Martin Brodeur

[Starchild74]

I have not posted here much as I am quite new to this forum and I was reading the thread of the best goalie of all time

I just do not understand how come Martin Brodeur does not get the respect he deserves. I am a firm believer that you can not truly compare players from different eras even if you were lucky to be able to watch hockey for 100 years it is too hard to say who is the best because of the eras. I have been watching hockey since the 1979-1980 season and I can honestly say that I have never seen a goalie like Brodeur.

Yes you can use stats find ways to make a point for the player you want to cal lthe best or just talk about their prime years or their top 5 years all you want but the truth of the matter is How anyone can argue that Brodeur is not the Greatest ever is absurd.

For those who say he played most of his career in the dead puck era. Well so did Hasek and Roy and alot of other goalies whose stats were helped in this era. It does not matter if you are facing a Brian Engblom snap shot or a Shayne Corson wrist shot or a John Slaney slap shot. You still have to stop the puck. Even though they don't have the shot of a Brett Hull or Joe Sakic or Al MacInnis so what. The idea of playing in a certain era diminishes a person's achievements is so stupid. Like saying he played for a trap team. So a trap team does not allow a shot. That is why Brodeur won all his cups and got all his wins and shutouts. It was not him that did this it was the system he played. That is what it seems like everyone is saying when they talk about Brodeur. Oh he played on New Jersey he did not have to face much shots or good scoring chances because of the team he played for. Ask any goalie that has ever played hockey and they will tell you the same thing. They would rather face more shots and stay in the game then face fewer shots. Is it Brodeur's fault that New Jersey played good defensively?

New Jersey played the trap because they did not have that many players with alot of offensive skill to justify playing wide open hockey. Remember the 80's and early 90's the Devils were not that good. Is it the system that made them better or having Brodeur in the net? I say it is Brodeur. Brodeur gave them the consistent goaltending they needed. He was their almost every game and played most of their regular season games and playoff games. He was reliable so much so that New Jersey very seldom ever had a very good backup.

Brodeur is like Roy where when you watch the opposing guys shoot they always seem to shoot at the crest on their jersey. It is because they always seem to be in position. Brodeur always seemed to be in position to make a save. It almost seemed like you had to make the perfect shot to beat him. Alot of times it did take that perfect shot to beat Brodeur.

Brodeur is breaking all the records because of his longevity. Being able to maintain his high standard of gaoltending. You can take the stats of other goalies and go by their prime or best years to try and figure out who is the best but what about a guy playing so good for so long as Brodeur. Who also missed a whole year because of a lockout to boot. If you want to pick the goalie who had the best season ever then that is ok. If you want to say who's peak years are better that is ok too. However when you want to consider who is the best of all time you have to take in consideration his whole career.

Another thing about New jersey. They might play the trap but honestly who did not think that a few years ago the New Jersey Devils would start to fall. I mean look at their defence today. Not exactly all star defeceman really. Even their team is not the best but they keep on winning. It is because of Brodeur the ability to always know that Brodeur is there helps the team stay consistent and worry about playing their game as they know Brodeur is there to keep them in the game.

Brodeur also is one of if not the greatest puckhandling goalie ever. He is like an extra defenceman out there. Their is a saying when people get too good at something things get changed. When the Canadiens would score 2-3 pp goals on the same powerplay the NHl decided to change the rule that once a team scored the PP would end. When the Oilers were scoring at will 4 on 4 the NHL added the coincidental minors so that both teams would remain 5-5. When players could not score enough because of goalies like Brodeur the NHL made a trapezoid to limit goalies. Brodeur was the biggest reason for this.

You can talk all you want about Hasek and Roy is definately the second best goalie ever even though I hate him. Brodeur is simply the greatest ever. If he played for Montreal or Toronto the breaking of the 103 shutouts in a career would have been huge but because he plays for New Jersey the Mickey Mouse hockey team not much of a big deal

When Roy was breaking all the records every one said they will never be broken and the only record of meaning he never broke was too hard to break in Sawchuks shutout record. Then Brodeur passed him. No one mentioned that Roy played for some very good defenceman and some great teams. It seems that Roy did it all himself. I mean look at it this way. Why is Brodeur not considered the best it is simple. He is quiet sometimes looks to easy out there on the ice. Most of his saves look effortless. and personality wise he is boring. I mean he does not even have a nickname lol

One more thing Let's talk about international play. Brodeur was the goalie who won the gold medal for Canada. He was the winning goalie and when Canada was not playing that great is Brodeur who stepped up his game.

