Yeah but facing more shots shorthanded improves your save-percentage, or something. It was really Brodeur who had it so tough facing such few powerplays.
Who retired with MORE hardware than they probably deserved?
- Thread starter VanIslander
- Start date
Yeah but facing more shots shorthanded improves your save-percentage, or something. It was really Brodeur who had it so tough facing such few powerplays.
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
Haha, we've all been there.
Marty Turco in 2003-04 had a lower GAA than Martin Brodeur, a 37-21-13 record to Brodeur's 38-26-11, faced 30 shots or more just 5 times to Brodeur's 16 times, and was also a fantastic puck-moving goaltender. So I'm wondering if all of the allowances we've seen granted to Brodeur's numbers because of GAA and wins and 30 shot games would extend to Turco's mediocre save percentage that year.
55 games and a .932 isn't enough to win, and 72 games and a .913 isn't even a Vezina nomination. Why then does Brodeur receive two Hart nominations and two Vezinas? It just seems like double standards are applied. I don't think Turco should have won the 2004 Vezina... but I figured Deathstroke would.
Are we talking Kiprusoff or Turco?
This is exactly it. Brodeur never gets credit for his GAA, shutouts, or wins because of his team. Fine. But if you're gonna do that you can't give Luongo the benefit of the doubt for playing on a bad team.
The Vezina is about the goalie who had the best season in any given season. Brodeur easily had the best season of any goalie in 2004.
I'm not punishing Luongo. I'm just eliminating the team effects as a whole and just looking at the raw numbers of the 2004 season. Brodeur had better numbers across the board than any other goalie and got the Vezina because of it.
But it would be wrong to simply fault Brodeur for playing on a well disciplined team.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean here.
If we're simply evaluating the goalie, I agree. But we're not doing that. The Vezina isn't about which goalie was better when his team was shorthanded. It's about the goalie who had the best overall season.
I never said that.
But we can't fault Brodeur for the team he has. Because then it would be putting him at an unfair disadvantage if we're automatically gonna discredit his season due to the team he was on.
Sure. It still doesn't put him above Brodeur that year. All your point does is point out how close goalie numbers can be between multiple goalies. It's very rare one goalie will blow out the rest of the field in regards to numbers.
What would I do?
No, you're eliminating team effects for Brodeur with respect to save percentage but not for Luongo with respect to goals against. I don't see how you don't see this. Or are you actually suggesting that goals against is a pure goalie stat independent of team?
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
Luongo already gets the praise for having a ballooned up save pct.
It's not like Luongo was bad or close to bad...it's that some goalies get a disproportionate amount of praise for having a high save pct and vice versa...when really, save pct. and a $1 gets you the Sunday paper...that's not Deathstroke's point or point of view, but - while not worthless - I don't hold save pct. in any great regard because of how I interpret the number is produced and what it means to the game itself...
It's not like Luongo was bad or close to bad...it's that some goalies get a disproportionate amount of praise for having a high save pct and vice versa...when really, save pct. and a $1 gets you the Sunday paper...that's not Deathstroke's point or point of view, but - while not worthless - I don't hold save pct. in any great regard because of how I interpret the number is produced and what it means to the game itself...
I'm saying both GAA and SV% are both equally affected by the team.
But regards to Luongo, it wasn't his team that inflated his SV%, it was the scorekeepers.
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
But you're not articulating what separates Marty Turco's 2003-04 from Martin Brodeur's. Every critique you are leveling against Kiprusoff and Luongo (low GP and high shot games) does not apply to Turco in 2003-04, and every allowance you make as to why it doesn't matter that Brodeur's save percentage is substantially lower than the league leaders applies to an even greater extent to Turco in 2003-04 (lower GAA than Brodeur, higher win percentage, 72 games, and more than 3x fewer games facing 30 shots).
So why is Brodeur easily the best goaltender in 2003-04? Why aren't you extending your same arguments for Martin Brodeur to the goaltender to whom they apply to a far greater extent, Marty Turco?
Fine let's say it's a wash for SV% and GAA. But for other categories......
Games: Brodeur > Turco
Wins: Brodeur > Turco
SO: Brodeur > Turco
GSAA: Brodeur > Turco
They most certainly didn't inflate it to the lead it was over Brodeur. His road numbers have his shots against at 35.3/60 and his home numbers at 34.6/60 so I'm not sure where the inflation really is anyway. He also had a better save percentage away from home. Even if we take off 2 phantom shots per game from Luongo, he still ends up with a .923 save percentage. Now, this might mean that Luongo loses in the 29 shots and under scenario that year, but he'd still have the lead in the 30 shots and over.
And once again, you can't dismiss the powerplay advantage. Somehow you keep framing it as unfairly punishing Brodeur for a disciplined team, but it's not the case at all. It's putting in in context the same way as you're doing with shots against. It's easier to score on the powerplay. Period. It thus follows that a goalie facing more teams on the powerplay is going to be hurt in both their save percentage and goals against. This is indisputable. If Brodeur played the same minutes shorthanded that Luongo did, his overall save percentage would go down, and his goals against would have gone up. This has just as much of a team influence on their numbers as shots against, so ignoring it makes no sense.
