Round 2, Vote 9 (HOH Top Goaltenders)

[MadArcand]

Lundqvist does indeed do very well here... in regular season. The playoff numbers... are Osgood level, without the success. The very Osgood you love to drag through the mud.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Lundqvist does indeed do very well here... in regular season. The playoff numbers... are Osgood level, without the success. The very Osgood you love to drag through the mud.

Uh, sure...whatever puts laughs in your chuckle bucket. But, that's really ignoring the big picture isn't it? Osgood doesn't pass the eye test, he doesn't get any award recognition, he's an obvious product of his system...

None of those apply to Lundqvist. So...unless we're straw grasping here...I'm not sure what we're talking about...

 

[Canadiens1958]

Chris Osgood

Uh, sure...whatever puts laughs in your chuckle bucket. But, that's really ignoring the big picture isn't it? Osgood doesn't pass the eye test, he doesn't get any award recognition, he's an obvious product of his system...

None of those apply to Lundqvist. So...unless we're straw grasping here...I'm not sure what we're talking about...

Raises a rather interesting comparable. Point could be made that Chris Osgood is Alec Connell very lite with longevity but lacking full season performance.

 

[MadArcand]

Uh, sure...whatever puts laughs in your chuckle bucket. But, that's really ignoring the big picture isn't it? Osgood doesn't pass the eye test, he doesn't get any award recognition, he's an obvious product of his system...

None of those apply to Lundqvist. So...unless we're straw grasping here...I'm not sure what we're talking about...

Yet he still benefited from the 'Me like wins' votes in both Vezina and AST races repeatedly.

Vezina: 2nd, 7th, 10th, 11th
AST: 2nd, 6th, 7th

And his success is certainly a product of the team, but what fabled 'system' did Detroit have to elevate its goalies?

 

[BraveCanadian]

Uh, sure...whatever puts laughs in your chuckle bucket. But, that's really ignoring the big picture isn't it? Osgood doesn't pass the eye test, he doesn't get any award recognition, he's an obvious product of his system...

None of those apply to Lundqvist. So...unless we're straw grasping here...I'm not sure what we're talking about...

None of them apply to Osgood, either.

Maybe he wasn't an all time show stealing goaltender but he was a good goaltender on more than one club and he was very good - great in his last two Finals runs.

 

[Rob Scuderi]

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


For extra fun, playoffs:

I think the lists you had above are more effective than the career numbers and per game figures. It seems best to define an arbitrary number of seasons and see how they stack up. Or maybe setting an arbitrary threshold (30/40 goals above) to see how often they performed at a certain level.

The per game figures I used when comparing Lundqvist and Barrasso were because I took a sample of six/seven seasons to compare, but Barrasso played a noticeably lower number of games during those seasons.

I have a hard time with save percentages in the playoffs too as the sample is just so much smaller. Does it really matter if Lundqvist's per game save percentage figures, in half the amount of time, are comparable to Osgood who won two Stanley Cups starting? I'd rather look at something like all the Cup winning/losing seasons where you have a better sample.

I found the post about Support Neutral Wins interesting too, which doesn't support the idea that Lundqvist was a bit piece.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

None of them apply to Osgood, either.

Maybe he wasn't an all time show stealing goaltender but he was a good goaltender on more than one club and he was very good - great in his last two Finals runs.

Osgood wasn't on my top 60 list, but if I had to do it all over again, I'd give more consideration to modern goalies on the bottom half of my list and he'd probably just make the cut.

(Sorry everyone for talking about someone not available now; time to focus again)

 

[quoipourquoi]

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.

I value the playoffs too. And I do value first-hand accounts and awards voting - I'm just less reliant on them when I've seen the seasons myself. Obviously, I hold Luongo in higher esteem than the voters did.

Sure, some have a better best season than Lundqvist's best...no one disputed that ever. But, not to sound crass, but who cares?

I like knowing that a goaltender has a fifth-gear. A lot of the time, championships are won because a team's goaltender is playing in the zone.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I like knowing that a goaltender has a fifth-gear. A lot of the time, championships are won because a team's goaltender is playing in the zone.

Even more than that championships are won because a team (including the goaltender) is playing in the zone.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Even more than that championships are won because a team (including the goaltender) is playing in the zone.

Hey, everyone needs a little help, but with 10 of the last 26 Conn Smythes going to goaltenders, I don't think my statement is wrong.

 

[MXD]

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

Kerr, Connell -- albeit in a very different era.
Cheevers and Chabot, especially if you think they're barely Top-50 material (or not Top-50 material at all).

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

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.

To be fair, it is more of the sports writers job to know who had a good year than it is a GMs. I would say the writer could (and would) spend more time on his vote since its part of the job. Almost an honor. The GMs have penty of other hockey related work to do. I wouldn't be surprised if some had an underling do it for them.


As for the 1970's sports writers: With Save Percentage not being an official stat at the time, I'm sure they had no idea about who's was good or bad.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Raises a rather interesting comparable. Point could be made that Chris Osgood is Alec Connell very lite with longevity but lacking full season performance.

