Most misleading record holder?

GuineaPig

Registered User
Jul 11, 2011
2,425
206
Montréal
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.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
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.

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. But he was great in all the Cup wins - top 3 on the team in terms of importance in 1995, top 5 in 2000, top 2 in 2003 - overall the 2nd most important playoff performer on the minidynasty after Scott Stevens.
 

ssh

Registered User
May 22, 2008
94
0
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.
 

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
29,206
17,561
Connecticut
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.

Certainly people (Professional Hockey Writers' Association) voting for the Conn Smythe at the very least see all the games in the finals. I'd assume they all see a large chunk of the playoff games.
 

MadLuke

Registered User
Jan 18, 2011
9,410
5,068
And why, with near identical numbers, did the losing goalie get the Conn Smythe?

This was a good story and he played in probably a more underdog team and was a big part of it, good Conn Smythe, but Brodeur that year had one of the good playoff by a goaler and could have won it.
 

GuineaPig

Registered User
Jul 11, 2011
2,425
206
Montréal
And why, with near identical numbers, did the losing goalie get the Conn Smythe?

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.
 

KingGallagherXI

Registered User
Jul 10, 2009
3,890
19
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.

But Brodeur in 2003 wasn't uniquely good. He was 12th in save percentage among goalies with over 50 games played. I know S% isn't a perfect stat. The Devils may have had a slightly higher scoring chances per shot on goal ratio which would deflate Brodeur's save percentage. But would Roy, Giguere, Belfour, Vokoun or Luongo all have helped the Devils with less wins that year? I think they would have done just as well if not better.

There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with the writers and GMs, they're not perfect. Mike Milbury had a vote that year.

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.

The Vezina should be awarded to the best goalie, not the best goalie on a playoff team. Luongo was dominant that year. A .931 save percentage in 72 games is always impressive. The Panthers had a terrible defense corps with Mike Van Ryn as their #1, Bouwmeester as #2 and Lilja, Odelein, Biron and Mezei making up the rest. Despite this, they were only 10 goals against above the league average. They allowed a lot of shots and it's possible the scoring chances per shot against ratio was slightly higher than average (but I never read a good case for it) which would inflate Luongo's stats, but he also won games all by himself with 7 shutouts. Panthers #2 goalie also had a .879 save percentage in 16 games.


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?

Luongo was definitely top 3 in 2006. 75 games played is pretty impressive, all the while maintaining the 6th best save percentage. But ok, Brodeur's 2nd all-star is not a 100% bad choice. So he could've won a 1st All-Star selection in 07 and 08 and a 2nd in 97, 98, 04, 06 but I still definitely think he shouldn't have won the Vezina in 03 and 04.
 

85highlander

Registered User
Apr 2, 2007
297
4
A defenseman, winning the Art Ross and Norris in the same year. This is so misleading, and confounding that it hasn't been duplicated, nor has it been fully understood by mere mortals...

Long Live # 4!
 

MJB Devils23*

Guest
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.

Average to above average? Um no. He was always an elite goalie during the prime of his career. The team relied more on him than he relied on the team.
 

MJB Devils23*

Guest
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.

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.

So has Roy. Roy led the league in playoff SV% once. That was the year the very stacked Avalanche won the Cup in 2001.

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.

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?
 

quoipourquoi

Goaltender
Jan 26, 2009
10,123
4,126
Hockeytown, MI
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.

Brodeur is the best goaltender of the 2000s, but that doesn't necessarily mean that anyone should have to designate him the absolute best goalie in any individual season from 2000-2009 (personally, I do rate him as the best goalie in 2007). Vezinas and 1st and 2nd Team selections should not be lifetime achievement awards. As for 2003? Turco, Giguere, Cechmanek, or Belfour. 2004? Kiprusoff, Luongo, Belfour, or Raycroft in that one special year of his in which we all thought he might go on to amount to something.

