|2 Vezina, 2 1stAS, 6 2ndAS|A significant number of contemporary accounts support Brimsek over Durnan
Turk Broda|13|1940-43/46-48 (7)|3 (Brimsek, Durnan)|5|n/a|2 1stAS, 1 2ndAS|Generally regarded as slightly behind Durnan and Brimsek during the regular season, but renowned for playoff performances
Martin Brodeur|18|2003-08 (6)|1|3|3|4 Vezina, 4 1stAS, 4 2ndAS|Considerable marks for "intangibles"; some argue that team/arena factors distort his numbers
Ken Dryden|8|1972-79 (7)|1 or 2 (Parent)|6|1|5 1stAS, 1 2ndAS, 1 Conn Smythe|There has been some discussion whether he was as far ahead of Parent as generally perceived
Bill Durnan|7|1943-50 (8)|1 or 2 (Brimsek)|2|n/a|6 1stAS|Played during weak WWII seasons; some question whether he was actually better than Brimsek
Bernie Parent|14|1970-75 (6)|1, 2 (Dryden) or 3 (Esposito)|2|0|2 1stAS, 2 Conn Smythe|There has been some discussion whether he was on Dryden's level, without the same team support. Still serviceable when cut short due to eye injury.
Terry Sawchuk|21|1951-55 (5)|1|4|n/a|3 1stAS, 4 2ndAS|His peak was arguably the highest ever achieved. Well-known psychological issues.
Vladislav Tretiak|15|???|1?|13|4|14 Soviet 1AS, 5 Soviet MVP|Questions over whether he was really the best European goalie of the 1970s

Notes

- The "peak years" portion is subjective. Generally I tried to identify a goalie's best run of seasons according to awards voting, championships, etc. There are some I'm not sure of -- did I short-change Brimsek? Did Dryden have a non-peak phase? Did I give Parent too much credit for his early seasons?

- In particular, even after all the excellent analysis here and extensive reading, I find it damned difficult to pin down a peak for Tretiak. Not only that, but was he considered the best goalie in the world in the early 1980s? I would tend to think so, but is that a claim we can make confidently?

- I don't have a good way to express the height of each goalie's peak. Sawchuk is one in particular where I think really it needs to be emphasized just HOW otherworldly good he was in those 5 seasons. On the opposite end, I get the sense that Turk Broda was more about peaking at the right time of year, and didn't really string together months and months of peak play at any point.

- There is of course a difference between peak and prime, but I felt that it would be redundant to talk about prime vs non-prime years with guys like Dryden and Durnan who were close to the top of their game in all seasons. The only guy that has a really concerning dip in his later career is Sawchuk, but then again he actually did play till age 40 unlike anyone else on this list but Brodeur.

- I'm not sure whether to list the possibility of ranking Parent over Dryden. I felt a case was well made earlier in the thread, but not sure how much traction it got, and I'm not really sure thinking about it now that I would be comfortable taking it to the point of Parent > Dryden. That would be a pretty significant break from the common wisdom and I'm not sure the case was THAT good. Suggestions?

 

[foame]

I'm probably too late to the party by now, but anyway I wanted to ask the other voters how you're treating Drydens absence from the game for a full year to pursue another interest and his relatively early retirement?

I've read Dryden's book and he seemed to lack the passion that nearly every other great player has had, the love for the game that makes them continue to train, develop, evolve and play until their body brakes down. Considiring the vilifying of other stars (Dionne, Turgeon, Fedorov, Sundin) and the abuse they get for their lack of "passion", I'm concerned that we haven't brought up this point about Dryden, how it affects our view of him. For example, what other canadian stars in the last 30-40 years have retired from hockey at that age while still being in great physical shape?
Jim Carey?
Jimmy Carson?
Alexandre Daigle?


Personally, I think he was in a very fortunate situation in Montreal, they did not have any suitable goalie to replace him right away: Larocque was too young to be relied upon and Bowman/Pollock didn't seem to be very confident in Thomas' playoffs-abilities. In my opinion his absence and probably also his early retirement should account for some negative points, mainly because he was able to play but chose not to and with that, he put his team in a awkward situation with no real successor in place for him (he discusses his conversations with Pollock in his book, but it seems like Pollock didn't really believe him). In some way, it's almost the same thing that Durnan did (which is close to inexcusable).

