Round 2, Vote 9 (HOH Top Goaltenders)

[MXD]

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.

I'm a Habs fan, and I was a Price backer back in the days.

And I'd be the happiest guy if Price was as good as Henrik Lundqvist.

 

[Michael Farkas]

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.

Well, I think we've kind of lacked modern goalies throughout, so the fact that they're showing up at the end here is just statistical, really, right? 6 goalies per year for whatever years vs. 30 goalies a year for whatever years. It's bound to fall the modern way eventually. Do you feel that there's not a fair representation of, say, pre-1980 goalies on the list?

And I respect you, the non-modern goalies, the whole thing. I strive to learn more about them - that's why I'm here and in the ATD stuff and all that. But it's just not readily available in my head, I have to research it. I rely on you to tell me what's what!

 

[seventieslord]

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).

Thanks. I was wondering if anyone had it broken down to ES and PP, just to see if special teams were contributing to this at all.

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.
.

And where are they on the list TDMM posted? The one that takes 7 years into consideration?

1 (one) Vezina

Thank you for clarifying that 1 is one. I thought you meant five!

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

No one said it was 30 spots worth of difference, and the aggregate list indicates very few think anything close to that, either, but the difference is definitely there.

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.

You sure there’s no nostalgia involved in that? Rollins is at best the 7th-best goalie of his generation (born 1924-1931). Lundqvist is most likely the best post-lockout goalie and it’s not like Rollins has a rich, full career to fall back on, either.

 

[MXD]

Rollins?

He's in the Tim Thomas / Dave Kerr mold.

And below both of them.

 

[MadArcand]

No one said it was 30 spots worth of difference, and the aggregate list indicates very few think anything close to that, either, but the difference is definitely there.

Are you insinuating that Ryan Miller, out of all people, made the top-60 aggregate list?

 

[Rob Scuderi]

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

If you just count top 10s he has better (not significantly) placements, but a SV% derivative in GARG slightly favors Lundqvist. He seems to make up ground maintaining his percentages for more games than Barrasso did.

Top 10s
Barrasso: 2 (63 GP '98) 3 (54 GP '84), 4 (63 GP '93), 5 (54 GP '88), 6 (54 GP '85), 10 (48 GP '91)
Lundqvist: 4 (53 GP '06), 4 (62 GP '12), 7 (68 GP '11), 8 (73 GP '10), 10 (70 GP '07)

GARG
Barrasso: 60.2 (63 GP '93), 52.0 (54 GP '88), 47.9 (63 GP '98), 39.2 (48 GP '91), 38.7 (54 GP '84), 36.5 (60 GP in '86), 35.3 (54 GP in '85)
7 Best Seasons = 310.4 (44.343 per season / .784 per game)

Lundqvist: 55.6 (62 GP '12), 53.5 (53 GP '06), 52.4 (73 GP '10), 52.4 (70 GP '07), 49.2 (68 GP in '11), 45.6 (70 GP in '09), 33.2 (72 GP in '08)
7 Best Seasons = 341.9 (48.843 per season / .731 per game)

Joseph lacks the Vezina, but once again beats Lundqvist in save% and in playoff performances and absolutely demolishes him in longetivity.

No question but Joseph is a SV% freak (like Lundqvist)

Lundqvist is in the Ryan Miller category - same awards recognition. Similar save% placements. Miller even has him beat as far as playoff performances go. And neither of them is a top-60 goalie.

Awards was addressed but let's look at SV%.

Miller's Top 10 Placements: 2 (69 GP in 2010), 8 (59 GP in 2009), 10 (48 GP in '06)

GARG: 68.7 (69 GP in 2010), 43.7 (59 GP in 2009), 40.1 (48 GP in 2006), 39.5 (63 GP in 2007), 35.7 (61 GP in 2010), 31.5 (61 GP in 2012), 25.6 (76 GP in 2008)
7 Best Seasons = 284.8 (40.686 per season / .652 per game)

What made you call their numbers similar? It certainly wasn't there top 10s.

Later you talk about stability, but what does it matter when his career has been so short so far? Stability is impressive when it stretches across a long career, sure. But 7 years of 'good to very good' don't make a goalie top-60. It's especially hilarious considering you're a Holy Peak type of guy most of the time.

This started as a point I agree with. I think it's important to consider the bolded when thinking about taking Lundqvist over Beezer for example. At the same time, you downplaying 7 seasons when Giacomin just got voted in seems very strange.

 

[Johnny Engine]

Are you insinuating that Ryan Miller, out of all people, made the top-60 aggregate list?

