Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time - Preliminary Discussion Thread

[Johnny Engine]

David Foster Wallace:

A heavily footnoted story of the how we all became enthralled with the perfect top-200 list, which evolves over an out-of-order timeline, with different parts taking place in the year of the Foxtrac Puck, the year of the Zamboni Ice Resurfacing Vehicle, the year of the Cooperall Streamlined Pant, the year of the Aeroflex Leg Pad, and so on. There will be a section that discusses a shot accuracy drill where players blow up cities if they hit the targets.

 

[Professor What]

Mine's in now. I finally decided to send it in rather than continue to argue with myself. It wasn't going to change much more anyway.

 

[MXD]

Update: Juste ranked the final S Line player.

 

[Yozhik v tumane]

You know, I bet Hockey Outsider could pull off a 20-week run by himself like a good Samuel Beckett play.

If anyone can do it it's Outsider. We'll all be sitting waiting for Gaudreau, but he will never show up on the list.

I'd prefer a Franz Kafka novel. A profile of each player based on which insect they most resemble, followed by an incomprehensible (and largely fictitious) list of anecdotes, concluding with an unnecessarily harsh sentencing.

Or go full Honoré de Balzac with about 300 pages per player, including 40 pages of details about the skate laces of Hooley Smith. In the end, everyone will brag about reading each and everyone of your books, while omitting to mention they wouldn't remember a single thing out of them.

I thought you guys were just a bunch of brain dead jocks.

 

[Michael Farkas]

That line forms behind me, boys...let's go!

 

[Theokritos]

I thought you guys were just a bunch of brain dead jocks.

Never. I mean, this ad...

...was printed in the 1957 Montreal Gazette and guess where they put it? In the sport section, next to a hockey ad. Because it's obvious that people who buy CCM skates are also people who attend lectures on literature.

 

[Yozhik v tumane]

Never. I mean, this ad...

View attachment 378676

...was printed in the 1957 Montreal Gazette and guess where they put it? In the sport section, next to a hockey ad. Because it's obvious that people who buy CCM skates are also people who attend lectures on literature.

View attachment 378678

Mind blown. But are you sure that advertisement is not just a result of the fact Google’s ad placement algorithms still could use some tweaking in the mid-to-late 50s?

 

[Theokritos]

Mind blown. But are you sure that advertisement is not just a result of the fact Google’s ad placement algorithms still could use some tweaking in the mid-to-late 50s?

It's impossible to find a single complaint about Google's algorithm from the 1950s, so it must have worked just fine.

 

[DN28]

Before most of the ballots get send, I'll encourage voters/participants to rather include those goalies with more stable and reliable record and to throw out a handful of up-and-down goalies who I think won't withstand in the discussion. Looking at the HOH Top-40 list from 2012 or 2013, highest ranked goalies I chose not to include on my list are Fuhr, Vachon, Giacomin and Barrasso.

Grant Fuhr had some great playoffs with the Oilers in 1980s but his career and his reg. season record does not differentiate all too much from his counterpart Andy Moog. Fuhr had the most success in the league which hasn't integrated all of the world's top goaltending. And after 1990 changes and development, Fuhr struggled to adjust, his play abruptly declined and in some seasons he turned out to be one of the worst NHL goalies. Unnecessary distraction with his drug abuse which also calls into question his earlier credentials. I'm not seeing a talent who would succeed in different eras and environments.

Rogie Vachon had 2 seasons of impressive results. Hart nominee and 2nd all-star teamer in 1975 and 1977, when he was also great statistically for mediocre LA Kings. But outside of these 2 seasons, there is virtually nothing else. A lot has been written about Bernie Parent being a two-season wonder but actually, Parent's "filler seasons" are way more pronounced than Vachon's. Also how many 1970s goalies do we want to include?

Ed Giacomin is arguably the worst playoff goaltender of all-time and that itself would disqualify him immediately in the minds of many voters. Giacomin had impressive 5-year stretch of 1st or 2nd all-star team credentials but from my perspective, his voting success was pre-determined by playing the most games out of anybody. Goalie platooning was more or less the norm in Giacomin's time and Rangers were the one team who chose instead to run their n.1 goalie exclusively. I could be wrong but Giacomin's reg. season stats and playoff shortcomings indicate that he wasn't elite goalie even in his prime.