People like to point to Drydens playoff/regular-season record, that he stepped up his play when it mattered the most but as revealed by the numbers in the "Situational Playoff Stats"-table that CG recentely posted (http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=55403047&postcount=163 ), those comments aren't backed up much by the recorded data. Additionally I find the amount of "First Goals Allowed" to be much higher than expected (http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?p=55025709&highlight=#post55025709).

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

If GAA is now considered a reliable measure of performance, that's news to me. It's a team stat, plain and simple.

Ranking goalies on GAA is like ranking skaters on wins. I thought we were past that here.

So we rank goaltenders we never saw play, how?

 

[MXD]

I'm probably too late to the party by now, but anyway I wanted to ask the other voters how you're treating Drydens absence from the game for a full year to pursue another interest and his relatively early retirement?

I've read Dryden's book and he seemed to lack the passion that nearly every other great player has had, the love for the game that makes them continue to train, develop, evolve and play until their body brakes down. Considiring the vilifying of other stars (Dionne, Turgeon, Fedorov, Sundin) and the abuse they get for their lack of "passion", I'm concerned that we haven't brought up this point about Dryden, how it affects our view of him. For example, what other canadian stars in the last 30-40 years have retired from hockey at that age while still being in great physical shape?
Jim Carey?
Jimmy Carson?
Alexandre Daigle?


Personally, I think he was in a very fortunate situation in Montreal, they did not have any suitable goalie to replace him right away: Larocque was too young to be relied upon and Bowman/Pollock didn't seem to be very confident in Thomas' playoffs-abilities. In my opinion his absence and probably also his early retirement should account for some negative points, mainly because he was able to play but chose not to and with that, he put his team in a awkward situation with no real successor in place for him (he discusses his conversations with Pollock in his book, but it seems like Pollock didn't really believe him). In some way, it's almost the same thing that Durnan did (which is close to inexcusable).

If that isn't a fortuitous hatchet job on Dryden, I don't know what this is.

You realize that Dryden is ALREADY "penalized" for his short career?

Dryden also had an education and professional, non-hockey objectives, something that only a small minority of hockey players of that era had. Those objectives are totally unrelated to hockey, yet you want to "link" his hockey career to them.

Seriously, when I see such messages, I want to take back by rankings and modify them accordingly, as to nullify the effets of that kind of "sh|t". Because that's exactly what it is.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

All Star votes and contemporary newspaper accounts of people who saw them play. Unfortunately, there were no All Star teams when Benedict played and newspaper accounts take work to find

In 40 years people will be reading our (me and you) accounts of Martin Brodeur. How will that help them? How will they know only my account is correct?

 

[Rob Scuderi]

So we rank goaltenders we never saw play, how?

I think the case for Brimsek over Durnan, made in this very thread, is a good example of judging goalies on the basis of contemporary accounts rather than GAA leaders.

Vezina or Benedict will be another if/when they make it as opposing candidates

 

[tarheelhockey]

In 40 years people will be reading our (me and you) accounts of Martin Brodeur. How will that help them? How will they know only my account is correct?

Hopefully they're industrious enough to read multiple accounts before settling on a judgment.

If everyone agrees that Brodeur is the best goalie, then chances are he's the best goalie. If it's split between him and Joe Schmoe, well that's a different situation. If it's just one guy named Fan Stishler, you're probably safe to ignore it. Personally I find it really helpful to roll up my sleeves and read at least a decent sample of game summaries, which tend to contain revealing little asides by the authors. That's where I really started to question Hainsworth as being much more than the Osgood of his era.

In any case, at least first-hand accounts are useful for direct evaluation of a goalie's ability and performance. A list of GAA numbers tells you jack, which is why we virtually ignore that metric when comparing modern players.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I'm probably too late to the party by now, but anyway I wanted to ask the other voters how you're treating Drydens absence from the game for a full year to pursue another interest and his relatively early retirement?

