Martin Brodeur

[seventieslord]

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.

Isn't making that last statement a compariosn of players from different eras?

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.

So he's just soooooo good that anyone who says Roy, Hasek, Plante, Sawchuk, or Dryden is better than him is speaking absurdities? He's so far ahead that they aren't even in his league? It shouldn't even be discussed? Why are you here, then?

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

Quite simply, we judge players by how much they dominate their competition. Guys like hasek and Roy were much better at stopping the puck and made an overall more valuable contribution to winning. That's why they're rated higher.

Career totals aren't everything. Is Mark Messier the 2nd-best player ever? Or even close? Is Francis even top-50, let alone 3rd??

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.

Why is the career shutout record so important compared to other things, like cups, smythes, or just plain wins?

What a terrible, terrible way to judge a goalie. A longevity/compiling-based record of a team-based statistic, that is highly era-dependent. :

Canada won the Gold because they were the best team. They may/may not have had the best goalie but that is overall inconsequential.

 

[seventieslord]

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.

Bingo.

 

[Trottier]

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.

Agree with your sentiment entirely, however.

There, "historical" is defined as anything that happened yesterday. And anything that occured prior to yesterday is meaningless.

 

[Leafs Forever]

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.

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.

That is exactly what I mean Episilon; stricly the regular season-based post-season AST's- where, this season, Brodeur is no guarantee to get on one.

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.

We are about halfway through the season at this point- Bryzgalov and Miller don't seem to show signs of slowing down. Sure, Brodeur has a history of being consistent, but it doesn't make it impossible for him to slow slightly (particularly at his age), merely unlikely.

Brodeur is tied for 2nd in shutouts with 3 other goalies- including Miller, and they are both behind Bryzgalov's 5. Miller has 2.05 GAA and .933 s%, Bryzgalov a 2.01 GAA and .927 s%, while Brodeur has a a 2.17 GAA and .921 s%. The only thing Brodeur has going for him is wins, and Bryzgalov is only 3 wins behind while Miller is only 4. At current pace, Brodeur should not make an all-star team. He may not slow down, but he is going to have to speed it up most likely.

And Brodeur has other guys right around his level- Kippersoff, Nabakov, and Luongo all not far from him in most categories (and Kippersoff and Nabakov have the s% advantage). Brodeur will have to step it up if he expects and AST.

Why should setting the shutout, or frankly the games played record, matter at all? Those are career achievements, achieved over many, many seasons, while these are one-year awards we are talking about which really focus on play only within one season (well, they should, at least...)

 

[quoipourquoi]

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

Bryzgalov had a 249 minute shutout streak in the playoffs...

 

[Trottier]

Bryzgalov had a 249 minute shutout streak in the playoffs...

Yippee. And then was replaced later in the playoffs by Giguere.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Yippee. And then was replaced later in the playoffs by Giguere.

Because the Ducks lost three straight to Edmonton and it was Giguere's job to begin with (he was injured going into the playoffs). Don't get all sarcastic just because you were wrong about Bryzgalov doing something "of note" in the playoffs.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

That is exactly what I mean Episilon; stricly the regular season-based post-season AST's- where, this season, Brodeur is no guarantee to get on one.



We are about halfway through the season at this point- Bryzgalov and Miller don't seem to show signs of slowing down. Sure, Brodeur has a history of being consistent, but it doesn't make it impossible for him to slow slightly (particularly at his age), merely unlikely.

Brodeur is tied for 2nd in shutouts with 3 other goalies- including Miller, and they are both behind Bryzgalov's 5. Miller has 2.05 GAA and .933 s%, Bryzgalov a 2.01 GAA and .927 s%, while Brodeur has a a 2.17 GAA and .921 s%. The only thing Brodeur has going for him is wins, and Bryzgalov is only 3 wins behind while Miller is only 4. At current pace, Brodeur should not make an all-star team. He may not slow down, but he is going to have to speed it up most likely.

And Brodeur has other guys right around his level- Kippersoff, Nabakov, and Luongo all not far from him in most categories (and Kippersoff and Nabakov have the s% advantage). Brodeur will have to step it up if he expects and AST.

Why should setting the shutout, or frankly the games played record, matter at all? Those are career achievements, achieved over many, many seasons, while these are one-year awards we are talking about which really focus on play only within one season (well, they should, at least...)

But because he is Brodeur, he would. He didn't have the numbers to win his first 2 Vezina Trophies either.

