Round 2, Vote 9 (HOH Top Goaltenders)

[TheDevilMadeMe]

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.

You need to expand your circle beyond the stats community. The undercounting in NJ was a running joke by Doc Emrick on local broadcasts for years in early 00s. It went like this - after a flurry of shots on goal, the game would go to commercial. Emrick: "and as we head to commercial, shots are 1-0 in favor of NJ. -laughs- well it certainly seems like more than that!" And then he and the broadcast partner would laugh. Seriously, you never heard anyone mention shot counting in New Jersey before the stats community starting taking it seriously in 2009? TheContrarianGoaltender can back this up - I'm sure he got a lot of irate email from NJ fans complaining about how his use of save percentages was underrating Brodeur because of rampant undercounting in NJ. You know why? Because it was blatantly obvious to anyone who watched the team on a regular basis that more shots were being directed towards net than were being recorded.

And as pointed out before, more elegantly by C1958 than by me, the GMs base their opinions on internal team evaluations, where they receive input from various scouts who attend games around the league.

 

[Michael Farkas]

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.

Frankly, this is ********.

Honestly, I hope that GMs don't look at stats when they vote at all, not once...and I wish they'd vote for more awards so we had more competent people voting and better results...

As someone that has been a credentialed member of the media at hockey events that required award voting, I can speak to the general ineptitude of the writers in evaluating hockey...there's some that are on a high level, but the majority don't know what they're watching, if they're watching the game at all while in the press box...

I can vouch for this personally.

I don't care about the undercounting even, that's something stat people look at. If you're looking at impact and evaluating talent, you've got Brodeur ranked highly, plain and simple. It's clear though that some of us will go to great lengths (scarily great) to defend flawed statistics...it's a sham(e) really...

 

[BraveCanadian]

I think it is funny that people think a guy can hide behind his team for two decades of varying personnel and coaching. Much like Lidstrom in Detroit, Brodeur has been the common denominator in NJ.

Personally I think relying on any one way of evaluating players is hopelessly flawed.

You can't just trot out the statistics because for most of hockey history they were laughably inadequate at describing what was happening on the ice. Particularly for defense and goaltending.

Lately the more detailed stats are definitely better but you'll never capture everything.

You can't just rely on the awards voting or articles because it seems quite obvious that the criteria voters/writers hold players to changes over time. In addition the amount of exposure etc. a player has affects the results.

It takes everything you can get. Stats, articles, voting records, ideally having seen the player quite a bit yourself and then on top of that your best guess.

For my money, Lundqvist is probably the best goaltender in hockey right now because he is well above average no matter how you slice it -- and you know what you're going to get year in and year out.

Everyone else keeps peaking and flaming out.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Ding, ding, ding, what do we have for him, Johnny?

My guess...ridicule!

 

[quoipourquoi]

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

Which was, I believe:

Is it thought to be a "poor" choice on a purely statistical basis?

And the answer is no. The ol' eyeball test supports Joseph over Belfour in 1993. It supports the idea that Brodeur from 1999-2002 was not performing to the level he was before (or after) and was not a top-three goaltender in these seasons. It supports the idea that Dominik Hasek was the best goaltender in 1999 and should not have been left off of 22% of ballots or not named the number one goaltender on 70% of them. It supports the idea that Evgeni Nabokov was not performing at the level of a Martin Brodeur.

The eyeball supports it. The statistics support it as well. Everything supports the thought that these were poor choices outside of the simplistic caveman thought of "Me like Wins. Me vote for goaltender with many Wins."

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

Thank you. This is exactly what I wanted to see.

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.

People are more dependent upon voting records for goaltenders they have not watched consistently, especially in cases in which there is not a full statistical analysis offered at every angle and aspect of the game.

Oh, and maybe that 1970s goaltender with the league average save percentage actually earned his Stanley Cups. Henrik Lundqvist has not. Henrik Lundqvist does not have strong playoffs. Henrik Lundqvist is just as likely to have a below average playoff game as he is to have an above average playoff game. Henrik Lundqvist does not have strong Olympics. What Henrik Lundqvist has are a series of regular seasons in which he was consistent but not brilliant (according to GARG, his three contemporaries in this round have 2-3 seasons each that are better than his best). What Henrik Lundqvist has is potential. The potential to be a Top-20 contender if he doesn't muck it all up. We're not looking at potential though.

