Round 2, Vote 9 (HOH Top Goaltenders)

[Dennis Bonvie]

First of all, you're mixing many different types of defensive systems into one. They are not similar. Not all defensive systems are created equal.

These Bruins, they allow long shots, collapse, clear away rebounds. Their goal is to allow a shot - of very low quality, from a low quality area - and retrieve the puck off of the collapse. Part of the strategy of the attacking team is part of the strategy of the defending team too. By that I mean, you might go into it and say, "alright, look, they won't let us get cooking in the offensive zone...so, let's take the long shot we're given but shoot for a cover and we'll get an O-zone draw and start on their turf" In that instance, it's actually Thomas' awkwardness that helps out. Almost every shot on him is a bit of an adventure because everything seems to be burped up as a rebound, since he can't handle things very cleanly, there's less d-zone draws than what the attackers might expect. Lots of easy shots = high save pct.

St. Louis, today, is more of a strong-side attack type of team. In short, you basically surround the puck carrier and force his hand while protecting the backside with the last guy. Generally, this creates a situation where you throw it on net and hope you or your weakside winger can get to the rebound. In any event, even if you choose to chip n' chase and try to engage in a cycle, you have to flip the rink on them to get a good scoring chance. Meaning, you have to get the puck to the weak side but when executed properly, all of those lanes are cut off. And what are hockey players told to do when they have no passing lanes? "Get it deep" or "get it on net" Lots of easy shots = high save pct.

With Lemaire's trap in New Jersey, the measure of defense was still largely measured in shots. The goal was to limit shots and the thought was, "limit shots, limit goals" - now the mantra is generally, "limit goals, forget the rest..." which speaks to the evolution of goaltending but also its stagnation, ubiquity or plateauing even. Again, I mean, Brian Elliot just broke the save pct. record* or whatever, it's worth its weight in salt not gold. Brian Elliot will never be picked in an ATD, MLD, AARP, NAACP, nothing...he's not even that good to be honest, but that's not important...

Anyway, the NZ Trap isn't designed to yield the zone at all, unlike the ones I just talked about. It's designed (with the help of the red line) to stop things at the low or mid neutral zone or high offensive zone (worst case). It's too far away to reasonably shoot from...an 85-foot wrister wouldn't register as a shot in NJ, no question about it. So, what do you do, "get it deep" - no trapezoid, so when you dump it, Marty goes out and corrals it...you're going full speed at him, he's throwing the puck past you in the other direction...instant breakout, just add Marty. Why he doesn't have a high save pct. isn't an indictment of him, it's an indictment of statistics. And I'm not about to give you the under-counting speech (though I know you love it), I mean, statistics like odds. I can't illustrate it because I don't have the brain for that type of math, but Marty had to give up 2 goals...every goalie gives up two goals...if he didn't give up 2 goals, we wouldn't have had to vote for the #1 spot because Brodeur would have been emblazoned there from the start of the first thread...do you know what I mean when I say this? It's tough to say over the internet.

He had to give up 2 goals. Roy had to, Hasek had to. They have to. I can't describe it any better than that. The defense is just as human as the goalie. Power plays happen, breakdowns happen, weird things, deflections, these things happen. You gotta give up 2, every goalie does...

Marty's two cost him so much more than the other goalies...
16 saves on 18 shots is a .889 save pct. - everyone winces with that "8" in front
17 saves on 18 shots is a .944 save pct. - the best ever probably

It's a switch. Two choices: league's worst or league's best. There's no margin for error.

It's almost a silly argument, but I just can't really explain it much better...but, what did you want him to do? Give up 1? Stop 94% of all his shots. In the context of the game, the options are just so far apart over so long that they kind of divided him from the rest.

Yeah, he had a great defense and system in front of him. No doubt. That doesn't preclude him from being a great goalie though. Marty succeeded outside the trap, outside of Stevens, pretty much everywhere...it's not like he dive-bombed afterwards, he was just in the Stanley Cup Finals at the age of 407...and what's the kicker? His highest save pct. season: is under Claude Julien.

But my argument is more of the common sense variety than even the hockey variety and it's this simple: Did you expect him to give up only one?

But still not close to Tim Thomas's under Julien. (.938 to .922)

Connell gave up less than 2 a game for his whole career. What did you expect him to do, give up less than 1?

But, no one said he was any good.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I, for one, find it absolutely fascinating that Lemaire's system inflated save percentage in Minnesota but not, apparently, in New Jersey.

And you are...? I haven't seen this guy post in the last 10,000 we've had in the goalie project, but a chance to pile on Marty is a chance to pile on Marty.

Sorry, TDMM and all, I can't allow this to go unanswered. Then we can resume more pertinent talk (not that this is totally irrelevant because we're discussing defensive systems, which are not one size fits all, sometimes we get posts --like the quoted-- that don't care to acknowledge that).

One major advantage I see to Minnesota's system is their platoon goaltending system. From 2001-2007, only once did one of their goalies play more than 50 games in a season (58 and their were circumstances surrounding that, including a trade). It's a shame that it's so underestimated here, but it's pretty freakin' hard to have to play 75 games in net per year. This isn't like driving down to your local rink and playing some pickup hockey with your beer league friends 15 minutes down the road. This is sometimes hours or days of travel, back-to-back, 3 in 4 days sometimes, planes and buses and hotels and families back home and coming home to families and playing against the best in the world so many times in a 7-month stretch...