 

[Trottier]

Because the Ducks lost three straight to Edmonton and it was Giguere's job to begin with (he was injured going into the playoffs). Don't get all sarcastic just because you were wrong about Bryzgalov doing something "of note" in the playoffs.

I was not wrong. As stated, I was aware of Bryz's hot streak that playoff year. I am not impressed. You are. Fair enough. I define "doing something" as winning come the postseason. Just different standards.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I was not wrong. As stated, I was aware of Bryz's hot streak that playoff year. I am not impressed. You are. Fair enough. I define "doing something" as winning come the postseason. Just different standards.

So, by your standards, Dominik Hasek didn't do anything of note in the playoffs until 2002? Jean Sebastien Giguere didn't do anything of note in the playoffs until 2007? Ron Hextall never did anything of note in the playoffs in his entire career?

There is more to hockey than just winning. For goaltenders, four-straight hours of shutout hockey and a .944 SPCT has to count for something.

 

[quoipourquoi]

But because he is Brodeur, he would. He didn't have the numbers to win his first 2 Vezina Trophies either.

Or the fourth one:

Giguere - 35-17, 2.12 GAA, .922 SPCT, 4 SOs
Brodeur - 44-27, 2.17 GAA, .920 SPCT, 4 SOs

I understand rewarding Wins, but it was 9 extra Wins and 10 extra Losses...

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Or the fourth one:

Giguere - 35-17, 2.12 GAA, .922 SPCT, 4 SOs
Brodeur - 44-27, 2.17 GAA, .920 SPCT, 4 SOs

I understand rewarding Wins, but it was 9 extra Wins and 10 extra Losses...

So Giguere's very marginally better stats mean he definitely should have won it over Brodeur? You might as well just give the Vezina to the goalie with the highest save % then. Actually watching the players should be the first criteria I think. Unfortunately when it comes to awards these days, I think many voters do just look at the stats since they may only see the candidates play a couple times a year. Explains Tim Thomas' Vezina last year. He had the best stats, but actually watching him play gives a different impression.

 

[Trottier]

There is more to hockey than just winning.

Based on the above, clearly, we watch/follow a different game. Not going to judge your values. However, there clearly is no use in debating, no further words required.

 

[EventHorizon]

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.

I'd like to point out that not all Rangers fans are vindictive morons. Please don't lump us all together. I know there are the few who will try to take away from Brodeur's accomplishments but I think (hope) they are a vocal minority. Any of us who lived through the Rangers Dark Years know exactly what Brodeur brought to the table year after year and what he continues to bring to the table to this day. Brodeur gets as much grief from Luongo apologists on HFBoards as he does from Ranger fans in denial.



Anyway with that out of the way I'm not going to comment on players I wasn't around to see so everyone before the early 80s is out for me. Between Hasek, Roy and Brodeur the best goalies I have been lucky enough to see, I have a very hard time choosing. I think being married to a Devils season ticket holder may skew my opinions towards Brodeur. I absolutely dreaded going to the Ranger-Devil games during the Dark Years. I mean, when you're going to a game and your biggest hope is that your team might be able to score ONE goal, that says a lot about a goalie right there. Hasek is a goalie who I wish we got to see more of. He had a relatively short career due to his late start which is too bad. I'd like to see what he could have done with a bigger body of work. What can you say about Roy. The guy was phenomenal. It's impossible to argue with his playoff accomplishments. You don't win 3 Conn Smythes by accident.

I guess if I was forced to put these greats in order I'd go:
1) Roy
2) Brodeur
3) Hasek

Now Brodeur still has some time left. If he were to go out and get a Conn Smythe and two more Cups I'd certainly have to consider putting him up ahead of Roy. But right now I think I put Roy at the top. But ask me again next week and I might have a different order, like a favorite song, my opinion here changes with my mood.

I think the bottom line is that these are three legends that anyone would want between the pipes on their team in a big situation.

 

[NOTENOUGHJTCGOALS]

So, by your standards, Dominik Hasek didn't do anything of note in the playoffs until 2002? Jean Sebastien Giguere didn't do anything of note in the playoffs until 2007? Ron Hextall never did anything of note in the playoffs in his entire career?

There is more to hockey than just winning. For goaltenders, four-straight hours of shutout hockey and a .944 SPCT has to count for something.

If you're trying to objectively rank players its true you might want to look at more than just the number of Stanley Cups they won as the only measure by which to judge. It's obvious to anyone the Mario Lemieux was better than Claude Lemieux.

However, there isnt anything more to hockey than winning.