Click to read more...

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

The problem with Brodeur, and no amount of longevity can overcome this, when Hasek, Roy and Brodeur were both in there prime, there was no question that Brodeur was #3. And then after they faltered. Brodeur was still often behind the flavour of the year, be it Theodore, Kiprusoff or Thomas.

I am a firm believer that you can not truly compare players from different eras

Well... There in lies the problem. It is inherent to this section that you can, or that we can strive towards that goal.

 

[Blades of Glory]

Brodeur's entire career has been played in a defensive system, though not always the infamous "neutral zone trap". Jacques Lemaire implemented the "trap" after he was brought into New Jersey for the first time, and no one can argue against the fact that much of Brodeur's career has been under the umbrella of that stifling style of neutral zone defense.

The trap is a system built around limiting breakouts and neutral zone passes and in turn, the high-quality scoring chances created from them. Now, I have no complaints with New Jersey playing that system for so long. The bottom line is that it worked, and that is the only thing that matters in terms of judging a "system", IMO. That said, a system must be taken into account when grading a goaltender. Brodeur, quite simply, was heavily protected by a tight defensive system that limited high-quality scoring chances and just to make matters even more interesting, involved two Hall of Fame defensemen for over a decade.

Patrick Roy played 9 seasons in the high-scoring era, as compared to Brodeur's one. His Montreal teams were generally solid defensively and let's not forget that Pat Burns played a huge role in Roy's 3 Vezina Trophies. It shows you the influence of a defensively-minded head coach on a goaltender. That said, Roy's career stats are hurt a lot by his first 8 seasons in the league, all of which came before Brodeur became an every-day NHL player, all of which that came in the high-scoring era. The truth is that Roy never enjoyed the defense cores and systems that Brodeur did. Actually, Roy's Colorado teams until the arrival of Rob Blake and Ray Bourque, were as close to "run-and-gun" teams as we saw in the dead puck era. They were all offense, no defense, and a lot of Patrick Roy. I mean, Sandis Ozolinsh was in his prime and was one of their top defensemen! That's a lot of scoring chances for and even more scoring chances against.

Okay, enough about comparing systems and scoring chances. The reason why Roy is almost universally (outside of New Jersey) considered a greater goaltender is because he makes Brodeur, a fantastic playoff performer in his own right, look like Roman Turek come playoff-time. It's a major exaggeration, yes, I know, but the point remains that Roy is the greatest playoff goaltender in history and, in my eyes, possibly the greatest "clutch" performer, at any position, ever. I remember a recent quote from Guy Carbonneau about what Roy said during the intermission before OT in Game 2 of the 93 Finals. It went something like "Patrick stood up in the room before the OT started and told us not to worry because 'they will not score'."

Roy simply had an aura about him that teams simply could not solve in the playoffs. He got into their heads. I'll never forget what he said about the Sandstrom wink. From the SI Archives.

"Always Sandstrom is in my crease, bothering me, hitting at me when I have the puck," Roy said. "When I made the save on Robitaille, Sandstrom hit me. So I winked. I wanted to show him I'd be tough. That I was in control."

Martin Brodeur is not the greatest goaltender ever because of many reasons. One of them happens to be that Patrick Roy, who I consider second behind Hasek and right along Jacques Plante, whipped him on the biggest stage on earth. When Brodeur's Devils had the Avalanche on the rocks, Roy, as he had so many times before, simply refused to give up a goal because he simply believed he was too great a goaltender to give one up. And in so many instances, he was right.

41-17 career playoff OT record. 7-0 career Stanley Cup Finals OT record. Won a Conn Smythe Trophy in each of the three decades he played in. How exactly is Brodeur better than Roy? He, like so many other French-Canadian goalies, grew up idolizing #33, and many thought that the 2001 Cup Finals would be the moment Brodeur took Roy's playoff mantle. It actually looked possible after Game 5, but in Games 6 and 7, Roy proved why he was Patrick Roy, and nobody else ever will be.

 

[jacklours]

People have to keep in mind that if it hadn't been for that 05 season all the Brodeur discussion would have happened last year and this year he would be leaving the records in the dust already

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Brodeur is breaking all the records because of his longevity. Being able to maintain his high standard of gaoltending. You can take the stats of other goalies and go by their prime or best years to try and figure out who is the best but what about a guy playing so good for so long as Brodeur. Who also missed a whole year because of a lockout to boot. If you want to pick the goalie who had the best season ever then that is ok. If you want to say who's peak years are better that is ok too. However when you want to consider who is the best of all time you have to take in consideration his whole career.