Preparing body and mind to play back-to-back or rigorous schedules like that is taxing in its own right...much less going through with the act...that's a lot to ask and it's shame that gets dismissed as "just games played..." - when you talk to people in the NHL today, scouts, coaches, players - and I'm not guessing here - they'll tell you the grind of it all is hard to describe to anyone. Games played are cumulative too. Stanley Cup hangover anyone?

Now go back to my previous post...Marty's choices are limited. You gotta give up 2...I don't know what goalies we're looking at that aren't giving up 2...you got two choices: 21 on 23 = .913 - nod of approval or 22 on 23 = .957 God-like. Again, what do you want him to do? Give up one? So, you play all those games and just sometimes they're gonna get to you...just the law of averages...

But it's not like Brodeur's save pct. in the 90's under Lemaire was anything to shake a stick at...it was .918 - and that's in an era where a half a goal per game more was scored vs. Lemaire's tenure in Minnesota.

In any event, stepping away from numbers for a moment...the systems weren't 1:1 matches. They took out the red line on Lemaire and he changed his style a bit and instead of stopping things up high like in New Jersey, he'd push things to the perimeter and "protect the middle" or "protect the house" - not allowing scoring chances from the soft spots in between the circles. Keep things to the boards and other low quality scoring areas and let the chips fall as they may.

It doesn't allow quite as many shots as Boston's system I wouldn't guess, but it allows the zone and when you allow the zone you take on shots. Save pct. is kind of fragile stat depending on the situation...Brodeur's save pct. in 94-95 is .90198 if he would have stopped one more shot in that entire season it becomes .90308 - conceivably the difference between 27th and 21st.

See how fun numbers can be...it's just a matter if people are buying what you're selling...

Anyway...feast your eyes on this if you would...

The blue marks are goals allowed under Lemaire, the red marks are goals allowed the next season - no Lemaire

This chart would be way more useful with shots, but this is what I have...note the lack of goals in the mid slot, the very area Lemaire seeks to reduce chances from. Generally, the X's have the "inside position" on the blue marks and that can make all the difference. Backstrom had difficulty adjusting, his save pct. fell from .923 to .903. Wild changes in team philosophy can produce bumps in the road for both players and goalies. The great ones adjust: Hasek, Roy, Brodeur. The not-so-greats fade away: Cechmanek, Giguere, Melanson

 

[Canadiens1958]

Jacques Lemaire, New Jersey vs Minnesota

Jacques Lemaire had an elite puck handling goalie - Brodeur and two slot clearing defensemen - Stevens and Daneyko in New Jersey. Expansion team goalies and defensemen in Minnesota so he adapted.

No different then Montreal with Steve Penney protected with physical defensemen - Robinson, Green, Chelios, Ludwig.

Jacques Lemaire always coached to win with the roster at hand. He did not coach to generate a SV% for the goalies.

 

[quoipourquoi]

The only reason any of this came up is because he received extremely high Vezina support for some of his worst seasons. Brodeur was just one of multiple citations of seemingly poor judgment in a Vezina vote. It was a response to the argument that 13-30% of GMs is meaningful enough to dispel curiosity about the opinion of the other 70-87%. Because that's the support Lundqvist had in-between 2006 and 2012.

2007: Left off of 77% of Vezina ballots; 91% of AS ballots
2008: Left off of 70% of Vezina ballots; 56% of AS ballots
2009: Left off of 73% of Vezina ballots; 96% of AS ballots
2010: Left off of 87% of Vezina ballots; 98% of AS ballots
2011: Left off of 70% of Vezina ballots; 70% of AS ballots


No one is defending Lundqvist's play from 2007-2011 with statistical evidence. Only Vezina votes.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

No one is defending Lundqvist's play from 2007-2011 with statistical evidence. Only Vezina votes.

Not sure if serious....

 

[Michael Farkas]

But still not close to Tim Thomas's under Julien. (.938 to .922)

Connell gave up less than 2 a game for his whole career. What did you expect him to do, give up less than 1?

But, no one said he was any good.

Here I thought I was gonna appeal to your sense of decency...guess not...

Though I feel like I'm getting strung along here, I'll respond anyway...

Let me ask again, why do you seem to think every defensive system produces equal results, and why do you think every coach - regardless of where he coaches - will produce equal results? Julien's system was altered a bit in New Jersey and they seemed to spend a lot more time defending than the Bruins do. The Devils didn't have the personnel to work with Julien's typical system and honestly, it didn't fit the Devils strengths very well that season. They had a lot of good forecheckers, and they never used them...and Julien didn't seem to like those d-men carrying the puck despite having guys that were capable like Rafalski, Martin and even Oduya...instead, Gomez would get the puck from behind the net and carry it himself through three zones...kind of a O6 throwback and didn't really produce a lot of offense...

The players didn't really care for the system either because they felt it wasn't working and didn't match their strengths...there was a mutiny and Julien was dumped with 3 games left...

So, again, to simplify it. Why didn't Brodeur post a .938 save pct. instead only posting a .922? Because the system didn't work there.

And at the Alec Connell comment, and I speak for everyone with an iota of sense when I say that...come on...let's at least try to be reasonable here...

