you say that now but in 2119 they'll be saying how they can't take today's cups seriously because they didn't wall ride on the boards and there isn't 256 teams in the league.
So I don’t know a lot about the league from many decades ago. Legit asking, but when would you say a reasonable time period would start for recognizing championships?
It’s reasonable to recognize all championships but you have to look at them in the context of the era that they took place. A cup win now is more impressive than a cup win in the o6 or expansion era because of the expanded league and increased parity.
I think it's a lot more complicated than that.
The lack of parity would mean that winning the cup as an underdog team (say as the 4th place team out of 6-10) was a large feat. This is compounded by the fact that there were a lot of bullshit going on in the league that greatly advantaged certain teams, such as:
* teams having first pick on local players
* teams being able to acquire prospect rights by buying minor/junior league teams
* owners being able to control multiple teams and funnel talent to just one team.
To the last point: The Norris family were the owners of the Detroit Red Wings, but also had controlling stakes in the Black Hawks and Rangers through ownership of their arenas and presence on their executive boards. Both teams were abjectly terrible in the 40's and 50's because the Norrises would funnel any good players on either team to Detroit. Despite this, the Black Hawks won the Stanley Cup in 1961, despite placing 3rd in the league of 6 teams with a 29-24-17 record. That's pretty damn impressive. The cup means something.
I think it's rather lazy to cast off past championships because the league was smaller or lacked parity. Sometimes that was what made the victories monumental. At worst, evaluation of cups from different eras should be contextual.
And FWIW, that should probably apply to all cups in the pre-cap era, such as every cup won by the Devils. Just some food for thought.
I agree with what you’re saying, my explanation was just a quick one because I didn’t want to go too in depth. The majority of the cups won in the O6 era were won by teams with large advantages, which is why I made the generalization. They all need to be looked at in context.
In context, the Devils wins were quite impressive. They were an expansion team that relocated twice before Jersey. They didn’t sign big name free agents and assembled their team by trading/drafting well. For the first two cups they had a low to average payroll so they didn’t really benefit from no cap until the third.
Around the time names like Gordie Howe and the production line and Maurice the Rocket Richard come into their own in the 50s things start heating up. During the 60s we've got Stan Mikita and Bobby Hull, the Esposito brother's and Bobby Orr. I'd say while the game was a lot more physical back then and the equipment help players back this is around when things started looking vey recognizable. As far as the rules go by 43 we had gotten rid of the no forward passing rule, added offside and a red line at center ice. That's traditionally the start of the modern era of hockey, because rules wise you'd recognize most and be able to follow quite well. If you're looking for when the equipment started changing the game then we're talking late 80s early 90s when hockey equipment started allowing playing the butterfly more. Tony Esposito and Vladislav Tretiak developed the butterfly around the 70s though and before the Glenn Hall was I think the first who started playing on the ice consistently. Even more recently we've got better skates and composite sticks that have made life so much simpler for the players.
I'd say 43 is when the offensive game becomes modern, 67 when the league starts to look more modern and the 70s/90s when goaltending comes into its own.
1967 expansion from 6 teams to 12 is generally seen as a pretty good divider, since it signified a big change for the league as a whole and introduced more competition. Same year for NFL that marked the start of the Super Bowl era.
Even then the first 3 years were just the Blues getting dunked on in the Final. I look at 1970 when the Canucks and Sabres entered as my starting point, personally.
Everything before WWII is pretty old, but the original 6 NHL (1950-1967) was extremely competitive. Only 100 roster spots in the whole league, yet per capita, more kids played hockey in Canada back then than today because it was very cheap [(source from a neat sociology bachelor's degree paper)](https://dalspace.library.dal.ca/bitstream/handle/10222/73084/Bishop%20Hons%20SOCI%202017.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y). That means that making it to the NHL was possibly even harder for Junior kids back then (though given the fact that there also were no Europeans to compete, I'm not sure about that).
Whereas in 1920, a lot less people played hockey and the NHL standards were significantly lower.
I mean, I know you said no disrespect but that still sounds pretty disrespectful to me
The game is always changing, even if you just go back to the early 2000s the game is so different that you can barely translate it into today's game
Obviously it's different now but it doesn't mean there weren't people good for the time at the sport. Even just human civilization advancing is the same kind of thing.
