Round 2, Vote 9 (HOH Top Goaltenders)

[Michael Farkas]

To each his own. Seen his whole career, and he's always seemed like an unaccomplished Giguere crossed with a superior Fleury to me. Gargantuan gear. Rabidly defensive teams. Huge-profile market inflating his awards voting. Popular in part due to off-ice factors (personality and looks).

Frankly, just by eye test, he's no better than say Carey Price, Cam Ward, Ryan Miller or Ilya Bryzgalov. None of them top-60 goalies.

Giguere and Fleury don't play a similar way, so I got confused right off the hop there.

Giguere had no reflexes and poor rebound control. Easy to beat up high. Not terrific lateral movement or puck tracking. Horrendous puckhandler. Many negatives, thus is lack of adaptability. Obviously didn't fair so hot when his scenery changed. Just a product of "garbage in, garbage out" goaltending development. Not a surprise that he only really worked in one place ever after being a first round pick, 3 organizations over 7 years and no organization could make heads or tails of him. Not a comparable to Lundqvist, who burst onto the scene and has done terrific everywhere he's played.

I dislike the "blocker" goalies as much as anyone. But Lundqvist is really quite good. He does have pretty big equipment, I'll grant you that.

I must admit, I'm floored by the last line. So...the list is based on talent level? If so, we need to start over. Most goalies today don't look too terribly different compared to yesteryear. But saying a goalie plays similar to Carey Price (a youngster, as far as this board is concerned) and because Carey Price isn't a top-60 goalie, then neither is Lundqvist...? I don't follow the logic.

I guess by that extension. The sky is virtually limitless. Patrick Roy was a butterfly goalie and so is Steve Mason...I see Roy at #1, but I don't see Mason...did we mess up?

The identification of talent, as I've said in probably every thread, is important to distinguish "system goalies" from "goalies that happen to play in a system"

Dismissing a guy like Martin Brodeur shows a lack of ability to recognize ability, even nuance. Dismissing a guy like Chris Osgood (who I'm surprised didn't climb into this portion of the proceedings) shows an ability to distinguish skill from system. Osgood, a squeaky wheel behind Detroit's conquests...

Being behind a defensive system doesn't preclude you from being good. Similarly, being behind a defensive system (and therefore posting stats that show accomplishment) doesn't make you good. It matters.

------
@qpq - I'm not even saying that he belongs right now necessarily. I took exception to him being several tiers down from the "big guys". It seemed like a needless trashing and I don't want him to get just brushed over on that accord. He's very much in the discussion before the list is complete is all I'm saying. He doesn't have to be #1 right now.

---

Next post - goalies don't win Hart trophies really. I'm not sure why that was even said, to be honest. It simply doesn't apply today.

---

Decent group here. Richter doesn’t belong. But I’m glad we’re not talking about Vernon or Osgood, that’s all I’ll say.

Amen.

Pretty much take Vanbiesbrouck’s best 7 seasons (the ones where he was top-6 in Vezina voting) and that’s Lundqvist’s 7 year career right now. Then give Beezer the edge for having 6-7 more seasons as a solid, at least average, starter. That’s the way I see it right now.

Wouldn't disagree with that really.

Tim Thomas is the best by a fair margin, in my opinion. Lunqvist is more consistent because he has less of a high-water-mark to live up to.

Tim Thomas has been the most consistent goalie in the league for the last 7 years?!?!? He's only been a starter for 5! And only 2 of those years were really anything noteworthy, with one other decent one in there. All of which correlating directly to the acquisitions of Claude Julien and Zdeno Chara.

The words "Thomas" and "consistency" do not jive at all...by a fair margin.

Saying Thomas by any margin for consistency is just providing false information.

---

Lundqvist was getting considered every season.

Yes, this matters a lot more when you're not talking about a 6 or 12 team league. I think we're so used to thinking, "ok, anything below 3rd is pretty much useless to us..." but really we note a guy being in the top 33% or 50% of the league with those O6 guys. 3rd in a 30-team league (not even including that each team carries and uses 2 'tenders) is top 10%. 6th is top 20%. And the current NHL has much more in the way of moving parts being that it's a fully-integrated league with unrestricted free agency.