 

[Michael Farkas]

The only reason any of this came up is because he received extremely high Vezina support for some of his worst seasons. Brodeur was just one of multiple citations of seemingly poor judgment in a Vezina vote. It was a response to the argument that 13-30% of GMs is meaningful enough to dispel curiosity about the opinion of the other 70-87%. Because that's the support Lundqvist had in-between 2006 and 2012.

2007: Left off of 77% of Vezina ballots; 91% of AS ballots
2008: Left off of 70% of Vezina ballots; 56% of AS ballots
2009: Left off of 73% of Vezina ballots; 96% of AS ballots
2010: Left off of 87% of Vezina ballots; 98% of AS ballots
2011: Left off of 70% of Vezina ballots; 70% of AS ballots


No one is defending Lundqvist's play from 2007-2011 with statistical evidence. Only Vezina votes.

Also not sure if serious...

and at the bolded. Is it thought to be a "poor" choice on a purely statistical basis?

 

[quoipourquoi]

Not sure if serious....

Totally serious.

BBS posted Thomas' and Lundqvist's GARG. BM67 split for Home and Road (which made 2006 look worse). TCG adjusted the numbers to 2012 standards.

At no point did anyone compare 2007 Lundqvist to other 2007 goaltenders. 2008 Lundqvist to other 2008 goaltenders. 2009 Lundqvist to 2009 goaltenders. And so on. Instead, we have some good numbers but no context to weigh them against. What good does having Lundqvist's adjusted 2009 save percentage do us without looking at the adjusted save percentage for the 11 goaltenders that placed above him that season? And how did they do in terms of GARG? Where does Lundqvist rank in each of these years?

 

[quoipourquoi]

and at the bolded. Is it thought to be a "poor" choice on a purely statistical basis?

Oh, are you prepared to defend the GMs that supported Belfour over Joseph in 1993? The 70% of GMs that did not believe Hasek to be the best goaltender in 1999? The 87% of GMs that named Nabokov as one of the two best goaltenders in 2008? Are you going to tell me that they are experts and 7-9 of them "aren't going to be totally out to lunch about the exact same thing at the exact same time" like TDMM did?

Because I think multiple GMs can be totally out to lunch.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

The only reason any of this came up is because he received extremely high Vezina support for some of his worst seasons. Brodeur was just one of multiple citations of seemingly poor judgment in a Vezina vote. It was a response to the argument that 13-30% of GMs is meaningful enough to dispel curiosity about the opinion of the other 70-87%. Because that's the support Lundqvist had in-between 2006 and 2012.

2007: Left off of 77% of Vezina ballots; 91% of AS ballots
2008: Left off of 70% of Vezina ballots; 56% of AS ballots
2009: Left off of 73% of Vezina ballots; 96% of AS ballots
2010: Left off of 87% of Vezina ballots; 98% of AS ballots
2011: Left off of 70% of Vezina ballots; 70% of AS ballots


No one is defending Lundqvist's play from 2007-2011 with statistical evidence. Only Vezina votes.

What are these percentages for all of the other goalies up for consideration over their careers? TDMM's list of Vezina shares shows everyone...I understand the point you are trying to make, but the data isn't very useful at all unless we have something to compare it to. For all I know, the other goalies were left off of 90% of Vezina ballots in some of their good years.


EDIT: Also, 8 or 9 of 30 GM's thinking that you're a top 1-3 goalie in the league is still pretty impressive to me.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Oh, are you prepared to defend the GMs that supported Belfour over Joseph in 1993? The 70% of GMs that did not believe Hasek to be the best goaltender in 1999? The 87% of GMs that named Nabokov as one of the two best goaltenders in 2008? Are you going to tell me that they are experts and 7-9 of them "aren't going to be totally out to lunch about the exact same thing at the exact same time" like TDMM did?

Because I think multiple GMs can be totally out to lunch.

I might be, answer my question first though...

 

[nik jr]

Oh, really?

1993: 13 of 24 GMs leave Curtis Joseph off of their ballots despite playing 68 Games and leading the league in Shots Against and Save Percentage. Joseph's Blues make the playoffs, but the GMs are more drawn to voting for Ed Belfour, who records 41 Wins to Joseph's 29 and 7 Shutouts to Joseph's 1 while playing with Norris-winning Chris Chelios. Ultimately, Belfour appears on 22 of 24 ballots, with more 1st Place votes (15) than Joseph has total votes (11).

1999: 70% of GMs do not name Dominik Hasek their #1 goaltender. 22% leave him off of the ballot completely. Martin Brodeur records 11 votes despite finishing below the Top-20 in Save Percentage, 12th in GAA, and 13th in SOs. He leads the league in Wins, however, with 39.

2001: Martin Brodeur, again, records 10 votes despite finishing below the Top-20 in Save Percentage. He leads the league in Wins.

2008: 43% of GMs name Evgeni Nabokov the best goaltender. 87% name him as either #1 or #2. Evgeni Nabokov is below the Top-20 in Save Percentage, below the Top-10 in Shots Against, but instead simply leads the league in Wins.

another good example is mike vernon in '95.

mike vernon
19-6-4
.893 sv% (44th among all 68 goalies, and 35th of 49 goalies with 10 games)
2.52 GAA
1 SO

vernon's backup osgood
14-5-0
.917 (2nd to hasek)
2.26
1 SO

osgood had a much easier schedule, and i don't think he should have been a vezina finalist, but vernon played only a few more games, and was not at all great. splitting of votes may have cost vernon some votes.

vernon did not stand out in anything other than record, had bad sv% on a great team, yet was very nearly a vezina finalist, and got more 1st places votes for vezina than anyone but hasek.