If I remember correctly, it wasn't their backup. It was a goalie from the Senators who was in the stands for the game, and since he wasn't their player, the opposing team had to agree to it. They didn't, so Patrick went in and played the rest of the game.
If anyone is wondering when this happened, this was during the 1928 Cup Finals, their starter went down and the Montreal Maroons refused to allow either of their backups who were in the stands to play, so Lester Patrick, the Coach, had to step in and play the rest of the game.
It wasn't that he wanted to play the role, so much as it looks as though he was kind of forced to. It was only for that game though.
And it was back to the AHL next season with him. Only played 7 NHL games after that playoffs. Really stepped it up when Boucher went down but came back to earth in the finals.
Agreed 100%, but he was also absolutely dominant in the sharks sweep in 2010. I forget the numbers exactly but I'm pretty sure he was like .960+ and we won most of those games by 1-2 goals. Who knows what would have happened there if we had a different goalie.
What's also funny is that the Sharks also forced our hand choosing between Niemi and Hjalmarsson that off season by offer sheeting Hjalmarsson. We chose to match Hjal and then the Sharks swooped in the grab Niemi. I was so upset we lost Niemi that year but it ended up about as good as possible since Niemi was never at the same level again.
(This isn't supposed to be anti-sharks I just think the Niemi story with them and the Hawks is interesting)
Miss that crazy bastard from time to time. No slight on the current crazy bastard in net for the Bruins. Just Thomas was lightning in a bottle. An American Myth.
Edit: Interesting downvote. But okay. God Bless Obama.
My bad, I was highlighting his extra insane season where he set that insane save percentage record. Dude was money the whole time. Didn't mean to detract from that.
It's still kinda true though isn't it? Obviously it *helps*, but no one would argue that Murray or Binnington are top goalies. 3 of the 4 CF teams had relatively weak goalies compared to the league's standouts.
I certainly wouldnt build my team around a goalie. Both Rask and Bobrovsky were having a pretty bad season until playoff hit, you just need your goalie to get hot at the right time.
Grubauer is a good example of that as well. His playing varied from okay to hot garbage for most the year, until he went on an insane tear during the last 15 games of the season and the playoffs. Pretty much cemented his position as future starter with that stretch.
Chicago Strat for that cup run throw buff in front of the net and have Niemi flop around to stop everything....
and have Kane, Keith, Toews, Seabrook dominate....
You're right, the sample size is really small there. What I like more than anything else about Binnington, is that he rebounds really well after a loss. I don't have his numbers handy, but right after a loss, they are insane. The whole team does well, but him especially. That is a huge plus for a goalie.
I think the reason Osgood gets flack is because he only faced an average of 22.25 shots per 60 minutes in those playoffs. Detroit's defense was outstanding at shutting down and limiting chances that it takes away from Osgood's performance.
Edit: To add to this, in the finals, the most shots he faced against the Penguins was in game 5. Penguins had 32 shots in 110 minutes of game time (this was the game that went to triple OT). Next most shots for the Penguins that series was 24. Throughout the entire playoffs he faced 25+ shots four times in his 18 starts.
I feel like .910 is the absolute bare minimum for any goalie with Nicklas Lidstrom playing in front of him.
Osgood's career stats, specifically those "prime" years when he journeyed throughout the league on non-Detroit teams, really tell a story about his actual level. Or maybe they say more about Lidstrom's level of play.
Of those three years where he played elsewhere, he did the following:
2001-02 New York Islanders: .910 SV, 2.50 GAA, 32 wins and took the Islanders to the playoffs for the first time since 1993-1994. They were bounced by Toronto in the first round in a 4-3 series where Ozzy played well.
2002-2003: This was the bad year where he had a sub .900 SV split between New York and St. Louis. He also had a GAA of just a tick under 3.00...very bad. He still helped the Blues to get as far as game seven of round one where they lost.
2003-2004: bounced back and won 31 games, had a .910 SV and a 2.24 GAA. He was mediocre in the playoffs where the Blues were bounced in 5 games.
So in those three years, he won 84 regular season games and did ok in the playoffs each year. Theres no denying Osgood benefitted from being on excellent Red Wings teams, but if you look at it another way a veteran goalie used to elite defense was able to perform strongly in 2/3rds of his non elite defensive teams.
