Mike Richter

[MS]

I'm scratching my head at this one.

EDIT: I'm not saying Richter wasn't bad in 92-93, but I'm saying that he was bad behind a dysfunctional team. He was not the only reason that team was terrible.

Also, Richter was healthy and playing at a high level in 89-90 (albeit a short stint), 90-91, 91-92, 93-94, and 96-97. He was injured but at a high level in 95-96 (still playing 41 games).

That 1992-93 team was in-between two President's Trophy teams, and Vanbiesbrouck had a winning record and good numbers behind them. Richter stunk.

Likewise, in 1991-92, he was ok, but substantially outplayed by Vanbiesbrouck. He was a middling goalie that year.

In his career, the 1990-91 season, the 1993-94 season, and the 1996-97 season as the three healthy years where he was a top-end goalie. He was also good in a brief 24-game rookie sample in 89-90 and an injury-affected 1995-96 season.

That isn't consistent.

 

[The Panther]

His 1992-93 and 1994-95 seasons were both very poor, and he generated below-average numbers behind good teams.

Richter's numbers are NOT "poor" for 1992-93 (looking at GSAA and GA%, they're actually slighter higher than League average). They're just not as good as Vanbiesbrouck's. More to the point, though, the Rangers were simply not a "good" team that season. They fell to third-worst offensively in the East, so the goalies suddenly weren't getting much support, and also they were quite poor at even strength.

You can't give him credit for a consistent 8-year stretch when he was actually healthy and playing at a high level consistently in only 3 of those years.

That's just nonsense. I stand by my assertion -- over that eight year stretch, Richter had only one poor season, and one okay season, with six very good ones. Again, no one's saying Richter's a Hall of Famer, but give credit where it's due.

 

[mrhockey193195]

That 1992-93 team was in-between two President's Trophy teams, and Vanbiesbrouck had a winning record and good numbers behind them. Richter stunk.

Likewise, in 1991-92, he was ok, but substantially outplayed by Vanbiesbrouck. He was a middling goalie that year.

In his career, the 1990-91 season, the 1993-94 season, and the 1996-97 season as the three healthy years where he was a top-end goalie. He was also good in a brief 24-game rookie sample in 89-90 and an injury-affected 1995-96 season.

That isn't consistent.

I disagree with the bolded, but putting that aside - it's fine if we have different standards for what defines a consistent goalie. I guess my confusion arises from the fact that very few goalies should be viewed as consistent in your eyes. For the time period in question (late 80s until mid 90s), it probably is only Roy. Maybe Beezer as well.

I'm curious if Ed Belfour is inconsistent in your eyes as well, and therefore a goalie you don't like? In his first eight seasons (i.e., before he signed in Dallas) he only had three "good" ones (albeit those three were great): 90-91, 92-93, and 93-94. In a handful of those seasons, he was outplayed by Jeff Hackett.

 

[Doctor No]

I disagree with the bolded, but putting that aside

You can't just make a claim like that and immediately put it aside. Defend your opinion, because it's not a common one.

 

[The Roy Of Ottawa]

Tim Thomas # 35, Mike Richter # 43 - The Hockey News Top 100 Goalies of All-Time 2018.

 

[mrhockey193195]

You can't just make a claim like that and immediately put it aside. Defend your opinion, because it's not a common one.

Fair enough. I don't think Beezer "substantially outplayed" Richter, I think both goalies were pretty even that season. Beezer had higher highs and lower lows, Richter was more consistent.

Beezer has slightly better stats in the regular season (.910 vs .901 sv%), but also has more "bad games" (nine games of .850 or lower to Richter's six) and his bad games were far worse (four games below .800 to Richter's one). Beezer has more good games (twenty-seven games above league-avg SV% vs. twenty for Richter) and "great" games as well (twenty-three games above .920 vs. twelve for Richter). Of those, those SV% thresholds I picked are rather arbitrary, but I think anyway you cut it you'll see the Beezer had more good games and bad games, Richter had more games around league average.