I've read Dryden's book and he seemed to lack the passion that nearly every other great player has had, the love for the game that makes them continue to train, develop, evolve and play until their body brakes down. Considiring the vilifying of other stars (Dionne, Turgeon, Fedorov, Sundin) and the abuse they get for their lack of "passion", I'm concerned that we haven't brought up this point about Dryden, how it affects our view of him. For example, what other canadian stars in the last 30-40 years have retired from hockey at that age while still being in great physical shape?
Jim Carey?
Jimmy Carson?
Alexandre Daigle?


Personally, I think he was in a very fortunate situation in Montreal, they did not have any suitable goalie to replace him right away: Larocque was too young to be relied upon and Bowman/Pollock didn't seem to be very confident in Thomas' playoffs-abilities. In my opinion his absence and probably also his early retirement should account for some negative points, mainly because he was able to play but chose not to and with that, he put his team in a awkward situation with no real successor in place for him (he discusses his conversations with Pollock in his book, but it seems like Pollock didn't really believe him). In some way, it's almost the same thing that Durnan did (which is close to inexcusable).
People like to point to Drydens playoff/regular-season record, that he stepped up his play when it mattered the most but as revealed by the numbers in the "Situational Playoff Stats"-table that CG recentely posted (http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=55403047&postcount=163 ), those comments aren't backed up much by the recorded data. Additionally I find the amount of "First Goals Allowed" to be much higher than expected (http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?p=55025709&highlight=#post55025709).

Not sure how actually having an interest in a life outside of hockey makes one less of a player in this case. The lack of passion for the game didn't seem to hurt their performances. We are, after all, voting for them as top 10 goalies of all-time.

 

[nik jr]

benedict did not play his entire career behind the senators' dynasty, but his teams were generally defensive.

for example, in '26 playoffs, maroons upset top ranked ottawa: 1-1 and 1-0. maroons then beat victoria for the stanley cup, with 3 SO in 4 games.

in '28 playoffs, maroons beat ottawa 2-1 and 1-0, upset top ranked habs 2-2 and 1-0 to reach the finals. maroons actually outscored NYR over the series by 6-5, but lost the series 3-2. benedict allowed 8g in 9 games.

maroons had a rivalry with ottawa, probably partly b/c of benedict and broadbent, and their games tended to be very low scoring. maroons were also known for their physicality.



i think it was in top 100 debate that i posted some newspaper reports about 1915 finals. ottawa was completely destroyed by the vancouver millionaires in the finals, but 22 year old benedict was said to have played well.


benedict was 3rd in hart voting in '25.


we also have NYT reports of sv% for '28 and most of '29. http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=988965
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=44802159&postcount=11

benedict had .944 in '28, which was below average, facing a lower than average number of shots (30.0). he was exactly average after about 3/4 of the season in '29, at .963, facing an average number of shots (38.0 per game).

such numbers must be a big reason why rules of passing were changed next season.



benedict and ottawa fought bitterly after '24 playoffs, for which benedict was blamed. management of ottawa said benedict had been playing drunk and cost his team the series with habs. benedict and broadbent were later sold to the maroons, and they won the cup in '26.

benedict was also criticized after the game 1 loss (5-4) to toronto in '22, though ottawa also seems to have played subpar defensively in game 1. toronto used many long shots and jumped on rebounds, which was a common tactic b/c of the lack of forward passing in offensive zone and the defensive style of play. there was also a highly disputed GWG. benedict was said to have played well in game 2, but the ice was very watery, so both teams were unable to score.

It should be pointed out that most of the early all-star votes were done before the season ended, at least until the coaches started voting in 1946-47, so the final leader in GAA/Vezina winner wasn't known when the votes were cast.

that is important. thanks

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I think the case for Brimsek over Durnan, made in this very thread, is a good example of judging goalies on the basis of contemporary accounts rather than GAA leaders.

Vezina or Benedict will be another if/when they make it as opposing candidates

I think the fact that it was stated GAA should have no bearing on evaluating goalies is flawed (its a team stat). It sure seems like most of the guys we are voting for have outstanding GAA compared to their contemporaries.