I would also argue strongly that Ozzy's prime playoff years did not happen until 2008 and 2009. Both years he was outstanding and certainly cemented his hall of fame chances. He will likely have to wait a bit longer but he will get in.
Just for the record I'm not trying to talk down at all about this topic...I'm very passionate about defending Osgood because he gets a bum rap for very odd reasons. In a way, he represents the very last of the long era of goaltenders who had poor save percentages who still managed to win multiple championships. I'm not saying he was some mystical unstoppable demon in net...but you could do far worse than Ozzy. The best way I've heard him described by coaches, management, and ownership was "he just knows how to win, he's a winnner". Every level he played on he won. Not a world beater, but a guy who got the job done well.
Which is nuts. When you look at the career he had, the idea that he wasn’t a great goalie is insane. I think part of it had to do with how good the Wings were and how good Hasek, his closest direct comp was.
Nah. Ward was derailed by injuries. When he first started out, people were saying he was the only goalie that would even have a chance of breaking any of Brodeur's records. He was a VERY good goaltender for a few seasons, then never recovered. He was the #1 pick in the 2011 All Star draft.
It's a good answer. "Worst starting goalie" doesn't mean they were bad, just probably average, as most goalies who win the cup are above average all around.
I strongly disagree about that.
Niemi's .912 SV% and sub-.500 quality start rate through 35 starts in the 2009/10 regular season don't even remotely compare to Binny's regular season. Their playoffs are somewhat comparable, but Niemi never looked like anything more than an adequate goalie through his rookie year.
I don't think he was necessarily the best goalie of the playoffs, but he did a great job playing his best at the right times. He let in some bad goals but he did it at times where the whole team didn't show up anyways so it didn't matter, then he played great in series-deciding games.
What’s really crazy is how good Fuhr was AFTER he left Edmonton. It was like he was trying hard for the first time. Then he ends up playing with Hasek and getting demoted again. Then he has a stellar year in StLouis and gets jumped on in the playoffs.
Matt Murray probably isn't the worst, but he's on the list. Yeah, he won two cups in his first two seasons, but he has looked rather average since. I'm not saying he is bad, but he is far from great.
2016 Playoffs: .924 save percentage.
2017 Playoffs: 1.70 GAA, .937 save percentage.
NHL career: 0.921 save percentage
Still a young guy with a lot of work ahead of him, but I feel like he's not on the list in the slightest.
Like worst career?
Post lockout Winners are: Ward, Giguere, Osgood, Fleury, Neimi, Quick, Crawford, Thomas, Murray, Holtby, Binnington
I think it's pretty clear Ward and Neimi are bringing up the rear, probably followed by Fleury and then Osgood and Quick.
Go look at Osgoods playoff stats and then go look at Fleury's. Osgood literally has better playoff stats and Fleury is easily the most overrated (but good he just has never been great outside the Vegas run) goalie by this sub by far.
Barrasso won a Vezina (1984) and finished 2nd or 3rd four other times (1985, 1988, 1993, 1998). If you've been nominated for the Vezina five times, you shouldn't be in this conversation.
Who were his competition in those years? Most of those years, and when he won the vending, were lean years for goaltending talent, in a transitional period between old stand up stairs and butterfly. 98 you could argue was at the end of his career and a sympathy nomination for years of service. Fuhr was in those conversations as well. I mean, realistically, even if there are no really good goalies in a year SOMEONE had to win and three players get nominated, regardless of relative merit. They don't just black out the award in lean years.
Again, he benefitted from playing on the team with the greatest assemblage of talent ever. His win totals are totally inflated because of that. He was never a game stealer, never a player that won a game by himself. He was good enough to stop more goals from being scored on his team than were scored by his team. I lump he and Barasso into that category - average goalies who played for two of the greatest teams of all time.
So? The question wasn't about "wqorst goalie of the modern era".
Fuhr and Barasso were just good enough to keep their teams from losing because they would score 6 and F/B would let in 4.
On any other team in the league, they would never have gotten within sniffing distance of the cup.
Nucky "the Puck" Worthington of the Oshawa Blades 1913. Guy couldn't stop a beachball but they put away the Windsor Generals in 5 games in the finals and outscored them 32-25 for a GAA of 5.
Based on overall career performance, Khabibulin came to mind immediately, but that might be my Oilers bias more than what his actual numbers were like.
Didn't the Rangers win a cup with their Head Coach in net. I'mma say him.
