There's also the "fit" with a team that's very hard to quantify.

Campbell worked with Toronto. Clearly
Bennington works with St-Louis (well sometimes)
Talbot somehow works with LA
Montembeault works with Montreal.

Not saying these guys are Vezina candidates, but they were/are playing well enough to not be considered a liability.

Would they all know the same success elsewhere? The smart ones try and stay where they know it works for them.

Even Tim Thomas, could have fallen off a cliff away from Boston imho.
- Scabeh

This is quite true, in my opinion. Any given goaltending style is prone to weaknesses - so you maximize to your strengths. Now the best goaltenders are able to react and adapt on the fly and employ different styles as required - but there's always the one that works best for them. It's a bit vague in that context, but as some examples:

Hasek was a sprawler - a friend once described him as a circus freak and immediately excluded him from any conversation about top goalies - but his strength was the bottom of the net and it was enhanced by having a large defense around him that collapsed and stopped teams from elevating the puck over him. It was clutch-and-grab hockey, defensemen were routinely 6'5 and so on - it benefitted a guy like Hasek's style. I'm not taking away from his success, merely noting that he maximized his abilities thanks to the teams he was on.

Although most defenses at that time were large, there were some that maximized mobility (Toronto was one with McCabe and Kaberle, Jersey with Niedermayer and Rafalski ) and it played off of smart goalies who directed rebounds well. I think a good example of what you refer to is Patrick Roy - his style was lower in the butterfly on bigger less mobile teams, and more active with directed rebounds on more mobile teams - you could see the adaptive nature of his play.

And to your point, I think Thomas' style was closer to Hasek's that anything traditional; if Tim Thomas played on a team with a smaller or less physical defense that did not collapse to the net, corral the puck and stop teams from getting it elevated over him or with too much room to shoot, he wouldn't have been near the same goalie. That said, he was absolutely fantastic for a several years and likely would have made most teams better.

This is quite true, in my opinion. Any given goaltending style is prone to weaknesses - so you maximize to your strengths. Now the best goaltenders are able to react and adapt on the fly and employ different styles as required - but there's always the one that works best for them. It's a bit vague in that context, but as some examples:

Hasek was a sprawler - a friend once described him as a circus freak and immediately excluded him from any conversation about top goalies - but his strength was the bottom of the net and it was enhanced by having a large defense around him that collapsed and stopped teams from elevating the puck over him. It was clutch-and-grab hockey, defensemen were routinely 6'5 and so on - it benefitted a guy like Hasek's style. I'm not taking away from his success, merely noting that he maximized his abilities thanks to the teams he was on.

Although most defenses at that time were large, there were some that maximized mobility (Toronto was one with McCabe and Kaberle, Jersey with Niedermayer and Rafalski ) and it played off of smart goalies who directed rebounds well. I think a good example of what you refer to is Patrick Roy - his style was lower in the butterfly on bigger less mobile teams, and more active with directed rebounds on more mobile teams - you could see the adaptive nature of his play.

And to your point, I think Thomas' style was closer to Hasek's that anything traditional; if Tim Thomas played on a team with a smaller or less physical defense that did not collapse to the net, corral the puck and stop teams from getting it elevated over him or with too much room to shoot, he wouldn't have been near the same goalie. That said, he was absolutely fantastic for a several years and likely would have made most teams better.
- Monkeypunk

I agree with everything.

Except I hate Thomas too much so I'm gonna keep considering him purely lucky and that he would have sucked everywhere else if you don't mind.

Objectivity be damned on this one!

Of course but who?
- Scabeh

Marchand

If you're that good for that long, you're not "lucky" even if you look like a beached whale flaying about like a dying seagull.

If you're that good for that long, you're not "lucky" even if you look like a beached whale flaying about like a dying seagull.
- AdamFrench

If that random ass Nathan Horton game 7 OT goal doesn't happen in 2011, we wouldn't even be talking about him.

THAT'S RIGHT! I SAID IT!

If you're that good for that long, you're not "lucky" even if you look like a beached whale flaying about like a dying seagull.
- AdamFrench

There are always exceptions to the rule. But I actually think there's very, very few exceptions when it comes to goaltending.

If that random ass Nathan Horton game 7 OT goal doesn't happen in 2011, we wouldn't even be talking about him.

THAT'S RIGHT! I SAID IT!
- Scabeh

I think Hasek was retarded by then.