Awards voting provides very little data (Richter got one 2nd place AS vote & one 3rd place Vezina vote; Beezer got one 3rd place AS vote and one 2nd and four 3rd place Vezina votes) but at the very least does not support the assertion that one was much better than the other.

Then comes the playoffs, where the sample sizes are small but slightly favor Mike. Beezer went 2-5 and had only one very good start (game 1 against NJ). Mike is famously remembered for giving up that bad goal to Ron Francis, but what is forgotten is that he played extremely well in both series up until that point. In his two other starts against PIT, he stopped 24/26 and 45/50 to win both games. He had shutout and a 43/48 save win against NJ.

Just pointing to the fact that the goalies split time in the playoffs and Beezer wasn't given the outright starting role is enough evidence that the team felt the two goalies were performing at a similar level.

 

[Voight]

Gets overrated/propped up because he was the goalie when NY ended their 54 year drought.

Decent goalie, will never make the HHOF.

 

[Asheville]

Perhaps adding to legacy, he rocked some glorious gear:

 

[vikash1987]

10 year old thread here too: Ranking Mike Richter

Interesting to read how folks back then were pegging Richter in that 40-50 range on the all-time goaltender list. I wonder if that’s changed substantially a decade later, given the rise of Lundqvist, Quick, Fleury and others?

 

[Albatros]

Less than a dozen goalies have more rings than Fleury, and none of them the Olympic gold.

 

[seekritdude]

Of his contemporaries I felt also Irbe was up there.

For sure I mean in terms of spectacular saves in the 90s early 00s, theres no one better than irbe, hasek. Hell if split save was a stat in a video game irbe would have the only 100 in the game. Its actually almost comical what you see annoucers call a split save when you compare it to the stuff he use to do.

he use to just do this move vs a ton of random shots if people remember back in the day he had this cliche, poke check split he used to do all the time. Oh boy sad will never see this kinda stuff in the NHL today again with the way the game is played now. Wish I would have had more stuff on tape to make more of those videos for irbe on my youtube back in the day but I only have so much actually recorded.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

given the way things have been going i actually wouldn’t be that surprised to see richter get in to the hhof. i wouldn’t agree with it in a million years but it does seem arbitrary enough these days that johnny america could sneak in there.

 

[Asheville]

Less than a dozen goalies have more rings than Fleury, and none of them the Olympic gold.

He has one Cup as a starter. 3rd stringer as an Olympian.

 

[Albatros]

He has one Cup as a starter. 3rd stringer as an Olympian.

He played 41 games during the three successful cup runs (more than the other goalies combined), and had two more great runs without a cup. By carrying Vegas he proved it wasn't all about the Penguins either.

 

[Asheville]

He played 41 games during the three successful cup runs (more than the other goalies combined), and had two more great runs without a cup. By carrying Vegas he proved it wasn't all about the Penguins either.

Fleury was in net for the Stanley Cup winning goal-for once in his career. Matt Murray considered the better option to seal the deal on 2 other occasions. Fleury defeated on 2 other occasions as starter, with the 2018 final being a collapse inconsistent with his play in the first 3 rounds that Spring. And for all his playoff experience, Canada has never chosen him as their starter, much less, backup, for any best on best event. Unfortunately, Fleury is more notorious as a playoff sieve than savior.

Richter, on the other hand, was routinely known as a big game performer and chosen as the USA's No. 1 during the entirety of his career at all best on best events.

And Richter being at the center of the US's first championship over Canada in the final of a best on best tourney and locking it down in Game 7 of a Stanley Cup final in the world's most famous arena, resulting in the Cup coming to the biggest city in the league for the only time in the past 80 years, are more significant than any of Fleury's achievements.

 

[Albatros]

So? He played more than Murray in 2017 as well. Took more of the wins necessary to win the cup. Can't see how not being on ice for the final winning goal would be the one decisive factor for measuring goaltender's success. In 2018 he was .927 in the playoffs (.924 in 2017) and took 4 shutouts, leaving him with by far the best GSAA of all goalies.

Richter was above .900 in the playoffs three times, good years surely but that still leaves most of his playoff seasons below it. Maybe they didn't include many enough of those big games for which he had routine...