I would agree with that at this point. I think they are on relative par with each other. Connell did some damage on multiple teams and crossed over the forward pass line, so he probably gets boosted by that.

Yet he still benefited from the 'Me like wins' votes in both Vezina and AST races repeatedly.

Vezina: 2nd, 7th, 10th, 11th

Clearly not. His 2nd place finish was in the muddled 94-95 season, which is a known outlier or oddity for the Vezina given how disorganized (for lack of a better term) it was. Short season, different schedule, factors that just make the whole thing iffy at best. I mean, look at the votes themselves...half the league's goalies got one...

And two of those are one vote jobs, which we've been throwing out.

Unfortunately, this was another post of yours (re: Lundqvist) that was designed to confuse and distract. Because the plan to foil Lundqvist was defeated. Whether he's #1 or #4 or #7, he's not several tiers down like you started with. And the smear campaign kind of backfired because now we looked a lot closer at Lundqvist and he's really checking out quite nicely...

But Osgood played like 18 years in the NHL and got noteworthy Vezina support one time...maybe twice. Let's say twice. 1995 and 1996.

Which makes sense, because he clearly looks like a goalie that was trained and developed prior to 1994...the approximate date of when the goalie revolution seemed to start. Osgood has always looked out of place as a result. He lacked the technical know-how to be a major positive difference maker. The further back you go, the less he looks out of place. Not at all odd that the GMs would give him stronger consideration in 1995 and 1996, two of the closer years to 1994 if my math is right.

What you leave out - unsurprisingly - is that in 1995 Osgood was 2nd in the cherished save pct. stat and 3rd in goals against average when he received Vezina consideration. He was in a 6-way tie for 17th in wins. In 1996, he was tied for 7th in save pct. and 2nd in GAA. He also went 39-6-5, which made him first in wins too.

TL;DR point: So saying that "[Osgood] still benefited from the 'Me like wins' [Vezina] votes" when he got two looks at the Vezina in 18 years (2nd and 7th) and in both of those years he was top-3 in GAA and top-7 in save pct. and was t-17th in wins in one of the seasons. And he finished top-8 in wins six times in his career. I'd say that you made a mighty big miscalculation and I just hope it wasn't deliberate.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

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.

Sorry, it wasn't blatanly obvious to me.

When the Whalers were in Hartford shots could go up on the board at any time. You might see 2 or 3 shots added a minute or two after a flurry or at the end of a period. What I recall often in the early '00s was lots of games in Jersey in which Brodeur failed to sweat.

I made a point once on these boards that Bob Wilson in Boston and Marv Albert in New York (on the radio) both alleged Stan Mikita would get assists in Chicago when he never touched the puck. You'd think I'd accused the guy of murder by the responses I got here. But, I guess folks are more skeptical these days. (or more creative)

 

[Michael Farkas]

To be fair, it is more of the sports writers job to know who had a good year than it is a GMs. I would say the writer could (and would) spend more time on his vote since its part of the job. Almost an honor. The GMs have penty of other hockey related work to do. I wouldn't be surprised if some had an underling do it for them.


As for the 1970's sports writers: With Save Percentage not being an official stat at the time, I'm sure they had no idea about who's was good or bad.

At bolded: I've felt this way when I've been asked to vote for things (not at the NHL level unfortunately) but I can speak from experience when I tell you that that is not the case generally. Like I said before, some guys up there aren't even paying much attention to the game. And even if they were, you have to have some understanding of the game to make a noteworthy contribution. You've really narrowed your sample down considerably with those two basic criteria.

Many just go by points or other simple stats. Some make no secret about copying off of each other to avoid thinking about the task all together.

Again, I'm not an NHL voter and I don't want to paint a negative image of my colleagues as a whole...but the individual reliability of them today can be brought into question certainly. To their defense, it's tougher today...there aren't 6 teams in 6 cities...

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

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

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...

Yeah, that wasn't going work. Ask TDMM.

So Brodeur didn't reach Thomas level with Julien because the system didn't work (though the Devils were 47-24-8)? Yet that was Brodeur's best SP season ever. That doesn't make sense to me.

But I'm not stringing you along(well, maybe a little). I really do feel Brodeur is way overrated and Alec Connell belongs on this top 40 list.

 

[MadArcand]

Clearly not. His 2nd place finish was in the muddled 94-95 season, which is a known outlier or oddity for the Vezina given how disorganized (for lack of a better term) it was. Short season, different schedule, factors that just make the whole thing iffy at best. I mean, look at the votes themselves...half the league's goalies got one...

His 2nd place was in 95-96.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

MadArcand asked if I could post the total number of times the available goalies reached a minimum number of votes for the Vezina. Upthread, I made a big deal about consecutive times.

goalie|1+ votes|2+ votes|3+ votes|4+ votes|5+ votes|6+ votes|7+ votes
Miikka Kiprusoff|7|5|4|3|3|3|3
Henrik Lundqvist|7|7|7|7|6|6|6
Roberto Luongo|7|6|5|4|4|4|4
Mike Richter|5|3|2|2|2|2|0
Tim Thomas|3|3|2|2|2|2|2
John Vanbiesbrouck|9|8|6|5|4|2|2

Again, keep in mind that the league increased in size from 21 to 30 teams from the 1980s to today. That means slightly more available votes today, but it also means slightly more starting goalies with the ability to be one-season wonders and steal votes.

