Roberto Luongo

[TheDevilMadeMe]

And you said It really isn't that baffling when you look at Martin Brodeur's statistics which really aren't that much better than Loungos.

Correct. You should not be baffled that Luongo did not win, when Brodeur's hockey card stats were very slightly better across the board. And at that point, NJ didn't have a "stacked" defense anymore, though some people seemed to think they still did.

You're making it seem like he was far and away the best goalie that year and his stats were out-of-this-world.

Considering the average level of scoring in 2006-07, Brodeur's stats were pretty great in 2006-07, and so were Luongo's. I have no idea why you think I'm making it seem like one was "far and away" better than the other.

 

[kmad]

It really isn't that baffling when you look at Martin Brodeur's statistics

They were nearly identical, while Luongo faced 50% more penalty kills.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

They were nearly identical, while Luongo faced 50% more penalty kills.

I'm aware that Luongo faced more PKs, which would hurt his save percentage. Are you aware that Brodeur was still playing in an arena that undercounted shots (which would hurt his save percentage), and that Brodeur was a far better puck handler (which wouldn't show up in save percentage, but would show up in GAA)? Which factors matter more? I don't know. There's a reason the vote was close.

IMO, Brodeur deserved the 2007 Vezina more because he put up very similar numbers playing behind a worse group of defensemen than Luongo had, but I think reasonable people can disagree.

 

[kmad]

I think we both might be coming from positions of bias.

He deserved it in 2004, either way. I don't come across many people who disagree with that.

 

[The Pale King]

A lot of it is looking at his body of work at the end of the day, saying "that guy probably should have won a Vezina," and then going back and seeing where he came closest. Sort of like Potvin with the Smythe. Or potentially with Weber and the Norris.

 

[Ishdul]

It also should less be about winning an individual award. I mean, not that winning the Vezina isn't a feather in your hat, but shouldn't a year where you finished 2nd in Hart voting be worth more than in a year where the Vezina winner wasn't anywhere near the top of the list?

 

[Ishdul]

1945: Charles Robert "Chuck" Gardiner
1945: Georges Vezina
1958: Alex Connell
1958: Frederick Hugh Lehman
1958: Paddy Moran
1959: Cecil "Tiny" Thompson
1961: George Hainsworth
1961: Percy LeSueur
1963: Riley Hern
1963: Bouse Hutton
1964: William Ronald Durnan
1965: Clinton S. "Clint" Benedict
1966: Francis Charles Brimsek
1967: Walter Edward "Turk" Broda
1969: Roy Worters
1971: Terrance Gordon "Terry" Sawchuk
1972: Harry "Hap" Holmes
1973: Claude Earl "Chuck" Rayner
1975: Glenn Henry Hall
1976: John William Bower
1978: Joseph Jacques Plante
1980: Harry Lumley
1980: Lorne "Gump" Worsley
1983: Ken Dryden
1984: Bernard Marcel Parent
1985: Gerald Michael "Gerry" Cheevers
1987: Edward "Eddie" Giacomin
1988: Anthony James "Tony" Esposito
1989: Vladislav Tretiak
1993: William John "Billy" Smith
2003: Grant Fuhr
2006: Patrick Roy
2011: Ed Belfour
2014: Dominik Hasek

5 different players inducted since the 90's. Obviously Brodeur won't wait long, so that makes it 6. If you consider Smith and Fuhr to be 80's goalies and Esposito and Tretiak to be 70's goalies you could say that that 30 years+ are represented by 6 goalies. The 70's goalies alone have that beat. This is one part where they really slowed down their pace of inducting people in a very pronounced, obvious way.