Tom Barrasso was probably the most inconsistent goalie that I can think of. Some very good seasons but also some very average or even outright bad seasons or playoff showings. Barrasso was an important piece of the Penguins winning back-to-back Stanley Cups but what else is left there?

Instead of these 4 netminders I would like to see some potentially underrated candidates that many people may omit such as: Hugh Lehman and Hap Holmes,
Harry Lumley and Chuck Rayner,
Curtis Joseph and John Vanbiesbrouck,
Percy LeSueur and John Ross Roach.

John Ross Roach is the only one of these who didn't make it in the HOH Top-40 Goalies list some years ago but I think his case for the list is solid. Young Roach was compared favourably to Vezina and Benedict in the early 1920s NHL when there was no all-star voting or even Hart voting. A couple of good members around here have gathered the unofficial GMs/coaches all-star votings prior the official ones from 1931. Roach features on some of these; he was a 2nd teamer in 1927, a 4th teamer in 1928. Admittedly, Roach wasn't a factor in 1929 and in 1930. However, Roach's individual recognition continued into the 1930s as he was the only goalie who interrupted Charlie Gardiner's 4-year reign. Gardiner was the 1st AST in 1931, 1932, 1934, while Roach was the 1st AST in 1933. I know some posters here have spent much more time researching old goalies than me so I'm definitely willing to listen counter-arguments. Maybe I've stumbled only on the good and missed all the bad on Roach. But right now, Roach appears to be the goalie who proved himself in very different environments. Roach arrived strongly in a rigid early 1920s hockey with only few NHL teams, survived the crazy late 1920s years with all the rule changes, and continued to play well in a forward-passing era of the 1930s. Seemingly a goalie with good longevity and the ability to adjust.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Good post. Might disagree on Vachon, but the others are good choices to ignore for me probably...

Also, when I did my deep dive on Alec Connell back in 2013 (zoinks...) thinking that he would be a guy I could "find", so to speak, as little was really known about him relative to him being the all time leader in GAA, I came away with the notion that John Ross Roach was the better player than him based on contemporary accounts...

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Good post. Might disagree on Vachon, but the others are good choices to ignore for me probably...

Also, when I did my deep dive on Alec Connell back in 2013 (zoinks...) thinking that he would be a guy I could "find", so to speak, as little was really known about him relative to him being the all time leader in GAA, I came away with the notion that John Ross Roach was the better player than him based on contemporary accounts...

Originally didn't have Roach on my list. Then I added him. Then I replaced him with someone. Already sent my list in so there he stays.

I had both Fuhr and Rogie on my list. Perhaps seeing them perform spectacularly live tainted my view. Vachon stole a game I was at from the Orr/Espo Bruins (4-1). Fuhr was the MVP of the all-star game in Hartford in 1986, one of the last all-star games that was a game. 4-3 East in OT. Fuhr didn't allow a goal in his half of play.

 

[ted2019]

Good post. Might disagree on Vachon, but the others are good choices to ignore for me probably...

Also, when I did my deep dive on Alec Connell back in 2013 (zoinks...) thinking that he would be a guy I could "find", so to speak, as little was really known about him relative to him being the all time leader in GAA, I came away with the notion that John Ross Roach was the better player than him based on contemporary accounts...

I bet you have Percy on your list.

 

[ted2019]

Before most of the ballots get send, I'll encourage voters/participants to rather include those goalies with more stable and reliable record and to throw out a handful of up-and-down goalies who I think won't withstand in the discussion. Looking at the HOH Top-40 list from 2012 or 2013, highest ranked goalies I chose not to include on my list are Fuhr, Vachon, Giacomin and Barrasso.