 

[Normand Lacombe]

I wonder how Richter would be viewed had he left New York in the summer of 1998 as a free agent? Most likely, Richter's reputation would not have took a blow had he signed with a contender.

As it was, Richter was a fine goalie. In four of his last six seasons, Richter recorded a .900 or better save % playing behind bad teams with porous defenses. Leetch was still a mainstay, but his defensive production took a nosedive once Jeff Beukeboom suffered a career ending concussion. When you have over the hill defensemen such as Sylvain Lefebvre, Kevin Hatcher and Bruce Driver and mediocre to terrible players like Dave Karpa, Chris Tamer and Rich Pilon, your team is in trouble. Roy, Hasek and Brodeur would not have won playing behind that motley crew. Yet Richter kept the Rangers in games they had no business of being in during those last seasons.

 

[The Panther]

I wonder how Richter would be viewed had he left New York in the summer of 1998 as a free agent? Most likely, Richter's reputation would not have took a blow had he signed with a contender.

He'd probably be in the Hall of Fame now if he had signed with Detroit in 1997. But that's how the cookie crumbles.

On the other hand, he'll never have to pay for lunch in New York sports bars, so he's okay.

 

[Asheville]

So? He played more than Murray in 2017 as well. Took more of the wins necessary to win the cup. Can't see how not being on ice for the final winning goal would be the one decisive factor for measuring goaltender's success. In 2018 he was .927 in the playoffs (.924 in 2017) and took 4 shutouts, leaving him with by far the best GSAA of all goalies.

Richter was above .900 in the playoffs three times, good years surely but that still leaves most of his playoff seasons below it. Maybe they didn't include many enough of those big games for which he had routine...

Your defense of a notorious big game shrinker over an undisputed big game riser is amusing.

 

[Albatros]

Your defense of a notorious big game shrinker over an undisputed big game riser is amusing.

Richter was 3-4 facing elimination, Fleury 7-9. But hey, narrative.

 

[tailgunner]

call me crazy but richter and hasek were the best pure goaltenders in NHL history

 

[The Panther]

Your defense of a notorious big game shrinker over an undisputed big game riser is amusing.

Oh, you're one of those anti-Fleury people? Disappointing.

Fleury is awesome. His stellar playoff performances in 2008, 2009, 2017, and 2018 prove that he can get it done in the clutch. Usually "big game shrinkers" haven't played in the Finals 4 times and don't have 3 Cup rings.

I wish to God there were more goalies like Fleury. Lovable personality, and really fun to watch.

 

[Doctor No]

Fair enough. I don't think Beezer "substantially outplayed" Richter, I think both goalies were pretty even that season. Beezer had higher highs and lower lows, Richter was more consistent.

Beezer has slightly better stats in the regular season (.910 vs .901 sv%), but also has more "bad games" (nine games of .850 or lower to Richter's six) and his bad games were far worse (four games below .800 to Richter's one). Beezer has more good games (twenty-seven games above league-avg SV% vs. twenty for Richter) and "great" games as well (twenty-three games above .920 vs. twelve for Richter). Of those, those SV% thresholds I picked are rather arbitrary, but I think anyway you cut it you'll see the Beezer had more good games and bad games, Richter had more games around league average.

Awards voting provides very little data (Richter got one 2nd place AS vote & one 3rd place Vezina vote; Beezer got one 3rd place AS vote and one 2nd and four 3rd place Vezina votes) but at the very least does not support the assertion that one was much better than the other.

Then comes the playoffs, where the sample sizes are small but slightly favor Mike. Beezer went 2-5 and had only one very good start (game 1 against NJ). Mike is famously remembered for giving up that bad goal to Ron Francis, but what is forgotten is that he played extremely well in both series up until that point. In his two other starts against PIT, he stopped 24/26 and 45/50 to win both games. He had shutout and a 43/48 save win against NJ.

Just pointing to the fact that the goalies split time in the playoffs and Beezer wasn't given the outright starting role is enough evidence that the team felt the two goalies were performing at a similar level.

Thanks! This is good rationale - I don't necessarily agree with the conclusion but it's defensible.