 

[quoipourquoi]

So Giguere's very marginally better stats mean he definitely should have won it over Brodeur? You might as well just give the Vezina to the goalie with the highest save % then. Actually watching the players should be the first criteria I think. Unfortunately when it comes to awards these days, I think many voters do just look at the stats since they may only see the candidates play a couple times a year. Explains Tim Thomas' Vezina last year. He had the best stats, but actually watching him play gives a different impression.

But it wasn't just save percentage; Giguere was better in every category except for Wins, though he had a higher winning percentage. All of this on a far more penalized team (410 vs. 271).

What is it that made Brodeur the best candidate in your eyes? To me, no goalie stood out like a Roy or a Hasek in 2008, but it seemed as if people adapt their argument as to what makes the best goalie to fit Brodeur because he's Brodeur. In 2003 and 2004, save percentage wasn't a dealbreaker, but all of a sudden it was the statistic of choice in Nabokov's detractors (Nabokov bettered Brodeur in every category except SPCT). And when it came to Giguere, the only thing holding back a single category of his numbers was his own dehydration issues which limit his GP (and yet he still had the same number of shutouts).

To me, I can't think of a scenario by which someone can justify that Vezina without docking style points for butterfly goalies.

 

[quoipourquoi]

If you're trying to objectively rank players its true you might want to look at more than just the number of Stanley Cups they won as the only measure by which to judge. It's obvious to anyone the Mario Lemieux was better than Claude Lemieux.

However, there isnt anything more to hockey than winning.

Given the context, it should have been pretty obvious that I made that comment in terms of defending the contributions of goaltenders that came up short of winning. Saying that Kiprusoff hasn't done anything "of note" for the simple fact that he lost a Game 7 by a goal is silly, and the fact that I'm getting called out for defending someone's four-hour shutout streak is borderline infuriating.


I think further words are required, Trottier. The goalies I listed once fell into the category of ones who didn't "[do] something" by your standards, and you tried to use that as justification for a few of the current goalies being unworthy 1st Team and 2nd Team All-Stars. Would you have denied Hasek his 1st Team selections? I think it's a fair question to ask, since you found it so laughable that a non-Stanley Cup Champion like Ryan Miller might be the best goalie in the league by April.

 

[Starchild74]

I hate using stats to try and convey what I am saying and I do not believe in having to put a player down to make the other look better. It seems alot of people on here have Hasek and Roy ahead of Brodeur because of their dominance over him when playing head to head. But I ask you this. What is more important how a Hasek (30) Roy(29) did against a 22 year old Brodeur. I mean yes when Roy was 20 he won the cup and yes Brodeur did it at 22 that season Hasek stats are better in the regular seson then Brodeur but shouldn't he have he was a veteran at the top of his game Brodeur was young and learning. Oh wait I forgot Brodeur kept up his pace and maintained it. I guess the idea that Brodeur like Roy played at a young age at the biggest level of hockey and still managed to have a career and play at the same level does not matter.

What about comparing their years according to their first year etc..

To make it clear Hasek is listed first then Roy and Brodeur. The first number after the year is their age.




1990-91 26 5 195 3 0 1 8 2.46 93 85 0.914 0
1984-85 19 1 20 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 0
1991-92 19 4 179 2 1 0 10 3.35 85 75 0.882 0


1991-92 27 20 1014 10 4 1 44 2.6 413 369 0.893 1
1985-86 20 47 2651 23 18 3 148 3.35 1185 1037 0.875 1
1993-94 21 47 2625 27 11 8 105 2.4 1238 1133 0.915 3


1992-93 28 28 1429 11 10 4 75 3.15 720 645 0.896 0
1986-87 21 46 2686 22 16 6 131 2.93 1210 1079 0.892 1
1994-95 22 40 2184 19 11 6 89 2.45 908 819 0.902 3


1993-94 29 58 3358 30 20 6 109 1.95 1552 1443 0.93 7
1987-88 22 45 2586 23 12 9 125 2.9 1248 1123 0.9 3
1995-96 23 77 4433 34 30 12 173 2.34 1954 1781 0.911 6


1994-95 30 41 2416 19 14 7 85 2.11 1221 1136 0.93 5
1988-89 23 48 2744 33 5 6 113 2.47 1228 1115 0.908 4
1996-97 24 67 3838 37 14 13 120 1.88 1633 1513 0.927 10


1995-96 31 59 3417 22 30 6 161 2.83 2011 1850 0.92 2
1989-90 24 54 3173 31 16 5 134 2.53 1524 1390 0.912 3
1997-98 25 70 4128 43 17 8 130 1.89 1569 1439 0.917 10