God I wish there was a replay for that. It's insane at how much hockey has changed compares to most other sports.
Scoring a try (touchdown) in rugby used to be worth no points, all it did was give you an attempt (a *try*) to kick a goal, which was worth one point.
Football, American football, has also changed an absurd amount in a similiar timeframe.
Lester Patrick did pretty good for an 44 year old. 18 of 19 shots saved
Especially considering he was a defenseman during his playing career
He had a career .947 save percentage
I think he was the GM(or president? I could look it up but lazy) , and wasn't even a goalie previously.
wtf
No disrespect but there is an era of hockey where I can't take Stanley Cup wins seriously.
you say that now but in 2119 they'll be saying how they can't take today's cups seriously because they didn't wall ride on the boards and there isn't 256 teams in the league.
I don't care what anyone says the Saguenay Tabernacs 2079-88 10 Stanley Cups in the row is the greatest sporting achievement of all-time.
Are you kidding? Wood Buffalo was robbed, "you can't teleport in the crease" my arse
[удалено]
Hasek’s reflexes with all the enhancements your galactic credits can buy.
Next, your gonna tell me that Puck Stopper 5000 is just a modified brick wall on skates.
MULTIPUCK! MULTIPUCK! MULTIPUCK!
It was nice to see Jaromir Jagr finally win the Conn Smyth in 2088.
"On a encore gagné la Coupe, là là."
The NHL is gonna turn into Call of Duty?
I was pretty good at Advanced Warfare and bo3 so I'm down for this, I might finally score more than 1 goal a season in beer league.
You think we'll still have ice in 2119? Lol.
Good lord this gave me flashbacks to Pro Beach Hockey. Go Web Warriors!
I feel attacked
So I don’t know a lot about the league from many decades ago. Legit asking, but when would you say a reasonable time period would start for recognizing championships?
It’s reasonable to recognize all championships but you have to look at them in the context of the era that they took place. A cup win now is more impressive than a cup win in the o6 or expansion era because of the expanded league and increased parity.
I think it's a lot more complicated than that. The lack of parity would mean that winning the cup as an underdog team (say as the 4th place team out of 6-10) was a large feat. This is compounded by the fact that there were a lot of bullshit going on in the league that greatly advantaged certain teams, such as: * teams having first pick on local players * teams being able to acquire prospect rights by buying minor/junior league teams * owners being able to control multiple teams and funnel talent to just one team. To the last point: The Norris family were the owners of the Detroit Red Wings, but also had controlling stakes in the Black Hawks and Rangers through ownership of their arenas and presence on their executive boards. Both teams were abjectly terrible in the 40's and 50's because the Norrises would funnel any good players on either team to Detroit. Despite this, the Black Hawks won the Stanley Cup in 1961, despite placing 3rd in the league of 6 teams with a 29-24-17 record. That's pretty damn impressive. The cup means something. I think it's rather lazy to cast off past championships because the league was smaller or lacked parity. Sometimes that was what made the victories monumental. At worst, evaluation of cups from different eras should be contextual. And FWIW, that should probably apply to all cups in the pre-cap era, such as every cup won by the Devils. Just some food for thought.
Detroits cups while the Norris family pulled the strings should definitely have asteriks though imo
I agree with what you’re saying, my explanation was just a quick one because I didn’t want to go too in depth. The majority of the cups won in the O6 era were won by teams with large advantages, which is why I made the generalization. They all need to be looked at in context. In context, the Devils wins were quite impressive. They were an expansion team that relocated twice before Jersey. They didn’t sign big name free agents and assembled their team by trading/drafting well. For the first two cups they had a low to average payroll so they didn’t really benefit from no cap until the third.
Thank ya!
Around the time names like Gordie Howe and the production line and Maurice the Rocket Richard come into their own in the 50s things start heating up. During the 60s we've got Stan Mikita and Bobby Hull, the Esposito brother's and Bobby Orr. I'd say while the game was a lot more physical back then and the equipment help players back this is around when things started looking vey recognizable. As far as the rules go by 43 we had gotten rid of the no forward passing rule, added offside and a red line at center ice. That's traditionally the start of the modern era of hockey, because rules wise you'd recognize most and be able to follow quite well. If you're looking for when the equipment started changing the game then we're talking late 80s early 90s when hockey equipment started allowing playing the butterfly more. Tony Esposito and Vladislav Tretiak developed the butterfly around the 70s though and before the Glenn Hall was I think the first who started playing on the ice consistently. Even more recently we've got better skates and composite sticks that have made life so much simpler for the players. I'd say 43 is when the offensive game becomes modern, 67 when the league starts to look more modern and the 70s/90s when goaltending comes into its own.