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

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

Matches the ol' eyeball test too.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

People are more dependent upon voting records for goaltenders they have not watched consistently, especially in cases in which there is not a full statistical analysis offered at every angle and aspect of the game.

Oh, and maybe that 1970s goaltender with the league average save percentage actually earned his Stanley Cups. Henrik Lundqvist has not.

You're right - Ed Giacomin earned the number of Stanley Cups he won in his career - zero. His playoff stats are significantly worse than Henrik Lundqvist's, whether you want to look at GAA or save percentage.

And then there's this from last round:

I guess that depends on your definition of accomplishments.

Career save percentage vs. league average:

Ed Giacomin: .902 career, .902 league average
Henrik Lundqvist: .920 career, .909 league average

That puts Giacomin at zero goals above average, and Lundqvist 144 goals above average so far in his NHL career. There's more to goaltending analysis than simply looking at save percentage, but in this case it seems hard to suggest there was anything other than a sizable gap between the two given that Giacomin had a better defence and was competing against goalies on expansion teams, whereas Lundqvist was dominating against a much stronger and deeper goalie talent pool.

Comparing against backups, it certainly looks like one of them was overhyped and carried by his team while the other was a true difference-maker:

Giacomin, 1966-67 to 1973-74: .618 win %, 2.59 GAA
NYR Backups, 1966-67 to 1973-74: .641 win %, 2.49 GAA

Lundqvist, 2005-06 to 2011-12: .605 win %, 2.27 GAA
NYR Backups, 2005-06 to 2011-12: .518 win %, 2.73 GAA

I always thought the point of goaltending was to stop the other team from scoring goals, not to convince writers to vote for you at the end of the season. In terms of helping his team win hockey games, I'd say that Lundqvist accomplished significantly more.

Ed Giacomin was added to the list last round based almost entirely on the opinions of sportswriters from the 1970s. Based on the point totals in the stickied thread, at least once and probably twice he was selected a 2nd Team All Star with while being on under 50% of the ballots . And yet, the opinions of NHL General Managers from the 2000s are questioned.

I keep bringing up Giacomin, because I think he's the perfect illustration of the double standard that this project has developed when it comes to players from recent decades.

 

[quoipourquoi]

You're right - Ed Giacomin earned the number of Stanley Cups he won in his career - zero.

See, I thought you were talking about Billy Smith.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I think it is funny that people think a guy can hide behind his team for two decades of varying personnel and coaching. Much like Lidstrom in Detroit, Brodeur has been the common denominator in NJ.

Personally I think relying on any one way of evaluating players is hopelessly flawed.

You can't just trot out the statistics because for most of hockey history they were laughably inadequate at describing what was happening on the ice. Particularly for defense and goaltending.

Lately the more detailed stats are definitely better but you'll never capture everything.

You can't just rely on the awards voting or articles because it seems quite obvious that the criteria voters/writers hold players to changes over time. In addition the amount of exposure etc. a player has affects the results.

It takes everything you can get. Stats, articles, voting records, ideally having seen the player quite a bit yourself and then on top of that your best guess.

For my money, Lundqvist is probably the best goaltender in hockey right now because he is well above average no matter how you slice it -- and you know what you're going to get year in and year out.

Everyone else keeps peaking and flaming out.

Great post. Agree with everything you say, but I especially wanted to emphasize the bolded.

If someone thinks Luongo has had a better career than Lundqvist because of what he did before the 2005 lockout* fine, give Luongo your first place vote this round. Because at this point, Lundqvist stands out when compared to most of the older goalies still available.

*It's still weird that saying "the last lockout" no longer applies to 2005

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

See, I thought you were talking about Billy Smith.

ha, no, Smith just did too much in the playoffs to be considered down with the guys who are available now, even if his regular season resume doesn't stand out.

