Most misleading record holder?

[Dennis Bonvie]

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.

But the point is, during the regular season, without voters seeing most of the games played, Brodeur does win Vezinas and gets Hart votes even when his save percentage is signifcantly worse than other goalies.

 

[GuineaPig]

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.

Why is it obviously not true?

And results from 2008-09, where all three tenders (Weekes, Clemmensen, and Brodeur) would've faced similar competition, show similar results: ~0.5 to 1 less shots faced by Brodeur.

 

[Hammer Time]

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.

Sometimes if a player has some award-worthy seasons but doesn't actually get an award, they get compensated in later years (e.g. Chara over Lidstrom and Green in 2009 was debatable; same with Lidstrom's win this year). This was the case with Brodeur, who had some amazing seasons in the late 90s but due to Hasek he could never win a Vezina. Think of the 2003 Vezina as a "lifetime achievement award" for Brodeur to recognize his continued excellence and it makes a lot more sense.

In 2004 Luongo had some insane stats and set a save record, but voters have shown a great reluctance to give anyone an award on a non-playoff team.

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

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?

Wasn't Roy the league leader in sv% in '86, '89, or '93?

But the point is, during the regular season, without voters seeing most of the games played, Brodeur does win Vezinas and gets Hart votes even when his save percentage is signifcantly worse than other goalies.

Brodeur's save percentage is deceptive at times since some of his talents (use of the stick to poke check or clear the zone) aren't captured by save percentage.

Although, to get this thread back on track, I doubt you could use the wins record to say Brodeur was the best ever (because he's also one of the all-time leaders in losses), so it's not really that misleading.

 

[jkrx]

Wasn't Roy the league leader in sv% in '86, '89, or '93?

'86 - Bob Froese, '89 - Roy, '93 - Joseph

 

[MS]

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.

In 2008-09 Brodeur and Clemmensen would have faced pretty well identical quality of competition (both were starting most games against most teams for a large chunk of the season) and the shots against totals were near-identical. 0.1 shots/game difference.

The notion that Brodeur substantially lowers the amount of shots he faces by virture of his puckhandling is rubbish. So is the notion that his puckhandling substantially reduces the amount of penalties NJ takes.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

In 2008-09 Brodeur and Clemmensen would have faced pretty well identical quality of competition (both were starting most games against most teams for a large chunk of the season) and the shots against totals were near-identical. 0.1 shots/game difference.

The notion that Brodeur substantially lowers the amount of shots he faces by virture of his puckhandling is rubbish. So is the notion that his puckhandling substantially reduces the amount of penalties NJ takes.

Someone forgot to tell the NHL rules committee that the effect of Brodeur's puckhandling is "rubbish," as they changed the rules to limit the ability of goaltenders to do so, a rule change that obviously had Brodeur in mind more than any other goaltender.

 

[quoipourquoi]

'86 - Bob Froese, '89 - Roy, '93 - Joseph

The discussion was about the playoffs, not the regular season.


1986
Mike Liut: .938, 8 Games
Patrick Roy: .923, 20 Games
Greg Millan: .912, 10 Games
Pete Peeters: .905, 9 Games
Ken Wregget: .901, 10 Games

1989
Ken Wregget: .928, 5 Games
Patrick Roy: .920, 19 Games
Alain Chevrier: .909, 16 Games
Jacques Cloutier: .907, 4 Games
Mike Vernon: .905, 22 Games

1993
Curtis Joseph: .938, 11 Games
Patrick Roy: .929, 20 Games
Ron Hextall: .915, 6 Games
Rick Tabaracci: .913, 4 Games
Tom Barrasso: .905, 12 Games


Just to follow up on my point from earlier, when you get knocked out in an early round, your statistics are still skewed from a small sample size, and Roy tended to not get knocked out early, hence he has only led playoff SPCT once in his career.

 

[overpass]

Brodeur's wins record is misleading, if it leads one to the conclusion that he's the best goaltender of all time. Which it did for a surprisingly large number of people. But I don't think you have to say he's just a "good" goalie. That's going a bit too far the other way.

Save percentage is nice, but it misses a few things sometimes. In Brodeur's case, a number of those apply. And they can add up.

Years ago on this board, I calculated that Brodeur faced teams that took about 0.6 more shots per game than his backups, which put his overall estimated shot prevention at 1-1.5 shots per game. That's about 0.04 in save percentage terms. Add on another 0.04 for shot recording bias in New Jersey. I don't know about his puckhandling preventing power plays or injuries, but it's not implausible that it could have had some value in those areas.

Basically, it's very possible that a save-percentage based estimate of goals prevented will underestimate Brodeur's value by quite a bit, because of several "minor" issues.