VEZINA
Dominik Hasek 104 (17-6-1); Ed Belfour 25 (2-4-3); Jim Carey 15 (1-4-8); Mike Vernon 21 (3-1-3); Ken Wregget 11 (1-2-0); John Vanbiesbrouck 11 (1-1-3); Trevor Kidd 9 (1-1-1); Martin Brodeur 7 (0-2-1); Sean Burke 7 (0-2-1); Chris Osgood 5 (0-1-2); Kelly Hrudey 3 (0-1-0); Curtis Joseph 3 (0-1-0); Glenn Healy 1 (0-0-1); Ron Hextall 1 (0-0-1); Arturs Irbe 1 (0-0-1)

carey's number is a typo and should be 25.


'96 is sort of similar (carey was 2nd in wins, osgood was 1st), but less egregious, b/c vernon was below average in '95.


the importance of the vezina/jennings in the O6 and in earlier eras for goalies' reputations, and the correlation between GAA and 1st AS (among goalies who played the large majority of games) in eras before sv% seem to be recognized, but the correlation between vezina votes and wins is also very important.

 

[seventieslord]

And you are...? I haven't seen this guy post in the last 10,000 we've had in the goalie project, but a chance to pile on Marty is a chance to pile on Marty.

Sorry, TDMM and all, I can't allow this to go unanswered. Then we can resume more pertinent talk (not that this is totally irrelevant because we're discussing defensive systems, which are not one size fits all, sometimes we get posts --like the quoted-- that don't care to acknowledge that).

One major advantage I see to Minnesota's system is their platoon goaltending system. From 2001-2007, only once did one of their goalies play more than 50 games in a season (58 and their were circumstances surrounding that, including a trade). It's a shame that it's so underestimated here, but it's pretty freakin' hard to have to play 75 games in net per year. This isn't like driving down to your local rink and playing some pickup hockey with your beer league friends 15 minutes down the road. This is sometimes hours or days of travel, back-to-back, 3 in 4 days sometimes, planes and buses and hotels and families back home and coming home to families and playing against the best in the world so many times in a 7-month stretch...

Preparing body and mind to play back-to-back or rigorous schedules like that is taxing in its own right...much less going through with the act...that's a lot to ask and it's shame that gets dismissed as "just games played..." - when you talk to people in the NHL today, scouts, coaches, players - and I'm not guessing here - they'll tell you the grind of it all is hard to describe to anyone. Games played are cumulative too. Stanley Cup hangover anyone?

Now go back to my previous post...Marty's choices are limited. You gotta give up 2...I don't know what goalies we're looking at that aren't giving up 2...you got two choices: 21 on 23 = .913 - nod of approval or 22 on 23 = .957 God-like. Again, what do you want him to do? Give up one? So, you play all those games and just sometimes they're gonna get to you...just the law of averages...

But it's not like Brodeur's save pct. in the 90's under Lemaire was anything to shake a stick at...it was .918 - and that's in an era where a half a goal per game more was scored vs. Lemaire's tenure in Minnesota.

In any event, stepping away from numbers for a moment...the systems weren't 1:1 matches. They took out the red line on Lemaire and he changed his style a bit and instead of stopping things up high like in New Jersey, he'd push things to the perimeter and "protect the middle" or "protect the house" - not allowing scoring chances from the soft spots in between the circles. Keep things to the boards and other low quality scoring areas and let the chips fall as they may.

It doesn't allow quite as many shots as Boston's system I wouldn't guess, but it allows the zone and when you allow the zone you take on shots. Save pct. is kind of fragile stat depending on the situation...Brodeur's save pct. in 94-95 is .90198 if he would have stopped one more shot in that entire season it becomes .90308 - conceivably the difference between 27th and 21st.

See how fun numbers can be...it's just a matter if people are buying what you're selling...

Anyway...feast your eyes on this if you would...

The blue marks are goals allowed under Lemaire, the red marks are goals allowed the next season - no Lemaire

This chart would be way more useful with shots, but this is what I have...note the lack of goals in the mid slot, the very area Lemaire seeks to reduce chances from. Generally, the X's have the "inside position" on the blue marks and that can make all the difference. Backstrom had difficulty adjusting, his save pct. fell from .923 to .903. Wild changes in team philosophy can produce bumps in the road for both players and goalies. The great ones adjust: Hasek, Roy, Brodeur. The not-so-greats fade away: Cechmanek, Giguere, Melanson

This is all interesting, and you're doing fine, but I'm really surprised that no one has mentioned this yet:

You're acting like Brodeur's only possible outcomes are to have a 1.00 GAA or a 2.00 GAA, and 1.00 would just be ridiculous, so instead he's "just" 2.00. There are many decimals in between that...

So the answer to your question, if one is arguing against you, is simply, "I am not saying he has to allow only one goal on 23 shots every game and earn a god-like .957 save percentage. but if he had more games like that and fewer 21/23 games, he'd be better in my books."

 

[Rob Scuderi]

Totally serious.

BBS posted Thomas' and Lundqvist's GARG. BM67 split for Home and Road (which made 2006 look worse). TCG adjusted the numbers to 2012 standards.