The thing with Brodeur is that he was probably at worst the fifth, sixth, or seventh goalie each and every season, whereas some goalies like Roy and Hasek retired during the decade and other goalies like Turco, Belfour, Cechmanek, and Giguere fell apart. Cumulatively, Brodeur is the best of the decade, but that doesn't mean that anyone should have to agree with any of his awards in retrospect. I thought Turco was the best goalie in 2003 then, and just because he's very much not as good now does not mean that my mind has changed.

World Cup panic is not the measure of a goaltender for me personally, but then again, Brodeur received a 1st Place Vezina vote in 2002, so I wouldn't be surprised how far an international resume with a Gold medal will take some people.

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 isn't even being remotely fair to Chris Osgood. Martin Brodeur in the 2001 Stanley Cup Playoffs performed worse than any starting goaltender on any of the 16 teams outside of Roman Cechmanek. He was playing like first-round knockout goaltender for 25 games and never snapped out of it.

Osgood in 1998? Try Hasek in 1995.

He should've been out in five games, that way no one would have to talk about that playoff run 10 years later, but the New Jersey Devils were so good back then, it's given us pretty solid proof that the franchise didn't always live and die by its goaltender like the Win totals suggest, and that's everybody's point here.

(Nor does it eliminate all the good will I have towards his 1995 playoff, one of the best non-Conn Smythe runs of the 1990s)
 

Master_Of_Districts

Registered User
Apr 9, 2007
1,744
4
Black Ruthenia
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.

The Devils had the best shot ratio (shots for/shots against) in the league during the regular season. They also conceded the fewest powerplays to the opposition.

That doesn't sound like a team that was overly reliant on goaltending to win.
 

jkrx

Registered User
Feb 4, 2010
4,337
21
this is the most misleading record..

Image.ashx
 

Master_Of_Districts

Registered User
Apr 9, 2007
1,744
4
Black Ruthenia
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.

The Devils outshot the opposition in 17 out of 20 games during that run, and outscored them by ~30 goals.

I don't think Brodeur was their most valuable player.
 

Passchendaele

Registered User
Dec 11, 2006
7,731
1,148
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.

Mario after 1st retirement: 745 GP, 613 G, 881 A, 1494 PTS, 2,0053 PPG

Gretzky at the same point: 745 GP, 616 G, 1158 A, 1774 PTS, 2,3812 PPG
 

quoipourquoi

Goaltender
Jan 26, 2009
10,123
4,126
Hockeytown, MI
So has Roy. Roy led the league in playoff SV% once. That was the year the very stacked Avalanche won the Cup in 2001.

That's because an average playoff run for Patrick Roy ended in the Conference Finals, so he played significantly more games than the goaltenders with higher save percentages. It's no different than a forward having a really good first-round only to get knocked out; his points-per-game doesn't drop throughout the rest of the playoffs, and it sets an impossible high-water mark.

SPCT Leaders 1986-2003 - Number of Games in Parenthesis

Liut (8), Hanlon (8), Peeters (12), Wregget (5), Puppa (6), Richter (6), Pietrangelo (7), Joseph (11), Hasek (7), Brodeur (20), Kolzig (5), Richter (15), Khabibulin (7), Kolzig (21), Hasek (19), Tugnutt (11), Roy (23), Lalime (12), Giguere (21)


EDIT: In conclusion, per game statistics are the most misleading anything when people abuse them. The amount of games, the minutes per game, the quality of competition, the quality of teammates, the style of defense, the preference of a goaltender to see the first shot, the preference of a goaltender to poke check, the style of team rebound control, the ability of a defenseman to be Sandis Ozolinsh, the allowance of a defenseman to join the rush, the occurrence of an overly impactful outlier, and so on and so forth.
 
Last edited:

GuineaPig

Registered User
Jul 11, 2011
2,425
206
Montréal
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.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
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).
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
Imperfect perhaps, but no merit?

There seems to be some merit there.

The above comparison claims to show that Brodeur's puck abilities have minimal effect on his team's shots against. To do this, it directly compares his shots against totals with those of his backups, implicitly assuming that he faced the same quality of competition as his backups, something that is obviously not true.

So no, I don't think it has any merit.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->