There are always exceptions to the rule. But I actually think there's very, very few exceptions when it comes to goaltending.
- mjones242

Brodeur was standing up when the butterfly had taken over and being successful, Hasek was whatever the (frank) he was, Quick was Hasek-lite and broke most of the bones in his body doing it, Thomas played...I don't even know how to describe it...Fleury plays one of the dumbest styles of all time based on all instincts...JS Gigeure had 7 foot pads...Goalies in the "upper sphere" tend to have a special trait beyond just the physical aspect or the standard technique.

This is quite true, in my opinion. Any given goaltending style is prone to weaknesses - so you maximize to your strengths. Now the best goaltenders are able to react and adapt on the fly and employ different styles as required - but there's always the one that works best for them. It's a bit vague in that context, but as some examples:

Hasek was a sprawler - a friend once described him as a circus freak and immediately excluded him from any conversation about top goalies - but his strength was the bottom of the net and it was enhanced by having a large defense around him that collapsed and stopped teams from elevating the puck over him. It was clutch-and-grab hockey, defensemen were routinely 6'5 and so on - it benefitted a guy like Hasek's style. I'm not taking away from his success, merely noting that he maximized his abilities thanks to the teams he was on.

Although most defenses at that time were large, there were some that maximized mobility (Toronto was one with McCabe and Kaberle, Jersey with Niedermayer and Rafalski ) and it played off of smart goalies who directed rebounds well. I think a good example of what you refer to is Patrick Roy - his style was lower in the butterfly on bigger less mobile teams, and more active with directed rebounds on more mobile teams - you could see the adaptive nature of his play.

And to your point, I think Thomas' style was closer to Hasek's that anything traditional; if Tim Thomas played on a team with a smaller or less physical defense that did not collapse to the net, corral the puck and stop teams from getting it elevated over him or with too much room to shoot, he wouldn't have been near the same goalie. That said, he was absolutely fantastic for a several years and likely would have made most teams better.
- Monkeypunk

Solid take and I agree with you and Scabeh on this. How quickly everyone went from liking Soup to dismissing him. He's in a long line with guys like Hamburgler and Domingue.

Brodeur was standing up when the butterfly had taken over and being successful, Hasek was whatever the (frank) he was, Quick was Hasek-lite and broke most of the bones in his body doing it, Thomas played...I don't even know how to describe it...Fleury plays one of the dumbest styles of all time based on all instincts...JS Gigeure had 7 foot pads...Goalies in the "upper sphere" tend to have a special trait beyond just the physical aspect or the standard technique.
- AdamFrench

Great goalies are fun.

Brodeur was standing up when the butterfly had taken over and being successful, Hasek was whatever the (frank) he was, Quick was Hasek-lite and broke most of the bones in his body doing it, Thomas played...I don't even know how to describe it...Fleury plays one of the dumbest styles of all time based on all instincts...JS Gigeure had 7 foot pads...Goalies in the "upper sphere" tend to have a special trait beyond just the physical aspect or the standard technique.
- AdamFrench

Tangentially related, I still find it weird that the league was so outraged by an infinitesimally small number of goalies who were puck carrying wizards that they decided to implement the "Brodeur" trapezoid rule.

(frank) Bobby Clarke for leading that charge.

"Brodeur is preventing us from doing our dump and chase bs. Let's ban that poop!"

Great goalies are fun.

- Scabeh

It's kind of quaint to think Roy spearheaded the butterfly and neck protector for goalies

They were talking on Overdrive last night about how if they were picking Team Canada the choices for goalie wouldn't be the Hall of Fame gallery that they've been in the past. It's pretty good when Cujo is your 3rd goalie.

Solid take and I agree with you and Scabeh on this. How quickly everyone went from liking Soup to dismissing him. He's in a long line with guys like Hamburgler and Domingue.
- GalacticStone

Ultimately it is hard to be consistently good in a professional sports league. Scouts, players, managers - they're all looking for weaknesses, exploits - ways to throw you off, or tendencies that can hurt you. If you open up too much looking through a screen, if you leave the upper or lower part open, if you flay too much on lateral motion, if your glove dips when you bite on an anticipated pass across . . . they are there to try and pick it and you and your team need to pick up on it and adjust.

For the best players it's no different - but it's pretty much extracted from the same book - hit them, slash them, trash them, give them no space, hold them, cross check them - try and hurt them a little and slow them down. You're doing everything short of marrying them to make their lives miserable.

They were talking on Overdrive last night about how if they were picking Team Canada the choices for goalie wouldn't be the Hall of Fame gallery that they've been in the past. It's pretty good when Cujo is your 3rd goalie.
- Zezel

I honestly have no idea who would be in net for Canada.

Hart? Bennington? Montembeault?

We're far from the time we had Brodeur, Luongo, Roy, Joseph, Price or Belfour in the pipeline.