Flash in the pans can happen as a result as well...Roman Cechmanek, with more "elite" NHL regular seasons than Tim Thomas, is not on the list and wouldn't be on it if we got to 75 I don't think. Probably further. Why? One up-and-down playoffs that mirrors Thomas' career perfectly? That's the big clincher? That's what separates 40 from 140? 240? whatever...it's virtually unjustifiable.

The more modern you get, the more the position evolves, the more the talent level evens out, the more you need to rely on consistency. I know some people hate that word here and rely on peak and prime for everything, but I believe that you have to go substance over flash here...if two out of 15? 20? non-consecutive seasons is enough to be better than 7 out of 7 consecutive seasons of elite-ness, even if the elite-ness varies a bit, I just can't see how those 2 seasons have enough in them to make up the ground...it just doesn't make sense...it's confusing sentiment really...is it designed to bewilder?

If Lundqvist's seasons of .912, .916 and .917 count as 'great', then Thomas has SIX 'great' seasons. If Lundqvist's poor playoff showings in half of his appearances count as 'great', then Thomas is superhuman.

This unfounded pro-Lundqvist bias and adoration is slowly getting beyond ridiculous. A goalie with minimal accomplishments and poor playoff record is being trumpeted as 'great' and elevated above far superior goalies. Insanity.

Belligerent. Taking the raw save pct. out of context like that and making those comments is designed to confuse and bewilder voters...it should not be tolerated.

Lundqvist - by the metrics we have been using throughout - is one of the most accomplished goalies left on the board.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I'm going to make a longer Lundqvist post later, but no goalie available this round can match Lundqvist's stretch of 8 years as being a borderline elite goalie every single year.

How do you reconcile this statement with the knowledge of what Roberto Luongo was doing to start his career? I posted Lundqvist's save percentage finishes earlier, but here are Luongo's numbers from 2001-2011:

Lundqvist
4, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 18
Luongo
3, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 9, 10, 14, 18

Are we not approaching this as if Lundqvist is done?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

But the issue here is that this is the BEST aspect of Lundqvist's career. He does not have a good playoff career.

Lundqvist's playoff career is pretty average for the guys available now. Compared to guys who went in last round, it's worse than Barrasso or Cujo's, but better than Giacomin's. It's very slightly worse than Beezer's (Lundqvist has no Beezer in 1996 to his credit, but it's not like Beezer did anything in the playoffs outside of 1996). Lundqvist has had fewer bad series than Luongo. I don't see what makes Vachon's playoff record any better than Lundqvist's, a Cup for Montreal at a time when they won no matter who their goalie was? (Vachon, Worsley, Hodge?) Liut doesn't beat Lundqvist in the playoffs.

He did not play well en route to his Olympic Gold Medal.

Really? This isn't Team Canada we can talk about, where they have the depth to overcome shaky (but not bad) goaltending. This is Team Sweden. Team Sweden does not win the Gold Medal in a best-on-best tournament unless they get excellent goaltending when it matters. Was Lundqvist the best goalie of the tournament? No. Did he play very well? Yes.

This is all that he has: A stretch of seven regular seasons that are slightly worse than the lesser half of a better goalie's regular season career. With no regard to his playoffs. With no regard to his Olympic tournament.

Good thing Patrick Roy's not still available then Compared to the goalies who are still around...

Lundqvist - by the metrics we have been using throughout - is one of the most accomplished goalies left on the board.

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

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

How do you reconcile this statement with the knowledge of what Roberto Luongo was doing to start his career? I posted Lundqvist's save percentage finishes earlier, but here are Luongo's numbers from 2001-2011:

Lundqvist
4, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 18
Luongo
3, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 9, 10, 14, 18

Are we not approaching this as if Lundqvist is done?