Going by year of induction:
60's: 9 players inducted
70's: 6 players inducted
80's: 8 players inducted
90's: 1 player inducted
00's: 2 players inducted
10's: 2 players inducted soon to be 3

It's glacial out there. Part of it is that Hasek, Brodeur, Roy and Belfour monopolized the awards but then Joseph, Barrasso and Vanbiesbrouck still have pretty strong cases that don't seem to have gone anywhere. Past Brodeur, Lundqvist and Luongo would be the only 2 30 year old+ goalies who would have the type of credentials to get in. Past that, who the hell knows and it would be a long wait before they get to Price, Rask and whoever else. I'd have Luongo in right away myself but I guess is he'll have a rough go of it.

 

[canuckster19]

So does Luongo go in as a Panther even though his Hall of fame years were mostly as a Canuck?

 

[The Pale King]

So does Luongo go in as a Panther even though his Hall of fame years were mostly as a Canuck?

Wouldn't surprise me at all. The media here was pretty unfair to him, as was a large portion of the fanbase it would seem. It's not like he was filling some legends shoes here, and let everybody down. He's easily the best goaltender to suit up for the Canucks. Fullstop. I think his wife is from Florida, and he really made a name for himself there, at least for those who follow hockey on a more-than-casual basis. If he wants to go in as a Panther, really Florida's first guy along with Bure (weird parallel there), then all the power to him.

 

[IComeInPeace]

Wouldn't surprise me at all. The media here was pretty unfair to him, as was a large portion of the fanbase it would seem. It's not like he was filling some legends shoes here, and let everybody down. He's easily the best goaltender to suit up for the Canucks. Fullstop. I think his wife is from Florida, and he really made a name for himself there, at least for those who follow hockey on a more-than-casual basis. If he wants to go in as a Panther, really Florida's first guy along with Bure (weird parallel there), then all the power to him.

Louie might be the best goalie to ever suit up for the Canucks. But, he definitely isn't easily the best Canucks goalie.

Personally I think Kirk McLean is the best 'Nucks keeper of all time. I understand not everyone would agree.
However, if you polled Canuck fans that spanned both the McLean and Luoie era's I don't think I'd be alone in saying McLean is the best Canucks goalie of all time.

Especially if you factor in playoffs, where Louie is perceived (I don't necessarily agree) as playing less than his best.

McLean played some of his best hockey ever in the playoffs.

 

[Regal]

Louie might be the best goalie to ever suit up for the Canucks. But, he definitely isn't easily the best Canucks goalie.

Personally I think Kirk McLean is the best 'Nucks keeper of all time. I understand not everyone would agree.
However, if you polled Canuck fans that spanned both the McLean and Luoie era's I don't think I'd be alone in saying McLean is the best Canucks goalie of all time.

Especially if you factor in playoffs, where Louie is perceived (I don't necessarily agree) as playing less than his best.

McLean played some of his best hockey ever in the playoffs.

McLean was my favourite player growing up, but I think that's largely nostalgia. McLean had a couple very good years and the '94 playoffs, but for the most part he was only an above average goaltender.

The NHL Hall doesn't put player in under a specific team anyway though.

 

[kmad]

The NHL Hall doesn't put player in under a specific team anyway though.

Lots of people confusing the MLB and NHL hall of fame. This thing plus the "first ballot" nonsense are everywhere.

 

[IComeInPeace]

McLean was my favourite player growing up, but I think that's largely nostalgia. McLean had a couple very good years and the '94 playoffs, but for the most part he was only an above average goaltender.

The NHL Hall doesn't put player in under a specific team anyway though.

I respect your opinion, but strongly disagree with it.
McLean was an elite NHL goaltender when he was at his peak.

'...and the '94 playoffs.'

While I don't agree with those that pin the blame on the Canucks failures on Louie, there's also little doubt he never cranked his game up in the playoffs. If he had been able to do that, like McLean did at times in '94, the Canucks organization has at least 1 Stanley Cup.

2 great goalies nonetheless.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I respect your opinion, but strongly disagree with it.
McLean was an elite NHL goaltender when he was at his peak.

'...and the '94 playoffs.'