I honestly have no idea who would be in net for Canada.

Hart? Bennington? Montembeault?

We're far from the time we had Brodeur, Luongo, Roy, Joseph, Price or Belfour in the pipeline.
- Scabeh

Adin Hill? Reimer?

Tangentially related, I still find it weird that the league was so outraged by an infinitesimally small number of goalies who were puck carrying wizards that they decided to implement the "Brodeur" trapezoid rule.

(frank) Bobby Clarke for leading that charge.

"Brodeur is preventing us from doing our dump and chase bs. Let's ban that poop!"
- mjones242

The NHL confuses itself with its own rules. So they introduce the instigator to reduce fighting and punish players and teams for initiating fights.

Now of course if you hit the goalie, you're a dead man in hockey and the goalie has always been off limits.

Keeping in mind that charging, boarding, slashing, tripping and so on are all still penalties and should be called regardless of the situation - I was always of the opinion that if a goalie wished to leave the net and act as a 6th skater outside of the protection of the crease to handle the puck as a player, then they were subject to being legally body checked. If that resulted in a turnover and an empty net goal - maybe the goalie will think twice next time.

Instead they introduced the trapezoid and continued to provide an unusual level of protection for goalies - which is rather sporadic - if not outright hypocritical in the way they enforce it. Goalies can run pure interference with no repercussion - and if you respond at that time you'll be penalized - but the goalie, in their own crease, is offered a ridiculously poor level of protection.

I get a bit all over the place in this - but ultimately to narrow it down: I think the more hockey rule would be that the goalie should be fair game if they want to play the puck, the rules should be called in case of any illegal hits on the goalie, and the instigator rule and automatic 10 game suspension for leaving the bench should be enforced to discourage teams from responding adversely to a hit on the goalie.

The trapezoid is dumb.

. . . and even though I'm greatly outnumbered by you lot, I (frank)ing hate the puck over the glass as an automatic penalty.

Adin Hill? Reimer?
- Zezel

Hart and Jarry.

The NHL confuses itself with its own rules. So they introduce the instigator to reduce fighting and punish players and teams for initiating fights.

Now of course if you hit the goalie, you're a dead man in hockey and the goalie has always been off limits.

Keeping in mind that charging, boarding, slashing, tripping and so on are all still penalties and should be called regardless of the situation - I was always of the opinion that if a goalie wished to leave the net and act as a 6th skater outside of the protection of the crease to handle the puck as a player, then they were subject to being legally body checked. If that resulted in a turnover and an empty net goal - maybe the goalie will think twice next time.

Instead they introduced the trapezoid and continued to provide an unusual level of protection for goalies - which is rather sporadic - if not outright hypocritical in the way they enforce it. Goalies can run pure interference with no repercussion - and if you respond at that time you'll be penalized - but the goalie, in their own crease, is offered a ridiculously poor level of protection.

I get a bit all over the place in this - but ultimately to narrow it down: I think the more hockey rule would be that the goalie should be fair game if they want to play the puck, the rules should be called in case of any illegal hits on the goalie, and the instigator rule and automatic 10 game suspension for leaving the bench should be enforced to discourage teams from responding adversely to a hit on the goalie.

The trapezoid is dumb.

. . . and even though I'm greatly outnumbered by you lot, I (frank)ing hate the puck over the glass as an automatic penalty.
- Monkeypunk

NGL: this, absolutely, drives me insane.

Hart and Jarry.
- mjones242

Meanwhile Russia will have to pick between Vasilevsky, Shesterkin, Sorokin, a rising Askarov, cup finalist Bobrovsky...

They must be doing something right in their goaltending programs?!?

Meanwhile Russia will have to pick between Vasilevsky, Shesterkin, Sorokin, a rising Askarov, cup finalist Bobrovsky...

They must be doing something right in their goaltending programs?!?
- Scabeh

will they be allowed to compete?

Meanwhile Russia will have to pick between Vasilevsky, Shesterkin, Sorokin, a rising Askarov, cup finalist Bobrovsky...

They must be doing something right in their goaltending programs?!?
- Scabeh

thats why its a meaningless tournament if Russia not allowed to compete

will they be allowed to compete?
- dmnted

Without mentionning my own opinion on the matter, don't they always end up letting them participate under the "totally not russia, we're international Olympians" banner?

Without mentionning my own opinion on the matter, don't they always end up letting them participate under the "totally not russia, we're international Olympians" banner?
- Scabeh

they were also banned for doping as well.

the country that we shant acknowledge

Kerfoot has more points than DOmi and Bertuzzi