 

[quoipourquoi]

If you think Thomas (who is a difficult comparison) has a better record than Lundqvist, then vote Thomas 1st or 2nd this round.

If someone thinks Luongo has had a better career than Lundqvist because of what he did before the 2005 lockout* fine, give Luongo your first place vote this round.

I'm pretty much systematically going down my current top-eight, because Lundqvist is in my bottom-seven. I guessed I skipped LeSueur though.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Support Staff

And as pointed out before, more elegantly by C1958 than by me, the GMs base their opinions on internal team evaluations, where they receive input from various scouts who attend games around the league.

Thank you. The reporting and evaluation process is more involved than pro scouting. It includes coaching contributions plus video tech breakdown and analysis from support staff.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm pretty much systematically going down my current top-eight, because Lundqvist is in my bottom-seven. I guessed I skipped LeSueur though.

Heh.

Seriously, if you value regular season save percentages as much as you seem to be in this thread, I think you should have voted Roberto Luongo at or near the top of your list LAST round. And without checking the votes (which I could do, but that would be cheap), I'm pretty sure you didn't, since Luongo only got 1 vote in the Top 2 and ContrarianGoaltender said it was him.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

You need to expand your circle beyond the stats community. The undercounting in NJ was a running joke by Doc Emrick on local broadcasts for years in early 00s. It went like this - after a flurry of shots on goal, the game would go to commercial. Emrick: "and as we head to commercial, shots are 1-0 in favor of NJ. -laughs- well it certainly seems like more than that!" And then he and the broadcast partner would laugh. Seriously, you never heard anyone mention shot counting in New Jersey before the stats community starting taking it seriously in 2009? TheContrarianGoaltender can back this up - I'm sure he got a lot of irate email from NJ fans complaining about how his use of save percentages was underrating Brodeur because of rampant undercounting in NJ. You know why? Because it was blatantly obvious to anyone who watched the team on a regular basis that more shots were being directed towards net than were being recorded.

I can back this up. New Jersey fans have long been responding to arguments based on Brodeur's save % by claiming undercounting, by arguing that Brodeur had an impact on shot prevention, and by saying that it is tougher to have a high save % when facing lower shots (as Mike Farkas just did here). I think the first two have been proven to be correct but the jury is still very much out on that third one.

While that example does illustrate a potential danger of statistical evaluation, the danger of overlooking something important because it isn't easily measured, I think it also shows the danger of subjective evaluation, namely that it's very possible to focus on a few variables and blow them out of proportion. An awful lot of those New Jersey fans were actually way off base in the other direction, i.e. they were correct that there was undercounting and they were correct that Brodeur was helping his team defensively beyond merely making saves, but their magnitudes were completely ridiculous (e.g. "Brodeur prevents 10 shots a game!"). That's why you need to at some point check your claims against the evidence.

There's a thread on HOH right now that asks for people to rate the ability of different skaters in a few different areas, and a few guys started putting points to the rankings and ended up with really screwy overall results because they aren't weighting each characteristic properly in terms of its correlation with a player's overall effectiveness. I think a few voters in this project got really close to doing something similar when they pretty much wrote off Jiri Holecek because they didn't like his lateral movement.

The same thing can easily happen when you're comparing, say, a good puckhandler against a good first-save goalie, or a guy with strong technique against a battler, or a huge, blocking-style goalie against a quicker but more athletic goalie. If you're not careful you might be prone to simply preferring whichever style you like better, or whoever looks better in the net, rather than the guy who actually does more to help his team win.

And you can't appeal to authority here and assume that insiders would never make their mistake, because I don't see any evidence that GMs are immune. Rick DiPietro went #1 overall because teams overrated the importance of goalie puckhandling. In earlier rounds we've discussed goalies getting held back because people weren't believers in their unorthodox techniques. Pretty much every goalie on a winning team has had people talk about how he makes the big save when his teammates need it, whether or not he actually does perform better in those situations, and that attitude has certainly influenced some Vezina votes for high-win, low save % guys (some examples have already been listed in this thread). A few teams employed old-school standup goalies like Bill Ranford and Kirk McLean long past the point their actual results suggest they should have been forced to hang them up, probably because their subjective evaluations from old-school goalie watchers made them think the veterans were doing just fine out there.