At no point did anyone compare 2007 Lundqvist to other 2007 goaltenders. 2008 Lundqvist to other 2008 goaltenders. 2009 Lundqvist to 2009 goaltenders. And so on. Instead, we have some good numbers but no context to weigh them against. What good does having Lundqvist's adjusted 2009 save percentage do us without looking at the adjusted save percentage for the 11 goaltenders that placed above him that season? And how did they do in terms of GARG? Where does Lundqvist rank in each of these years?

I included the single vote Vezina seasons, but tossed the AST single votes (I'd rather not post things like Belfour's 2007 numbers).

2006

|GP|GD|GARG|Vezina|AST
Kiprusoff CGY| 74 GP| 42.8 | 72.0 |1st Vezina | 1st AST
Brodeur NJD | 73 GP |21.4 | 53.0 |2nd Vezina |2nd AST
Lundqvist NYR|53 GP |31.2 | 53.5 |3rd Vezina |3rd AST
Vokoun NSH |61 GP |36.9 | 66.6 |4th Vezina| 5th AST
Legace DET |51 GP |17.1 | 35.8 |5th Vezina| 6th AST
Turco DAL |68 GP |-5.8 | 18.6 |5th Vezina| 4th AST
Hasek OTT| 43 GP |29.2 | 47.2 |7th Vezina |7th AST
Luongo FLA |75 GP |33.8 | 71.1 |7th Vezina| 8th AST
Fernandez MIN| 58 GP |29.8 | 54.0 |10th Vezina
Gerber CAR| 60 GP|7.9 |33.7 |11th Vezina (1 vote)|10th AST
Huet MTL |36 GP |30.6 |46.8 ||9th AST

2007

|GP|GD|GARG|Vezina|AST
Brodeur NJD | 78 GP| 37.2 | 69.9 |1st Vezina|1st AST
Luongo VAN | 76 GP| 35.9 |68.4 |2nd Vezina|2nd AST
Lundqvist NYR | 70 GP|23.5 | 52.4 |T3rd Vezina| 7th AST
Kiprusoff CGY | 74 GP| 27.6 | 60.5 | T3rd Vezina| 4th AST
Hasek DET | 56 GP| 10.4 | 30.0 | 5th Vezina| 3rd AST
Backstrom MIN | 41 GP| 24.9 | 40.3 | 6th Vezina| 5th AST
Miller BUF | 63 GP|11.3 | 39.5 |7th Vezina| 6th AST
DiPietro NYI| 62 GP| 26.6 | 55.4 |8th Vezina| 10th AST
Giguere ANA | 56 GP| 19.8 | 42.1 |8th Vezina| 9th AST
Mason NSH | 40 GP| 25.5 | 44.1 |10th Vezina (1 vote)
Turco DAL | 67 GP| 8.6 | 32.1 ||8th AST

2008

|GP|GD|GARG|Vezina|AST
Brodeur NJD | 77 GP |22.5 | 53.8 |1st Vezina| 2nd AST
Nabokov SJS | 77 GP| 0.8 | 27.8 | 2nd Vezina| 1st AST
Lundqvist NYR | 72 GP| 5.8 | 33.2 |3rd Vezina| 4th AST
Giguere ANA | 58 GP| 20.5 | 43.1 | 4th Vezina| 3rd AST
Kiprusoff CGY | 76 GP| 6.7 | 24.7 | 5th Vezina| 6th AST
Backstrom MIN | 58 GP| 17.4 | 41.9 | 6th Vezina
Luongo VAN | 73 GP| 16.9 | 47.3 | 7th Vezina| 5th AST
Huet MTL/WSH | 42 GP| 16.5 | 30.8 | 8th Vezina
Thomas BOS | 57 GP| 21.8 | 47.8 | 9th Vezina|| 10th AST
Price MTL | 41 GP| 13.7 | 33.0 | 9th Vezina
Osgood DET | 43 GP| 4.8 | 19.4 |11th Vezina (1 vote)| 7th AST
Leclaire CBJ | 54 GP| 13.6 | 34.3 || 8th AST
Ellis NSH | 44 GP| 17.5 | 34.7 ||9th AST

2009

|GP|GD|GARG|Vezina|AST
Thomas BOS |54 GP| 41.4 | 66.9 | 1st Vezina |1st AST
Mason CBJ |61 GP|11.5 | 36.3 |2nd Vezina |2nd AST
Backstrom MIN | 71 GP| 29.6 | 60.5 |3rd Vezina| 4th AST
Luongo VAN | 54 GP| 17.0 | 40.1 | 4th Vezina| 3rd AST
Nabokov SJS | 62 GP| 1.7 | 26.7 | 5th Vezina|5th AST
Lundqvist NYR | 70 GP| 15.5 | 45.6 | 6th Vezina| 8th AST
Ward CAR | 68 GP| 13.7 | 42.2 | 7th Vezina| 7th AST
Kiprusoff CGY |76 GP| -12.8 | 19.5 |8th Vezina (1 vote)| 6th AST
Vokoun FLA | 59 GP| 32.1 | 59.9 |9th Vezina (1 vote)| 10th AST
Brodeur NJD | 31 GP| 6.4 | 19.5 || 8th AST
Rinne NSH | 52 GP| 12.1 | 33.6 ||12th AST