 

[Rob Scuderi]

I think the fact that it was stated GAA should have no bearing on evaluating goalies is flawed (its a team stat). It sure seems like most of the guys we are voting for have outstanding GAA compared to their contemporaries.

Sure it was overstated, but the premise is sound.

We may talk about goalies who were Masterson winners in various rounds, but we aren't really talking about the fact they won it.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I think the fact that it was stated GAA should have no bearing on evaluating goalies is flawed (its a team stat). It sure seems like most of the guys we are voting for have outstanding GAA compared to their contemporaries.

With the exception of Hasek, being up for top-10 consideration requires a very substantial amount of team success. We should expect to see a lot of wins, shutouts and low GAAs at this stage. That doesn't validate GAA as a method for ranking goalies; otherwise we should expect to see Turco and Nabokov come along shortly.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Well, now that we're coming to (or have come to) the conclusion that GAA is a team stat is worthless. Hopefully we'll appreciate the team effects on save percentage as the game progresses into a coach's game as opposed to a player's game. The aforementioned seems to take place around the 1994-95 lockout where it begins to change hands and in the last 10 years seems to have fully taken hold.

I can't readily speak for the 1970's and back without doing my own research, but it seems that teams were largely dependent on their players for success. Which sounds obvious, but it is actually going to come into serious play once we get passed the "obvious" choices at the top here...

This is probably going to be right up C1958's bowling alley here and hopefully he can provide some insight into a very abstract question/line of reasoning/thought process...killion also, pappyline? and a couple of others that I know have been watching hockey since before most of us...(any exclusion was not at all intentional)...

It seems like a simple question on the surface, but I think it's very complex, at least its answered might be...when did the team with the best players stop winning regularly?

I'm not talking about the 1970's Bruins underachieving or the 1984 Islanders getting too old or Steve Smith banking one into his own bread basket in '86...I mean, is there a line we can draw (however squiggly) where the most stacked roster no longer was the most dangerous? The 1993 Pittsburgh Penguins come to mind. The 1995 Detroit Red Wings come to mind. The 2003 (?) Colorado Avalanche come to mind. But they were all with nearby championships, so it's hard to say with them...

All well within the previously mentioned wheelhouse though. On the flip side, the dynastic Canadiens of the 1970's seem like the best collection of players you could have at the time (plus they had great coaching), the early 70's Bruins seemed like about as good as you could find, with the Habs not being too far behind I think (right?). The 1980's Oilers and Islanders...were there really teams that were decidedly better on paper (including being healthy and playing at their best) than those two? As you get into the late 80's Calgary looks good and they make waves as a result...

If we can find that line (if it exists), I think we'll find a good area to start questioning save percentage as a primary tool of excellence and it gets exponentially less important the closer you get to the present (unless some of you had Brian Elliott on your top-60 lists...) because of how coaching has taken over the game. Which now doesn't mind shot totals, but minds shot quality (difficult to measure, I'd say impossible personally). Thus the dramatic rise in save percentages in recent years. Coaches have realized that goaltending has plateaued talent-wise, so they can allow "easy" shots and get similar results with most goaltenders (see: Boston having two different goalies lead the league in all goalie categories in a three-year stretch; not dissimilar to Philadelphia in the mid-1980's). The difference in goaltending quality and "talent" is not as great as it was in the past. The difference between goalie #4 in the league and goalie #31 isn't even close to as large as it was in, say, 1990...1980...the difference between goalies now-a-days, by and large, is the consistency in which they can bring that talent to the forefront.

It doesn't so much matter at this very vote, but it will matter soon enough. I'll try to further explain myself (with video, if NHL Vault cooperates) later on if possible...

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Well, now that we're coming to (or have come to) the conclusion that GAA is a team stat is worthless.

I expect that anyone who holds that extreme of an opinion on the matter will see their opinion get very little consideration. How is it actually, and absolutely, worthless?

I do agree to some degree with where you were trying to go by the end of the post, though.