Brodeur overrated

[Bear of Bad News]

If you want to discuss the topic, maybe watch the video the video he provided instead of demanding him to summarize it for you?

It wouldn't hurt in a discussion forum for the person starting the thread to explain what they want to talk about. This isn't "substitute teacher is here so we're going to all watch a video" forum.

But yes, in order to know whether a player is "overrated", it's important to know both (1) where a player should be rated, and (2) where a player is rated. Without both, you can't have a discussion.

 

[Nick Hansen]

He's the Raymond Bourque of goalies. Sustained excellence for fifteen years, consistently in the top3-5 Vezina voting and a strong Hart record without actually ever winning it.

 

[Big Phil]

More like the Jari Kurri of Goaltenders. There's no discussion of Brodeur that doesn't include the team he played on and the role that played in his greatness, much like Jari Kurri.

You mean like the 2012 Devils that he took to the final? Come on, you have to give the guy some sort of credit. He has a Hart trophy voting record that someone like Kurri would drool over. He was an elite goalie for a long, long time. He succeeded with Stevens and without.

He is behind Hasek and Roy IMO. IMO he should probably be rated at #3 but no worse then being top 5 goalie of all time.

Roy/Hasek/Plante/Sawchuk in any order. Then Broduer is #5

He is not on the Roy/Hasek tier

But the one below

If Canada had put cujo or Eddie the Eagle in net for the 2002 gold medal game, would you have felt more or less comfortable with Canada winning? I can't imagine anyone but Marty starting and winning the game. Sometimes, as hard it is to believe, you have to have faith in the goalie and the guy's desire and will to win

Belfour was a little less erratic and a whole lot more reliable by that time of his career but I agree Brodeur made me more comfortable than Joseph would have. Brodeur wasn't the type of goalie that would LOSE you a game so much. Outside of the US game in the 2010 Olympics in the round robin I don't know if I ever saw him choke badly.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

in our discussion about niedermayer in the 03 playoffs, what i came to really go back and appreciate is how no goalie i’ve ever seen has been close to being as foundational to his team’s system.

as for clemmensen’s blip, it’s not like i was watching the late 2000s devils closely; can a devils fan tell us whether brent sutter’s system was built around brodeur’s puck handling the way lemaire’s, robinson’s, and burns’ were? that would be post-trapezoid so i’m guessing maybe not?

 

[vikash1987]

This is an updated version of the list " The Hockey Guy" is referring to in that video from two years ago, from Hockey-Reference:



Brodeur has slipped in ranking since then from 40th to 58th! The horror! Gotta love that Craig Anderson has climbed up from #8 to #4 *sarcasm*

Of course, this list, when taken in isolation, is absolutely meaningless. His main point, I guess, was when he said "there were too many nights where I'd watch a Devils game...he'd get a shutout, and I'd think, 'well, I think he had a couple of shots that were tough,' but I'd have to think back" I love this guy's videos, but I don't know how closely or comprehensively he watched Devils games. It seems like he's really overstating his case.

 

[quoipourquoi]

So, to be clear, you didn't bother to watch the video the OP provided, but you did bother to post telling him you are not left with much to discuss?

If you want to discuss the topic, maybe watch the video the video he provided instead of demanding him to summarize it for you?

First of all, you’re 9 months late to the party.

Second, watching an 18-minute long YouTube video of a talking head shouldn’t really be a pre-requisite on a thread.

Third, yes, I would need to know an idea of how a person rates him to know whether I believe it to be over or under.

 

[Big Phil]

This is an updated version of the list " The Hockey Guy" is referring to in that video from two years ago, from Hockey-Reference:



Brodeur has slipped in ranking since then from 40th to 58th! The horror! Gotta love that Craig Anderson has climbed up from #8 to #4 *sarcasm*

Of course, this list, when taken in isolation, is absolutely meaningless. His main point, I guess, was when he said "there were too many nights where I'd watch a Devils game...he'd get a shutout, and I'd think, 'well, I think he had a couple of shots that were tough,' but I'd have to think back" I love this guy's videos, but I don't know how closely or comprehensively he watched Devils games. It seems like he's really overstating his case.

Yeah that list is just, whatever. I mean I see great goalies high at the top (Luongo, Joseph, Beezer, King Henrik, Fuhr, Barrasso) and goalies sitting around the same level as Brodeur (Esposito, Rinne, Smith, etc.) Hasek and Roy are in the middle, Belfour is lower than Brodeur. I think it is pretty random, these things don't always show the quality of shots against either. Luongo was always on teams that allowed lots of shots against, as was Joseph, so it doesn't surprise me.

 

[Fazkovsky]

691 career wins with 2.24 GAA and 125 SO

 

[Ralph Spoilsport]

Could it be that the goalies facing a ton of shots are the ones who expose more of their net to their opponents? Can't always look to the defence or "systems" to explain shots against, the goalie has a big role in suppressing shots too. A missed shot or a non-shot is as good as a save.