While I don't agree with those that pin the blame on the Canucks failures on Louie, there's also little doubt he never cranked his game up in the playoffs. If he had been able to do that, like McLean did at times in '94, the Canucks organization has at least 1 Stanley Cup.

2 great goalies nonetheless.

he did 2007. it's just too bad that luongo didn't coincide with everyone else peaking in '10-'12.

after his wife's difficult pregnancy in '08, luongo was still usually very good-to-great, but he never the same. tbh, you'd think the montreal media would have learned a lesson from the luongo situation and left carey price's wife out of the papers last month.

 

[Hawksfan2828]

This is a terrible era for goalies...

Crawford, Quick or even Price has better chance of getting to the Hall than Luongo...

Luongo is like a Mike Liut.

 

[Ishdul]

This is a terrible era for goalies...

Crawford, Quick or even Price has better chance of getting to the Hall than Luongo...

Luongo is like a Mike Liut.

It's a fine time for goalies.

I don't know why you're saying "even Price" since I would have him as a clear #1 in that trio. I would deeply question anyone who votes for Crawford or Quick over Luongo.

 

[Voight]

he did 2007. it's just too bad that luongo didn't coincide with everyone else peaking in '10-'12.

after his wife's difficult pregnancy in '08, luongo was still usually very good-to-great, but he never the same. tbh, you'd think the montreal media would have learned a lesson from the luongo situation and left carey price's wife out of the papers last month.

Its the Montreal media, what more were you really expecting?

This is a terrible era for goalies...

Crawford, Quick or even Price has better chance of getting to the Hall than Luongo...

Luongo is like a Mike Liut.

No he isn't. Lounge is much better than hm, has a solid Vezina Voting record, and will finish up possibly in the top 5 of wins, which is huge for getting in.

It's a fine time for goalies.

I don't know why you're saying "even Price" since I would have him as a clear #1 in that trio. I would deeply question anyone who votes for Crawford or Quick over Luongo.

Agreed, I'm not sure why Rinne and Lundqvist weren't mentioned tho. Out of current goalies Price/Lundqvist are likely to get in and I can see Quick/Rinne having a decent chance.

 

[Big Phil]

This is a terrible era for goalies...

Crawford, Quick or even Price has better chance of getting to the Hall than Luongo...

Luongo is like a Mike Liut.

I think there should have been one or two goalies elected to the HHOF from the 1990s. I know someone posted a list as to how many goalies were selected in the HHOF during the 1960s, but I think a lot of that was just backlog. Guys like Worters and Benedict from the 1920s and 1930s were finally getting in then. The voting process was a little less sophisticated. However, I just don't understand how one of: Vernon, Barrasso, Joseph, Moog, Liut, etc. haven't gotten in. Not to mention Vachon's still surprising omission from the 1970s. I don't think all of those guys are HHOFers, but can we all agree that we'd all at least pick ONE of them in there? I know the era was dominated with 4 goalies more or less in the 1990s but if they aren't inducting those guys (or Osgood, who I wouldn't put in myself) then who is next? Brodeur obviously right away, but if they keep the status quo we could be honestly waiting until Lundqvist retires before we get a "for sure" goalie in there. This could be 2025 for all we know.

Tim Thomas and Luongo will be eligible before Lundqvist but Thomas has too short of a peak and Luongo for some reason gets a bad reputation.

Of the goalies playing right now the best bets are Fleury, Price, Crawford and Quick. Miller doesn't make it by any means. Lundqvist is a lock. Lots of work needs to be done for the other 4 though. None of them get in today if they retired. Price is your best bet though. But this is a long ways.

 

[Big Phil]

Would it really be the worst thing in the world if Luongo gets in? He wouldn't be the worst goalie in there. I know a lot of us were nervous when he was in net, as I was during the 2010 Olympics, but he did get the job done then. He did have some playoff flops against Chicago prior to 2011 and even in 2011 nearly blew it. I know he gets a lot of flack in the 2011 Cup final but the guy still had three great games in the final compared to 4 bad ones. This is coming from a guy who would have been crowned the Conn Smythe winner in 2011 if he closed out Game 7.