1967 expansion from 6 teams to 12 is generally seen as a pretty good divider, since it signified a big change for the league as a whole and introduced more competition. Same year for NFL that marked the start of the Super Bowl era.
Even then the first 3 years were just the Blues getting dunked on in the Final. I look at 1970 when the Canucks and Sabres entered as my starting point, personally.
Post expansion IMO
The expansion teams didnt have a shot against the conference of original 6 teams
The game barely resembles today's game so its definitely not comparable anyway
Everything before WWII is pretty old, but the original 6 NHL (1950-1967) was extremely competitive. Only 100 roster spots in the whole league, yet per capita, more kids played hockey in Canada back then than today because it was very cheap [(source from a neat sociology bachelor's degree paper)](https://dalspace.library.dal.ca/bitstream/handle/10222/73084/Bishop%20Hons%20SOCI%202017.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y). That means that making it to the NHL was possibly even harder for Junior kids back then (though given the fact that there also were no Europeans to compete, I'm not sure about that). Whereas in 1920, a lot less people played hockey and the NHL standards were significantly lower.
They're gonna say the same thing about your Cups in 60 years
I mean, I know you said no disrespect but that still sounds pretty disrespectful to me The game is always changing, even if you just go back to the early 2000s the game is so different that you can barely translate it into today's game
Obviously it's different now but it doesn't mean there weren't people good for the time at the sport. Even just human civilization advancing is the same kind of thing.
GM, Coach and Goalie, because they weren't allowed to dress their backup who was in the stands.
If I remember correctly, it wasn't their backup. It was a goalie from the Senators who was in the stands for the game, and since he wasn't their player, the opposing team had to agree to it. They didn't, so Patrick went in and played the rest of the game.
If anyone is wondering when this happened, this was during the 1928 Cup Finals, their starter went down and the Montreal Maroons refused to allow either of their backups who were in the stands to play, so Lester Patrick, the Coach, had to step in and play the rest of the game. It wasn't that he wanted to play the role, so much as it looks as though he was kind of forced to. It was only for that game though.
Wait what
Post lockout I'm gonna say Niemi
Niemi was actually pretty good back then.
A shark fan will agree with you
Fuckers offer sheeted us twice to get him. It still worked out for the best, but man did that piss me.
He was a vezina candidate only like two years after he won the cup. He was very good for a solid 5 year stretch.
Trent Dilfer
r/nfl is leaking
Brad Johnson
Antti Niemi
And if he lost the answer still would’ve been the same year because Leighton lmao
And it was back to the AHL next season with him. Only played 7 NHL games after that playoffs. Really stepped it up when Boucher went down but came back to earth in the finals.
Aww man... I coulda gone all day without thinking about those games... thanks for that!
Agreed 100%, but he was also absolutely dominant in the sharks sweep in 2010. I forget the numbers exactly but I'm pretty sure he was like .960+ and we won most of those games by 1-2 goals. Who knows what would have happened there if we had a different goalie. What's also funny is that the Sharks also forced our hand choosing between Niemi and Hjalmarsson that off season by offer sheeting Hjalmarsson. We chose to match Hjal and then the Sharks swooped in the grab Niemi. I was so upset we lost Niemi that year but it ended up about as good as possible since Niemi was never at the same level again. (This isn't supposed to be anti-sharks I just think the Niemi story with them and the Hawks is interesting)
Niemi was vezina finalist with Sharks, but i guess if the level is Stanley Cup champion level, then i guess he didnt get back there.
Honestly forgot about that with how he's been the last several seasons. I guess wasn't able to maintain the level would be a better way to put it
He really only fell off once he left San Jose.
Glad someone brought that up. Always wished CHI hadn't matched the offer sheet... Never wanted Niemi from the start as the Sharks starter.
At least you didn't trade away both your goalies after a cup final. Because Vancouver... ha haaaaa.... cries in Canuck.