Here's how I would stitch 1991-92 together using my own data (links to follow):

NEW YORK RANGERS GOALTENDING HISTORY: YEAR-BY-YEAR

1991-1992 New York Rangers Goaltender Game-by-Game Performance

• Vanbiesbrouck was pulling a higher save percentage than Richter, 91.0% to 90.1%. There are criticisms of save percentage which are valid, although these flaws are less when comparing goaltenders on the same team.
• Over his body of work, John's SVPCT put him at 2.6 standard deviations above league average, while Mike's puts him at 1.5 standard deviations above league average. This is my attempt to measure the likelihood that a goaltender who is truly league average would be able to replicate their seasons - Mike's is good (but possible), while John's would be quite difficult to replicate.
• You are correct that John's play was more variable than Mike's. I adjust for the opponent faced in my analysis, but John's play was 102% as variable as an average goalie, while Mike's was 84% as variable (lower means more consistent here).
• John did have more statistically above-average games than Mike (53% versus 38%) but also more statistically below-average games (21% versus 14%).
• Mike played a slightly harder schedule than John - Mike's average opponent was 0.11 goals/game better than average, while John's was 0.03 goals/game better. This difference is almost entirely accounted for by home/road splits - Mike played 45% of games at home, while John played 55%. Both faced essentially the same percentage of top teams (John 30%, Mike 29%) and bottom teams (John 18%, Mike 18%).
• Mike also faced an average opponent who shot better (so would expect a lower save percentage, all else equal) - Mike's average opponent had a shooting percentage 2.6% better than league average, while John's average opponent was at +2.1%.
• Comparing their game logs (second link above), no one ran with the ball for a significant stretch other than when Mike had a bruised thigh on January 30.
• John started the playoffs but was brutal in Game Two against the Devils, after which Mike played a few and they bounced back and forth. Game Two was John's only statistically below-average game of the playoffs, where Mike was more hot and cold.

Apologies for the long post, but it's an interesting question.

 

[mrhockey193195]

Oh, you're one of those anti-Fleury people? Disappointing.

Fleury is awesome. His stellar playoff performances in 2008, 2009, 2017, and 2018 prove that he can get it done in the clutch. Usually "big game shrinkers" haven't played in the Finals 4 times and don't have 3 Cup rings.

I wish to God there were more goalies like Fleury. Lovable personality, and really fun to watch.

Fleury is weird. He's in that category of goalies (along with Vernon, Osgood, Barrasso, a few others) who have both dominated in some playoff years and **** the bed in others. They have "single-handedly" (quotes for hyperbole) won series for their team with incredible play, and "single-handedly" lost series for their team with dismal play. One person could call Fleury clutch, another could call him a choker, and they'd both be right.

I think a lot of people assume Richter was in that group too, but in my opinion he shouldn't be. Yes, he wasn't nearly as consistent as the absolute best (Roy, Hasek, Brodeur) nor did he reach the same heights for an extended period of time, but he also didn't really lose a series for his team. Yes, that Francis goal was awful and people will remember that for a long time, but he was fantastic in that series otherwise (so I hesitate to say he "lost" that series for the Rangers) and practically EVERY goalie has a bad one like that on their resume (Statue of Liberty, anyone?). Richter had always been prone to a few stinkers, and had a few in the playoffs - tying goal at the end of game 1 of the 94 finals also comes to mind - but he generally sandwiched those mishaps with stellar play.

I think you call Richter a "big game goalie" without reservations, whereas you have to add caveats for Fleury.

 

[mrhockey193195]

Apologies for the long post, but it's an interesting question.

No apologies necessary, this is great stuff. I appreciate the detail! As a data guy, I'm glad that you actually quantified some of the assertions I was making from eyeballing the game logs earlier - thanks for doing that!

"Who was better" is such a loaded question, and answering it in a binary way forces you to ignore a lot of nuance & circumstantial data. It also forces you to make a lot of assumptions.

Gun to my head, Beezer was the better goalie that year. But I still feel strongly that it wasn't so clear cut that you could say he was "substantially" better.