So Vezina voting should be considered, but never treated as gospel. For example, I rate Henrik Lundqvist pretty highly, but I still doubt he deserved any of his Vezina votes in 2007-08 because of the statistical evidence that suggests he was closer to average than to great that particular season.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Absolutely. And the fact that the ******* is younger than me shouldn't be a reason not to vote for him.

very slightly younger than me too. obviously i knew that, but just realizing that now is kind of flooring. a guy younger than me is in the conversation for top 35 goalie of all time. i mean, that's very very impressive and really speaks to his solidly very good to great play over his entire NHL career.

not that i'd vote for him this high if i was voting though, at least not relative to beezer and luongo, whose careers i've seen much of and all of, respectively. but i do think TDDM's point about seven straight very good years is a good point (though i've argued in another thread, those seven years are not nearly as good as his AST finishes make him look because a couple of those thirds are basically run-off votes). both beezer and now luongo (presumably) have lost their starting jobs due to repeated disappointing playoff performances. that's where the seven straight very good years is a factor, even if they are his only seven years.

not to say that richter and now i guess cory schneider aren't very good goalies (schneider projected of course), and not to say that beezer and luongo were bad, or even average, playoff goalies. what this means is both guys were on presidents trophy winning, MVP and multiple all-stars-having, contending teams. they both lost their jobs because they showed that they weren't good enough to be the starting goalie on a cup winning team. and that should always be the defining metric for a goalie's greatness: can he be the man to take a favoured team all the way. luongo came awfully close, but the four games he lost against boston... i mean at least three of those four games speak for themselves, no matter how little goal support he got. in these seven lundqvist years, i can't imagine that if he'd been on that kind of team he would ever have been jettisoned. i don't think he's ever been as good as beezer and luongo at their playoff bests, but other than his rookie year he also has never really been bad. it's an argument for dependability more than an argument for world-beating giguere-like performance. it's something i think we often discount over otherworldly performances (see: thomas), but it does means something.

still, it only means so much. me, i'd say that lundqvist is on pace to pass beezer and luongo, and maybe in a couple of years if those years come close to his best performances to date. but like a lot of other people i think he's not there yet.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Henrik Lundqvist and Post 1995 Debut Goalies

The Henrik Lundqvist discussion mirrors the issues that modern goalies, post 1995 NHL debut present.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/l/lundqhe01.html

If you look at Henrik Lundqvist's NHL stats, above, there are two very striking elements. A very positive RS Won/Loss record vs a losing playoff record and a career RS .920 SV% vs a PO .917 SV%. Does a .003 difference in SV% influence a W/L record by such a great amount? Even relying on GAA does a .04 differential between RS and PO GAA create such a differential in a W/L record?

The basic point is that during the RS, team defences are built from the standpoint of the teams strengths - goalies strong points and skaters defensive attributes.

Playing an opponent one, at most two games, at a time is very different from a seven game playoff series. Seven game series allows the opposition to systematically attack and breakdown defensive and goaltending weaknesses. If a goalie and his team cannot adapt to such an attack they will lose even though the overall individual stats look favourable in the light of regular season numbers.

What is important is evaluating the goalies ability to adapt to such an attack over seven games as opposed to their ability to generate favourable statistically comparables to their regular season numbers.

To date Luongo and Lundqvist have not shown much of an ability to adapt during the playoffs. Similar to old time goalies - Giacomin, Tony Esposito and others.

Again, the game is about winning not generating the metric of choice.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

The Henrik Lundqvist discussion mirrors the issues that modern goalies, post 1995 NHL debut present.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/l/lundqhe01.html

If you look at Henrik Lundqvist's NHL stats, above, there are two very striking elements. A very positive RS Won/Loss record vs a losing playoff record and a career RS .920 SV% vs a PO .917 SV%. Does a .003 difference in SV% influence a W/L record by such a great amount? Even relying on GAA does a .04 differential between RS and PO GAA create such a differential in a W/L record?