I think Hasek was best at making saves, Brodeur best at protecting his net, Roy the best competitor.

They were all pretty good!

 

[vikash1987]

I think it is pretty random, these things don't always show the quality of shots against either

You put your finger on it.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Yeah that list is just, whatever. I mean I see great goalies high at the top (Luongo, Joseph, Beezer, King Henrik, Fuhr, Barrasso) and goalies sitting around the same level as Brodeur (Esposito, Rinne, Smith, etc.) Hasek and Roy are in the middle, Belfour is lower than Brodeur. I think it is pretty random, these things don't always show the quality of shots against either. Luongo was always on teams that allowed lots of shots against, as was Joseph, so it doesn't surprise me.

You give up 2, no matter the shots against. If it's just one, there's no debate. If it's three, you're not in the conversation. What difference does it make if you give it up on 28 or 22 shots...? Saves aren't transferrable into "win" supplies. Bad goals, timely goaltending. That's where the winners prevail. Brodeur is chiefly among them, of course...

 

[Garbageyuk]

To me Hasek and Roy are better. Brodeur is firmly in the number 3 spot though. I don't include guys like Plante, Hall, Dryden, Sawchuck et al because the game has changed so much since then and I never watched them for obvious reasons. So yeah, 3rd best goalie ever.

 

[JianYang]

I have always thought Dryden was better than Brodeur.

So, yeah, I'd say the Devils goalie is OR.

I think of dryden alot when I think of brodeur. The reason is that they played behind some great defensive teams, where they would get extended periods without much action. Yet, when that big chance came, and the team needed them to make the save, you could count on them.

I think being able to shut the door when you dont get as much action is a skill in itself, so this guy's argument of 40 plus shot games does not resonate with me.

 

[Big Phil]

To me Hasek and Roy are better. Brodeur is firmly in the number 3 spot though. I don't include guys like Plante, Hall, Dryden, Sawchuck et al because the game has changed so much since then and I never watched them for obvious reasons. So yeah, 3rd best goalie ever.

But we can't look at it that way either. If so, then in 50 years we'll say "Well, I never saw Brodeur play and it was a half century ago so it is irrelevant."

Brodeur is among that sextuplet of goalies, three from two different eras, that make up the top 6. Those are Hasek, Roy and Brodeur, and then the 1950s/1960s goalies in Plante, Sawchuk and Hall. Those guys all count and all would be great in any era. After that #7 and onwards is a mix bag no matter who you ask, including me. It could be Dryden, Broda, Benedict, Parent, Fuhr, Brimsek, etc. But that top 6 is in its own class. It is the equivalent as hockey's "Big 4" and then there is a drop off.

 

[Johnny Engine]

You give up 2, no matter the shots against. If it's just one, there's no debate. If it's three, you're not in the conversation. What difference does it make if you give it up on 28 or 22 shots...? Saves aren't transferrable into "win" supplies. Bad goals, timely goaltending. That's where the winners prevail. Brodeur is chiefly among them, of course...

You've said this a number of times, and I wanted to look at some actual numbers instead of just approaching it rhetorically. What you'd want to look at, is "in instances of a team taking x shots, how many goals does that team score?" I think a lot of fans have a platonic ideal of a game where one team takes 30 shots and gives up 20, and wins 3-2 every time, leading one to wonder if the score would have flipped had the shots broke the other way. But how often does that happen? I looked at every game played last week, Sunday to Saturday, and grouped them by shot total for each team, and got these goal results:

17: 0,1
18: 1,3
20: 2
22: 3,3,4
24: 2,4,5
25: 1,3,5
26: 0,1,3,3,4,4,6
27: 2,3,4,4,5
28: 1,2,2,4,5
29: 1,2,2,3,3,4,5
30: 1,2,2,3,5,6,6
31: 1,3,4
32: 0,1,1,1,2,3,3,3,4,4,6
33: 1,1,2,2,2,3,3,5,5,5,5
34: 1,2,5
35: 2,2,2
36: 3
37: 1,2,3,5
38: 0,1,1,4,5
39: 1,2,3
40: 2,3
41: 3
42: 4,4,4
43: 0,1
47: 4
48: 2,2

Ok, so that was awful. A week of games (even for all 31 teams) isn't a large enough sample size for that level of granularity, but we are at least seeing some evidence of what Mr. Farkas is arguing here. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6-goal games can come from a wide variety of shot results. A couple of very stupid takeaways, just for fun:
- teams don't take 31 shots nearly as often as you'd think
- if you take 42 shots, you will score 4 goals, but you better not take an extra one, because teams with 43 shots get shut down.

Ok, so in order to deal with that problem, you could either look at twice as many games (not today, Satan), or batch the shot results by 5. Let's do that.

