[DEBATE] Who is the greatest goaltender in NHL history?

[Jester13]

33 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Gretzky kept doing it for some pretty mediocre LA teams though.   

Gretzky didn't put up numbers even close to what he was doing in Edmonton. Even so, in LA his teammates weren't slouches.

[IBatch]

2 hours ago, Jester13 said:

Gretzky didn't put up numbers even close to what he was doing in Edmonton. Even so, in LA his teammates weren't slouches.

His last Art Ross, 130, then Robataille 86, then Kurri 77, then Blake 68 then Zhtnik 58, two defenseman in their top five scorers.    That was considered, a bad team for the era.  They mostly weren't really that good for the era, without Gretzky.   Nichols was a very good player.  Scored 150 playing with Gretzky, that team had a ton of promise, not sure why they'd trade the guy after doing that.    His last Art Ross he was 33.    93-94 which I'm sure anyone around remembers well.   Gretzky and Mario traded Ross trophies back and forth for awhile, until it was Jagr's time.  

 

Mediocre - isn't slouches.  Take Gretzky off those teams.   Mediocre is probably nice.   Look what happened to a loaded PENs team without Mario.   Same thing that happened to EDM when Gretzky was hurt in 86-87.   Barely .500.    I'd argue the Canucks would have being a better team than LA all but one season without Gretzky, 1.5 actually.   Nichols.   That WAS their second line center.   Foolish. 

 

Gretzky's Kings beat EDM their first go at it.   But it's  said EDM just didn't have the heart to play him, not sure.  Could understand that.   Messier and McSorely sure didn't mind bringing the heat up though, so don't buy into that too much. 

 

That was Gretzky worst full year as a King (his final Art Ross).   92-93 he was injured but brought it playoff time.   There were plenty of guys I liked on their rosters.   But let's be real, take him away and what did they have, and what would they actually do?  All of those full years (by the lockout writing was on the wall for about a year) he was 70 plus points ahead of 2-4th in scoring, accept his injury shortened 92-93 year (went on to lead the playoffs again though).    89-90 was their best roster.   They should have kept Nichols.   Could have been LA's first cup. 

 

And for the record, I really liked a lot of their guys, year to year, but they rarely got it going because they kept changing it up.   Gretzky also changed that team the moment he stepped on the ice.    Changed hockey in the US actually.   Robataille was really the only mainstay, (and McSorely) even Kurri came later.  Taylor. Tonelli.  Nichols.   Hrudey.  Huddy.   Granato.  Blake.  Robinson.  Never at the same time and rarely the right ages.  Long in the tooth or just starting out.   Believe LA ownership might have taken a bit on more then they could properly chew, why Nichols was axed, he was on his way to have another awesome season.   Blake and Robataille did got on to have HHOF careers.   Blake was whom I hoped Jovo would emulate, just not the same though.   

Edited September 6, 2023 by IBatch

[Jester13]

3 hours ago, IBatch said:

His last Art Ross, 130, then Robataille 86, then Kurri 77, then Blake 68 then Zhtnik 58, two defenseman in their top five scorers.    That was considered, a bad team for the era.  They mostly weren't really that good for the era, without Gretzky.   Nichols was a very good player.  Scored 150 playing with Gretzky, that team had a ton of promise, not sure why they'd trade the guy after doing that.    His last Art Ross he was 33.    93-94 which I'm sure anyone around remembers well.   Gretzky and Mario traded Ross trophies back and forth for awhile, until it was Jagr's time.  

 

Mediocre - isn't slouches.  Take Gretzky off those teams.   Mediocre is probably nice.   Look what happened to a loaded PENs team without Mario.   Same thing that happened to EDM when Gretzky was hurt in 86-87.   Barely .500.    I'd argue the Canucks would have being a better team than LA all but one season without Gretzky, 1.5 actually.   Nichols.   That WAS their second line center.   Foolish. 

 

Gretzky's Kings beat EDM their first go at it.   But it's  said EDM just didn't have the heart to play him, not sure.  Could understand that.   Messier and McSorely sure didn't mind bringing the heat up though, so don't buy into that too much. 

 

That was Gretzky worst full year as a King (his final Art Ross).   92-93 he was injured but brought it playoff time.   There were plenty of guys I liked on their rosters.   But let's be real, take him away and what did they have, and what would they actually do?  All of those full years (by the lockout writing was on the wall for about a year) he was 70 plus points ahead of 2-4th in scoring, accept his injury shortened 92-93 year (went on to lead the playoffs again though).    89-90 was their best roster.   They should have kept Nichols.   Could have been LA's first cup. 