IMO the biggest reason that Brodeur's wins record is misleading is the era issue. Many goaltenders in NHL history didn't play in an era where they could start 75 games a season, many goaltenders didn't get the chance to win games in overtime or shootouts, many goaltenders didn't have 26 starting goaltender spots to compete for, etc.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Brodeur's wins record is misleading, if it leads one to the conclusion that he's the best goaltender of all time. Which it did for a surprisingly large number of people. But I don't think you have to say he's just a "good" goalie. That's going a bit too far the other way.

This is true; it really is amazing how many people declared him the best goalie of all-time as soon as he broke the wins record - including people who really should have known better.

Years ago on this board, I calculated that Brodeur faced teams that took about 0.6 more shots per game than his backups, which put his overall estimated shot prevention at 1-1.5 shots per game. That's about 0.04 in save percentage terms. Add on another 0.04 for shot recording bias in New Jersey. I don't know about his puckhandling preventing power plays or injuries, but it's not implausible that it could have had some value in those areas.

Basically, it's very possible that a save-percentage based estimate of goals prevented will underestimate Brodeur's value by quite a bit, because of several "minor" issues.

I remember that a couple of years ago, a poster on this board basically did what you are saying - used officially recorded save % as a starting point, then took account of arena effects and shot prevention. The results showed that over the course of Brodeur's career, he ranked a distinct 2nd behind Hasek as a regular season goaltender, which certainly fits with conventional wisdom.

I had thought it was HockeyOutsider; was it you?

IMO the biggest reason that Brodeur's wins record is misleading is the era issue. Many goaltenders in NHL history didn't play in an era where they could start 75 games a season, many goaltenders didn't get the chance to win games in overtime or shootouts, many goaltenders didn't have 26 starting goaltender spots to compete for, etc.

True. Brodeur has since broken Roy and Sawchuk's win totals even removing OT and SO wins, but it took him a year longer than the official record, IIRC. The fact that it wasn't possible to start as many games per season before the modern era is much more difficult to adjust for.

 

[overpass]

I remember that a couple of years ago, a poster on this board basically did what you are saying - used officially recorded save % as a starting point, then took account of arena effects and shot prevention. The results showed that over the course of Brodeur's career, he ranked a distinct 2nd behind Hasek as a regular season goaltender, which certainly fits with conventional wisdom.

I had thought it was HockeyOutsider; was it you?

That was Hockey Outsider. This thread, in post 13.

The Contrarian Goaltender also had a post where he looked at road performance of goaltenders (to eliminate any possible home rink bias), and Brodeur's numbers were a solid #3 behind Hasek and Roy even before adjusting for shot prevention.

 

[quoipourquoi]

True. Brodeur has since broken Roy and Sawchuk's win totals even removing OT and SO wins, but it took him a year longer than the official record, IIRC. The fact that it wasn't possible to start as many games per season before the modern era is much more difficult to adjust for.

Brodeur broke that "record" on April 3rd, 2010 in a game against the Carolina Hurricanes. That was his 508th regulation win in 1072 games.

Regulation Wins
Martin Brodeur: 529 Wins in 1132 Games
Patrick Roy: 507 Wins in 1029 Games
Terry Sawchuk: 447 Wins in 971 Games
Ed Belfour: 442 Wins in 963 Games
Jacques Plante: 437 Wins in 837 Games

 

[Big Phil]

(Just because I was curious) Here's the top regular season goalies in terms of GvT in 2000-06.

Goalie | GvT
Roberto Luongo | 139 |
Jean-Sebastien Giguere | 84 |
Marty Turco | 81 |
Dominik Hasek | 80 |
Patrick Roy | 77 |
Sean Burke | 76 |
Martin Brodeur | 75 |
Roman Cechmanek | 74 |
Tomas Vokoun | 70 |
Jose Theodore | 68 |
Manny Legace | 65 |
Dwayne Roloson | 63 |
Evgeni Nabokov| 63 |
Manny Fernandez | 61 |
Miikka Kiprusoff | 60 |
Curtis Joseph| 55 |
David Aebischer | 54 |
Ed Belfour | 47 |
Olaf Kolzig | 45 |
Martin Biron | 43 |

edit: This is the weakest stretch for Brodeur, after the high level seasons in the 90's and before his late peak after the lockout.

Maybe I should know this, but what is GVT?

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.

You know as well as I do that Andrew Raycroft did not have a better year than Brodeur in 2004. There was a stretch of a few years where there was little doubt Brodeur was the best goalie in the NHL. Remember, post 2004 is when Stevens and Niedermayer were gone and he still won two Vezinas without them. That's telling.