Memory's fuzzy, but I think he made mine. I keep seeing a similar sentiment coming up, "we're discussing Terry Sawchuk now, I'll go jump off a bridge if some joke like Ed Belfour comes up the next round" sort of thing. It's as if you're surprised that the goalies get worse as this project progresses.

 

[pappyline]

You sure there’s no nostalgia involved in that? Rollins is at best the 7th-best goalie of his generation (born 1924-1931). Lundqvist is most likely the best post-lockout goalie and it’s not like Rollins has a rich, full career to fall back on, either.

LOL, playing the nostalgia card. Favorite tactic when dealing with someone who has actually watched many years of hockey.

Actually Rollins had a rich full career. So what if he played many years in the minors. tough to hold a job in the 6 team NHL.... got beaten out by Glen Hall-no disgrace in that.

Anyway, play the nostalgia card and I counter with the modern bias card. As far as Lundquist goes let see how is career plays out. After he is retired for a few years, we can then think logically about him and determine if he is a top 40 of all time.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

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...

Seriously? We'd have to add 4 more goalies in any given year after 1980, just to equal the representation we have in the late 60s and early 70s.

 

[seventieslord]

Are you insinuating that Ryan Miller, out of all people, made the top-60 aggregate list?

That's confidential as of now... but he did not make mine. After further review I was open to the idea that maybe I underrated him and some modern guys.

LOL, playing the nostalgia card. Favorite tactic when dealing with someone who has actually watched many years of hockey.

Actually Rollins had a rich full career. So what if he played many years in the minors. tough to hold a job in the 6 team NHL.... got beaten out by Glen Hall-no disgrace in that.

Anyway, play the nostalgia card and I counter with the modern bias card. As far as Lundquist goes let see how is career plays out. After he is retired for a few years, we can then think logically about him and determine if he is a top 40 of all time.

Very funny that you play the "modern bias" card when this project has been loaded with anything but modern bias.

So then, yes, 7th-best of a generation born 80 years ago is better than the best of a modern generation? That's your position? Just want to make sure we're all clear on this.

As you yourself mentioned, you remember Rollins' last season. Doesn't sound like you're exactly an expert on him either.

There's no need to wait until Lundqvist retires. He has already been in the NHL a year longer than Rollins was a full-timer. I have the ability to pretend his career is over as of now and I trust the other participants do, too.

 

[pappyline]

Well, I think we've kind of lacked modern goalies throughout, so the fact that they're showing up at the end here is just statistical, really, right? 6 goalies per year for whatever years vs. 30 goalies a year for whatever years. It's bound to fall the modern way eventually. Do you feel that there's not a fair representation of, say, pre-1980 goalies on the list?

And I respect you, the non-modern goalies, the whole thing. I strive to learn more about them - that's why I'm here and in the ATD stuff and all that. But it's just not readily available in my head, I have to research it. I rely on you to tell me what's what!

My comment was general & not directed specifically at you...you just gave me an opening. I respect your opinion and find your posts quite interesting.

I just think it is a little dangerous to push modern & especially still active players for an all time list. You really need some time to digest a players career. I have seen it so many times on these boards. I remember when Messier retired and was being called a slam dunk top 10 guy of all time. Now that some time has passed most people don't think that way anymore.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Rollins?

He's in the Tim Thomas / Dave Kerr mold.

And below both of them.

Agreed. He has 3 (really 2.5 because of injuries in 1951) excellent seasons and 2 more good ones. Sounds like Tim Thomas to me. And Thomas has a Smythe.

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.s.

Really? We'd need to add 4 goalies to any year after 1980 just to EQUAL the support the late 60s/early 70s got.

Memory's fuzzy, but I think he made mine. I keep seeing a similar sentiment coming up, "we're discussing Terry Sawchuk now, I'll go jump off a bridge if some joke like Ed Belfour comes up the next round" sort of thing. It's as if you're surprised that the goalies get worse as this project progresses.

 

[MXD]

Agreed. He has 3 (really 2.5 because of injuries in 1951) excellent seasons and 2 more good ones. Sounds like Tim Thomas to me. And Thomas has a Smythe.

Also, a gripe I have in regards to Rollins is that... Was he really that much superior to his contemporary Gerry McNeil?

(McNeil is nowhere in sight, and frankly, I don't expect him to make a Top-50) Same with Sugar Jim Henry.

 

[MadArcand]

Memory's fuzzy, but I think he made mine. I keep seeing a similar sentiment coming up, "we're discussing Terry Sawchuk now, I'll go jump off a bridge if some joke like Ed Belfour comes up the next round" sort of thing. It's as if you're surprised that the goalies get worse as this project progresses.