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
So now a 38-26-11 record (87 points in 75 decisions) is so far ahead of a 37-21-13 record (87 points in 71 decisions) that you're going to completely abandon the statistic that has been the most prominent part of your deconstruction of save percentage - the number of >30 shot games in 50 minute games?
30 or More Shots (min. 50:00)
Turco: .937 (5 games)
Brodeur: .925 (16 games)
29 or Less Shots (min. 50:00)
Turco: .915 (65 games)
Brodeur: .917 (59 games)
Also... GSAA? You're going to cite GSAA and not acknowledge that it's derived from Save Percentage and Shots? Luongo's GSAA was 48 while Brodeur's was 10! Like I said, I think this you're using a double standard, because given the arguments you've made for Brodeur being easily better than Luongo, you shouldn't also be thinking he was better than Turco.
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
Before we tie ourselves all up in a knot here, too, let's not forget...this is not a purely stats based award...trying to find a 1:1 correlation (or close) is futile...which can break either way: the voters are faulty, the stats are misleading (for lack of a better term), etc.
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
You say that, Mike, but if this thread is HFBoards' messy break-up with save percentage, it also appears to be HFBoards' ill-fated rebound relationship with save percentage's cousin with less shots. Not too late to save the marriage.
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
It's definitely possible. Need I remind you he averaged 10 more shots faced than Brodeur that season?
Ok now adjust for the undercounting of shots on the Devils side.
I can because this is not what the Vezina is about.
Correct. However we're talking about the Vezina Trophy here which means the entire body of work. Fact still remains Luongo's numbers were noticeably worse than Brodeur's overall.
And while this does suck for Luongo this didn't happen, and Brodeur had better numbers.
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
Let's not bring the kids into this...it's not their fault...
Change of pace: Bunny Larocque has four Vezina Trophies (all shared with others obviously). Not saying he couldn't win one on his own, but four is a lot for any person to have. And he was only a handful of games away from having five.
Never did I say it was significant edge to Brodeur. But 38 wins is still more than 37. 11 shutouts is still more than 9.
To be fair to Turco here, he did lose fewer games than Brodeur, so that brings the needle closer to Turco.
I thought I already said we were calling SV% and GAA a wash? Turco makes up the .04 he's lacking with this fact.
I thought we were just comparing Turco and Brodeur.
And I'm not using a double standard at all because Luongo's only advantage over Brodeur is SV%.
Turco is actually comparable to Brodeur with the all the points you've presented, and I'm showing you why Brodeur still edges him out.
Brodeur beat out Kipper, Turco, and Luongo. But he did it all due to different reasons.
He beats out Kipper because Kipper didn't play enough games.
He beats out Turco because he edges him out in wins, shutouts, and games.
He beats out Luongo because of Luongo's under .500 record and high(er) GAA.
It's impossible to compare all three of those guys to Brodeur all at once. You literally have to do it one at a time.
It's not PURELY a stat based award, but it's still more of a stat based award than the Hart. All the small details that is being brought up like pk time can be brought into the fold when discussing Hart races. However there's really no place for things like in Vezina races. There's more of an intangible aspect for the Hart that gets brought up.
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
Because 38-26-11 (87 points) is better than 37-21-13 (87 points). Got it. But why? It's a worse record according to the NHL's very own tie-breaking procedure.
And why is Turco having the better GAA negated by Brodeur having the better Save Percentage when you've continuously told us that goaltenders with very few 30+ shot games will have worse numbers? You gave us the 25% number, and Brodeur landed around 21%, but Turco was at 7%. He only had 5 total games (.937). Brodeur had 16 (.925). If Turco had 16 of them, wouldn't he have the better GAA and Save Percentage than Martin Brodeur? It's no longer a wash; he'd be outright better than Brodeur in terms of his Win-Loss record, his GAA, and his Save Percentage.
This is where we have to ask: you're not intending to punish Marty Turco because he played for a team that limited his shots against... are you?
I think it's inconsistent that you're not making a big deal about that when it applies to Brodeur's competition instead of Brodeur himself.
In order to present a favorable argument as to why Brodeur "easily had the best season", I believe you would have to do it one at a time - to prevent reasons presented in one argument as to why Brodeur was easily the best from spilling over into another argument and showcasing why Brodeur was not easily the best or even the best at all.
Are you using standings tie breaking scenarios for goalie records?
Because Turco had the worse SV% of the two.
For the record, I never said GAA also improves with more higher shot volume games. In fact I can tell you it doesn't. There are a couple where this is the case. I think Jake Allen is one of them, but for the vast majority the 30+ shot GAA is higher than the <=29 shot GAA.
My whole "how shot volume occurrences affects SV%" theory was never intended to be used as a way to compare goalie to goalie. I want to make this very clear. It was only meant to compare each goalie to himself.
You and Regal don't seem to understand, and comparing each goalie's performance in 30+ shot games and <=29 shot games is actually rather pointless.
The only point was to show how every goalie has a higher cumulative SV% in their higher shot volume games than they do in their lower shot volume games.
No and I never did.