How people don't blame the Sedins or Kesler more for 2011 is beyond me. The Sedins were invisible in 2011 during the final. Luongo if anything allowed it to go 7 games.

Throw in the fact he has a decent Vezina record - 2, 3, 3, 4, 7, 7, 10
And Hart voting record - 2, 6, 10, 12, 17

He's a two time 2nd team all-star
Took his team to a Cup final
Won an Olympic gold as a starter and played in two other tournaments where Canada won at the top level
Not to mention he already has over 400 wins and could end up with 450 when all is said and done

He had lows, he had knocks, but it wasn't that bad that he didn't have things that overcame it.

 

[Voight]

I think there should have been one or two goalies elected to the HHOF from the 1990s. I know someone posted a list as to how many goalies were selected in the HHOF during the 1960s, but I think a lot of that was just backlog. Guys like Worters and Benedict from the 1920s and 1930s were finally getting in then. The voting process was a little less sophisticated. However, I just don't understand how one of: Vernon, Barrasso, Joseph, Moog, Liut, etc. haven't gotten in. Not to mention Vachon's still surprising omission from the 1970s. I don't think all of those guys are HHOFers, but can we all agree that we'd all at least pick ONE of them in there? I know the era was dominated with 4 goalies more or less in the 1990s but if they aren't inducting those guys (or Osgood, who I wouldn't put in myself) then who is next? Brodeur obviously right away, but if they keep the status quo we could be honestly waiting until Lundqvist retires before we get a "for sure" goalie in there. This could be 2025 for all we know.

Tim Thomas and Luongo will be eligible before Lundqvist but Thomas has too short of a peak and Luongo for some reason gets a bad reputation.

Of the goalies playing right now the best bets are Fleury, Price, Crawford and Quick. Miller doesn't make it by any means. Lundqvist is a lock. Lots of work needs to be done for the other 4 though. None of them get in today if they retired. Price is your best bet though. But this is a long ways.

Belfour & Hasek? But the main issue is after Belfour/Roy traded Vezinas in the early part of the decade, Hasek took over and smoked the competition, aside from the odd years where Kolzig and Carey won it. So no other goalie really had a chance to shine. In comparison, look at today - since Thomas in 2009, there has been a different winner every year but 2011, when he won again.

IMO Thomas should get in if we have short-peak guys like Durnan in.

 

[Czech Your Math]

I think there should have been one or two goalies elected to the HHOF from the 1990s. I know someone posted a list as to how many goalies were selected in the HHOF during the 1960s, but I think a lot of that was just backlog. Guys like Worters and Benedict from the 1920s and 1930s were finally getting in then. The voting process was a little less sophisticated. However, I just don't understand how one of: Vernon, Barrasso, Joseph, Moog, Liut, etc. haven't gotten in. Not to mention Vachon's still surprising omission from the 1970s. I don't think all of those guys are HHOFers, but can we all agree that we'd all at least pick ONE of them in there? I know the era was dominated with 4 goalies more or less in the 1990s but if they aren't inducting those guys (or Osgood, who I wouldn't put in myself) then who is next?

Tim Thomas and Luongo will be eligible before Lundqvist but Thomas has too short of a peak and Luongo for some reason gets a bad reputation.

Of the goalies playing right now the best bets are Fleury, Price, Crawford and Quick. Miller doesn't make it by any means. Lundqvist is a lock. Lots of work needs to be done for the other 4 though. None of them get in today if they retired. Price is your best bet though. But this is a long ways.

They definitely should have more goalies in HOF.

I think Beezer has a rather strong case too.
Won a Vezina and was 2nd to Hasek another time.
If he stayed with NYR and won a Cup (his SV% in 3 playoffs after '93 were each higher than Richter's in '94 PO), then he probably would be there, eh?