 

And for the record, I really liked a lot of their guys, year to year, but they rarely got it going because they kept changing it up.   Gretzky also changed that team the moment he stepped on the ice.    Changed hockey in the US actually.   Robataille was really the only mainstay, (and McSorely) even Kurri came later.  Taylor. Tonelli.  Nichols.   Hrudey.  Huddy.   Granato.  Blake.  Robinson.  Never at the same time and rarely the right ages.  Long in the tooth or just starting out.   Believe LA ownership might have taken a bit on more then they could properly chew, why Nichols was axed, he was on his way to have another awesome season.   Blake and Robataille did got on to have HHOF careers.   Blake was whom I hoped Jovo would emulate, just not the same though.   

Compare his points each year with Edmonton vs LA and any other team he played for.

[Jester13]

3 hours ago, IBatch said:

His last Art Ross, 130, then Robataille 86, then Kurri 77, then Blake 68 then Zhtnik 58, two defenseman in their top five scorers.    That was considered, a bad team for the era.  They mostly weren't really that good for the era, without Gretzky.   Nichols was a very good player.  Scored 150 playing with Gretzky, that team had a ton of promise, not sure why they'd trade the guy after doing that.    His last Art Ross he was 33.    93-94 which I'm sure anyone around remembers well.   Gretzky and Mario traded Ross trophies back and forth for awhile, until it was Jagr's time.  

 

Mediocre - isn't slouches.  Take Gretzky off those teams.   Mediocre is probably nice.   Look what happened to a loaded PENs team without Mario.   Same thing that happened to EDM when Gretzky was hurt in 86-87.   Barely .500.    I'd argue the Canucks would have being a better team than LA all but one season without Gretzky, 1.5 actually.   Nichols.   That WAS their second line center.   Foolish. 

 

Gretzky's Kings beat EDM their first go at it.   But it's  said EDM just didn't have the heart to play him, not sure.  Could understand that.   Messier and McSorely sure didn't mind bringing the heat up though, so don't buy into that too much. 

 

That was Gretzky worst full year as a King (his final Art Ross).   92-93 he was injured but brought it playoff time.   There were plenty of guys I liked on their rosters.   But let's be real, take him away and what did they have, and what would they actually do?  All of those full years (by the lockout writing was on the wall for about a year) he was 70 plus points ahead of 2-4th in scoring, accept his injury shortened 92-93 year (went on to lead the playoffs again though).    89-90 was their best roster.   They should have kept Nichols.   Could have been LA's first cup. 

 

And for the record, I really liked a lot of their guys, year to year, but they rarely got it going because they kept changing it up.   Gretzky also changed that team the moment he stepped on the ice.    Changed hockey in the US actually.   Robataille was really the only mainstay, (and McSorely) even Kurri came later.  Taylor. Tonelli.  Nichols.   Hrudey.  Huddy.   Granato.  Blake.  Robinson.  Never at the same time and rarely the right ages.  Long in the tooth or just starting out.   Believe LA ownership might have taken a bit on more then they could properly chew, why Nichols was axed, he was on his way to have another awesome season.   Blake and Robataille did got on to have HHOF careers.   Blake was whom I hoped Jovo would emulate, just not the same though.   

I'll save you the time:

Edmonton PPG 2.39

 

vs

 

LA Kings PPG 1.70

[IBatch]

45 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

I'll save you the time:

Edmonton PPG 2.39

 

vs

 

LA Kings PPG 1.70

Why didn't you start with that?

 

Seriously though, if it wasn't for Mario, he'd have just kept sweeping the hardware, and did anyways for awhile back and forth.   We all know EDM was a better team.    

 

Edit:  After Nichols was traded, Gretzky played on a line with Tony Granato and Thomas Sandstrom.   Still won the Art Ross trophy.   And his first season the Hart.   Rightly so too. 

 

They also beat the Stanley cup champs in the first round that year, no small feat - that team was loaded.   Same team that kept beating them the past 3 years.   1989-90.   They beat the Oilers the year before, this time they didn't and the Oilers won the cup.   Remember that well because I watched most televised games that playoffs. 

 

His follow up?  Another Art Ross. 163 points.   Granato kept scoring (for those that remember him, his points died completely once he wasn't playing with Gretzky). 