2010

|GP|GD|GARG|Vezina|AST
Miller BUF | 69 GP| 37.2 | 68.7 | 1 Vezina |1st AST
Bryzgalov PHO | 69 GP| 18.5 | 47.9 | 2nd Vezina |2nd AST
Brodeur NJD | 77 GP| 10.1 | 40.1 | 3rd Vezina |3rd AST
Nabokov SJS | 71 GP| 23.0 | 55.6 | 4th Vezina |4th AST
Anderson COL | 71 GP| 12.5 | 46.0 | 5th Vezina| 9th AST
Lundqvist NYR | 73 GP| 20.7 | 52.4 | 6th Vezina| 9th AST
Rask BOS | 45 GP| 24.7 | 43.1 | 7th Vezina (1 vote)| 5th AST
Howard DET| 63 GP| 23.7 | 51.4 | 8th Vezina| 7th AST
Kiprusoff CGY | 73 GP| 18.1 | 48.6 | 8th Vezina| 5th AST
Luongo VAN | 68 GP| 3.0 | 31.6 | 10th Vezina (1 vote)
Halak MTL |45 GP|18.3 |39.1 | 10th Vezina (1 vote)
Vokoun FLA| 63 GP| 28.4 | 59.7 || 8th AST
Quick LA| 72 GP| -9.3 | 19.3 || 11th AST

2011

|GP|GD|GARG|Vezina|AST
Thomas BOS| 57 GP| 46.9 | 74.1 |1st Vezina|1st AST
Rinne NSH| 64 GP |32.8 | 61.4 |2nd Vezina|2nd AST
Luongo VAN| 60 GP |27.4 | 53.7 |3rd Vezina|3rd AST
Lundqvist NYR| 68 GP| 19.7 | 49.2 |4th Vezina| 5th AST
Price MTL| 72 GP |22.7 | 54.9 | 5th Vezina|4th AST
Bryzgalov PHO| 68 GP| 17.6 | 49.5 | 6th Vezina|6th AST
Ward CAR| 74 GP| 23.7 | 59.3 | 7th Vezina| 8th AST
Fleury PIT| 65 GP|9.0 | 35.1 |8th Vezina (1 vote)| 7th AST
Quick LAK| 61 GP|8.3 | 32.7 | 8th Vezina (1 vote)
Niemi SJS |60 GP|11.9 |38.1 | 8th Vezina (1 vote)

2012

|GP|GD|GARG|Vezina|AST
Lundqvist NYR| 62 GP |29.3 | 55.6 |1st Vezina |1st AST
Quick LAK| 69 GP |28.8 | 56.8 |2nd Vezina |2nd AST
Rinne NSH| 73 GP| 20.8 | 53.1 | 3rd Vezina| 3rd AST
Smith PHX| 67 GP| 35.6 | 66.6 | 4th Vezina| 4th AST
Elliot STL| 38 GP |26.4 |41.0 | 5th Vezina (1 vote)| 5th AST
Halak STL| 46 GP| 15.0 | 33.1 | 6th Vezina (1 vote)| 7th AST
Fleury PIT| 67 GP| -0.1 | 26.4 | 7th Vezina (1 vote)| 6th AST
Kiprusoff CGY| 70 GP| 14.8 | 45.4 | 7th Vezina (1 vote)
Howard DET| 57 GP| 10.6 | 33.0 || 8th AST

 

[MadArcand]

Is it just me, or do the numbers make it look like he's been quite consistently overrated in the voting?

 

[Rob Scuderi]

Is it just me, or do the numbers make it look like he's been quite consistently overrated in the voting?

These are his ranks among the goalies meeting the voting criteria I set up.
'06 - 5th
'07 - 5th
'08 - 8th
'09 - 4th
'10 - 4th
'11 - 7th
'12 - 3rd

I wouldn't say consistently overrated at all, but I understand why it could look worse than it is. We just have to put it into perspective though. What Mike has been trying to explain is that single seasons with gaudy SV% can almost be made today. That gets reflected in the award voting, but not the year-end SV%/GARG leaders.

If you look at it this way, you can understand better why Lundqvist shines in GARG. I even did a favor to the goalies who may have been underrated by award voting. I included seasons they met the 30/40/50 threshold but didn't meet the voting criteria I included. These numbers are the ones in parenthesis.

# of years at 30+
7 - Lundqvist
6 (7) - Luongo
4 - Broduer, Kiprusoff
3 (6) - Vokoun
3 (5) - Thomas
3 - Backstrom, Rinne
2 (6) - Miller
2 (3) - Price, Bryzgalov, Giguere, Huet, Ward
2 - Hasek, Howard, Halak, Quick
1 (3) - Fleury
1 (2) - C. Mason, Anderson, Niemi
1 - DiPietro, Legace, Fernandez, Gerber, S. Mason, Turco, Ellis, Leclaire, Nabokov, Rask, Elliot, Smith

# of years at 40+
6 - Lundqvist
5 - Luongo
4 - Kiprusoff, Brodeur
3 (5) - Vokoun
3 - Thomas, Backstrom
2 (3) - Bryzgalov, Giguere, Miller
2 - Ward, Rinne
1 - Price, Hasek, Huet, Howard, Quick, DiPietro, Fernandez, C. Mason, Nabokov, Anderson, Rask, Elliot, Smith

# of years at 50+
4 - Lundqvist
3 - Luongo, Brodeur
3 (4) - Vokoun
2 - Thomas, Kiprusoff, Rinne
1 - Backstrom, Miller, Smith, Fernandez

# of years at 60+
2 - Thomas, Luongo, Kiprusoff
1 - Broduer, Vokoun, Backstrom, Miller, Rinne, Smith

 

[MadArcand]

These are his ranks among the goalies meeting the voting criteria I set up.
'06 - 5th
'07 - 5th
'08 - 7th
'09 - 4th
'10 - 4th
'11 - 7th
'12 - 3rd

It surely looks worse than his pile of Vezina top-3 placements though.