I might pick Vachon, Barrasso, Beezer, Joseph, Thomas, and Luongo.

It seems like modern goalies have to check every box. I don't see how Thomas had a much shorter peak/prime than Neely or Bure. The compilers get short shrift and Osgood & Barrasso don't get the Gillies/Nieuwendyk treatment either.

 

[Big Phil]

Belfour & Hasek? But the main issue is after Belfour/Roy traded Vezinas in the early part of the decade, Hasek took over and smoked the competition, aside from the odd years where Kolzig and Carey won it. So no other goalie really had a chance to shine. In comparison, look at today - since Thomas in 2009, there has been a different winner every year but 2011, when he won again.

IMO Thomas should get in if we have short-peak guys like Durnan in.

No, I mean there should be another goalie or two from the 1990s other than the ones in already (Belfour, Roy, Hasek) and one that will get in (Brodeur). Anyone of: Vernon, Barrasso, Moog, Joseph, Osgood, Beezer, Richter. No, not ALL of them, or even half of them but is the HHOF worse off if Barrasso is in there? He probably had the highest "highs" of the bunch and unlike Vernon didn't have a string of bad postseasons.

I think Durnan having 6 First team all-stars helps his cause a bit. He did it during WWII and afterwards so he was no one-trick pony. Thomas was a little too much of a late bloomer and while he has two great years with one them being a season for the ages, it still is only two great years.

They definitely should have more goalies in HOF.

I think Beezer has a rather strong case too.
Won a Vezina and was 2nd to Hasek another time.
If he stayed with NYR and won a Cup (his SV% in 3 playoffs after '93 were each higher than Richter's in '94 PO), then he probably would be there, eh?

I might pick Vachon, Barrasso, Beezer, Joseph, Thomas, and Luongo.

It seems like modern goalies have to check every box. I don't see how Thomas had a much shorter peak/prime than Neely or Bure. The compilers get short shrift and Osgood & Barrasso don't get the Gillies/Nieuwendyk treatment either.

The one thing I like about the HHOF is that goaltenders are the toughest position to penetrate. It is almost like with Baseball and pitchers or Football and quarterbacks. So I like that mindset, but it can still be a tight knit crowd if you find room for a couple other guys.

I think Beezer's playoff record hurts him a bit. Until 1996 that was more or less a knock against him. Barrasso has got to go in before Beezer. Maybe even Richter. I am glad goalies don't get the Gillies/Nieuwendyk treatment though, but it doesn't mean there aren't a couple that deserve it. I don't know what else they'd want from Vachon. Barrasso is clearly out because the media hated him and maybe he wasn't the nicest guy in the world. As for me, I seriously hope Luongo gets in because he was right up there for a long time with elite goalies.

 

[Voight]

No, I mean there should be another goalie or two from the 1990s other than the ones in already (Belfour, Roy, Hasek) and one that will get in (Brodeur). Anyone of: Vernon, Barrasso, Moog, Joseph, Osgood, Beezer, Richter. No, not ALL of them, or even half of them but is the HHOF worse off if Barrasso is in there? He probably had the highest "highs" of the bunch and unlike Vernon didn't have a string of bad postseasons.

The one thing I like about the HHOF is that goaltenders are the toughest position to penetrate. It is almost like with Baseball and pitchers or Football and quarterbacks. So I like that mindset, but it can still be a tight knit crowd if you find room for a couple other guys.

I think Beezer's playoff record hurts him a bit. Until 1996 that was more or less a knock against him. Barrasso has got to go in before Beezer. Maybe even Richter.

If I had to choose two from the 90s, it would be Barrasso and Beezer, with CuJo being right up there.

The bolded - I always thought I was the only one who thought this.

Richter I really don't think has a good case. Short career for one (666 GP), highest vein finish was 3rd and that was in a season here he played only 45 games (3.12 GAA and .903 SV% .... how doe stat get a top 3 nomination? ) he never placed higher than 4th in AST voting and really benefitted from being on a very good team.