 

 Gretzky's back, neck and shoulder injuries just became too much.  92-93 played about half the games.   Was 32.     
 

He also won two Hart trophies (and a runner up to Brett Hull) 3 Art Ross with LA.   Sure he wasn't as "good", there was another sheriff in town as well in Mario then.   Mario however, played with some loaded teams in the early 90's too.  And was a lot younger.   Gretzky was 28 his first year in LA.   Mario had his best season at 27.   Food for thought.    What's McDavid career points per game going to look like, when he gets to 28-33/34 

Edited September 6, 2023 by IBatch

[Elias Pettersson]

4 hours ago, Jester13 said:

Gretzky didn't put up numbers even close to what he was doing in Edmonton. Even so, in LA his teammates weren't slouches.

Gretzky's last year in Edmonton he was on a pace for 186 points.  The following year in LA he was on a pace for 172 points.  That's not a big difference in the grand scheme of things, especially considering the fact that he changed teams, new players, new coaches, new systems.  

 

At the end of the day, he still won 3 more scoring titles with LA, the only player in NHL history to win the Art Ross trophy with two different teams.  He was also older and had a bad back.  Even in his last seasons with Edmonton he wasn't putting up 200 points anymore...

[Elias Pettersson]

53 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

I'll save you the time:

Edmonton PPG 2.39

 

vs

 

LA Kings PPG 1.70

So, Gretzky in his prime years was averaging 2.39 PPG, and then when he got older and into his 30's he slowed down and averaged only 1.70 PPG.  Not sure what you are trying to prove here, don't players numbers usually go down as they get older and into their 30's?

[Jester13]

1 hour ago, IBatch said:

Why didn't you start with that?

 

Seriously though, if it wasn't for Mario, he'd have just kept sweeping the hardware, and did anyways for awhile back and forth.   We all know EDM was a better team.    

 

Edit:  After Nichols was traded, Gretzky played on a line with Tony Granato and Thomas Sandstrom.   Still won the Art Ross trophy.   And his first season the Hart.   Rightly so too. 

 

They also beat the Stanley cup champs in the first round that year, no small feat - that team was loaded.   Same team that kept beating them the past 3 years.   1989-90.   They beat the Oilers the year before, this time they didn't and the Oilers won the cup.   Remember that well because I watched most televised games that playoffs. 

 

His follow up?  Another Art Ross. 163 points.   Granato kept scoring (for those that remember him, his points died completely once he wasn't playing with Gretzky). 

 

 Gretzky's back, neck and shoulder injuries just became too much.  92-93 played about half the games.   Was 32.     
 

He also won two Hart trophies (and a runner up to Brett Hull) 3 Art Ross with LA.   Sure he wasn't as "good", there was another sheriff in town as well in Mario then.   Mario however, played with some loaded teams in the early 90's too.  And was a lot younger.   Gretzky was 28 his first year in LA.   Mario had his best season at 27.   Food for thought.    What's McDavid career points per game going to look like, when he gets to 28-33/34 

 

43 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

So, Gretzky in his prime years was averaging 2.39 PPG, and then when he got older and into his 30's he slowed down and averaged only 1.70 PPG.  Not sure what you are trying to prove here, don't players numbers usually go down as they get older and into their 30's?

Maybe you both need to go back to read my original point? 

 

Brodeau was an amazing goalie, which is why he leads basically all categories for goalies; same for Gretzky as a forward. Someone said Brodeau was the product of his team, and I said that's like saying Gretzky isn't the best player of all time because he was the product of his team. Just because The Great One had a better ppg in Edmonton vs any other team he played for doesn't make me change my mind that he is the GOAT, same as Brodeau being the goalie GOAT.

[Elias Pettersson]

20 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

 

Maybe you both need to go back to read my original point? 

 

Brodeau was an amazing goalie, which is why he leads basically all categories for goalies; same for Gretzky as a forward. Someone said Brodeau was the product of his team, and I said that's like saying Gretzky isn't the best player of all time because he was the product of his team. Just because The Great One had a better ppg in Edmonton vs any other team he played for doesn't make me change my mind that he is the GOAT, same as Brodeau being the goalie GOAT.

Gretzky would have made the Hall of Fame even if you take out all of his numbers from Edmonton.  

 

Gretzky's stats NOT including his Edmonton numbers:

 

311 goals  877 assists  1,118 points

 

3 Art Ross trophies

1 Hart trophy

1 Stanley Cup final

 

Gretzky has better numbers and more trophies than Henrik Sedin even if you don't include anything he did in Edmonton.  And this is from age 27-38, so excluding most of his prime years.  That is truly mind boggling if you ask me.  No other player in NHL history has ever done that.  