# of years at 60+
2 - Thomas, Luongo, Kiprusoff
1 - Broduer, Vokoun, Backstrom, Miller, Rinne, Smith

This seems to indicate that Lundqvist was remarkably consistent, and basically always very good. This deserves to be appreciated for sure. It also seems to indicate that he was never great (at least as great as the other goalies were at their peaks).

I wonder, how would his yearly GARG placements compare to some of the modern guys like Barrasso, Joseph, Beezer, Richter, Hextall, Burke, Kolzig, Khabibulin, Osgood, Vernon, Irbe, Giguere? Is there any easy way to calculate those myself?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

This seems to be an attitude that some posters have:

Sportswriters from the 1970s? Their word is the truth. Throw the save percentages we have in the rubbish; the sportswriters know greatness when they see it. That 1970s guy with a league average save percentage who got support from sportswriters should be voted in ASAP.

NHL General managers today? They don't know what they are talking about. They base their vote on internal team evaluations? Throw it in the rubbish, they should base their vote on single season save percentages. That modern guy who has save percentages consistently well above league average? Overrated by the GMs because one or two hit wonders finish above him during individual years.

I wish I were joking.

 

[Canadiens1958]

GM Evaluations

Oh, are you prepared to defend the GMs that supported Belfour over Joseph in 1993? The 70% of GMs that did not believe Hasek to be the best goaltender in 1999? The 87% of GMs that named Nabokov as one of the two best goaltenders in 2008? Are you going to tell me that they are experts and 7-9 of them "aren't going to be totally out to lunch about the exact same thing at the exact same time" like TDMM did?

Because I think multiple GMs can be totally out to lunch.

The GM evaluation argument is totally off base as it stands. Both sides are miss using the data.

The value of any player is determined by the open market not by voting patterns or some metric. Simply, what a GM is willing to trade to obtain a player or in the context of this project a goalie.

Goalies in the last 20 years do not bring much in terms of NHL talent. In 2001 Hasek brought the Sabres Kozlov and a late first. Buffalo received a net of less than 50 NHL games from Detroit. O6 era Detroit gave Boston John Bucyk for a damaged Terry Sawchuk.

Trades since 1990,involving Roy, Belfour, Luongo, Halak, Vokoun,or other goalies did not yield much in terms of immediate or long term value. Conversely the traded goalies do not bring much in terms of long term value either. Roy was the exception.

GMs and coaches tend to have very tight evaluations of players - differences are marginal at all positions. Their award, honours, poll voting reflects this.

 

[Rob Scuderi]

It surely looks worse than his pile of Vezina top-3 placements though.


This seems to indicate that Lundqvist was remarkably consistent, and basically always very good. This deserves to be appreciated for sure. It also seems to indicate that he was never great (at least as great as the other goalies were at their peaks).

I wonder, how would his yearly GARG placements compare to some of the modern guys like Barrasso, Joseph, Beezer, Richter, Hextall, Burke, Kolzig, Khabibulin, Osgood, Vernon, Irbe, Giguere? Is there any easy way to calculate those myself?

These are all shamelessy ripped from Taco's website. Each goalie's biography has the GD, GARG, and some other very interesting figures listed for every year. Here's a link to the list of bios.

I can give you some of those guys I've got already really quickly, but I don't have their GP figures.

Lundqvist
55.6, 53.5, 52.4, 52.4, 49.2, 45.6, 33.2
2012, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2011, 2009, 2008

Thomas
74.1, 66.9, 47.8, 37.3, 36.6, 29.1, 22.
2011, 2009, 2008, 2006, 2012, 2007, 2010

Luongo
86.4, 71.1, 68.4, 53.7, 50.1, 47.3, 40.1, 39.1, 37.6, 33.2, 31.6
2004, 2006, 2007, 2011, 2003, 2008, 2009, 2001, 2002, 2012, 2010

Kiprusoff
72.0, 60.5, 48.6, 45.4, 35.9, 24.7, 19.5, 15.2
2006, 2007, 2010, 2012, 2004, 2008, 2009, 2011

Beezer
86.0, 49.6, 47.0, 47.0, 45.3, 43.4, 29.9, 29.0, 28.8*, 28.5, 23.9, 23.0, 23.0, 18.4, 15.8, 12.8, 12.8
1994, 1992, 1993, 1997, 1986, 1988, 1996, 1989, 1995*, 1990, 1987, 1985, 1991, 2000, 2001, 1998, 1999

Richter
54.3, 52.5, 45.2, 35.7, 34.2, 33.6, 27.8, 22.6, 21.1, 19.5, 5.8, 3.9*
1997, 1994, 1991, 1996, 1992, 1999, 2000, 2002, 1998, 1993, 2001, 1995*

Barrasso
60.2, 52.0, 47.9, 39.2, 38.7, 36.5, 35.3, 29.7, 27.9, 19.7, 17.3, 13.8, 10.0, 8.4
1993, 1988, 1998, 1991, 1984, 1986, 1985, 1996, 1989, 1992, 1994, 2002, 1987, 1999

Joseph
92.6, 74.4, 74.0, 50.7, 47.6, 36.6, 33.2, 30.0, 26.2, 25.7, 23.9, 15.7, 14.5*, 10.3, 9.4, 3.4, 2.0
1993, 1992, 1994, 2001, 2000, 1997, 1999, 2003, 2006, 1998, 1991, 2002, 1995*, 1990, 2004, 2007, 1996

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

These are all shamelessy ripped from Taco's website. Each goalie's biography has the GD, GARG, and some other very interesting figures listed for every year. Here's a link to the list of bios.