Based on this paragraph and particularly the bolded sentence it seems like you want to rank players based on career value only. While you are correct that one cannot ONLY look at peak years, you also cannot ONLY look at career value. Some people value peak higher than career and some rank career higher than peak, but both have to be taken into consideration. If you want to argue that Brodeur had a better career than Roy and Hasek, you must also accept the fact someone else already brought up...while they were all in the their primes, Brodeur was the #3 guy of that group. That has to be taken into consideration when ranking players.

If you want to say that Brodeur is #1 because you place an extremely high weight on career value that's fine. But you cannot think it is absurd for someone else to have these other top goaltenders ranked higher, because maybe that person's ranking standards weigh peak and career evenly or perhaps more heavily on peak. In cases like that, there is a very legit argument for the Roy's, Hasek's, and Sawchuk's of the world.

 

[Blades of Glory]

I will admit that I think Brodeur should have won the Conn Smythe in 2000 over Scott Stevens. Stevens was a rock during the entire playoffs, but not surprisingly, the voters did not give the Stanley Cup Finals nearly as much weight as I, and many others, would have. 9 goals allowed in 6 games against the defending champions is pretty impressive to go along with a 1.61/.927. Plus, the fact that Brodeur had to out-duel an almost unbeatable Ed Belfour earns him major points with me.

I think Marty got docked for a shaky series against Philadelphia in the previous round, and even then, it was just a shaky few games in the middle of the series. Man, I remember what an amazing goaltending duel that was between Belfour and Brodeur. That was the last time we saw two legendary goaltenders in their prime take over the Cup Finals in such a dramatic way.

2003 was another close call for Brodeur, but honestly, while I feel the Cup Finals is the most important piece for the Smythe, there are times to make exceptions. I can't argue with the choice of Giguere because I really don't have words to describe the level he was playing at in the first three rounds. Sometimes you have to reward a player for extraordinary performances, even if they primarily came before the Cup Finals.

Unfortunately, Brodeur completely fell apart in the 2001 Cup Finals. Had he not, I would have a very tough time arguing against him. New Jersey outplayed Colorado for much of that series, and after Game 1, their defense was dominating the Avalanche, who were without Forsberg. Brodeur let in some uncharacteristic goals and Games 2-4 really shouldn't have been as close as they were. After Game 5, I made a bet with my dad, and for some reason, I felt that betting against Patrick Roy in that situation was smart.

 

[gojacketsgo61]

IMO, Patrick Roy carried his teams most of the time. 1993 the habs had no business winning the cup, Roy carried them through and won. Brodeur has won a gold, 3 cups (i think it's 3), and 4 vezina's. But Roy had amazing stats to, 4 cups,3 Conn Smyth's. Roy has better playoff stats and even though Roy no longer holds the wins record anymore, if he played longer he would still have it.

Brodeur is a great goalie, sure HOFer no doubt but Patrick Roy really overcame everything, Jaques Plante even said Roy will never make the NHL with his style. He made the butterfly style popular. He was the reason why they won the 2001 playoffs against the devils, He stood on his head the whole series.

Both are great goalies but Roy in my opinion is the better goalie.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Not considering Brodeur the greatest goalie of all-time is not marginilizing him or disrespecting him - as virtually everyone has him in the Top 10 of all-time and many in the Top 5.

It's not like he's Chris Osgood, where despite racking up an incredible amount of wins, 2 Cups and some great playoff performances, many question his place in the HHoF because of the teams and 'system' he played for. Brodeur is universally viewed as miles better - regardless of what team he played for.

But the fact is, there are goalies with more Harts, Conn Smythes, Stanley Cups and Vezinas than Brodeur -- and that carries a lot of weight. So do wins and the numerous records Brodeur holds, but it is all factored in when trying to make a comparison.

 

[JT Dutch*]

IMO, Patrick Roy carried his teams most of the time. 1993 the habs had no business winning the cup, Roy carried them through and won.

... You could also say that Roy carried the Canadiens to the Cup in 1986.

 

[reckoning]

How anyone can argue that Brodeur is not the Greatest ever is absurd.

First of all, welcome to the board. It's always nice to see new posters, and I hope you enjoy it here.

This is not a personal shot at you, but I have to take exception with the quote above. You state that it's absurd to argue that Brodeur isn't the greatest, then submit a laundry list of Brodeur's strengths and career accomplishments. It's all very impressive, but all it does is prove that Brodeur was a great, legendary goalie. Nobody's arguing that fact. To say he's the Greatest is to say that he is better than every other goalie, including Roy, Hasek, Plante, Sawchuk, etc. Your arguments don't do that.