Single season save percentages, unadjusted for games played and team effects, is an absolutely terrible way to compare goaltenders.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Tim Thomas has been the most consistent goalie in the league for the last 7 years?!?!? He's only been a starter for 5! And only 2 of those years were really anything noteworthy, with one other decent one in there. All of which correlating directly to the acquisitions of Claude Julien and Zdeno Chara.

The words "Thomas" and "consistency" do not jive at all...by a fair margin.

Saying Thomas by any margin for consistency is just providing false information.

---

Re-read my post, Mike.

Tim Thomas is the best by a fair margin, in my opinion. Lunqvist is more consistent because he has less of a high-water-mark to live up to.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

Single season save percentages, unadjusted for games played and team effects, is an absolutely terrible way to compare goaltenders.

Not to mention adjusting for era I presume?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Not to mention adjusting for era I presume?

He's posting rankings of two goalies who both played in a league with the same number of teams, so era is already adjusted for.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Really? This isn't Team Canada we can talk about, where they have the depth to overcome shaky (but not bad) goaltending. This is Team Sweden. Team Sweden does not win the Gold Medal in a best-on-best tournament unless they get excellent goaltending when it matters. Was Lundqvist the best goalie of the tournament? No. Did he play very well? Yes.

I have to go to class for the next four hours, but I'll come back to this later tonight.

Good thing Patrick Roy's not still available then Compared to the goalies who are still around...

Based upon TCG's post, you could understand why I thought that he was eligible...

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

Haha!

 

[Michael Farkas]

Re-read my post, Mike.

My apologies. When I read the response in correlation with the quoted post of seventies I somehow read it as a "Thomas is the most consistent"

I'm very sorry about the misread, qpq and all...should have been more careful, momentum got the best of me...

 

[quoipourquoi]

Single season save percentages, unadjusted for games played and team effects, is an absolutely terrible way to compare goaltenders.

Until you or BM67 post the splits, I go with the numbers I have. Something about babies and bathwater.

 

[quoipourquoi]

My apologies. When I read the response in correlation with the quoted post of seventies I somehow read it as a "Thomas is the most consistent"

I'm very sorry about the misread, qpq and all...should have been more careful, momentum got the best of me...

Don't worry about it, Mike. I've got the feeling that this will be the most argued round since the beginning!

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Here are the the top 5 cumulative save percentages of goalies who played at least 350 games between 2006-2012.

1. Tim Thomas 0.922 in 374 GP
2. Tomas Vokoun 0.921 in 401 GP (inflated by massive overcounting in Nashville and possible overcounting in Florida)
3. Henrik Lundqvist 0.920 in 468 GP (possibly underrated by minor shot undercounting in NY)
4. Roberto Luongo 0.919 in 461 GP
5. Ryan Miller 0.916 in 442 GP

Without going into a detailed statistical analysis, IMO the tiny 0.002 advantage in save percentage edge Thomas has over Lundqvist could easily be explained away by the fact that Lundqvist has the extra fatigue of playing almost 100 more games over the time period. And that's before getting into possible undercounting in NY (I'll wait for BM67 to post on that, but I remember seeing it in a previous post).

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

He's posting rankings of two goalies who both played in a league with the same number of teams, so era is already adjusted for.

In that specific case, of course. I'm merely wondering if it's considered when comparing save % across different eras. Say, for example, between Liut from the '80s and Lundqvist from currently.

 

[MadArcand]

Giguere and Fleury don't play a similar way, so I got confused right off the hop there.

Maybe if you bothered to actually read what I wrote, you'd understand it. I said a cross between MAF and JSG. That doesn't, in any way, shape or form, imply they play similarly. I even named the attributes Lundqvist shares with JSG, and those he shares with MAF. In case it's unclear, the first two apply to JSG, the second two to MAF.

I must admit, I'm floored by the last line. So...the list is based on talent level? If so, we need to start over. Most goalies today don't look too terribly different compared to yesteryear. But saying a goalie plays similar to Carey Price (a youngster, as far as this board is concerned) and because Carey Price isn't a top-60 goalie, then neither is Lundqvist...? I don't follow the logic.