But you can't simply lump Kiprusoff, Luongo, and Turco into one being. You can't take Kipper's GAA, Luongo's SV%, and apply it to Turco's W-L record. It just doesn't work like that.
Brodeur was the best choice for the Vezina because he had the best overall season.
1st in games played
1st in wins
4th in GAA
1st in shutouts
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Interesting Observation
Interesting observation but you did not have to frame the issue the way you did. Shot volume is often a function of giving-up the first goal in a game or even a period in regulation time. Down 1-0 a team tends to or eventually is forced to emphasize offensive hockey so they will give-up more shots.
Issue remaining is the provenance and quality of the shots.
Interesting observation but you did not have to frame the issue the way you did. Shot volume is often a function of giving-up the first goal in a game or even a period in regulation time. Down 1-0 a team tends to or eventually is forced to emphasize offensive hockey so they will give-up more shots.
Issue remaining is the provenance and quality of the shots.
Are you suggesting that this can't easily be due to their team strengths? Keep in mind this isn't the Julien Bruins here. The Panthers weren't allowing shots based on strategy. They were just that bad.
Considering I did it for all 72 games, it's essentially counting both, considering home games would only be affected.
Says who? Vezina is for the best goaltender now, not the one who allowed the fewest goals.
Except for the huge edge in save percentage we're trying to account for here.
It seems you want to turn the Vezina into an award for wins and goals against, and while I agree to some extent with you and Mike Farkas that the timing of goals, limiting goals against, clutch saves to keep a game tied/ahead are important factors that go beyond save percentage, I think these factor in far more when looking at goalies om good teams. Playing with a poor, unstructured defense in front of you if not going to allow any goaltender to put up huge wins and a low goals against. I don't see how Luongo's numbers can be dismissed simply because of how bad his team was. He was better at stopping the puck, and that should count for something, but it sounds like you hold a differing definition of the award. That's fine, but a lot of people are going to disagree with that interpretation, and based on a lot of your reasoning, I've yet to see a real clear argument for what constitutes a Vezina season and "better" numbers. It honestly sounds as if you're starting with a position of "Brodeur deserved his Vezina" and working backwards
Score effects affect SF%, CF%, and FF%, and not shot quantities. You're not going to look at the shot totals and tell which team won just based on the shots.
Score effects and shot quality don't really apply here.
I am not suggesting anything like that at all. FTR, any strategy that allows shots at free will is also bad, but that's an entirely different issue. Tim Thomas definitely "benefited" there.
What about the Devils notoriety for undercounting shots? Did you look into that?
The Vezina is for the goalie who had the best overall season. Brodeur clearly had that.
Which didn't make much of a difference for Luongo considering he still allowed more goals than Brodeur.
Without the wins and GAA, you're not gonna win the Vezina. Those are still important stats to consider for the Vezina.
You're the one dismissing his awful record and mediocre GAA because of the bad team he was on.
It does, but it still doesn't bridge the gap for the bad record and mediocre GAA.
Here's the problem, I'm basing my opinion of the award on how it's been given in the past. The GM's who vote take into account wins, shutouts, and GAA which is something that people like to ignore due to them being "team" stats. Even though it has been proven SV% is equally as team effected as GAA is.
1st in Games
1st in Wins
1st in shutouts
4th in GAA
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
Well gosh golly, I figured I'd use the NHL rule book to determine which was better for a team: going 1-5-0 or having two ties. And wouldn't you know it, it's not the one with five losses in six games.
I guess I could have simply contemplated it for three seconds and come to the same conclusion, but I like to be thorough.
And suddenly, that matters to the person who entered the thread with a declaration of "SV% was heavily deflated from playing on a very good defensive team." Shoe goes on the other foot and instead of comparing Martin Brodeur to a .930+ goaltender, you're asked to compare him to a goaltender with a marginally lower save percentage and:
- A better GAA
- A better win-loss record
- Fewer high shot games to supposedly inflate his save percentage
I'd say more, but this last exchange kind of says it all:
Regal said:
Deathstroke said:
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
I have no idea what you're even saying here.
From the get go, I declared the two SV%'s to be a wash between Brodeur and Turco. I also said the same thing about GAA.
All that happened here is that you misconstrued everything that I said. BTW, I'd appreciate it if you stopped deleting portions of my posts. I don't appreciate you literally taking my sentences out of context.
Which is why Brodeur easily had the better season.
If there's any inconsistency, it's because Turco and Luongo were undeserving of the Vezina for DIFFERENT reasons. All I see is a lot of straw grasping, and you can't seem to accept the fact Brodeur simply had the best season in 2004.
Luongo: Good SV%, but terrible record, mediocre GAA. Not enough to win the Vezina.
Turco: Everything is good. Good win total, good shutout total, great GAA. Just falls short of Brodeur
Kiprusoff: Great SV%, great GAA, but not nearly enough games.
A goalie behind a great shot suppression defense is at a very distinct disadvantage at raising his SV%. I've shown this.
BTW wouldn't it be easier just to write it as (GA/TOI) x 60?
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
-
-
BET ON ONLY ONE HORSE WATCH LIVE - FINGER LAKES RACE 1 - Farmington, NYWagers: 2Staked: $273.00Event closes- Updated: