Discounting goalies due to dmen & coaching

[JackSlater]

Coaching and defensive personnel are part of the context that should be considered when assessing a goaltender's accomplishments. No goaltender should be discounted due to such factors though.

 

[Canadiens1958]

It's hard to be the spectacular goalie on a strong favorite, though.

Only real options are "hold serve" or fail.

All that is required is not snatching defeat from the jaws os victory.

 

[Tarantula]

All that is required is not snatching defeat from the jaws os victory.

True enough, four cups in a row can't be beat, but I never thought Dryden was unbeatable after his year off. very good, but not quite to the legend he has attained in some circles.

 

[Canadiens1958]

True enough, four cups in a row can't be beat, but I never thought Dryden was unbeatable after his year off. very good, but not quite to the legend he has attained in some circles.

Would love to see the old GA data by period.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Would love to see the old GA data by period.

Here we go. Playoffs,1973-74 - non Dryden season, 6 games vs the Dryden playoff that usually went 3 rounds.

NHL.com - Stats

 

[The Panther]

The Osgood Thread

They're not really comparable.

When Osgood left the Red Wings, the team immediately improved by 5 points and won the Cup (vs. a first-round loss with Osgood).

When Dryden left Montreal, the team immediately declined 21 points and went out in the first round. Then, they hugely improved after Dryden returned.

 

[Sadekuuro]

It's hard to be the spectacular goalie on a strong favorite, though.

Only real options are "hold serve" or fail.

Not sure I completely agree... Roy for instance was oft spectacular even on a strong Colorado club. It's definitely harder though.

 

[Michael Farkas]

As always, it boils down to proper talent evaluation...that's how you separate it. Goes for more than just goalies too.

If a player's talent level doesn't match the numbers that he ought to be putting up, you should start investigating why that might be...

That's how you avoid falling for flavor of the week guys or guys who were just along for the ride (Cechmanek, Osgood) but it allows you to appreciate legitimate talents who happen to be behind favorable defensive structures (Roy, Brodeur, Hasek, etc.)

And it works both ways...you didn't think Jonathan Cheechoo was an actual first line talent, right? The talent comes first, that's what is actively engaged on the ice...the numbers follow...

 

[Canadiens1958]

As always, it boils down to proper talent evaluation...that's how you separate it. Goes for more than just goalies too.

If a player's talent level doesn't match the numbers that he ought to be putting up, you should start investigating why that might be...

That's how you avoid falling for flavor of the week guys or guys who were just along for the ride (Cechmanek, Osgood) but it allows you to appreciate legitimate talents who happen to be behind favorable defensive structures (Roy, Brodeur, Hasek, etc.)

And it works both ways...you didn't think Jonathan Cheechoo was an actual first line talent, right? The talent comes first, that's what is actively engaged on the ice...the numbers follow...

Comes down to recognizing appropriate talent. Cheechoo was an appropriate winger for Thornton.

Osgood was an appropriate goalie for the Red Wings.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Right. To be clear, Osgood playing behind the Red Wings doesn't make him bad. Doesn't mean he wouldn't have been in the league. Cheechoo scoring 56 or whatever goals doesn't mean we should point and laugh. Cheechoo was a fine third liner in this league and then he hitched a ride on the MVP express...Osgood is one of the more average goalies I've ever seen, the 400 wins and the small GAA numbers are a product of Detroit and Lidstrom and friends...would he have had zero wins and a 4+ GAA without Detroit? No, that's not my sense of it. Would he have ever been considered more than whatever, say, Martin Jones is now or maybe Martin Biron/Bob Essensa territory...? That seems more fitting.

Things exist invariably on a spectrum. It's not an on/off switch, it's not binary. Talent is no different.

 

[Asheville]

They're not really comparable.

When Osgood left the Red Wings, the team immediately improved by 5 points and won the Cup (vs. a first-round loss with Osgood).

When Dryden left Montreal, the team immediately declined 21 points and went out in the first round. Then, they hugely improved after Dryden returned.

I never said I was comparing Dryden vs. Osgood.

I'm just saying that among goalies who have routinely had their accomplishments crapped on because of the team around them, Osgood heads that list. He will never get his due, despite winning more Cups as Detroit's starter than any other goalie they decided to go with during their time as a powerhouse in the '90s and '00s. It's as if the saves he made to help lead the Red Wings to the Cup were just assumed. It's incredibly disrespectful.

His save in the final seconds of the '08 Final is one of the most overlooked in the sport's history....and it's because HE made the save. Many other "better" goalies have faltered under lesser circumstances, but Osgood didn't. All while bailing out the "superior" Dominik Hasek.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Nope, it's just proper placement and adjusting for the reality of the limitations of his talent level in the framework of the team.

I don't know how much more credit he is supposed to get...him taking over for the last days of 45 (?) year old Dominik Hasek is not a noteworthy feather in his cap for me. It's something that happened. But even when it did, Osgood was clearly the weakest part of the most dominant team since the lockout. Osgood was the only thing that gave the Pens a glimmer of hope in the '08 Final, right down to the very last sequence that he scrambled his way through...

To his credit, he was better in '09 overall...though, again, you look at game 7 and he gives up two weak goals to a fourth liner...you plant corn, you grow corn. You saved $6 million a year by paying him market value (a buck and a half or whatever it was) and they put that towards insulating pieces.

Situations where it's reversed (Hasek in Buffalo) didn't work out as well from a team perspective. Situations where the money and roster were effectively managed and balanced, did work out (New Jersey in the 90's and 2000's)...same goes for other positions...Pittsburgh in the late 90's, top heavy...nothing but top-six forwards, nothing else...led to being a victim of a major upset in '96, also led to doing major upsetting in '99 and '01...if you aren't a great GM, you end forcing your coaches to pick their poison.

Detroit chose Osgood as their poison. Which isn't to say he was horrible or sub-NHL level or anything...not at all. But he wasn't a "plus" goaltender and didn't provide "plus" goaltending...he kept some games alive and kept the crippling bad goals to a minimum...it's like early, early Tom Brady (before he was good) on those Patriots teams...great running game, great defense, great coaching...all you gotta do is not throw interceptions and keep a couple drives alive on 3rd & 4...

If Osgood was better, he'd be good. But he wasn't, so he's not. Sometimes you want the works in a banana split and you get it (Hasek, Brodeur, Roy) and sometimes you only have enough money for vanilla...if you don't need the former, just stick with the latter...but don't try to sell me on the idea that you're eating the same dish as me after we're done...

 

[Canadiens1958]

Value of having the the known reliable Plan B as opposed to the unknown,unreliable, next Plan A

 

[JackSlater]

I saw probably most of Osgood's games, and he was not a great goaltender. He was usually fine. Sometimes he was good to great for a stretch (parts of 1996, the 2009 playoffs), sometimes he was bad (early 2000s). He was almost always the weakest part of those Detroit teams though and it really doesn't make sense to give him a whole lot of credit for team accomplishments. When he was outside of Detroit he was pretty much at the same level, though obviously he won less often. Judge him on how he played.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Bingo.

 

[The Panther]

All while bailing out the "superior" Dominik Hasek.

I mean, Hasek was 44 years old at the time....