 

You can't say that about Brodeur.  Without playing in New Jersey he probably even isn't as good as Luongo.  Luongo had great numbers even in Florida.  Same with Patrick Roy.  He had incredible numbers with 2 different teams just like Gretzky.  So how can you say Brodeur was better than Roy?  What did Brodeur prove outside of New Jersey?

[Jester13]

3 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Gretzky would have made the Hall of Fame even if you take out all of his numbers from Edmonton.  

 

Gretzky's stats NOT including his Edmonton numbers:

 

311 goals  877 assists  1,118 points

 

3 Art Ross trophies

1 Hart trophy

1 Stanley Cup final

 

Gretzky has better numbers and more trophies than Henrik Sedin even if you don't include anything he did in Edmonton.  And this is from age 27-38, so excluding most of his prime years.  That is truly mind boggling if you ask me.  No other player in NHL history has ever done that.  

 

You can't say that about Brodeur.  Without playing in New Jersey he probably even isn't as good as Luongo.  Luongo had great numbers even in Florida.  Same with Patrick Roy.  He had incredible numbers with 2 different teams just like Gretzky.  So how can you say Brodeur was better than Roy?  What did Brodeur prove outside of New Jersey?

Are you serious with this question? Because he played his whole career with NJ means it tarnishes his accolades? 

[IBatch]

2 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Gretzky would have made the Hall of Fame even if you take out all of his numbers from Edmonton.  

 

Gretzky's stats NOT including his Edmonton numbers:

 

311 goals  877 assists  1,118 points

 

3 Art Ross trophies

1 Hart trophy

1 Stanley Cup final

 

Gretzky has better numbers and more trophies than Henrik Sedin even if you don't include anything he did in Edmonton.  And this is from age 27-38, so excluding most of his prime years.  That is truly mind boggling if you ask me.  No other player in NHL history has ever done that.  

 

You can't say that about Brodeur.  Without playing in New Jersey he probably even isn't as good as Luongo.  Luongo had great numbers even in Florida.  Same with Patrick Roy.  He had incredible numbers with 2 different teams just like Gretzky.  So how can you say Brodeur was better than Roy?  What did Brodeur prove outside of New Jersey?

In 791 games.  28-38, missed a season between a lockout and injury.    I think Broduer did win a game or two with St. Louis. 

Edited September 6, 2023 by IBatch

[Elias Pettersson]

2 minutes ago, IBatch said:

In 791 games.  28-38, missed a season between a lockout and injury.  

Gretzky is a first ballot hall of famer even if you only include his stats for his 8 years in LA. Mind boggling. 

[CanuckRookieFan]

When we played road hockey it was always Dominic Hasek that everyone wanted to be known as when playing in net so that tells you something 

[Elias Pettersson]

3 hours ago, Jester13 said:

Are you serious with this question? Because he played his whole career with NJ means it tarnishes his accolades? 

I never said it tarnished anything. You are claiming Brodeur is the GOAT goalie and comparing him to Gretzky saying they both played on stacked teams. I’m saying Gretzky is a first ballot hall of famer even if you take out his Edmonton years. Same can be said for Patrick Roy. Roy makes the hall of fame even if you don’t include his stats for Montreal. You can’t say that about Brodeur. 
 

Even so, Patrick Roy has 3 Conn Smythe trophies. Dominic Hasek has 2 Hart trophies. They all have their Vezina’s and cups so nobody cares about that. Brodeur doesn’t compare to Roy or Hasek when it comes to the individual trophies that truly show greatness. 
 

Martin Brodeur never won the Conn Smythe trophy. As a matter of fact, when New Jersey won the cup in 2003 the goalie for the other team who lost in the finals won the Conn Smythe, not Brodeur. Patrick Roy won 3 Conn Smythe trophies for two different teams. That tells you that he was the primary factor for Montreal and Colorado winning those cups. Martin Brodeur wasn’t the most pivotal part of his team in those 3 New Jersey Cup runs. That’s the difference between the two. 

Edited September 7, 2023 by Elias Pettersson

[Jester13]

2 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

I never said it tarnished anything. You are claiming Brodeur is the GOAT goalie and comparing him to Gretzky saying they both played on stacked teams. I’m saying Gretzky is a first ballot hall of famer even if you take out his Edmonton years. Same can be said for Patrick Roy. Roy makes the hall of fame even if you don’t include his stats for Montreal. You can’t say that about Brodeur. 
 