I stopped at 7 or more votes because that's 1/3 of the total available voting pool for the older goalies, but Lundqvist and Kiprusoff each has a season where he received exactly 7 votes.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Yeah, that wasn't going work. Ask TDMM.

So Brodeur didn't reach Thomas level with Julien because the system didn't work (though the Devils were 47-24-8)? Yet that was Brodeur's best SP season ever. That doesn't make sense to me.

But I'm not stringing you along(well, maybe a little). I really do feel Brodeur is way overrated and Alec Connell belongs on this top 40 list.

I don't even think it was exactly the same thing that Boston does. I know there were some differences in terms of how they handled transition and the role of the defense, but it's tough to remember the exact details. I do want to correct myself, it was Brodeur's 2nd best save pct. season ever, not best. I misspoke earlier.

I'm obviously not going to convince you, but I'd like to think I at least made you think about it...maybe...

But yeah, Julien didn't really do a good job with New Jersey. That team probably could have been better if they had a better fit at coach...maybe TDMM feels different, but the team was under-utilized basically...they had better pieces whose strengths were different than what Julien was trying to enforce. By the end of the year, it seems like he lost the team and even staunchly defensive players didn't like what he was teaching (Madden and Pandolfo, if memory serves, were particularly outspoken around the Devils facilities). That's why a team that had 45 wins or whatever and had won 4 of its last 5 games with 3 games to go let its head coach go...what he was doing, wasn't working.

The stat: 47-24-8 (or whatever) fails to capture the context of the situation - that's a frequent occurrence in hockey.

 

[Michael Farkas]

His 2nd place was in 95-96.

Yeah, you're right. Doesn't change what I said in the whole post. As another decisive victory is posted for Lundqvist...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Yeah, that wasn't going work. Ask TDMM.

So Brodeur didn't reach Thomas level with Julien because the system didn't work (though the Devils were 47-24-8)? Yet that was Brodeur's best SP season ever. That doesn't make sense to me.

But I'm not stringing you along(well, maybe a little). I really do feel Brodeur is way overrated and Alec Connell belongs on this top 40 list.

Apparently, I'm one of the few voters who is taking a pretty neutral view on Connell. He was 7th on my ballot last time. He'll likely be 5th or 6th this time. Seems most have him either high or low; for me, he's pretty middling.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I don't even think it was exactly the same thing that Boston does. I know there were some differences in terms of how they handled transition and the role of the defense, but it's tough to remember the exact details. I do want to correct myself, it was Brodeur's 2nd best save pct. season ever, not best. I misspoke earlier.

I'm obviously not going to convince you, but I'd like to think I at least made you think about it...maybe...

But yeah, Julien didn't really do a good job with New Jersey. That team probably could have been better if they had a better fit at coach...maybe TDMM feels different, but the team was under-utilized basically...they had better pieces whose strengths were different than what Julien was trying to enforce. By the end of the year, it seems like he lost the team and even staunchly defensive players didn't like what he was teaching (Madden and Pandolfo, if memory serves, were particularly outspoken around the Devils facilities). That's why a team that had 45 wins or whatever and had won 4 of its last 5 games with 3 games to go let its head coach go...what he was doing, wasn't working.

The stat: 47-24-8 (or whatever) fails to capture the context of the situation - that's a frequent occurrence in hockey.

Certainly you make me think.

Don Cherry used to say he had 17 hockey players and 2 goalies.

Not really being hockey players, I feel most uncomfortable trying to figure out goaltenders, like Grapes.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Apparently, I'm one of the few voters who is taking a pretty neutral view on Connell. He was 7th on my ballot last time. He'll likely be 5th or 6th this time. Seems most have him either high or low; for me, he's pretty middling.

You must feel lonely all alone in the middle.

Step up with the highs, we are clearly right.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

You must feel lonely all alone in the middle.

Step up with the highs, we are clearly right.

Among the early guys, I have LeSueur over Connell. And I think the modern trio of Vanbiesbrouck, Lundqvist, and Luongo should be added ASAP. So that's probably my 4 right there. Going into this round, I wasn't completely sure about Luongo, but I've been convinced that it's time for him, warts and all.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Apparently, I'm one of the few voters who is taking a pretty neutral view on Connell. He was 7th on my ballot last time. He'll likely be 5th or 6th this time. Seems most have him either high or low; for me, he's pretty middling.

I'm not against him really, I just don't like the reasons why people are for him. Lacked context, wasn't fair to the other goalies. He was 8th on my ballot last time.

Among the early guys, I have LeSueur over Connell. And I think the modern trio of Vanbiesbrouck, Lundqvist, and Luongo should be added ASAP. So that's probably my 4 right there. Going into this round, I wasn't completely sure about Luongo, but I've been convinced that it's time for him, warts and all.

I feel pretty similarly.