Strawman and lies. You argued he should be considered because he passes the eye test, not me. The named goalies all perform on similar level just by eye test, and it should be obvious that Lundqvist passing your subjective eye test is irrelevant to the discussion.

Belligerent. Taking the raw save pct. out of context like that and making those comments is designed to confuse and bewilder voters...it should not be tolerated.

Lundqvist - by the metrics we have been using throughout - is one of the most accomplished goalies left on the board.

Let me spell it out for you: Lundqvist has basically accomplished NOTHING. NADA. NICHTS. His accomplishments are on par with Ryan Freakin' Miller. Yet a few of you will pimp him to no ends and compare him to goalies who crush him in peak, playoffs, longevity... everything. THAT is wrong. It's not taking anything out of context, because it's outright freaking lying. There is no way Lundqvist's accomplishments are anywhere near Barrasso's or Joseph's or Luongo's or Beezer's or Thomas', yet he gets compared to them?! Damn right I'm belligerent, because that's simply nonsense!

 

[Michael Farkas]

Don't worry about it, Mike. I've got the feeling that this will be the most argued round since the beginning!

So many modern goalies, so it's in my wheelhouse and I have very strong feelings about evaluating talent so...yeah...I'm pretty neutral about Brimsek vs. Broda vs. Durnan all things considered because I can't tell, I didn't see them...I saw these guys...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Let me spell it out for you: Lundqvist has basically accomplished NOTHING. NADA. NICHTS. His accomplishments are on par with Ryan Freakin' Miller. Yet a few of you will pimp him to no ends and compare him to goalies who crush him in peak, playoffs, longevity... everything. THAT is wrong. It's not taking anything out of context, because it's outright freaking lying. There is no way Lundqvist's accomplishments are anywhere near Barrasso's or Joseph's or Luongo's or Beezer's or Thomas', yet he gets compared to them?! Damn right I'm belligerent, because that's simply nonsense!

Do you have anything to back up these claims other than "because I say so!"?

 

[Michael Farkas]

Maybe if you bothered to actually read what I wrote, you'd understand it. I said a cross between MAF and JSG. That doesn't, in any way, shape or form, imply they play similarly. I even named the attributes Lundqvist shares with JSG, and those he shares with MAF. In case it's unclear, the first two apply to JSG, the second two to MAF.

If he's a cross between a really good positional goalie and the guy with the league's best reflexes, shuffle ability and terrific glove hand, then you've got yourself one hell of a goalie. Right on!

Strawman and lies. You argued he should be considered because he passes the eye test, not me. The named goalies all perform on similar level just by eye test, and it should be obvious that Lundqvist passing your subjective eye test is irrelevant to the discussion.

Again, eye test matters to separate a damning claim like: he's the product of a defensive system. Or whether he's the engine that makes a defensive system work. Lundqvist is clearly a very good technical goaltender, more than just a blocker.

Let me spell it out for you: Lundqvist has basically accomplished NOTHING. NADA. NICHTS. His accomplishments are on par with Ryan Freakin' Miller. Yet a few of you will pimp him to no ends and compare him to goalies who crush him in peak, playoffs, longevity... everything. THAT is wrong. It's not taking anything out of context, because it's outright freaking lying. There is no way Lundqvist's accomplishments are anywhere near Barrasso's or Joseph's or Luongo's or Beezer's or Thomas', yet he gets compared to them?! Damn right I'm belligerent, because that's simply idiocy!

Curtis Joseph has accomplishments and Henrik Lundqvist does not? That was true right up until about the time Henrik Lundqvist stepped foot in the NHL...but here we are in 2013...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

In that specific case, of course. I'm merely wondering if it's considered when comparing save % across different eras. Say, for example, between Liut from the '80s and Lundqvist from currently.

It's harder to place higher in the rankings when there are more goalies competing. I mean, it's literally impossible to finished 8th in a 6 team league where the starters play every game.