Even so, Patrick Roy has 3 Conn Smythe trophies. Dominic Hasek has 2 Hart trophies. They all have their Vezina’s and cups so nobody cares about that. Brodeur doesn’t compare to Roy or Hasek when it comes to the individual trophies that truly show greatness. 
 

Martin Brodeur never won the Conn Smythe trophy. As a matter of fact, when New Jersey won the cup in 2003 the goalie for the other team who lost in the finals won the Conn Smythe, not Brodeur. Patrick Roy won 3 Conn Smythe trophies for two different teams. That tells you that he was the primary factor for Montreal and Colorado winning those cups. Martin Brodeur wasn’t the most pivotal part of his team in those 3 New Jersey Cup runs. That’s the difference between the two. 

Ee, you dont know what im saying. Seek to understand.

 

I'm saying that anyone claiming Brodeau isn't the goat simply because of the team he was on is like saying Gretzky isn't the goat simply because of the team he was on. Brodeau leads basically all categories. Until someone beats all his records, I'll hold onto my opinion.

 

Sounds to me like you're claiming the fact that Roy played on other teams and still played well means he's better than Brodeau, and I'm saying, "how can you make that claim when Brodeau played for (essentially) one team?" Hardly seems like a good faith comparison. 

 

Enjoy your opinion.

[Elias Pettersson]

1 hour ago, Jester13 said:

Ee, you dont know what im saying. Seek to understand.

 

I'm saying that anyone claiming Brodeau isn't the goat simply because of the team he was on is like saying Gretzky isn't the goat simply because of the team he was on. Brodeau leads basically all categories. Until someone beats all his records, I'll hold onto my opinion.

 

Sounds to me like you're claiming the fact that Roy played on other teams and still played well means he's better than Brodeau, and I'm saying, "how can you make that claim when Brodeau played for (essentially) one team?" Hardly seems like a good faith comparison. 

 

Enjoy your opinion.

Career Save Percentage:

Dominik Hasek - .922

Martin Brodeur - .912

 

Career GAA:

Dominik Hasek - 2.20

Martin Brodeur - 2.24

 

Vezina Trophies:

Dominik Hasek - 6

Martin Brodeur - 4

 

Hart Trophies:

Dominik Hasek - 2

Martin Brodeur - 0

 

Hasek leads Brodeur in all the important categories. And this is even playing on an inferior team. Sure, Brodeur has the longevity records of most wins, most shutouts, etc.  But so does Ray Bourque as a defenceman.  But nobody is saying Ray Bourque is the GOAT Dman. 

 

Martin Brodeur is for sure a top 3-4 goalie of all time. And you can certainly debate that he is the GOAT. I just don’t see what makes him the GOAT personally. 

[Kevin Biestra]

32 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Career Save Percentage:

Dominik Hasek - .922

Martin Brodeur - .912

 

Career GAA:

Dominik Hasek - 2.20

Martin Brodeur - 2.24

 

Vezina Trophies:

Dominik Hasek - 6

Martin Brodeur - 4

 

Hart Trophies:

Dominik Hasek - 2

Martin Brodeur - 0

 

Hasek leads Brodeur in all the important categories. And this is even playing on an inferior team. Sure, Brodeur has the longevity records of most wins, most shutouts, etc.  But so does Ray Bourque as a defenceman.  But nobody is saying Ray Bourque is the GOAT Dman. 

 

Martin Brodeur is for sure a top 3-4 goalie of all time. And you can certainly debate that he is the GOAT. I just don’t see what makes him the GOAT personally. 

 

It was impressive how slow and steady won the race for Ray Bourque over Paul Coffey in the end though.  As of 1990 or so it was just assumed that Bourque could never catch up to Coffey...but he was consistent as hell right up to the end while Paul Coffey aged like a normal human.

[IBatch]

On 9/6/2023 at 11:09 PM, Jester13 said:

Ee, you dont know what im saying. Seek to understand.

 

I'm saying that anyone claiming Brodeau isn't the goat simply because of the team he was on is like saying Gretzky isn't the goat simply because of the team he was on. Brodeau leads basically all categories. Until someone beats all his records, I'll hold onto my opinion.

 

Sounds to me like you're claiming the fact that Roy played on other teams and still played well means he's better than Brodeau, and I'm saying, "how can you make that claim when Brodeau played for (essentially) one team?" Hardly seems like a good faith comparison. 