 

[Czech Your Math]

No, I mean there should be another goalie or two from the 1990s other than the ones in already (Belfour, Roy, Hasek) and one that will get in (Brodeur). Anyone of: Vernon, Barrasso, Moog, Joseph, Osgood, Beezer, Richter. No, not ALL of them, or even half of them but is the HHOF worse off if Barrasso is in there? He probably had the highest "highs" of the bunch and unlike Vernon didn't have a string of bad postseasons.

I think Durnan having 6 First team all-stars helps his cause a bit. He did it during WWII and afterwards so he was no one-trick pony. Thomas was a little too much of a late bloomer and while he has two great years with one them being a season for the ages, it still is only two great years.

The one thing I like about the HHOF is that goaltenders are the toughest position to penetrate. It is almost like with Baseball and pitchers or Football and quarterbacks. So I like that mindset, but it can still be a tight knit crowd if you find room for a couple other guys.

I think Beezer's playoff record hurts him a bit. Until 1996 that was more or less a knock against him. Barrasso has got to go in before Beezer. Maybe even Richter. I am glad goalies don't get the Gillies/Nieuwendyk treatment though, but it doesn't mean there aren't a couple that deserve it. I don't know what else they'd want from Vachon. Barrasso is clearly out because the media hated him and maybe he wasn't the nicest guy in the world. As for me, I seriously hope Luongo gets in because he was right up there for a long time with elite goalies.

Beezer just didn't win a Cup.
Richter won more, but I'm not sure how/why:

Richter
thru '92 (1,113 Min.): .902, 3.29
'94-97 (3,401 Min.): .912, 2.49

Beezer
thru '92 (1,940 Min.): .896, 3.25
'96-99 (2,029 Min.): .932, 2.13


----------
I think goalies are more influential than pitchers, at least since the 5 man rotation began:

Starting Pitcher
Starts 20% of GP... mainly responsible for defense, so effectively halve the 20% = 10%... but even top pitchers generally pitch ~75-80% of the games they start... so let's say 8%... and that doesn't account for the defense behind pitcher contributing to defense... so actually maybe 6-7%.

Goalie
Top goalie might start 2/3 to 80% of his team's games.
He's one of 6 players on the ice, so divide that by 6 =11-13%.
Alternatively, goalie is mainly responsible for defense. Let's say he's 1/3-1/2 of contribution to defense, so 1/6-1/4 of team... so divide 2/3 to 80% by 4 or 6:
(2/3) / (4 or 6) = 1/6 or 1/9 = 11-17%
80% / (4 or 6) = 13-20%

So it looks to me like goalies tend to have a lot more influence on games than pitchers. The question may be how #1 goalie performance varies between teams as compared to #1 starters (or their equivalents on some teams).

Paradoxically, even though goalies may influence games much more than pitchers over a season, that may be causing them to be judged by a much harsher standard.

As far as QBs, I don't know how strict they are, but greats like Fouts & Marino are in on personal greatness, while others may be in more on team success... but HHOF seems to demand it all from more recent goalies.

 

[Ishdul]

Quarterbacks are pretty plentiful in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Considering they are 1 of 22 regular starting positions, not counting special teams. There are more modern quarterbacks (23) in the Hall than defensive backs of any era (22) even though defensive backs are 4 of the 22 starting positions (and some defenses these days have 5 defensive backs as their base). Now, there's obviously good reason for that, quarterbacks play every snap, last into their 30's and are more valuable in a single year (and resultingly are more famous) than other positions. Not a lot of safeties (or guards, or tight ends, or 4-3 OLBs, etc.) would would typically be considered top 10 players whereas you'd get a lot of QBs listed every year.

With goalies, the induction ratio of goalies is a little less than 1/2 that of defensemen, so I don't think it's that far off from what you'd expect. There has been a rush of defensemen and an absence of goalies recently, though.