But that's not a factor when comparing modern goalies. My issue with save percentages is that they are highly luck and team dependent in a single season sample size. And yes, I'd honestly trust the opinions of NHL GMs with their armies of scouts who vote on the Vezina over single season save percentages. (Now if it's someone like Giacomin who consistently looks weak in save percentage over the course of his career, I'll take notice).

 

[MadArcand]

7 years straight of being considered a top 6 goalie in a 30 team league by NHL GMs is a pretty damn good peak if you ask me, especially considering that for 4 of those 7 years he was a finalist (top 3) for the Vezina. You argued in favor of Ed Giacomin last round based on the opinions of sports writers in the late 60s/early 70s. Is your position that the opinions of sports writers from back then matter, but the opinions of modern GMs do not?

No, my opinion is that being selected into ASTs five times and ONCE is not the same thing, and no stretching to top-6, using abysmal samples of votes, is going to change the fact.

8 years (you have to include his MVP award over NHL stars in 2005 in the SEL) is longer than the careers of Dryden, Durnan, and Gardiner. It's about as long as Jiri Holecek, Billy Smith, and Grant Fuhr were relevant goalies. It's longer than Terry Sawchuk's peak, though Sawchuk had some great years sprinkled in afterwards.

Is this a joke? All of them accomplished great things. They WON. They won awards. They won Cups. They posted great playoff performances. Lundqvist hasn't done ANYTHING. He's posting gaudy save% in an era where crappy goalies like Mike Smith and Jimmy Howard and Jonas Hiller and their dog do the same.

Ed Giacomin was inducted last round on the base of 5-6, at most 7 relevant seasons. Lundqvist already has a little more than that.

He accomplished five times as much in those seasons than Lundqvist did.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

It's harder to place higher in the rankings when there are more goalies competing. I mean, it's literally impossible to finished 8th in a 6 team league where the starters play every game.

But that's not a factor when comparing modern goalies. My issue with save percentages is that they are highly luck and team dependent in a single season sample size. And yes, I'd honestly trust the opinions of NHL GMs with their armies of scouts who vote on the Vezina over single season save percentages. (Now if it's someone like Giacomin who consistently looks weak in save percentage over the course of his career, I'll take notice).

Ah ok thanks I'm following this project closely and I occasionally ask questions so I can better understand the thinking that's going into the rankings. Thanks for your patience

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

No, my opinion is that being selected into ASTs five times and ONCE is not the same thing, and no stretching to top-6, using abysmal samples of votes, is going to change the fact.

In other words, All Star Teams (opinions of sportswriters) = important. Being a Vezina finalist (opinions of GMs) = worthless.

He accomplished five times as much in those seasons than Lundqvist did.

You have a strange idea of an "accomplishment." Being selected the 2nd best goalie by sportswriters against weak competition is an "accomplishment," but being selected the 3rd best goalie by GMs against strong competition is not?

And yes, Lundqvist has faced much stronger competition than Giacomin.

1) Europeans. When Giacomin played, guys like Tretiak, Holecek, Dzurilla, Konovalenko, and some decent goalies in Finland and Sweden were not competing for NHL awards. In Lundqvist's era all the Europeans are competing.

2) Canadians. Martin Brodeur was at his peak for the first half of Lundqvist's career. None of the all-time great Canadians were at their peaks when Giacomin was racking up his All-Star nods.

3) League size. Goalie is a position that is notorious for having one-season wonders. There are 30 starters now, all of whom have the potential for being a one-off competitor for awards. When Giacomin played, there were 12 teams, and 6 of them were recent expansion teams where the goalies tended to get shelled.

 

[MadArcand]

Do you have anything to back up these claims other than "because I say so!"?

Henrik Lundqvist:
1 (one) Vezina
1 (one) 1st AST

Save% placements: 4th, 4th, 7th, 8th, 10th
Playoff record: 25-30, .917, made conference finals once
Olympic gold with .907 sv%

Ryan Miller:
1 (one) Vezina
1 (one) 1st AST

Save% placements: 2nd, 8th, 9th, 10th
Playoff record: 25-22, .917, made conference finals twice
Olympic silver with .946 sv%


Truly, a world of difference! Like, 30 spots worth of it, eh?