Was there any doubt Brodeur was the best goalie in the game in 2004 when you take everything into account? He just came off a brilliant Cup win in 2003, he wins the Vezina in 2004 and he's the starting goalie for the champion Canadian team in the 2004 World Cup. Would anyone have wanted a goalie other than Brodeur on their team? I wouldn't have.

Also lets look a bit more into Turco. People complain about Brodeur having a great team in front of him but they ignore the system the Stars had in 2003 in front of Turco? Not saying he wasn't a good goalie, but he had one year as a 2nd team all-star and that was it. Despite impressive numbers he never reached those heights again. That is an example of a goalie who might be good, but was fortunate to have a system in front of him. Derian Hatcher just coincidentally happened to be a 2nd team all-star in 2003, just saying.

So this silly nonsense of denouncing all of Brodeur's accomplishments is ludicrous. Seeing him actually play the games is what mattered. He's been stellar in front of a strong defense, he's been stellar in front of a so-so one (post lockout) and in general he's excelled in international tournaments against the best countries in the world. In both championship games in the 2002 Olympics and 2004 World Cup he made unbelievable clutch saves.

 

[quoipourquoi]

You know as well as I do that Andrew Raycroft did not have a better year than Brodeur in 2004. There was a stretch of a few years where there was little doubt Brodeur was the best goalie in the NHL. Remember, post 2004 is when Stevens and Niedermayer were gone and he still won two Vezinas without them. That's telling.

What does any of that have to do with how they played in 2003-04 specifically?

Raycroft: 29-18-9, 2.05 GAA, .926 SPCT
Brodeur: 38-26-11, 2.03 GAA, .917 SPCT

Is Brodeur better because he goes an extra 9-8-2 with a worse SPCT? Raycroft only gave up more than 3 goals in 5 games all season, including one 3-month stretch of not doing it at all. At 27.8 shots per night, that's pretty incredible, especially compared to Brodeur's ten 4/5 goal games at 24.3 shots per night.

But just like with Roman Cechmanek, we're not supposed to talk about the good parts of the career of a guy like Raycroft, because God forbid he gets any credit for anything but his failings.

Was there any doubt Brodeur was the best goalie in the game in 2004 when you take everything into account? He just came off a brilliant Cup win in 2003, he wins the Vezina in 2004 and he's the starting goalie for the champion Canadian team in the 2004 World Cup. Would anyone have wanted a goalie other than Brodeur on their team? I wouldn't have.

And let's ignore Miikka Kiprusoff, who came off of an even better 2003-04 after stealing the starting job in Calgary, going to Game 7 of the Stanley Cup Finals, and still backstopping Finland to a Silver despite playing for a significantly worse defensive team.

Brodeur may have played 75 games in the Regular Season that year, but he got wrecked in 5 in the Playoffs, so even if you want to look at the big picture and not the Vezina specifically (which is completely off point because we were discussing the 2000-2009 Vezinas), Kiprusoff was a better goalie going into the lockout.

Also lets look a bit more into Turco. People complain about Brodeur having a great team in front of him but they ignore the system the Stars had in 2003 in front of Turco? Not saying he wasn't a good goalie, but he had one year as a 2nd team all-star and that was it. Despite impressive numbers he never reached those heights again. That is an example of a goalie who might be good, but was fortunate to have a system in front of him. Derian Hatcher just coincidentally happened to be a 2nd team all-star in 2003, just saying.

That's absurd. If a 2nd Team All-Star defenseman and good defensive system ensured a 31-10-10, 1.72 GAA, .932 SPCT statline, then why didn't more goalies have one?

Brodeur's Vezina came with a 41-23-9, 2.02 GAA, .914 SPCT. Brodeur got 24 first-place votes and Turco got 3. I think we're allowed to question some things, Big Phil.

So this silly nonsense of denouncing all of Brodeur's accomplishments is ludicrous. Seeing him actually play the games is what mattered. He's been stellar in front of a strong defense, he's been stellar in front of a so-so one (post lockout) and in general he's excelled in international tournaments against the best countries in the world. In both championship games in the 2002 Olympics and 2004 World Cup he made unbelievable clutch saves.

And he's the best goalie from 2000-2009 as a whole, but when I think about the best goalie in each individual NHL season, I go by that individual NHL season and I don't fawn over Games Played. I'm pretty comfortable with that, too.

I'm not some Brodeur hater, Big Phil. In fact, there's one Vezina I would have given him that the voters didn't: 1996-97. But 2003, 2004, and 2008? I don't get it.

 

[Johnny Engine]

Speaking of Raycroft, how about the fact that he has more wins in a season than any other Leafs goalie?

