I wouldn't say that. Brodeur deserved the '95 Conn Smythe, and he played very well in all the Cup victories.
But he's also played poorly in other playoff series, most notably the '01 Finals.
Giguere kind of rob him of the last one IMO.
I wouldn't say that. Brodeur deserved the '95 Conn Smythe, and he played very well in all the Cup victories.
But he's also played poorly in other playoff series, most notably the '01 Finals.
Nearly all NHL trophies are voted by people, including the Conn Smythe. People see only a limited number of games and have a limited capability to process even all the information they've gotten from the games they've actually watched. Instead they mostly vote based on compelling narratives and individual highlights (both good and bad). The results shouldn't be taken as the absolute truth about what happened.But he didn't win it.
And he didn't win it with staggering numbers.
Nearly all NHL trophies are voted by people, including the Conn Smythe. People see only a limited number of games and have a limited capability to process even all the information they've gotten from the games they've actually watched. Instead they mostly vote based on compelling narratives and individual highlights (both good and bad). The results shouldn't be taken as the absolute truth about what happened.
And why, with near identical numbers, did the losing goalie get the Conn Smythe?
And why, with near identical numbers, did the losing goalie get the Conn Smythe?
Brodeur was a Hart trophy finalist in 2003, as well, and he received more 1st place votes than Markus Naslund, finishing barely behind Naslund in overall voting. So it seems the writers and GMs agreed.
2004 is the only Vezina of Brodeur's that is questionable IMO, but how can you say Luongo got flat our robbed? When can you remember the VEzina going to a goalie on a team that fails to make the playoffs? I think it would if the goalie was setting personal records, but the only record that Luongo set was "shots against," and I think many people were dubious of the always-high shot totals coming out of Florida. Kiprusoff actually finished second in Vezina voting in 2004 (though Luongo got the 2nd Team AS). Kiprusoff would have run away with this Vezina if he had played the full season, but he didn't.
What? Why? He wasn't even top 3! 2006 was Kiprusoff, then the field, and Brodeur probably did get the majority of "the field" votes due to name recognition, but how's that different from any other established star?
Brodeur's wins total is misleading because it relies on three things: his consistently above-average play, the strength of the teams he's played on, and the way his team has utilized him. The latter two are the rare circumstances. To make an analogy with Messier, Brodeur spent many years playing just average or above average, with only a couple seasons where he was amongst the best of the league (two top 3 finishes in save percentage, four top 5 finishes).
Another example for Brodeur would be his pending assumption of the all-time loss record, for obvious reasons.
And this is the key.
The Devils won 3 Cups. Broduer's numbers were:
.927 SP 1.67 GA
.927 SP 1.61 GA
.934 SP 1.65 GA with 7 shutouts
Yet on a team where he was the only superstar, Brodeur won no Conn Smythe Trophies. Why? Because everyone actually saw the games and know how little Brodeur actually had to do to win.
I wouldn't say that. Brodeur deserved the '95 Conn Smythe, and he played very well in all the Cup victories.
But he's also played poorly in other playoff series, most notably the '01 Finals.
Hold on, they didn't have identical numbers.
Giguere: 697 SA (29.7 SA/G), 0.945 Sv %, 38 GA
Brodeur: 622 SA (25.0 SA/G), 0.934 Sv %, 41 GA
If Giguere had had Brodeur's save percentage (and this is without taking into account shot quality, which Brodeur no doubt had an easier time with), he would've let in 8 more goals. That would be a 21% increase.
Brodeur would've been a fine Conn Smythe winner if not for Giguere, but he was clearly the lesser of the two goalies in those playoffs.
So has Roy. Roy led the league in playoff SV% once. That was the year the very stacked Avalanche won the Cup in 2001.
Just out of curiousity if you were to name the best goalie of the 2000s who would it be? This should be a rhetorical question.
Also, why is Brodeur getting bashed for his Vezinas? If you pulled someone aside and asked them who the best goalie in the world was in 2003 or 2004 would it be anyone else but Brodeur? Think about how nervous everyone was when Brodeur missed the one game in the World Cup and the inexperienced Luongo took his place. Think of how relieved we all were when he came back for the World Cup final in 2004.
This talk about Brodeur being a "good" goalie is really weird, comparable to an episode of the Twilight Zone. The guy was the best goalie in the world for a substantial time period.
TheDevilMadeMe said:Brodeur stunk in the 2001 playoff in general - if the Devils had won the Cup that year, it would have been a very "Osgood in 1998" kind of win.
That's not true at all. In 2003, Brodeur was the team. Period. The 2003 Devils was not a good hockey team compared to other Cup winners of the past. Niedermayer had the best playoffs of his life that year, and so did Friesen and Langenbrunner. But Brodeur truly dominated from start to finish that playoffs.
I wouldn't say that. Brodeur deserved the '95 Conn Smythe, and he played very well in all the Cup victories.
But he's also played poorly in other playoff series, most notably the '01 Finals.
Gretzky's PPG record. Before he came out of retirement, Mario was over 2. If defense matters, Mario and Gordie are both better than the Grape One.
So has Roy. Roy led the league in playoff SV% once. That was the year the very stacked Avalanche won the Cup in 2001.
Would you care to substantiate that?You do realize Brodeur's rebound control and puckhandling ability was the biggest factor for why he on average faced about 5 less shots, right?
Would you care to substantiate that?
There's a case to be made for Brodeur preventing ~0.5 to 1 shots per game. Just as a quick and dirty method, the Devils' backups over the last ten seasons have faced 27.1 shots/game, while Brodeur has faced 26.0 shots/game. This is a little skewed because the majority (5453 of 8381) of the minutes faced by the backups have occurred in the last three years, when the Devils have allowed more shots against per game, but it shows that there's clearly no massive prevention effect.
Because Brodeur's backups face the same quality of competition that he does....
(I agree Brodeur's puck skills are far from the only reason that he faced so few shots, but this commonly used statistical comparison has no merit).
Imperfect perhaps, but no merit?
There seems to be some merit there.