Brodeur won an Olympic Gold Medal. Great. But then again, so did Hasek.

Brodeur has a reputation as the best puckhandling goalie of his generation. So did Jacques Plante.

Brodeur has won more regular season games than anyone else in his career. What about Patrick Roy's gigantic lead in career playoff wins? Aren't the playoffs more important than the regular season?

Brodeur lost a season due to the lockout, where he could've added a lot more to his career numbers? So did Hasek. Speaking of lost seasons, Hasek lost several years due to being stuck behind the Iron Curtain. How much better would his career look with those years? What about Terry Sawchuk? He played in 172 tie games. How many of those would be wins if he had the benefit of regular season overtime, or later shootouts, that Brodeur did? We can play the what-if game for almost anybody.

Once again, nobody is arguing that Brodeur wasn't great. Saying that Roy or Hasek might be better isn't disrespecting Brodeur.

 

[Telos]

Roy and Hasek were both more talented, Brodeur just has the best career. He is still in the top 5, I would say, all-time goaltenders in NHL history based on skill. He also has had a pretty killer defense in front of him in his day...

 

[Big Phil]

I will admit that I think Brodeur should have won the Conn Smythe in 2000 over Scott Stevens. Stevens was a rock during the entire playoffs, but not surprisingly, the voters did not give the Stanley Cup Finals nearly as much weight as I, and many others, would have. 9 goals allowed in 6 games against the defending champions is pretty impressive to go along with a 1.61/.927. Plus, the fact that Brodeur had to out-duel an almost unbeatable Ed Belfour earns him major points with me.

I'll have to disagree on that one. Stevens played like a man possessed that spring. It would have been quite the controversy for any other Devil to win the Smythe. Brodeur did however play against the Dallas Stars. These were the two toughest defensive teams in the NHL. Is it possible for a 6 game Cup final that features the last two games going into overtime to NOT be considered a classic? Sadly, it is. This was not a finals where any goalie stood on his head.

To the OP though it is fairly easy to compare eras. No matter what the rule of thumb is to judge a player on how he played against his peers. And while it's been touched on here already the problem with Brodeur was that when he was facing off against Hasek and Roy in the regular season and playoffs he came up short. Hasek owned the Vezina and the Hart for a couple years. Roy beat him in the 2001 Cup finals and was a First team all-star in 2002. Roy also beat him out for the 1998 Olympics and would have been 2002 as well. Brodeur won his first Vezina in 2003 over the age of 30. Hasek was retired, and this was Roy's last season. So for reasons like this you would have to put Hasek and Roy ahead of him.

Then that leaves the '50s and '60s trio to judge as well. I have Sawchuk and Plante ahead of him and IMO there is a clear cut advantage to both of them. Personally I think Hall falls behind Brodeur. So all in all, Brodeur ranks as #5 all-time on my list.

He has some nice records. He owns the wins and shutouts record. That's great, but Pete Rose owns the career hits record in Baseball and most of us would still put Ty Cobb ahead of him. Plus as much as it irks Devils fans you have to look at the context of those shutouts. First of all give Brodeur credit, a shutout is a shutout, enough said. But he has the advantage of playing in New Jersey and playing 70+ games a year, every year. There was many a time when Brodeur faced under 20 shots a game and not great quality chances either. That hurts him a bit, not much, but a bit IMO. Sawchuk stonewalled shooters in Detroit and when he was traded to bottom feeding Boston in 1955 he still managed 9 shutouts on Boston. The knock on Brodeur is that he didn't pull a Hasek or Roy and carry otherwise known as pretenders on his back to the promised land. Hasek, Roy and Sawchuk all did that.

 

[Trottier]

I just do not understand how come Martin Brodeur does not get the respect he deserves.

Rest assured he does.

Perhaps not on HF, but perspective is required.

 

[Incognito]

Roy and Hasek were both more talented, Brodeur just has the best career. He is still in the top 5, I would say, all-time goaltenders in NHL history based on skill. He also has had a pretty killer defense in front of him in his day...