Lundqvist's regular-season winning percentage is 60.5%, while his support-neutral winning percentage is 56.4%. That suggests that the (regular season) Rangers boost his record by about four percentage points.

Lundqvist's postseason winning percentage is 45.4%, while his support-neutral winning percentage is 52.7%. That suggests that the (postseason) Rangers hinder his record by about seven percentage points.

Stated differently, the Rangers' performance in Lundqvist decisions drops by 15.1 percentage points from the regular season to the postseason. Lundqvist's lower save percentages accounts for 3.7 percentage points of that difference; other factors account for the remaining 11.4 percentage points.

Overall, Lundqvist's postseason performance is comparable to his regular season performance. Maybe we should be looking at the other Rangers when assessing blame here.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

To date Luongo and Lundqvist have not shown much of an ability to adapt during the playoffs. Similar to old time goalies - Giacomin, Tony Esposito and others.

Which goaltenders currently up for voting do you think have consistently shown an ability to adapt during the playoffs?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

So Vezina voting should be considered, but never treated as gospel. For example, I rate Henrik Lundqvist pretty highly, but I still doubt he deserved any of his Vezina votes in 2007-08 because of the statistical evidence that suggests he was closer to average than to great that particular season.

I generally take the position that the voters can't be counted on to be right in any particular season, but if a player has played long enough (and I think Lundqvist has), their mistakes usually even out and they usually get it close right over the course of the player's career. I think this is more true of sportswriters before the expansion and NHL GMs today than I think it is true of sportswriters after the expansion (meaning I don't think most sportswriters in an expanded league can follow all teams enough - they don't have an apparatus of coaches and scouts sending in reports like GMs do).

PS. I may or may not have been one of the "irate Devils fans" who emailed you back in the day

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

To date Luongo and Lundqvist have not shown much of an ability to adapt during the playoffs. Similar to old time goalies - Giacomin, Tony Esposito and others.

And it's fine if you think that, so long as we apply it consistently. Giacomin and Esposito should not be forgiven for their playoff failures just because they played in the 1970s. Luongo and Lundqvist should not be punished for their playoff failures just because they play in the 21st century.

(I'm not singling you or any one poster out. In fact, you've been pretty consistent with your criticism of the playoffs of older goalies).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Overall, Lundqvist's postseason performance is comparable to his regular season performance. Maybe we should be looking at the other Rangers when assessing blame here.

Thanks. As a Devils fan, I've watched most of Lundqvist's playoff games (rooting against him each and every series), and other than 2006 when he was a rookie, I never got the sense that he was one of the main reasons the Rangers lost, like I have a couple of times with Luongo. I'm sure it's a big reason why I have Lundqvist a tiny bit over Luongo.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Thanks. As a Devils fan, I've watched most of Lundqvist's playoff games (rooting against him each and every series), and other than 2006 when he was a rookie, I never got the sense that he was one of the main reasons the Rangers lost, like I have a couple of times with Luongo. I'm sure it's a big reason why I have Lundqvist a tiny bit over Luongo.

Most definitely - I agree with that assessment (other than 2006, Lundqvist has performed well in the playoffs).

Comparable numbers for Luongo:
Regular-season WL percentage: 54.0%
Regular-season SNWL percentage: 56.6%
(Luongo's teammates hinder him 2.6 percentage points in the regular season)

Postseason WL percentage: 52.5%
Postseason SNWL percentage: 50.8%
(Luongo's teammates help him 1.7 percentage points in the postseason)

(One caveat about postseason sample sizes here - the difference between Luongo's postseason WL and SNWL percentages is exactly one win. Also, since Luongo has been on multiple teams with only one having significant playoff exposure, there may be mix issues involved with overcounting/undercounting shots.)

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Most definitely - I agree with that assessment (other than 2006, Lundqvist has performed well in the playoffs).

To be clear, I don't think he ever really went above and beyond in the playoffs (except maybe the first 2 rounds and first 3 games of the 3rd round in 2012). But after 2006, I don't think he really blew up either.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Tim Thomas

Which goaltenders currently up for voting do you think have consistently shown an ability to adapt during the playoffs?