Noted terrible goalies Roman Turek and Rick Dipietro both lead fairly successful and long-running franchises in this category too, but Raycroft has got to be the only one who was actually bad in the season that he set the record.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Jacques Plante

Brodeur broke that "record" on April 3rd, 2010 in a game against the Carolina Hurricanes. That was his 508th regulation win in 1072 games.

Regulation Wins
Martin Brodeur: 529 Wins in 1132 Games
Patrick Roy: 507 Wins in 1029 Games
Terry Sawchuk: 447 Wins in 971 Games
Ed Belfour: 442 Wins in 963 Games
Jacques Plante: 437 Wins in 837 Games

So Jacques Plante is the only goalie to top 50% in wins during regulation time of the top five for wins. Revealing to say the least.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

So Jacques Plante is the only goalie to top 50% in wins during rehulation time of the top five for wins. Revealing to say the least.

To stick with the theme of the thread, one could say that this is a misleading statistic, as Jacques Plante spent so much of his career playing behind the best hockey team ever assembled.

 

[GuineaPig]

So would Dryden's record (? not really official) of having more ties than losses.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

So would Dryden's record (? not really official) of having more ties than losses.

So many of the records set in the 1970s are misleading because of how unbalanced the league was. I'd say that the record winning percentages of the late 70s Canadiens are actually very misleading because of this.

There is a reason that almost every plus minus record (both good and bad) was set during this time frame.

 

[quoipourquoi]

So Jacques Plante is the only goalie to top 50% in wins during rehulation time of the top five for wins. Revealing to say the least.

Yep. In fairness to the others, that's their Games Played and not their Games Decided. Roy, for instance, was only the goalie of record in 997 of his 1029 games. Belfour in 929 of his 963. I don't have Brodeur's updated numbers in front of me.

 

[quoipourquoi]

To stick with the theme of the thread, one could say that this is a misleading statistic, as Jacques Plante spent so much of his career playing behind the best hockey team ever assembled.

Ha ha. That too.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

So Jacques Plante is the only goalie to top 50% in wins during rehulation time of the top five for wins. Revealing to say the least.

In addition to what TDMM said (which I agree with), why would you divide wins by games played (instead of wins by decisions)? Doing it the way you're doing it benefits Plante, since teams play both goaltenders in one game far more often now than in Plante's day.

For instance, if you divide regulation wins by total decisions, Patrick Roy goes over the 50% mark.

 

[quoipourquoi]

In addition to what TDMM said (which I agree with), why would you divide wins by games played (instead of wins by decisions)? Doing it the way you're doing it benefits Plante, since teams play both goaltenders in one game far more often now than in Plante's day.

For instance, if you divide regulation wins by total decisions, Patrick Roy goes over the 50% mark.

When I have some free time, I'm going to update my charts which have all of these breakdowns (my last one was 2009). Other than Roy, Hasek, Brodeur, Belfour, Joseph, Osgood, and Luongo, are there any goaltenders in particular I should do?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Jacques Plante II

To stick with the theme of the thread, one could say that this is a misleading statistic, as Jacques Plante spent so much of his career playing behind the best hockey team ever assembled.

Highly debatable. Jacques Plante played for the Canadiens from the 1952-53 season thru the 1962-63 season, a span of 770 regular season games during which he played 556 winning 314 app 57%. The remaining 214 games featured other goalies, mainly Gerry McNeil, resulted in 102 wins, app 48%. The 1956-60 SC teams played 350 regular season games, Plante played 317 winning 185 app 58.4%, other goalies played 33 games winning 17 app 51.5%.

Seems that Jacques Plante was a significant difference maker.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Seems that Jacques Plante was a significant difference maker.

Or that you're ignoring mix issues.

Of course, it doesn't have to be either/or. Being better than Gerry McNeil wouldn't be front page material for a HOF goaltender.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Victory

In addition to what TDMM said (which I agree with), why would you divide wins by games played (instead of wins by decisions)? Doing it the way you're doing it benefits Plante, since teams play both goaltenders in one game far more often now than in Plante's day.

For instance, if you divide regulation wins by total decisions, Patrick Roy goes over the 50% mark.

See your post #147.

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=985297&page=6

Start with your basic idea that the object of the game is to win, not tie or lose.

Plante's goaltending allowed the Canadiens to win more often during the regular season. Evidenced in the comparisons to other goaltenders

Regulation wins by total decisions. That Patrick Roy goes over 50% by such a metric is fine, but it leaves unanswered the question what happened in the games where he was not involved in the decision. Why was he pulled,etc. Plante was there from start to finish - see Nov. 1, 1959.

Regardless it does not change the contribution that Plante made.