1996-97 32 67 4037 37 20 10 153 2.27 2177 2024 0.93 5
1990-91 25 48 2835 25 15 6 128 2.71 1362 1234 0.906 1
1998-99 26 70 4239 39 21 10 162 2.29 1728 1566 0.906 4


1997-98 33 72 4220 33 23 13 147 2.09 2149 2002 0.932 13
1991-92 26 67 3935 36 22 8 155 2.36 1806 1651 0.914 5
1999-00 27 72 4312 43 20 8 161 2.24 1797 1636 0.91 6


1998-99 34 64 3817 30 18 14 119 1.87 1877 1758 0.937 9
1992-93 27 62 3595 31 25 5 192 3.2 1814 1622 0.894 2
2000-01 28 72 4297 42 17 11 166 2.32 1762 1596 0.906 9


1999-00 35 35 2066 15 11 6 76 2.21 937 861 0.919 3
1993-94 28 68 3867 35 17 11 161 2.5 1956 1795 0.918 7
2001-02 29 73 4347 38 26 9 156 2.15 1655 1499 0.906 4


2000-01 36 67 3904 37 24 4 137 2.11 1726 1589 0.921 11
1994-95 29 43 2566 17 20 6 127 2.97 1357 1230 0.906 1
2002-03 30 73 4374 41 23 9 147 2.02 1706 1559 0.914 9


2001-02 37 65 3872 41 15 8 140 2.17 1654 1514 0.915 5
1995-96 30 61 3565 34 24 2 165 2.78 1797 1632 0.908 2
2003-04 31 75 4555 38 26 11 154 2.03 1845 1691 0.917 11


2003-04 39 14 817 8 3 2 30 2.2 324 294 0.907 2
1996-97 31 62 3698 38 15 7 143 2.32 1861 1718 0.923 7
2005-06 33 73 4365 43 23 7 187 2.57 2105 1918 0.911 5


2005-06 41 43 2584 28 10 4 90 2.09 1202 1112 0.925 5
1997-98 32 65 3835 31 19 13 153 2.39 1825 1672 0.916 4
2006-07 34 78 4697 48 23 7 171 2.18 2182 2011 0.922 12


2006-07 42 56 3341 38 11 6 114 2.05 1309 1195 0.913 8
1998-99 33 61 3648 32 19 8 139 2.29 1673 1534 0.917 5
2007-08 35 77 4635 44 27 6 168 2.17 2089 1921 0.92 4


2007-08 43 41 2350 27 10 3 84 2.14 855 771 0.902 5
1999-00 34 63 3704 32 21 8 141 2.28 1640 1499 0.914 2
2008-09 36 31 1814 19 9 3 73 2.41 870 797 0.916 5


2000-01 35 62 3585 40 13 7 132 2.21 1513 1381 0.913 4
2009-10 37 37 2181 25 10 1 79 2.17 996 917 0.921 4

Now I am not saying that these stats say everything but it shows me that when people compare the 3 goalies and you look at from these stats Brodeur is not so bad as some say when compared to the other 2 Especially the so called greatest stat ever for a goalie the save pct.

Now maybe this will not show the whole picture so here is another one this is comparing them at the same age. It is the same order with Hasek first Roy second and Brodeur 3rd Brodeur is not included for the age of 32 because of the lockout


N/A
1984-85 19 1 20 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 0
1991-92 19 4 179 2 1 0 10 3.35 85 75 0.882 0


N/A
1986-87 21 46 2686 22 16 6 131 2.93 1210 1079 0.892 1
1993-94 21 47 2625 27 11 8 105 2.4 1238 1133 0.915 3


N/A
1987-88 22 45 2586 23 12 9 125 2.9 1248 1123 0.9 3
1994-95 22 40 2184 19 11 6 89 2.45 908 819 0.902 3


N/A
1988-89 23 48 2744 33 5 6 113 2.47 1228 1115 0.908 4
1995-96 23 77 4433 34 30 12 173 2.34 1954 1781 0.911 6


N/A
1989-90 24 54 3173 31 16 5 134 2.53 1524 1390 0.912 3
1996-97 24 67 3838 37 14 13 120 1.88 1633 1513 0.927 10


N/A
1990-91 25 48 2835 25 15 6 128 2.71 1362 1234 0.906 1
1997-98 25 70 4128 43 17 8 130 1.89 1569 1439 0.917 10



1990-91 26 5 195 3 0 1 8 2.46 93 85 0.914 0
1991-92 26 67 3935 36 22 8 155 2.36 1806 1651 0.914 5
1998-99 26 70 4239 39 21 10 162 2.29 1728 1566 0.906 4