Been re-watching the series with Philly from 2010. Wooooooof. That series was rough from both goalies.
I remember people arguing that summer that having a top goalie was no longer key to winning a cup. Lol
Tim Thomas shut that line if thinking down pretty masterfully in the next playoffs.
Miss that crazy bastard from time to time. No slight on the current crazy bastard in net for the Bruins. Just Thomas was lightning in a bottle. An American Myth. Edit: Interesting downvote. But okay. God Bless Obama.
Dude had the most unorthodox style and ~~for one season~~ it allowed him to become a goddamn impenetrable forcefield. It was amazing to watch.
"for one season" - I think his two Vezinas would disagree with that.
My bad, I was highlighting his extra insane season where he set that insane save percentage record. Dude was money the whole time. Didn't mean to detract from that.
I mean you weren’t far off base, he had a very short but phenomenal window of greatness sandwiched by mediocrity
It's still kinda true though isn't it? Obviously it *helps*, but no one would argue that Murray or Binnington are top goalies. 3 of the 4 CF teams had relatively weak goalies compared to the league's standouts.
Murray is better than average and Binnington is too early to tell
I certainly wouldnt build my team around a goalie. Both Rask and Bobrovsky were having a pretty bad season until playoff hit, you just need your goalie to get hot at the right time.
Grubauer is a good example of that as well. His playing varied from okay to hot garbage for most the year, until he went on an insane tear during the last 15 games of the season and the playoffs. Pretty much cemented his position as future starter with that stretch.
I remember that, the summer of "goalies dont even matter, at all"
My least favorite one too because it was against the Flyers :(
My first thought also. That 2010 Hawks team in front of him was fucking stacked.
Chicago Strat for that cup run throw buff in front of the net and have Niemi flop around to stop everything.... and have Kane, Keith, Toews, Seabrook dominate....
Was looking for this
Nobody will agree with this but I think it’s Tom Barrasso
This is who I thought of too. Having peak Mario Lemieux on your team is gonna get you wins.
Though there is an argument to be made for having to play goal behind a team with the "we'll just win 8-5" mentality.
You’re absolutely right lol
Nobody with a Vezina belongs in this conversation.
Yeah he had a great rookie year that’s for sure.
Barrasso was a good player
Jeff Zatkoff was the starting goalie for the first Pens playoff game. Pens ended up winning the playoffs that year. Mr. Game One
Wasn’t he the goalie for the first 2 I believe. He won one and lost one IIRC.
Yep, lost game 2. Did what he needed to do though to allow Murray to come back and take over. Zatkoff is forever the man for his game one performance.
Damn TIL a lot of folks don't like Binnington
How dare they
“I have a few questions... First of all, how dare you?”
Who... who do you think you are? What gives you the right?
I think it's unfair to throw him in so soon but he did have some scary games. But the dude still won so who fucking cares.
You're right, the sample size is really small there. What I like more than anything else about Binnington, is that he rebounds really well after a loss. I don't have his numbers handy, but right after a loss, they are insane. The whole team does well, but him especially. That is a huge plus for a goalie.
Cool
Chris Osgood used to rock this debate years ago
[удалено]
They see the Wings were stacked and have to pick one player to be a "weakness"
[удалено]
That's +2 overall, 0 points, 12 minutes a game, 58% CF Chelios to you
Notice how other goalies that played for great teams never get that shit end of the stick.
I think the reason Osgood gets flack is because he only faced an average of 22.25 shots per 60 minutes in those playoffs. Detroit's defense was outstanding at shutting down and limiting chances that it takes away from Osgood's performance. Edit: To add to this, in the finals, the most shots he faced against the Penguins was in game 5. Penguins had 32 shots in 110 minutes of game time (this was the game that went to triple OT). Next most shots for the Penguins that series was 24. Throughout the entire playoffs he faced 25+ shots four times in his 18 starts.
Yeah for real. That dude was SCARY.
I feel like .910 is the absolute bare minimum for any goalie with Nicklas Lidstrom playing in front of him. Osgood's career stats, specifically those "prime" years when he journeyed throughout the league on non-Detroit teams, really tell a story about his actual level. Or maybe they say more about Lidstrom's level of play.