I can give you some of those guys I've got already really quickly, but I don't have their GP figures.

Lundqvist
55.6, 53.5, 52.4, 52.4, 49.2, 45.6, 33.2
2012, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2011, 2009, 2008

Thomas
74.1, 66.9, 47.8, 37.3, 36.6, 29.1, 22.
2011, 2009, 2008, 2006, 2012, 2007, 2010

Luongo
86.4, 71.1, 68.4, 53.7, 50.1, 47.3, 40.1, 39.1, 37.6, 33.2, 31.6
2004, 2006, 2007, 2011, 2003, 2008, 2009, 2001, 2002, 2012, 2010

Kiprusoff
72.0, 60.5, 48.6, 45.4, 35.9, 24.7, 19.5, 15.2
2006, 2007, 2010, 2012, 2004, 2008, 2009, 2011

Beezer
86.0, 49.6, 47.0, 47.0, 45.3, 43.4, 29.9, 29.0, 28.8*, 28.5, 23.9, 23.0, 23.0, 18.4, 15.8, 12.8, 12.8
1994, 1992, 1993, 1997, 1986, 1988, 1996, 1989, 1995*, 1990, 1987, 1985, 1991, 2000, 2001, 1998, 1999

Richter
54.3, 52.5, 45.2, 35.7, 34.2, 33.6, 27.8, 22.6, 21.1, 19.5, 5.8, 3.9*
1997, 1994, 1991, 1996, 1992, 1999, 2000, 2002, 1998, 1993, 2001, 1995*

Barrasso
60.2, 52.0, 47.9, 39.2, 38.7, 36.5, 35.3, 29.7, 27.9, 19.7, 17.3, 13.8, 10.0, 8.4
1993, 1988, 1998, 1991, 1984, 1986, 1985, 1996, 1989, 1992, 1994, 2002, 1987, 1999

Joseph
92.6, 74.4, 74.0, 50.7, 47.6, 36.6, 33.2, 30.0, 26.2, 25.7, 23.9, 15.7, 14.5*, 10.3, 9.4, 3.4, 2.0
1993, 1992, 1994, 2001, 2000, 1997, 1999, 2003, 2006, 1998, 1991, 2002, 1995*, 1990, 2004, 2007, 1996

Just to add clarification/nitpicking, to the extent that the official save percentage numbers are polluted, derivative metrics such as GAR will also be affected. For example, if there is massive home overcounting in Calgary, Kiprusoff's GAR numbers would be as inflated as his save percentages.

 

[Rob Scuderi]

Just to add clarification/nitpicking, to the extent that the official save percentage numbers are polluted, derivative metrics such as GAR will also be affected. For example, if there is massive home overcounting in Calgary, Kiprusoff's GAR numbers would be as inflated as his save percentages.

Yeah that definitely needs to be said. If I posted Vokoun's career figures we'd all cringe.

 

[MXD]

another good example is mike vernon in '95.

mike vernon
19-6-4
.893 sv% (44th among all 68 goalies, and 35th of 49 goalies with 10 games)
2.52 GAA
1 SO

vernon's backup osgood
14-5-0
.917 (2nd to hasek)
2.26
1 SO


.

Another exhibit for : Sometimes, when voting results are strange, it might be because they're wrong.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Another exhibit for : Sometimes, when voting results are strange, it might be because they're wrong.

I think there's a big difference between a single season result and a result that repeats itself 6-7 times, especially when it comes to goaltenders. Goaltending is notorious for "hot streaks" giving a guy great numbers he could never repeat. It's not even just hot streaks; sometimes there is a goalie like Jim Carey who the league just "gets a book on." And using traditional player evaluation methods (scouts, etc), sometimes it just takes more than a year to get a read on how good a goalie is.

Edit: This isn't really a response to you, more something I wanted to expound upon.

 

[Master_Of_Districts]

I have to say that that I agree with quoipourquoi regarding his point about NHL general managers and vezina voting.

NHL general managers, as a group, don't possess any special credentials regarding goaltending evalulation. Based on some of the decisions they've made with respect to goaltending, and, hell, the vezina voting results themselves, it would seem that there are many GMs who don't know jack **** about goaltending, and whose predictions about goaltending have never come true.

TDMM asserts that the GMs "saw through" how save percentage was misleading in relation to Brodeur on account of conservative shot recording, and that this somehow vindicates them. Frankly, that's ********. The GMs hadn't the faintest clue about the recording bias. Hell, no one talked about recording bias until the save percentage advocates discovered its existence in 2009. Brodeur was indeed better than his save percentage would suggest, but the GMs got stone cold lucky - it was akin to a group of blind squirrels finding a nut.

There's no rational basis for privileging the judgment of GMs over that of the serious fan with respect to goaltending evaluation. It's an appeal to authority of the worst kind.