Grant Fuhr had some great playoffs with the Oilers in 1980s but his career and his reg. season record does not differentiate all too much from his counterpart Andy Moog. Fuhr had the most success in the league which hasn't integrated all of the world's top goaltending. And after 1990 changes and development, Fuhr struggled to adjust, his play abruptly declined and in some seasons he turned out to be one of the worst NHL goalies. Unnecessary distraction with his drug abuse which also calls into question his earlier credentials. I'm not seeing a talent who would succeed in different eras and environments.

Rogie Vachon had 2 seasons of impressive results. Hart nominee and 2nd all-star teamer in 1975 and 1977, when he was also great statistically for mediocre LA Kings. But outside of these 2 seasons, there is virtually nothing else. A lot has been written about Bernie Parent being a two-season wonder but actually, Parent's "filler seasons" are way more pronounced than Vachon's. Also how many 1970s goalies do we want to include?

Ed Giacomin is arguably the worst playoff goaltender of all-time and that itself would disqualify him immediately in the minds of many voters. Giacomin had impressive 5-year stretch of 1st or 2nd all-star team credentials but from my perspective, his voting success was pre-determined by playing the most games out of anybody. Goalie platooning was more or less the norm in Giacomin's time and Rangers were the one team who chose instead to run their n.1 goalie exclusively. I could be wrong but Giacomin's reg. season stats and playoff shortcomings indicate that he wasn't elite goalie even in his prime.

Tom Barrasso was probably the most inconsistent goalie that I can think of. Some very good seasons but also some very average or even outright bad seasons or playoff showings. Barrasso was an important piece of the Penguins winning back-to-back Stanley Cups but what else is left there?

Instead of these 4 netminders I would like to see some potentially underrated candidates that many people may omit such as: Hugh Lehman and Hap Holmes,
Harry Lumley and Chuck Rayner,
Curtis Joseph and John Vanbiesbrouck,
Percy LeSueur and John Ross Roach.

John Ross Roach is the only one of these who didn't make it in the HOH Top-40 Goalies list some years ago but I think his case for the list is solid. Young Roach was compared favourably to Vezina and Benedict in the early 1920s NHL when there was no all-star voting or even Hart voting. A couple of good members around here have gathered the unofficial GMs/coaches all-star votings prior the official ones from 1931. Roach features on some of these; he was a 2nd teamer in 1927, a 4th teamer in 1928. Admittedly, Roach wasn't a factor in 1929 and in 1930. However, Roach's individual recognition continued into the 1930s as he was the only goalie who interrupted Charlie Gardiner's 4-year reign. Gardiner was the 1st AST in 1931, 1932, 1934, while Roach was the 1st AST in 1933. I know some posters here have spent much more time researching old goalies than me so I'm definitely willing to listen counter-arguments. Maybe I've stumbled only on the good and missed all the bad on Roach. But right now, Roach appears to be the goalie who proved himself in very different environments. Roach arrived strongly in a rigid early 1920s hockey with only few NHL teams, survived the crazy late 1920s years with all the rule changes, and continued to play well in a forward-passing era of the 1930s. Seemingly a goalie with good longevity and the ability to adjust.

The part I bolded in Vachon's section to me sort of derails projects like this. Who cares on what time frame they played in if they are amongst the best? There could be 50 Goalies that get put in and that shouldn't matter if they deserve to be.

 

[DN28]

The part I bolded in Vachon's section to me sort of derails projects like this. Who cares on what time frame they played in if they are amongst the best? There could be 50 Goalies that get put in and that shouldn't matter if they deserve to be.

I am sure most of us here actually care in which time frame a particular player excelled in. To put it bluntly, do you have Tom Paton on your list?

Vachon peaked in the NHL that overexpanded with new franchises, lost some star players to WHA and didn't have Europeans behind the Iron Curtain. It's a legitimite question: was the 1970s goaltending so special that it deserves to have its 6th or 7th best goalie in the top 200?

I personally don't think so.

EDIT: Plus, at no point in his career Vachon was considered the best goalie. In 1975 there was Parent (and Holecek). In 1977 there was Dryden. There are just so many better goalies...

 

[ted2019]

I am sure most of us here actually care in which time frame a particular player excelled in. To put it bluntly, do you have Tom Paton on your list?