 

[pappyline]

So many modern goalies, so it's in my wheelhouse and I have very strong feelings about evaluating talent so...yeah...I'm pretty neutral about Brimsek vs. Broda vs. Durnan all things considered because I can't tell, I didn't see them...I saw these guys...

This is kind of telling regarding the age of most of the voters and probably why so many modern goalies are showing up and getting so much support....Me, I'm a dinausor and Rollins followed by Cheevers will likely be my 1 and 2 this round. You know I actually remember Rollin's last season with the Hawks.

 

[seventieslord]

I'm going to make a longer Lundqvist post later, but no goalie available this round can match Lundqvist's stretch of 8 years as being a borderline elite goalie every single year. 8 years, because I'm counting 2005. You can count good seasons spread over a career if you want, but the thing is, both Beezer and Luongo had down seasons in their careers. Lundqvist did not. That's a pretty long stretch where Lundqvist's team knows going into the season that Lundqvist will give them very good to borderline elite goaltending for the majority of the schedule - in addition to being the most "consistently good" goaltender since Martin Brodeur, Lundqvist is also a workhorse.

Honestly, when was Lundqvist ever not among the best goalies in the league for a stretch? The 2006 playoffs (his first NHL playoffs), when he was schooled by Patrik Elias. That's it. In addition to his accomplishments, he's unique among available goalies for never having an extended slump. Lundqvist might not win multiple playoff series on his own (though he was clearly the team MVP in the first two rounds of 2012), but he's pretty much guaranteed not to ever cost the team, either.

That kind of stability - being able to stick your goalie back there and never worry again - is what Brodeur brought to NJ. And to a lesser extent, I think it's what Lundqvist brings to the Rangers. And I don't think you can say that about any other candidate this round.

I agree that Lundqvist’s best 7 years are as good as those of Beezer or Luongo, but you’re seriously going to throw out the fact that they have a number of other above average seasons in there?

These aren’t Barrasso cases where they had a few truly stinky years. They were always good. Outside of those best 7 years, they were still guys you could “stick back there and never worry againâ€.

Are you serious? Barrasso has twice the awards, significantly better save% placements, two Cups and actually a good playoff portfolio, unlike Lundqvist.

Yes, if you look just at his best sv% placements, he has a better sv% portfolio than Lundqvist. But you know what? Those bad seasons happened, too. They count. They don’t just get thrown out because they’re not an “accomplishment†for us to “countâ€. The big picture needs to be reviewed with these goalies.

Lundqvist doesn’t have anything close to a bad season. Though I’d take Barrasso first too, it’s a fallacy to suggest he was a better sv% goalie.

How are these the same?

Lundqvist Vezina record: 1st, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 6th
Lundqvist All Star record: 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 9th, 9th

Miller Vezina: 1st, 7th
Miller AS: 1st , 6th, 8th, 8th

The more modern you get, the more the position evolves, the more the talent level evens out, the more you need to rely on consistency. I know some people hate that word here and rely on peak and prime for everything, but I believe that you have to go substance over flash here...if two out of 15? 20? non-consecutive seasons is enough to be better than 7 out of 7 consecutive seasons of elite-ness, even if the elite-ness varies a bit, I just can't see how those 2 seasons have enough in them to make up the ground...it just doesn't make sense...it's confusing sentiment really...is it designed to bewilder?
.

I agree with you, which is why Joseph’s “10 years as a top-6 goalie†is so important to me. It’s just not possible to be a vezina finalist and conference finalist every single year. In sorting out the best goalies of a generation you really do need to take a step back and stop microanalyzing single seasons. “Counting accomplishments†is not smart. A lot of horrible all-time goalies have more cups or more all-star teams than Curtis Joseph, just to use one extreme example.

 

[MXD]

Go Steve Weeks go!