Tim Thomas tends to adapt to various offences.Alec Connell amongst the oldtimers. Luongo has problems with an east/west game so he would be at the other extreme.Lundqvist did well in this regard in 2012 but was so-so previously. Others tended to have difficulties against certain types of offences. Cheevers with speed - Montreal, Liut with mobility as examples.

 

[MadArcand]

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

Thanks for the link, the other guys I mentioned (in 25+ GP seasons):

Hextall
72.5, 51.0, 39.0, 38.0, 32.1, 27.0, 21.5, 20.8, 13.0, 9.5, 3.5

Burke
60.2, 47.7, 47.0, 38.4, 38.2, 33.6, 30.2, 23.2, 23.1, 19.4, 16.8, 16.5, 8.9, 6.8, 6.0, 0.6

Kolzig
54.2, 49.8, 48.9, 40.2, 35.8, 23.7, 19.7, 19.7, 12.6, 10.6, -2.8

Khabibulin
53.0, 50.9, 41.5, 38.1, 31.0, 30.8, 20.2, 20.2, 20.0, 15.2, 13.0, 6.7, -0.6, -11.8

Osgood
34.9, 33.0, 29.3, 28.4, 23.7, 23.3, 22.9, 19.4, 19.4, 14.8, 9.1, -0.4, -9.1

Vernon
41.8, 31.8, 30.1, 28.4, 21.7, 20.7, 17.7, 14.3, 13.9, 9.0, 7.2, 6.0, 5.2, 3.9, -5.8

Irbe
53.7, 38.8, 37.8, 30.6, 20.8, 15.8, 11.3, 9.7, 2.9, -13.7

Giguere
48.8, 43.1, 42.8, 42.1, 37.8, 29.1, 22.2, 17.3, 8.8, 1.2


And for fun, I don't know if something like GARGPG has any value, but here it is, along with career RS totals:

Lundqvist 341.7 (468 GP) 0.73
Thomas 316.0 (378) 0.84
Luongo 572.7 (727) 0.79
Kiprusoff 325.9 (599) 0.54
Vanbiesbrouck 572.1 (882) 0.65
Richter 383.2 (666) 0.58
Barrasso 423.3 (777) 0.54
Joseph 563.0 (943) 0.60
Hextall 326.0 (608) 0.54
Burke 429.8 (820) 0.52
Kolzig 310.3 (719) 0.43
Khabibulin 337.3 (783) 0.43
Osgood 268.2 (744) 0.36
Vernon 254.9 (781) 0.33
Irbe 192.1 (568) 0.34
Giguere 307.8 (557) 0.55

For extra fun, playoffs:

Lundqvist 23.2 (55) 0.42
Thomas 55.5 (50) 1.11
Luongo 30.4 (61) 0.50
Kiprusoff 30.4 (56) 0.54
Vanbiesbrouck 58.7 (71) 0.83
Richter 43.2 (76) 0.57
Barrasso 65.3 (119) 0.55
Joseph 83.4 (133) 0.63
Hextall 39.0 (93) 0.42
Burke 12.4 (38) 0.33
Kolzig 42.3 (45) 0.94
Khabibulin 31.1 (72) 0.43
Osgood 54.5 (129) 0.42
Vernon 38.1 (138) 0.28
Irbe 6.2 (51) 0.12
Giguere 37.3 (52) 0.72

 

[Michael Farkas]

I'm not sure how interested I am in those numbers because they are just mutations of statistics that can't be taken at face value...

But if higher numbers are better on that season-by-season chart, than Lundqvist is confirmed statistically too. The goalies he doesn't really take to task are Luongo, Joseph and Vanbiesbrouck...

Just looking at it, the only goalies with 6 seasons at "45 or above" is: Luongo. And the only others that are really close it seems are CuJo and Beezer.

Sure, some have a better best season than Lundqvist's best...no one disputed that ever. But, not to sound crass, but who cares? One or two seasons on an otherwise mediocre resume is in the "margin of error" - flashes in the pan happen all the time...it's just a matter of which ones do you want to back...I mean, Jose Theodore has like a 77 season on this metric too...that's pretty good. But who cares?