Vachon peaked in the NHL that overexpanded with new franchises, lost some star players to WHA and didn't have Europeans behind the Iron Curtain. It's a legitimite question: was the 1970s goaltending so special that it deserves to have its 6th or 7th best goalie in the top 200?

I personally don't think so.

No, I don't have Tom Paton on my list as I'm not finished yet. What I said that it shouldn't matter on what era they played in, as long as they DESERVE to be there. ( Actually, Paton is on my list as I just double checked it.)

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

The part I bolded in Vachon's section to me sort of derails projects like this. Who cares on what time frame they played in if they are amongst the best? There could be 50 Goalies that get put in and that shouldn't matter if they deserve to be.

I disagree. I'm against a strict quota of course, but it is only responsible to look at your representation by era and position when putting a list like this together. Everybody has nostalgia and biases and blind spots, and a good way to double-check for those things is to see whether your list is skewed in a particular way. If somebody has 20 centers from the 1990s and three centers from the 1930s, they can argue as long as they want about who "deserves" to be there but nobody should buy that argument because obviously something is wrong with their evaluation.

On the HOH Top 40 goalies list, 7 of the top 33 goalies had most of their career achievements in the 1970s, playing in one of the most unbalanced eras in history and at a time when the NHL goalie talent pool was almost exclusively Canadian and the available talent was further watered down by expansion and the WHA. You absolutely have to take that into account when trying to assess accomplishments from that era.

Which is why I mostly agree with DN28, and I think people should consider, say, ranking Luongo and Worters ahead of Esposito and Parent, Lundqvist ahead of Holecek, and every goalie mentioned in DN28's post ahead of Giacomin. And even if you still rate Vachon fairly highly like me because he was one of the only top goalies from that era that didn't really benefit from the huge lack of parity in the 1970s, he still shouldn't go ahead of guys like Lehman, Rayner or Price.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

Instead of these 4 netminders I would like to see some potentially underrated candidates that many people may omit such as: Hugh Lehman and Hap Holmes,
Harry Lumley and Chuck Rayner,
Curtis Joseph and John Vanbiesbrouck,
Percy LeSueur and John Ross Roach.

Just curious, why do you think Harry Lumley is a must-add? He's one of those guys that every time I look at him, I seem to rate him lower than before. No significant accomplishments past the age of 28, has 2-3 seasons at the start of his career that he almost certainly wouldn't have had in any other era, sketchy playoff record, was a journeyman that didn't do much better than the goalies he replaced or the goalies who replaced him, and his entire legacy is built on getting Hart credit for two seasons behind a very strong defensive team and winning a Cup with a budding dynasty. To me, Lumley looks like Al Rollins with more longevity.

To echo your argument against Vachon, why do we think the 7th best goalie from the Original Six is a top 200 player?

 

[buffalowing88]

Shit, is there time still left? I have been trying to post here and there but literally, somehow in the 20+ years I have been in North Carolina I never got bit by any of the wildlife and then I go in to see my brother at an Amazon warehouse up here in Charlotte, NC and wind up with a spider bite that wrecked me for the entire week. If I posted this week, it was not of lucid mind. I have a list and I can prep it now if it's not too late, but otherwise, I totally valued the conversation!

 

[buffalowing88]

Obvious comparison, but Martin St. Louis? I see St. Louis as someone who maybe does have a legitimate edge over Kariya in his playoffs, but I feel largely the same about their regular season record... and maybe lean slightly towards Kariya in that regard.