Aye, goalies get worse, sure. That's why we have the likes of Richter by now. But Lundqvist or Miller? That's just what-have-you-done-for-me-lately syndrome.

 

[Rob Scuderi]

Aye, goalies get worse, sure. That's why we have the likes of Richter by now. But Lundqvist or Miller? That's just what-have-you-done-for-me-lately syndrome.

Miller's your strawman re:Lundqvist, who's calling for him to be up for voting?

I think it's more of not pretending players who are still playing don't exist.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

For the record, since your post is certainly more about Patrick Roy than Henrik Lundqvist or Roberto Luongo, Patrick Roy's Colorado career was discussed. It was stated that he was a high-prime goaltender with an extra HOF career stapled to the back-end of his career. And no one offered an argument to the contrary.

I'll deal with this one first. Your assumption is wrong, my post was primarily about Henrik Lundqvist and Roberto Luongo and modern goalies being underrepresented on this list, a drum I've been beating for the last two votes. I think Patrick Roy deserves a lot of credit for what he did in Colorado (as you'll recall, I was the guy arguing that Roy was a consistently elite goalie throughout his career), and yet he still did not have outstanding awards recognition. That is the entire point. I'm not trying to revisit the round one discussion, you don't need to defend your guy, you just need to vote for Lundqvist and Luongo.

Lundqvist
4, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 18
Roy
2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 10, 13

In terms of save percentage, Colorado Roy has a clear edge over Lundqvist in terms of consistency and quality, meaning that Lundqvist's award-voting edge probably has less to do with stopping the puck and more to do with playing a high number of games each season and collecting Wins and Shutouts.

Sorry, but there's no clear edge there at all unless you're looking for one. At best there's a slight edge to Roy, and that's without factoring in that four of his seasons came against a 26/27 team league, the goalie pool is deeper now than it was in 1996, and team situations easily make up a few ranks here and there.

Roy in Colorado: .918 vs. .905 league average
Lundqvist, career: .920 vs. .909 league average
Luongo, career: .919 vs. .908 league average

Slight edge to Roy in the raw stats but not much more than that, again regular season only.

But the issue here is that this is the BEST aspect of Lundqvist's career. He does not have a good playoff career. He did not play well en route to his Olympic Gold Medal. 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.

I very clearly stated that I was talking about regular season play only. Nobody is saying Lundqvist was as good as Roy overall, that would be completely ridiculous. Yet I'd still take Lundqvist or Luongo and stack them up against Roy's regular season results in Colorado and argue they are pretty similar. And they don't need to be better than or equal to Roy for this to be a strong argument. We're talking about eight seasons of the #1 goalie of all-time, if you're even close to that it means you're definitely doing something right.

If you're downgrading Lundqvist because you think he's not a playoff goalie or something, I'd disagree but fine, my post wasn't meant for you. But there are voters here (or, one voter at least) saying that Lundqvist isn't worth going in the top 60 because he's never done anything.

The point is that a very good goalie playing at a level far above league average is still not going to win awards every season, unless they are in a very favourable team situation. That was true with Roy, and it's true for active goalies like Lundqvist and Luongo.

Because these things are the ONLY argument for Lundqvist. He is in this discussion because of his Vezina consideration.

That's not correct at all. I'm a stats guy who doesn't much care about awards voting, and I rate Lundqvist pretty highly (very likely to be in my top 4 this round) because of his save percentage results. TDMM rates him highly because of his consistency and dependability, and even guys who rely primarily on the eye test like Mike Farkas rate him high because of his skill (I agree with that evaluation by the way). There are plenty of reasons to like Lundqvist at this point.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

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

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

Jim Carey:
1 (one) Vezina
1 (one) 1st AST

Jose Theodore
1 (one) Vezina
1 (one) 2nd AST
1 (one) Hart Trophy

Curtis Joseph
no Vezinas, ASTs or Harts

There is clearly value in being "among the best in the league," something Lundqvist has been his entire career.

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

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

Since 2005-06:

Henrik Lundqvist: 468 GP, 0.920 save percentage
Rangers backups: 132 GP, 0.900 save percentage

Ryan Miller: 442 GP, 0.916 save percentage
Buffalo backups: 171 GP, 0.903 save percentage

You know whose career results look a lot like Ryan Miller's? Mike Richter, right down to the awesome performance in an international tournament for Team USA and being considered a good, but not great goalie for most of his career.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Aye, goalies get worse, sure. That's why we have the likes of Richter by now. But Lundqvist or Miller? That's just what-have-you-done-for-me-lately syndrome.

In what world is Richter ahead of Lundqvist? I have him behind Lundqvist... way behind. As good as Richter was in the 1996 World Cup, that doesn't outweight Lundqvist's far superior NHL career.