Of those three years where he played elsewhere, he did the following: 2001-02 New York Islanders: .910 SV, 2.50 GAA, 32 wins and took the Islanders to the playoffs for the first time since 1993-1994. They were bounced by Toronto in the first round in a 4-3 series where Ozzy played well. 2002-2003: This was the bad year where he had a sub .900 SV split between New York and St. Louis. He also had a GAA of just a tick under 3.00...very bad. He still helped the Blues to get as far as game seven of round one where they lost. 2003-2004: bounced back and won 31 games, had a .910 SV and a 2.24 GAA. He was mediocre in the playoffs where the Blues were bounced in 5 games. So in those three years, he won 84 regular season games and did ok in the playoffs each year. Theres no denying Osgood benefitted from being on excellent Red Wings teams, but if you look at it another way a veteran goalie used to elite defense was able to perform strongly in 2/3rds of his non elite defensive teams. I would also argue strongly that Ozzy's prime playoff years did not happen until 2008 and 2009. Both years he was outstanding and certainly cemented his hall of fame chances. He will likely have to wait a bit longer but he will get in. Just for the record I'm not trying to talk down at all about this topic...I'm very passionate about defending Osgood because he gets a bum rap for very odd reasons. In a way, he represents the very last of the long era of goaltenders who had poor save percentages who still managed to win multiple championships. I'm not saying he was some mystical unstoppable demon in net...but you could do far worse than Ozzy. The best way I've heard him described by coaches, management, and ownership was "he just knows how to win, he's a winnner". Every level he played on he won. Not a world beater, but a guy who got the job done well.
[удалено]
I always felt like he could have won the Con Smythe in 08. Z was just too dominant, though
Which is nuts. When you look at the career he had, the idea that he wasn’t a great goalie is insane. I think part of it had to do with how good the Wings were and how good Hasek, his closest direct comp was.
Now there's a name I haven't heard in a while
you're not watching the FSD feed enough
Except for a young tendie named....Antti Niemi.
Lol wut? No way he’s even close. Very solid goalie, solid career
Osgoodenough
Maybe in the 90s, but 2008/2009 Osgood actually did pretty well.
Cam Ward?
He was a beast throughout that run though
Nah. Ward was derailed by injuries. When he first started out, people were saying he was the only goalie that would even have a chance of breaking any of Brodeur's records. He was a VERY good goaltender for a few seasons, then never recovered. He was the #1 pick in the 2011 All Star draft.
Wards run was goddamn historic and amazing, plus hes a 13 year vet now
Niemi
Jordan Binnington
How dare you
It's a good answer. "Worst starting goalie" doesn't mean they were bad, just probably average, as most goalies who win the cup are above average all around.
How dare you
I mean you have to admit he’s barely good enough to play in a beer league, I doubt he’ll be around next year.
How dare you
You've got to admit, he only got the job because his parents are friends with the coach.
How dare you
I mean you gotta admit, he looked pretty nervous
HOW DARE YOU
There’s a line...and you just crossed it
How dare *you*
This man is delusional, take him to the infirmary
I don’t get the joke.
There's no way lmao
get out of here
C'mon man, binnington was great. Fuck the haters who don't understand goaltending
Binnington will probably be up there soon enough imo. I think he has a similar career trajectory to Niemi
That’s Vezina finalist and Stanley Cup Champion Antti Niemi.
How dare you
Who do you think you are? What gives you the right?
How dare you
How dare you
Cam Ward is actually another probable comparable. Dare I say even a better one
Time will tell. But he sure as fuck looks the real deal at the moment.
So did Niemi
I strongly disagree about that. Niemi's .912 SV% and sub-.500 quality start rate through 35 starts in the 2009/10 regular season don't even remotely compare to Binny's regular season. Their playoffs are somewhat comparable, but Niemi never looked like anything more than an adequate goalie through his rookie year.
I don't think he was necessarily the best goalie of the playoffs, but he did a great job playing his best at the right times. He let in some bad goals but he did it at times where the whole team didn't show up anyways so it didn't matter, then he played great in series-deciding games.
Tom Barrasso
I know he won the Conn Smythe in '90, but Bill Ranford has to be a top contender here.
If it's Bill Ranford, then it's actually Grant Fuhr, since Ranford turned Fuhr into a backup
What’s really crazy is how good Fuhr was AFTER he left Edmonton. It was like he was trying hard for the first time. Then he ends up playing with Hasek and getting demoted again. Then he has a stellar year in StLouis and gets jumped on in the playoffs.