1991-92 27 20 1014 10 4 1 44 2.6 413 369 0.893 1
1992-93 27 62 3595 31 25 5 192 3.2 1814 1622 0.894 2
1999-00 27 72 4312 43 20 8 161 2.24 1797 1636 0.91 6



1992-93 28 28 1429 11 10 4 75 3.15 720 645 0.896 0
1993-94 28 68 3867 35 17 11 161 2.5 1956 1795 0.918 7
2000-01 28 72 4297 42 17 11 166 2.32 1762 1596 0.906 9



1993-94 29 58 3358 30 20 6 109 1.95 1552 1443 0.93 7
1994-95 29 43 2566 17 20 6 127 2.97 1357 1230 0.906 1
2001-02 29 73 4347 38 26 9 156 2.15 1655 1499 0.906 4



1994-95 30 41 2416 19 14 7 85 2.11 1221 1136 0.93 5
1995-96 30 61 3565 34 24 2 165 2.78 1797 1632 0.908 2
2002-03 30 73 4374 41 23 9 147 2.02 1706 1559 0.914 9



1995-96 31 59 3417 22 30 6 161 2.83 2011 1850 0.92 2
1996-97 31 62 3698 38 15 7 143 2.32 1861 1718 0.923 7
2003-04 31 75 4555 38 26 11 154 2.03 1845 1691 0.917 11



1996-97 32 67 4037 37 20 10 153 2.27 2177 2024 0.93 5
1997-98 32 65 3835 31 19 13 153 2.39 1825 1672 0.916 4



1997-98 33 72 4220 33 23 13 147 2.09 2149 2002 0.932 13
1998-99 33 61 3648 32 19 8 139 2.29 1673 1534 0.917 5
2005-06 33 73 4365 43 23 7 187 2.57 2105 1918 0.911 5



1998-99 34 64 3817 30 18 14 119 1.87 1877 1758 0.937 9
1999-00 34 63 3704 32 21 8 141 2.28 1640 1499 0.914 2
2006-07 34 78 4697 48 23 7 171 2.18 2182 2011 0.922 12



1999-00 35 35 2066 15 11 6 76 2.21 937 861 0.919 3
2000-01 35 62 3585 40 13 7 132 2.21 1513 1381 0.913 4
2007-08 35 77 4635 44 27 6 168 2.17 2089 1921 0.92 4



2000-01 36 67 3904 37 24 4 137 2.11 1726 1589 0.921 11
2001-02 36 63 3773 32 23 8 122 1.94 1629 1507 0.925 9
2008-09 36 31 1814 19 9 3 73 2.41 870 797 0.916 5



2001-02 37 65 3872 41 15 8 140 2.17 1654 1514 0.915 5
2002-03 37 63 3769 35 15 13 137 2.18 1723 1586 0.92 5
2009-10 37 37 2181 25 10 1 79 2.17 996 917 0.921 4


Once again Brodeur stacks up very well and for the most part wins alot of the categories. I did this because like I stated in my previous post it is not just about prime years it is what you do in a career that makes you great. Players who are not in their prime can still make their team better and win games for them even Stanley Cups.

 

[Trottier]

I think further words are required, Trottier. The goalies I listed once fell into the category of ones who didn't "[do] something" by your standards, and you tried to use that as justification for a few of the current goalies being unworthy 1st Team and 2nd Team All-Stars. Would you have denied Hasek his 1st Team selections? I think it's a fair question to ask, since you found it so laughable that a non-Stanley Cup Champion like Ryan Miller might be the best goalie in the league by April.

See post #22 by Episilon. I misunderstood the original post. I am not impressed by any of the four goalies mentioned with regard to their respective postseason play relative to Brodeur's. (To be sure, Kipprusoff backstopped the Flames to Game Seven of the SCF in '04, a noteworthy feat...but it pales in comparison to MB's playoff success.)

I was not commenting on this year's Vezina race, which is wide open.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

What about comparing their years according to their first year etc..

Certainly a worthy endeavour, but I would recommend era-adjusting the seasons before trying to compare them head-to-head-to-head.

 

[Derick*]

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.

"The Vezina Trophy is awarded annually to the National Hockey League's goaltender who is "adjudged to be the best at this position".[1] At the end of each season, the 30 General Managers of the teams in the National Hockey League vote to determine the goaltender who was the most valuable to his team during the regular season."