15-19 (4 results, median 1, mode 1)
0,1,1,3

20-24 (7 results, median 3, mode 2, 3 and 4)
2,2,3,3,4,4,5

25-29 (27 results, median 3, mode 3 and 4)
0,1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,2,3,3,3,3,3,3,4,4,4,4,4,4,5,5,5,5,6

30-34 (35 results, median, 3, mode 1)
0,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,4,4,4,5,5,5,5,5,5,6,6,6

35-39 (16 results, median 2, mode 2)
0,1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,2,3,3,3,4,5,5

40+ (11 results, median 3, mode 4)
0,1,2,2,2,3,3,4,4,4,4

Ok, that's a little better. It's still not a great sample, particularly around the edges, but at least it doesn't suggest any terrible conclusions about stopping at 42 shots or whatever.

What this tells me is that sub-20-shot games are rare and bad. Other than that - well, in the absence of more data, it looks like Mike is more or less right, except that teams score 3 goals more than they score 2. If I kept looking, I'd expect a certain amount of regression towards what a save-percentage-focused approach would suggest (more 4 goal games on 40+ shots, more 1 and 2 goal games from shots in the low 20s), but the aforementioned platonic 30-20 game doesn't seem to happen very much.

 

[RoyIsALegend]

From “my generation:”

Roy
Hasek
Brodeur
Belfour
Richter
Joseph

 

[JianYang]

From “my generation:”

Roy
Hasek
Brodeur
Belfour
Richter
Joseph

The video also says that he can't use the word "generational" to describe brodeur because he wasn't the unanimous best goalie of his time.

The definition is fair, but its unfair to use that against him. He just happened to play through an era with a number of legends.

 

[Doctor No]

To me Hasek and Roy are better. Brodeur is firmly in the number 3 spot though. I don't include guys like Plante, Hall, Dryden, Sawchuck et al because the game has changed so much since then and I never watched them for obvious reasons. So yeah, 3rd best goalie ever.

If you don't include guys that you haven't watched (or that played before the "game has changed so much"), then you aren't allowed to use the term "ever".

 

[Garbageyuk]

But we can't look at it that way either. If so, then in 50 years we'll say "Well, I never saw Brodeur play and it was a half century ago so it is irrelevant."

Brodeur is among that sextuplet of goalies, three from two different eras, that make up the top 6. Those are Hasek, Roy and Brodeur, and then the 1950s/1960s goalies in Plante, Sawchuk and Hall. Those guys all count and all would be great in any era. After that #7 and onwards is a mix bag no matter who you ask, including me. It could be Dryden, Broda, Benedict, Parent, Fuhr, Brimsek, etc. But that top 6 is in its own class. It is the equivalent as hockey's "Big 4" and then there is a drop off.

Then I would personally prefer to have seperate rankings for both eras. I don't feel it's fair to compare them against eachother because the game is so different between the two eras. To me the goaltending position is most affected by changes to the overall game, more so than any other position. Like I said, I can't honestly rate the old goalies because I never watched them, and I would only be going off of what I find from various websites.

 

[Garbageyuk]

If you don't include guys that you haven't watched (or that played before the "game has changed so much"), then you aren't allowed to use the term "ever".

Are you claiming to have watched Plant, Sawchuk, Hall, etc.? And no, Youtube highlights don't count. If that's all you've done, then we're on equal footing. The difference is that I don't feel comfortable rating them based on that, and would prefer to leave that to people more knowledgeable on the matter. So I left them out of my personal rankings. Would you prefer that I pretend to be some kind of expert instead?

As for your comment about what I can or can't say, all I can do is laugh. These are opinions on a website, and I will say and express whatever I want.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I will say and express whatever I want.

deep breaths, dude.

i don’t think he’s saying you can’t post in this forum or in this thread, just that you are literally, yes literally, misusing the word ever.

 

[Doctor No]

As for your comment about what I can or can't say, all I can do is laugh. These are opinions on a website, and I will say and express whatever I want.

Hey, yeah - you're free to say and express whatever you want. Feel free to let the entire History sub-forum know how you feel about "best ever" rankings.

 

[Garbageyuk]

deep breaths, dude.

i don’t think he’s saying you can’t post in this forum or in this thread, just that you are literally, yes literally, misusing the word ever.

Semantics. And if we are going down that road, I explicitly said I was omitting goalies from the old era from consideration. So no, I didn't misuse anything.

 

[Garbageyuk]

Hey, yeah - you're free to say and express whatever you want. Feel free to let the entire History sub-forum know how you feel about "best ever" rankings.

Why are you so mad that I have decided not to be disengenuous in ranking goalies I haven't watched? Calm down.

Edit: I just realized there might be an ever so slight misuse of the word "disengenuous" in this post; sound the alarm!!!

 

[Doctor No]

Why are you so mad that I have decided not to be disengenuous in ranking goalies I haven't watched? Calm down.

Happy to assure you that no one's mad here.

Well, I can assure you that I'm not mad, at least.