 

[seventieslord]

That's not correct at all. I'm a stats guy who doesn't much care about awards voting, and I rate Lundqvist pretty highly (very likely to be in my top 4 this round) because of his save percentage results. TDMM rates him highly because of his consistency and dependability, and even guys who rely primarily on the eye test like Mike Farkas rate him high because of his skill (I agree with that evaluation by the way). There are plenty of reasons to like Lundqvist at this point.

Well said.

 

[MXD]

Jim Carey:
1 (one) Vezina
1 (one) 1st AST

Jose Theodore
1 (one) Vezina
1 (one) 2nd AST
1 (one) Hart Trophy

Curtis Joseph
no Vezinas, ASTs or Harts

There is clearly value in being "among the best in the league," something Lundqvist has been his entire career.



Since 2005-06:

Henrik Lundqvist: 468 GP, 0.920 save percentage
Rangers backups: 132 GP, 0.900 save percentage

Ryan Miller: 442 GP, 0.916 save percentage
Buffalo backups: 171 GP, 0.903 save percentage

Now I'm done talking about Ryan Miller.

I'd add something to that.

The only thing that's keeping Henrik Lundqvist out of a Top-4 status in that round is that his career "track", for a lack of a better term, is a bit similar to Curtis Joseph (there are differences, but that's not what I want to emphasize here).

Joseph got where he got in our list because he was a consistent goaltender for twice as much seasons than Lundqvist.

 

[MadArcand]

Miller's your strawman re:Lundqvist, who's calling for him to be up for voting?

I think it's more of not pretending players who are still playing don't exist.

Or maybe it's not pretending that players who didn't accomplish anything of note did, and back it up by machinations like yelling '3rd in Vezina voting!' as if it meant anything when it was 7 out of 30 ballots, and then say that Lundqvist wasn't bad in playoffs, when his 2005-06 performance wasn't just bad but absolutely dreadful.

Or making lists of 'Top save% since lockout', then setting the cutoff at 350 GP so that just 12 goalies even make it past that criterium. And then arguing where are the crappy goalies I listed on that list, when in reality they're right there with Lundqvist.

Behold the same list with cutoff at 190 GP:

Thomas .922
Vokoun .921
Rinne .921
Lundqvist .920
Luongo .919
Backstrom .918
Hiller .918
Halak .918
Howard .917
Miller .916
Price .916
Quick .916
Bryzgalov .915
Anderson .915

An era of parity and gaudy numbers for everyone.

 

[Michael Farkas]

In what world is Richter ahead of Lundqvist? I have him behind Lundqvist... way behind. As good as Richter was in the 1996 World Cup, that doesn't outweight Lundqvist's far superior NHL career.

Yeah, it's not remotely close either...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'd add something to that.

The only thing that's keeping Henrik Lundqvist out of a Top-4 status in that round is that his career "track", for a lack of a better term, is a bit similar to Curtis Joseph (there are differences, but that's not what I want to emphasize here).

Joseph got where he got in our list because he was a consistent goaltender for twice as much seasons than Lundqvist.

I think Lundqvist is on pace to have a much better career than Joseph, but he isn't there yet. But I really don't think he should be ranked much behind Joseph.

Joseph Vezina record: 2nd (1999), 3rd (1993), 3rd (2000), 4th (1994), 5th (1997), 8th (2001)
Lundqvist Vezina record: 1st (2012), 3rd (2006), 3rd (2007), 3rd (2008), 4th (2011), 6th (2009), 6th (2010)

Remove the repeats:
Joseph: 2nd, 5th, 8th
Lundqvist: 1st, 3rd, 6th, 6th

Lundqvist already has a significantly better Vezina record than Cujo. Joseph has many more seasons as a "pretty good" goalie, but how far does that get him?

 

[MXD]

Or maybe it's not pretending that players who didn't accomplish anything of note did, and back it up by machinations like yelling '3rd in Vezina voting!' as if it meant anything when it was 7 out of 30 ballots, and then say that Lundqvist wasn't bad in playoffs, when his 2005-06 performance wasn't just bad but absolutely dreadful.

I concur that Lundqvist was terrible in 05-06, but at this point, that's a whopping 5,4% of his career...

 

[MadArcand]

In what world is Richter ahead of Lundqvist? I have him behind Lundqvist... way behind. As good as Richter was in the 1996 World Cup, that doesn't outweight Lundqvist's far superior NHL career.

What's so superior about Lundqvist's career? His top save%s, which are his main selling point, aren't really any better than Richter's. His playoffs are horrendous in comparison. So what is it? The one Vezina?