Fortunately, St. Louis was already included in the Top 100, somehow. His contributions would have made him a hard choice for me, personally, for the top 200. His accolades are fine and all but that man had stacked offensive lineups for the majority of his career and I strongly believe that if the NHL ever had to re-draft players ala a video game, that he would be in the top 10. He embodies the worst hockey I've seen and not because he was big or brooding, but because he was normally the recipient of incredible centers. Lecavalier has been lost in this forum as if he wasn't a proptypical center for 4-5 years. Richards has been all but forgotten to history, when at one point I promise he was the most valuable FA in the league. Stamkos has had injury history, but he's also had a HOF career. But it was St. Louis who should be remembered?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Fortunately, St. Louis was already included in the Top 100, somehow. His contributions would have made him a hard choice for me, personally, for the top 200. His accolades are fine and all but that man had stacked offensive lineups for the majority of his career and I strongly believe that if the NHL ever had to re-draft players ala a video game, that he would be in the top 10. He embodies the worst hockey I've seen and not because he was big or brooding, but because he was normally the recipient of incredible centers. Lecavalier has been lost in this forum as if he wasn't a proptypical center for 4-5 years. Richards has been all but forgotten to history, when at one point I promise he was the most valuable FA in the league. Stamkos has had injury history, but he's also had a HOF career. But it was St. Louis who should be remembered?

Is this spider bite related?

 

[DN28]

Just curious, why do you think Harry Lumley is a must-add? He's one of those guys that every time I look at him, I seem to rate him lower than before. No significant accomplishments past the age of 28, has 2-3 seasons at the start of his career that he almost certainly wouldn't have had in any other era, sketchy playoff record, was a journeyman that didn't do much better than the goalies he replaced or the goalies who replaced him, and his entire legacy is built on getting Hart credit for two seasons behind a very strong defensive team and winning a Cup with a budding dynasty. To me, Lumley looks like Al Rollins with more longevity.

Not necessarily a must-add, just a better goalie than those 4 I haven't included on my list.

Lumley has 13 seasons as a number 1 goalie in the environment of only 6 NHL teams. (Well, 11 "decent" seasons if you want to scratch off 1945 and 1960)..

That itself is a significant achievement, although it wouldn't make him a top 200 player all-time..

My read on Lumley is that he was a reliable top 4-5 goalie for more than a decade with few spikes upwards.

He has those 1954 and 1955 seasons where the media voted him over prime Sawchuk for the 1st AST. I'm not convinced these selections were undeserved. Although Lumley led the league in GAA, writers also gave him plenty of Hart votes (5th and 2nd) which suggests he was a real difference maker.

1948 is another quality season. Coaches, who voted ASTs in this time, prefered Broda, Brimsek and Durnan all above Lumley. But there were additional unofficial all-stars from this season and all of them uplift Lumley.

This was not my original research, other HFB member, nik jr, posted them in a different thread and I stored it.

'48 all-star team chosen by Sid Abel, Syl Apps, Neil Colville, Elmer Lach, Johnny Mariucci, Milt Schmidt and Foster Hewitt:
1st AST goalie: Lumley; 2nd AST goalie: Broda.

'48 poll of the Rangers players about the toughest opponents (New York Times; May 5, 1948):
1st AST goalie: Lumley; 2nd AST goalie: Brimsek.

'48 all-star team voted by Hockey News readers before the end of the season:
1st AST goalie: Lumley; 2nd AST goalie: Broda.

1946 season is also interesting. Lumley was the 3rd AST in a strange voting system from members of the press (probably). He was also 4th overall in Hart voting (Durnan was 3rd though).

During the last HOH project, overpass found out and posted the unofficial '46 all-star team voted on by coaches. Results? A tie between Lumley and Durnan for the 1st AST goalie.

To echo your argument against Vachon, why do we think the 7th best goalie from the Original Six is a top 200 player?

I was talking about one decade (1970s). Original Six era covers 25 years which makes it different.

 

[K Fleur]

There is no possible way I could be convinced this was not one of the top 200 players this sport has seen. I have a lot more time for Kariya than I do Bure(though Bure obviously belongs on this list as well).

Selanne should obviously rank higher but I think a lot of that has to do with his knee injuries being able to be “fixed” with surgery where as Kariya‘s head injuries are not(Atleast yet, hopefully).

 

[ted2019]

Shit, is there time still left? I have been trying to post here and there but literally, somehow in the 20+ years I have been in North Carolina I never got bit by any of the wildlife and then I go in to see my brother at an Amazon warehouse up here in Charlotte, NC and wind up with a spider bite that wrecked me for the entire week. If I posted this week, it was not of lucid mind. I have a list and I can prep it now if it's not too late, but otherwise, I totally valued the conversation!