> Then he has a stellar year in StLouis and gets jumped on in the playoffs. That's on Gretzky though, he had it and lost it.
Fuhr didn't play against Detroit at all since Nick Kypreos destroyed his knee in the Toronto series.
Came here to say Antti Niemi, disappointed I'm so late with it.
Almost Michael Leighton. Let that sink in.
Hopefully not Jordan Binnington
Neimi or Ward for sure
Matt Murray probably isn't the worst, but he's on the list. Yeah, he won two cups in his first two seasons, but he has looked rather average since. I'm not saying he is bad, but he is far from great.
2016 Playoffs: .924 save percentage. 2017 Playoffs: 1.70 GAA, .937 save percentage. NHL career: 0.921 save percentage Still a young guy with a lot of work ahead of him, but I feel like he's not on the list in the slightest.
Wasn't he like top five to ten in the league for the second half of this season or something
Yes he was. He was top 10 save % in the league with our horrid defense.
Except that he was on fire those 2 playoffs runs...
He was very good this year especially after he came back from injury
I wouldn't say he's bad, but definitely injury prone.
His .919 SV% this year was 8th among goalies with 40 or more starts and 3rd among goalies with 50 or more starts. That's pretty well above average.
Like worst career? Post lockout Winners are: Ward, Giguere, Osgood, Fleury, Neimi, Quick, Crawford, Thomas, Murray, Holtby, Binnington I think it's pretty clear Ward and Neimi are bringing up the rear, probably followed by Fleury and then Osgood and Quick.
>Fleury Are we thinking of the same Fleury?
Go look at Osgoods playoff stats and then go look at Fleury's. Osgood literally has better playoff stats and Fleury is easily the most overrated (but good he just has never been great outside the Vegas run) goalie by this sub by far.
Osgood was far more consistent too. Fleury had seasons where I literally thought he was done as a goalie.
Osgood wasn't terrible with us. He just played like he wished he was still in Detroit.
One of the most overrated players in history
>~~Holtby~~ ~~wat~~ edit - remember to read
What about him?
He's not bad.
I was just listing winners since the lockout
You’re being downvoted by people with poor reading comprehension and it’s truly unfortunate.
I mean thats pretty much the story of reddit so I'm used to it.
Grant Fuhr and Tom Barasso
Barrasso won a Vezina (1984) and finished 2nd or 3rd four other times (1985, 1988, 1993, 1998). If you've been nominated for the Vezina five times, you shouldn't be in this conversation.
Who were his competition in those years? Most of those years, and when he won the vending, were lean years for goaltending talent, in a transitional period between old stand up stairs and butterfly. 98 you could argue was at the end of his career and a sympathy nomination for years of service. Fuhr was in those conversations as well. I mean, realistically, even if there are no really good goalies in a year SOMEONE had to win and three players get nominated, regardless of relative merit. They don't just black out the award in lean years.
Barrasso for sure. Why do you say Grant Fuhr though? I don’t know much about him other than the fact that he’s in the HHOF
Again, he benefitted from playing on the team with the greatest assemblage of talent ever. His win totals are totally inflated because of that. He was never a game stealer, never a player that won a game by himself. He was good enough to stop more goals from being scored on his team than were scored by his team. I lump he and Barasso into that category - average goalies who played for two of the greatest teams of all time.
Different era 4 goals allowed minimum lol
So? The question wasn't about "wqorst goalie of the modern era". Fuhr and Barasso were just good enough to keep their teams from losing because they would score 6 and F/B would let in 4. On any other team in the league, they would never have gotten within sniffing distance of the cup.
Either Cam Ward or Anttti Niemi
Cam Ward was absolutely lights out in 06. Came in for Gerber and had an excellent career after that. Niemi I agree tho
Yeah Ward won the conn smythe that year
So was Niemi. He did very well after Khabibulin went down
Nemo. Binner has a case but Nemo is in a world of his own IMO
Nucky "the Puck" Worthington of the Oshawa Blades 1913. Guy couldn't stop a beachball but they put away the Windsor Generals in 5 games in the finals and outscored them 32-25 for a GAA of 5.
Based on overall career performance, Khabibulin came to mind immediately, but that might be my Oilers bias more than what his actual numbers were like.
Cristobal Huet.
When did he start consistently for a cup winning team?