I don’t know if that is necessarily true. Brodeur defied the conventional wisdom of his time by turning his back on the butterfly, and came up with a style that was completely unique to him. And after all his success, one would wonder why hockey clinics do not teach Brodeur’s ways to goalies of the future. The main reason that no other goalie has emulated Brodeur’s style of goaltending is simply because they can’t. The butterfly has taken off in popularity because it is a technical system, and even goalies that do not possess an abundance of natural talent can excel as long as they are technically sound (i.e. Giguere). However, the style implemented by Brodeur is one that relies much more on natural athleticism and talent. This is not to say that Roy was not an exceptional talent, but I think it is erroneous to suggest that Brodeur is not on the level of Roy and Hasek. The way he plays the game has contributed greatly to his durability and longevity, as studies have shown that the butterfly can have adverse effects on the body (especially the hips) of a goalie over time. The fact that Brodeur can play the game in a manner that no other goalie can, and plays it at a consistently high level year after year, suggests that his talent levels are rivaled by few.

 

[Epsilon]

Rest assured he does.

Perhaps not on HF, but perspective is required.

Lack of perspective is more of a problem for the "Brodeur is the greatest because his numbers are the best!" crowd that frequents the main board more so than the posters on the HoH board, most of whom rate Brodeur somewhere in the 4-8 range all-time based on careful analysis and comparisons.

 

[JimEIV]

These arguements tend to be so contradictory and circular I can never figure them out! Specifically when talking about Roy, Brodeur and Hasek.

When You want to compare Brodeur’s Numbers to Roy’s you are quickly reminded of the era difference…Even though Brodeur played nearly 70% of Roy’s career.

When Hasek is compared to Brodeur no one ever mentions Brodeur was a pup in the league while Hasek was in prime winning Vezinas….Apparently the “era” argument doesn’t apply there.

Talk about playoffs and Hasek team is a plus and it is a negative for Brodeur but Roy never gets the same measurement?

Brodeur was clearly number 3????? Even though Roy only finished a head of Brodeur in Vezina voting 2 times in 8 or 9 years they played the same time and one was Brodeur’s rookie season?????

It is a giant circle

The arguments are always tailor made to fit whatever you want them to be; it is borderline ridiculous

 

[Trottier]

Lack of perspective is more of a problem for the "Brodeur is the greatest because his numbers are the best!" crowd that frequents the main board more so than the posters on the HoH board, most of whom rate Brodeur somewhere in the 4-8 range all-time based on careful analysis and comparisons.

You did notice, I hope, that I specifically wrote "HF," meaning as a whole. Not the HOH board, which, with notable exceptions, features insightful posters.

Frankly, you'll also notice that I've rarely, if ever, offered up an opinion as to who is "the bestest!". I'm not debating anyone who has Brodeur at #1 or 8, for that matter, for all I know is that he is a chronic winner (and winning actually matters to a minority of HF posters who follow this sport when evaluating players), and one of the best I'll ever see.

What I know is that he is unquestionably one of the all-time greats, as is Hasek and Roy, and they are clearly the three best of their era. I am less sure how they rank, and likely always will be. But then again, the less one follows the sport, the more certain they are of things. Funny how that works.

My issue is with those who come up with superfluous bromides (not to be confused with legitimate points) against Brodeur.

As I've stated elsewhere, once a guy has done it for 16 - repeat 16 straight years - at the level he has, the canards like "he just plays behind great defensive teams, ya-da-ya-da" are patently asinine. I mean, when does the Statute of Limitations run out on such, lazy cliches and generalizations?

Frankly, JimEIV's post directly above sums it all up best.

 

[Leafs Forever]

In tresponse to stricly the first post, I, like others who have posted, take offense to the notions that comparing across era's is impossible and that arguing against Brodeur as the best ever is absurd. If it impossible to compare across era's, what is the point of most of the HOH forum? It is possible (as mentioned, through dominane within era's) and we have been doing it for a long time.

As also noted, your post shows him as a great goalie, not the best, because it lacks comparison.

I wrote an article on this subject- http://leafscentral.co.uk/articles.php?c=58 - trying to disprove the notion of Brodeur as the best ever. Brodeur's resume really doesn't stand out much (other than perhaps hart voting, and in that regard he's not necessarily the best either) when compared to the rest of the "big-7" goalies (Hasek, Roy, Plante, Dryden, Hall, Sawchuk). Longevity has been mentioned quite a bit for Brodeur- and I really do like longevity- but I am not really convinced that Brodeur has done more than these other guys with shorter careers/high-level play. Longevity is great, but Brodeur hasn't done enough within that longevity to warrant any arguement against him as the greatest as "absurd".