 

Enjoy your opinion.

Know your reply is to EP, but since we started this, it's an opinion of quite a few guys who watched those teams.   Broduer was absolutely exceptional.   A better comp might be Borque than Gretzky though (that's too generous really).   Just as steady as ever.    But not the GOAT either.    Nobody was saying Broduer was the best all-time during his playing days in the 90's.   The hockey experts who watched guys like Sawchuk play all the way to Hasek, still had Sawchuk best).   It's a pretty common line of thinking that Lemaires system which of course he was a key cog, benefited him which of course it did.    Terry Crisp copied it with SJ right away.   With Irbe and an aging Makarov, against the best regular season to date (which was nuts considering the MTL teams of the 70's and what they did), fell the mighty Wings and shocked the hockey world.    Makarov was that good though, Crips gave up on coaching him, because he'd come up say "Niet no no no - you do it all wrong" take the chalk out of his hand and re-do the board lol.   So he just gave him five guys to coach on one side of the ice and let Makarov (34 plus at the time) do his thing.    That's how powerful the neutral zone trap was played well.   A ragtag group of guys could make it work. 

 

NJ didn't have a ragtag crew.   Kevin Stevens talked about that team.   Said a lot of guys could have padded their individual stats, and that he himself bought into Lemaires game plan,  and left a ton of points off the board as a result.  He was every bit as talented in the o-zone as Neidermayer, but instead took the harder job of defending to let him roam or strike with planned plays.  

 

Looking just at stats is fun.   But context matters.    Broduer had stiff competition in the 90's but was part of the conversation as the best goalie.   So was Belfour.  Roy.  Hasek also had the best six years in a row any goalie all-time managed during Broduer's best NJ years.   Then their were guys like Kolzig, Vernon, Beezer, Richter and Cujo (often in the Vezina conversation).. Then the 2000's.   Eventually a guy named Luongo came up,  Kipper had a couple great seasons but who else was around to challenge him?    Roy won another cup (number 4, two from two teams, 3 conn Smythes),  was a first team all-star and vezina runner up and Hart finalist his second to last season...his final season more Hart votes, 4th in Vezina voting.  

 

Last two years he posted .925 and .920sp seasons.   Was he better goalie at 36,37 than he was when he broke into the league and inspired Broduer plus all the future generations of goalies to use the butterfly?  Well that certainly doesn't make much sense.   Most goalies SP climbed in the dead puck era.    Heck even Vernon almost done in Florida posted what today would put him tops.   And he wasn't the best Vernon at all by then.  

 

 Roy could have played until he was 40 and padded his stats for sure.  And his stats doesn't include 4 x 4 OT or shootout wins/losses either.  Ties.   Lundqvist 

 

As an aside Broduer isn't a bad choice either.   Gretzky thinks it's Furh.  Coco is a pretty great movie about his career.   Guy was absolute  money, and EDM's style hung him out to dry often.   NJ style rarely if ever hung Broduer out to dry.   And Broduer was so good with the puck..leagues made some dumb rules, penalizing skill - Broduer,  Turco and others that could handle the puck.   Broduer wanted to play every single game ... Furh his last great season, was ridden by Keenan like a mule - he also wanted to play every single game.    Rare ability.  

 

Pet Peeve of mine, is this:   They should be put in their own column and deducted from the win column.  400 wins used to be an automatic HHOF career.   Except for Cujo.   Sawchuk with his shut-out to games played ratio, gets lost, how many would wins would he have instead of ties?  Same with Plante, Hall. A lot of guys.  Hasek too.    MAF, and Lundqvist.   Even Luongo who wasn't great at it really. 

 

I've pointed this out dozens of times now.   Most of us saw and know Lundqvist was a great goalie.  But in fairness to guys like Hall, Plante,  Bower, Dryden, Espo, Parent, Smith, Furh etc ... He wouldn't have cracked 400 wins if those were instead tie games. 

 

Even counting them all as wins,  Broduer is 10th all-time in winning percentage.   Without that benefit,  Roy is 7th.   Dryden's is sick almost 75%.   Vasilevsky is currently 4th, with that benefit.   Plante is 5th.  Hasek is 11th.   The list would move around not including shoot-out wins.   Lundkqvist doesn't make the top 50, with the added benefit.  Vernon, Osgood, Furh do. 

 

Edited September 8, 2023 by IBatch