MadArcand
Whaletarded
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.
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...
Yet he still benefited from the 'Me like wins' votes in both Vezina and AST races repeatedly.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...
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...
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.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:
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.
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.
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.
Even more than that championships are won because a team (including the goaltender) is playing in the zone.
Which goaltenders currently up for voting do you think have consistently shown an ability to adapt during the playoffs?
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.
Raises a rather interesting comparable. Point could be made that Chris Osgood is Alec Connell very lite with longevity but lacking full season performance.
Yet he still benefited from the 'Me like wins' votes in both Vezina and AST races repeatedly.
Vezina: 2nd, 7th, 10th, 11th
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.
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.
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...
His 2nd place was in 95-96.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...
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.
His 2nd place was in 95-96.
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.
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.
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.
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.