 

[meehan]

I am a Devils fan and I have no problem when people say he isn't the greatest ever; personally I got him at 5. The only problem I have is when people assume he doesn't have a shot at being in the discussion of best ever by the time his career is over. IMO, he is a top 5 goaltender in the league this year and could challenge for another Vezina by years end; when he will be 38. He hasn't shown signs of slowing down thus far, so what's to say he can't gather some more hardware in the next few years and challenge the likes of Plante, Roy and Hasek by the time his career is actually over?

 

[Leafs Forever]

I am a Devils fan and I have no problem when people say he isn't the greatest ever; personally I got him at 5. The only problem I have is when people assume he doesn't have a shot at being in the discussion of best ever by the time his career is over. IMO, he is a top 5 goaltender in the league this year and could challenge for another Vezina by years end; when he will be 38. He hasn't shown signs of slowing down thus far, so what's to say he can't gather some more hardware in the next few years and challenge the likes of Plante, Roy and Hasek by the time his career is actually over?

It's possible, but I have doubts. We'd have to see some more post-season AST calibre years out of him, and I am unsure he can do that before father time claims him. Between Miller, Bryzgalov, Nabakov, and Kippersoff, I am unsure if he can do it this year either.

 

[Trottier]

Between Miller, Bryzgalov, Nabakov, and Kippersoff, I am unsure if he can do it this year either.

Curious that one would list those four, since none have EVER done a damn thing of note in the postseason.

But let's guess...they're younnnnnnger....and that makes them better! (In the minds of age-biased youth. )

Bryzgalov? One playoff series run a few years back? And he'll likely not even make the postseason.

 

[Epsilon]

Curious that one would list those four, sinc enone have EVER done a damn thing of note in the postseason. but let's guess...they're younnnnnnger....and that makes them better. (In the minds of age-biased youth. )

Bryzgalov? One playoff series run a few years back? And he'll likely not even make the postseason.

I think he's referring to whether or not Brodeur will finish on the post-season all-star teams (i.e. the ones that matter based on regular season play, rather than the meaningless all-star game rosters), not making any predictions about the playoffs.

 

[Epsilon]

You did notice, I hope, that I specifically wrote "HF," meaning as a whole. Not the HOH board, which, with notable exceptions, features insightful posters.

...

My issue is with those who come up with superfluous bromides (not to be confused with legitimate points) against Brodeur.

As I've stated elsewhere, once a guy has done it for 16 - repeat 16 straight years - at the level he has, the canards like "he just plays behind great defensive teams, ya-da-ya-da" are patently asinine. I mean, when does the Statute of Limitations run out on such, lazy cliches and generalizations?

I simply ignore pretty much everything posted on HF in a historical context outside of the HoH board, since most of it is abundantly lacking in thought and perspective. This includes all tiresome diatribes about Brodeur on the main board by Rangers fans.

 

[JimEIV]

It's possible, but I have doubts. We'd have to see some more post-season AST calibre years out of him, and I am unsure he can do that before father time claims him. Between Miller, Bryzgalov, Nabakov, and Kippersoff, I am unsure if he can do it this year either.

Really?

I would think it would be more logical to question whether or not Miller and Bryzgalov can keep up their current pace....We all know Brodeur will, at least if history is any sort of indicator he will.

He is currently 1st in wins - 2nd in Shutouts -3rd in GAA and 5th in Save% for goalies that have played 20 or more games. Right now he is actually on pace for an astonishing 54 wins this season (Things can change in an instant I understand that). If he breaks the win record, Again, while keeping all the other categories close, and setting the shutout record and setting games played record all in the same season there is no way he is not winning another Vezina. It would be inevitable. (Then we can argue about how he didn't deserve it cause someone else had a better save% -- and the detractors will call it a life time acheivement Vezina)

We'll see, but I couldn't imagine any piece of evidence one would point to that would indicate Brodeur is about to or is slowing down.

 

[Epsilon]

Really?

I would think it would be more logical to question whether or not Miller and Bryzgalov can keep up their current pace....We all know Brodeur will, at least if history is any sort of indicator he will.

He is currently 1st in wins - 2nd in Shutouts -3rd in GAA and 5th in Save% for goalies that have played 20 or more games. Right now he is actually on pace for an astonishing 54 wins this season (Things can change in an instant I understand that). If he breaks the win record, Again, while keeping all the other categories close, and setting the shutout record and setting games played record all in the same season there is no way he is not winning another Vezina. It would be inevitable. (Then we can argue about how he didn't deserve it cause someone else had a better save% -- and the detractors will call it a life time acheivement Vezina).

You can't have it both ways. Don't make a hypothetical case for him that includes career records and then preemptively dismiss anyone who would criticize the decision by claiming they played a role.