The list is due by the 18th.

 

[MXD]

Before most of the ballots get send, I'll encourage voters/participants to rather include those goalies with more stable and reliable record and to throw out a handful of up-and-down goalies who I think won't withstand in the discussion. Looking at the HOH Top-40 list from 2012 or 2013, highest ranked goalies I chose not to include on my list are Fuhr, Vachon, Giacomin and Barrasso.

Grant Fuhr had some great playoffs with the Oilers in 1980s but his career and his reg. season record does not differentiate all too much from his counterpart Andy Moog. Fuhr had the most success in the league which hasn't integrated all of the world's top goaltending. And after 1990 changes and development, Fuhr struggled to adjust, his play abruptly declined and in some seasons he turned out to be one of the worst NHL goalies. Unnecessary distraction with his drug abuse which also calls into question his earlier credentials. I'm not seeing a talent who would succeed in different eras and environments.

Rogie Vachon had 2 seasons of impressive results. Hart nominee and 2nd all-star teamer in 1975 and 1977, when he was also great statistically for mediocre LA Kings. But outside of these 2 seasons, there is virtually nothing else. A lot has been written about Bernie Parent being a two-season wonder but actually, Parent's "filler seasons" are way more pronounced than Vachon's. Also how many 1970s goalies do we want to include?


Instead of these 4 netminders I would like to see some potentially underrated candidates that many people may omit such as: Hugh Lehman and Hap Holmes,
Harry Lumley and Chuck Rayner,
Curtis Joseph and John Vanbiesbrouck,
Percy LeSueur and John Ross Roach.

John Ross Roach is the only one of these who didn't make it in the HOH Top-40 Goalies list some years ago but I think his case for the list is solid. Young Roach was compared favourably to Vezina and Benedict in the early 1920s NHL when there was no all-star voting or even Hart voting. A couple of good members around here have gathered the unofficial GMs/coaches all-star votings prior the official ones from 1931. Roach features on some of these; he was a 2nd teamer in 1927, a 4th teamer in 1928. Admittedly, Roach wasn't a factor in 1929 and in 1930. However, Roach's individual recognition continued into the 1930s as he was the only goalie who interrupted Charlie Gardiner's 4-year reign. Gardiner was the 1st AST in 1931, 1932, 1934, while Roach was the 1st AST in 1933. I know some posters here have spent much more time researching old goalies than me so I'm definitely willing to listen counter-arguments. Maybe I've stumbled only on the good and missed all the bad on Roach. But right now, Roach appears to be the goalie who proved himself in very different environments. Roach arrived strongly in a rigid early 1920s hockey with only few NHL teams, survived the crazy late 1920s years with all the rule changes, and continued to play well in a forward-passing era of the 1930s. Seemingly a goalie with good longevity and the ability to adjust.

Well-detailled and very informative post (and I can say that despite not agreeing with everything). I'm agreeing with a lot, so I'll focus on differences and disagreements.

Regarding Grant Fuhr, I can't quite see how his drug issues put into question his earlier successes. He wasn't abusing PEDs as far as I know. If your point was that his drug issues were a distraction, fair enough, though it's worth wondering who and what exactly were distracted. Also, saying his regular season record was similar to Andy Moog seems like a way to point out his similarities with another netminder while completely ignoring what differentiates them (and I'd also add that Andy Moog would've been a decent candidate for this list had his PO record been in line with his RS record). Fuhr also had workhorses seasons when these were not super common.

I'm probably ranking Grant Fuhr... somewhere, though I must admit I'm friendlier to goalies than most.

Regarding Rogatien Vachon, playing with the Kings can probably go a long way towards explaining the said "filler" seasons. I'm not really blaming him for his Wings-Bruins late career either : the Wings were awful and he was legit over the hill (while having already a full career) when he joined the Bruins. I don't know if I'm ranking Vachon, but there's probably a point where the gap between him and Esposito becomes unreasonable to justify sleeping on Vachon.