The Vezina Trophy is awarded to the most valuable goalie during the regular season that year.

None of those four have ever done anything during the playoffs in previous years.

Not seeing how it's curious that they would get consideration.

 

[seventieslord]

But it wasn't just save percentage; Giguere was better in every category except for Wins, though he had a higher winning percentage. All of this on a far more penalized team (410 vs. 271).

What is it that made Brodeur the best candidate in your eyes? To me, no goalie stood out like a Roy or a Hasek in 2008, but it seemed as if people adapt their argument as to what makes the best goalie to fit Brodeur because he's Brodeur. In 2003 and 2004, save percentage wasn't a dealbreaker, but all of a sudden it was the statistic of choice in Nabokov's detractors (Nabokov bettered Brodeur in every category except SPCT). And when it came to Giguere, the only thing holding back a single category of his numbers was his own dehydration issues which limit his GP (and yet he still had the same number of shutouts).

To me, I can't think of a scenario by which someone can justify that Vezina without docking style points for butterfly goalies.

It's Messier-style "stud factor".

And yeah, how does Giguere not get more consideration with those numbers? His situational save percentages must have been much better.

Actually, I'll check.

Giguere was .940 at even strength, first among goalies who faced 1000+ ES shots. He was .867 vs. the PP, about average.

Brodeur was .928 at ES and .893 vs. the PP, 3rd among goalies who faced 200+ PP shots.

Giguere faced 22.8% of his shots on the PP. Brodeur faced 21.0% of his shots on the PP.

Given those discrepancies, the .02 sv% differential is more impressive.

I hate using stats to try and convey what I am saying and I do not believe in having to put a player down to make the other look better. It seems alot of people on here have Hasek and Roy ahead of Brodeur because of their dominance over him when playing head to head. But I ask you this. What is more important how a Hasek (30) Roy(29) did against a 22 year old Brodeur. I mean yes when Roy was 20 he won the cup and yes Brodeur did it at 22 that season Hasek stats are better in the regular seson then Brodeur but shouldn't he have he was a veteran at the top of his game Brodeur was young and learning. Oh wait I forgot Brodeur kept up his pace and maintained it. I guess the idea that Brodeur like Roy played at a young age at the biggest level of hockey and still managed to have a career and play at the same level does not matter.

What about comparing their years according to their first year etc..

To make it clear Hasek is listed first then Roy and Brodeur. The first number after the year is their age.

.

Those numbers are meaningless unless you account for changing scoring levels over the past 25 years.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

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.

.

This is partly true, but not entirely. New Jersey did not play a defense-first system under Robbie Ftorek or Larry Robinson. They were more of a balanced team, but if anything, they were more offensive-minded than the average NHL team under either of these two coaches. One of the common misconceptions about the Devils is that they played the same, no matter the coach, and this is false.

Also, Brodeur did play behind a very good defense (duh), but Niedermayer was not a HOF calibre defenseman for most of his time in NJ. He didn't start to play at that level until Stevens was starting to decline.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

As for the original post, I honestly can't see how anyone who has watched hockey for more than 10 years can pick Brodeur over Patrick Roy at this time. Hasek, I can see, depending on you view of how much you can attribute team success to a goaltender.

But I honestly can't see any way to realistically rank Brodeur over Roy at this time. Brodeur never reached the levels Roy did in the 93 or 01 playoffs (I was too young in 86, but I assume it was the same deal). Roy's playoffs wins # might be inflated a little by divisional play, but it's so far ahead of anyone else. And if you don't want to value playoffs that much, you have to wonder how you can rank Brodeur with or ahead of Hasek.

Note, however, that Brodeur's career isn't over and if he wins another Cup and a Smythe (just as an example), it definitely changes things.

On the other hand, one argument against Brodeur that I don't buy at all is the "he was clearly behind Hasek and Roy when they all played at the same time." Well, Brodeur is 7 years younger than them, so this shouldn't be some huge revelation.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Or the fourth one:

Giguere - 35-17, 2.12 GAA, .922 SPCT, 4 SOs
Brodeur - 44-27, 2.17 GAA, .920 SPCT, 4 SOs

I understand rewarding Wins, but it was 9 extra Wins and 10 extra Losses...

So basically, very similar stats, but Brodeur was able to maintain that pace for an extra 20 games. But I'm sure Giguere's .002 higher save % really helped his team win those 20 games that he was warming the bench.