Regarding John Ross Roach... I don't think he can get away with the fact the Rangers won the Stanley Cup just before he joined them AND just after he left, despite the other core players remaining the same (and, to a certain extent, slipping into past-prime), and I'm also utterly unconvinced about the whole time he spent with Toronto. There's a lot to like in his late career though, especially getting the First All-Star Berth despite not winning the Vezina (that's in equal part a pro-Roach/anti-Thompson argument as far as I'm concerned)

I am sure most of us here actually care in which time frame a particular player excelled in. To put it bluntly, do you have Tom Paton on your list?

Vachon peaked in the NHL that overexpanded with new franchises, lost some star players to WHA and didn't have Europeans behind the Iron Curtain. It's a legitimite question: was the 1970s goaltending so special that it deserves to have its 6th or 7th best goalie in the top 200?

I personally don't think so.

EDIT: Plus, at no point in his career Vachon was considered the best goalie. In 1975 there was Parent (and Holecek). In 1977 there was Dryden. There are just so many better goalies...

That reads like an argument for Grant Fuhr in disguise.

Also, being worse than Dryden, Parent and Holecek doesn't mean much. The first one is arguably a Top-30 player of all time, and the last two are arguably top-100 players of all time (that's where I had them). There's probably a point where the gap between Vachon and these (...and Esposito) becomes unsustainable. And the gap between him and the likes of Giacomin has to be significant too (should we end up doing a Top-400 players).

I disagree. I'm against a strict quota of course, but it is only responsible to look at your representation by era and position when putting a list like this together. Everybody has nostalgia and biases and blind spots, and a good way to double-check for those things is to see whether your list is skewed in a particular way. If somebody has 20 centers from the 1990s and three centers from the 1930s, they can argue as long as they want about who "deserves" to be there but nobody should buy that argument because obviously something is wrong with their evaluation.

On the HOH Top 40 goalies list, 7 of the top 33 goalies had most of their career achievements in the 1970s, playing in one of the most unbalanced eras in history and at a time when the NHL goalie talent pool was almost exclusively Canadian and the available talent was further watered down by expansion and the WHA. You absolutely have to take that into account when trying to assess accomplishments from that era.

Which is why I mostly agree with DN28, and I think people should consider, say, ranking Luongo and Worters ahead of Esposito and Parent, Lundqvist ahead of Holecek, and every goalie mentioned in DN28's post ahead of Giacomin. And even if you still rate Vachon fairly highly like me because he was one of the only top goalies from that era that didn't really benefit from the huge lack of parity in the 1970s, he still shouldn't go ahead of guys like Lehman, Rayner or Price.

I don't have much to add to the above

Though I'm not sure WRT Price, though.

Just curious, why do you think Harry Lumley is a must-add? He's one of those guys that every time I look at him, I seem to rate him lower than before. No significant accomplishments past the age of 28, has 2-3 seasons at the start of his career that he almost certainly wouldn't have had in any other era, sketchy playoff record, was a journeyman that didn't do much better than the goalies he replaced or the goalies who replaced him, and his entire legacy is built on getting Hart credit for two seasons behind a very strong defensive team and winning a Cup with a budding dynasty. To me, Lumley looks like Al Rollins with more longevity.

To echo your argument against Vachon, why do we think the 7th best goalie from the Original Six is a top 200 player?

I MAY end up ranking Harry Lumley. His longevity is interesting, but being the fifth or sixth best netminder in a 6-team league is an issue, not to mention that his longevity is at least partly explained by the War. In the goalie project, Rayner stuck me as a significantly better during their career overlap (Lumley was quite young, however), and I was left with the impression that he was somewhat similar to Gerry McNeil in their career overlap.

Again, there's a point where the gap between him and Broda/Durnan (and Rayner) will become a bit uncomfortable; I'm just not sure whether that point happens before or after the 220 cutoff.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

The list is due by the 18th.

Is that right? I better start... I've been doing 60+ hour weeks for the past month and I keep putting this off.