Who retired with MORE hardware than they probably deserved?

GuineaPig

Registered User
Jul 11, 2011
2,425
206
Montréal
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?

How have you shown this? You've shown that in individual games for a single goalie that save percentage decreases with fewer shots, but you've not showed that to be true for teams. You've waved it away with "score effects balance out over the season" but I'm not even sure you know what score effects mean.

If teams that allow low number of shots have better team save percentages, you should be able to prove this correlation fairly simple with statistical analysis.
 

SladeWilson23

I keep my promises.
Sponsor
Nov 3, 2014
26,735
3,220
New Jersey
How have you shown this? You've shown that in individual games for a single goalie that save percentage decreases with fewer shots, but you've not showed that to be true for teams. You've waved it away with "score effects balance out over the season" but I'm not even sure you know what score effects mean.

Understand that goalie performance is still a factor here. I don't think you do.

Individual games is the best way to properly show the effects of shot suppression because each individual game is too different and unique from the other games.

Score effects basically refers to the fact teams will outshoot their opposition more when they're trailing.

If teams that allow low number of shots have better team save percentages, you should be able to prove this correlation fairly simple with statistical analysis.

I never said this.

Goalie performance still matters. Goalie quality still matters.
 
Last edited:

Hockey Outsider

Registered User
Jan 16, 2005
9,163
14,490
1st in Games
1st in Wins
1st in shutouts
4th in GAA

If we're simply looking at goalie statistics without context, why did Brodeur deserve the Vezina in 2008? Nabokov had more wins, more shutouts, and a lower GAA, while playing the same number of games. True, Brodeur had a better save percentage, but Nabokov played on a team that allowed significantly fewer shots per game, which apparently put Nabokov at a disadvantage.
 

Hockey Outsider

Registered User
Jan 16, 2005
9,163
14,490
Brodeur has easily had the biggest SV% inflation disadvantage of any goalie.

The issue is this approach looks only at the quantity of the shots, and not the quality of the shots. Let's look at Martin Brodeur and Mike Dunahm in 2004. To be clear, I'm not suggesting Dunham was the better goalie, but the numbers illustrate an interesting point.

Brodeur faced 24.6 shots per game, while Dunham faced 26.7 shots per game. According to your theory, this would suggest that Brodeur was at a disadvantage (or that Dunham had his save percentage inflation).

Let's dig deeper. At even strength, they faced virtually the same numbers (19.9 shots per game for Brodeur, 20.0 shots per game Dunham). However Dunham faced far more shots on the powerplay - 5.6 shots against per game, which was the 3rd highest for goalies appearing in 50+ games. Brodeur faced only 3.9 shots against per game on the powerplay, the 2nd lowest for goalies appearing in 50+ games.

In reality, Dunham's apparent "advantage" was the result of him facing more shots in more difficult situations that Brodeur! They were virtually even at ES, but because Dunham's team was less disciplined and exposed their goalie to more powerplays, Dunham actually played in a more difficult environment - but your shot-counting approach would suggest the opposite.
 

Bloomfield*

Registered User
Feb 15, 2017
728
5
easily Ray Bourque. He couldn't lead his team to anything, so the only way was to get a cup on a superstar stacked AVS.

Lidstrom on the other hand was vital to 4 cups.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,779
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Rebound Saves

The issue is this approach looks only at the quantity of the shots, and not the quality of the shots. Let's look at Martin Brodeur and Mike Dunahm in 2004. To be clear, I'm not suggesting Dunham was the better goalie, but the numbers illustrate an interesting point.

Brodeur faced 24.6 shots per game, while Dunham faced 26.7 shots per game. According to your theory, this would suggest that Brodeur was at a disadvantage (or that Dunham had his save percentage inflation).

Let's dig deeper. At even strength, they faced virtually the same numbers (19.9 shots per game for Brodeur, 20.0 shots per game Dunham). However Dunham faced far more shots on the powerplay - 5.6 shots against per game, which was the 3rd highest for goalies appearing in 50+ games. Brodeur faced only 3.9 shots against per game on the powerplay, the 2nd lowest for goalies appearing in 50+ games.

In reality, Dunham's apparent "advantage" was the result of him facing more shots in more difficult situations that Brodeur! They were virtually even at ES, but because Dunham's team was less disciplined and exposed their goalie to more powerplays, Dunham actually played in a more difficult environment - but your shot-counting approach would suggest the opposite.

Could be something as simple as rebound saves. Poor rebound concreates more rebound, pitter-patter saves on the PP. Brodeuhad excellent rebound and shot control. Dunham, so-so.
 

K Fleur

Sacrifice
Mar 28, 2014
15,411
25,588
easily Ray Bourque. He couldn't lead his team to anything, so the only way was to get a cup on a superstar stacked AVS.

Lidstrom on the other hand was vital to 4 cups.

What hardware did Bourque retire with that he did not deserve? I think if anything Bourque belongs in the inverse thread to this one.
 

SladeWilson23

I keep my promises.
Sponsor
Nov 3, 2014
26,735
3,220
New Jersey
If we're simply looking at goalie statistics without context, why did Brodeur deserve the Vezina in 2008? Nabokov had more wins, more shutouts, and a lower GAA, while playing the same number of games. True, Brodeur had a better save percentage, but Nabokov played on a team that allowed significantly fewer shots per game, which apparently put Nabokov at a disadvantage.

2008 is really the only Vezina I didn't agree with. But in a weird way I felt it was redemption for not winning the Vezina in 97.

But I do believe Nabby's SV% is what hurt him wrongfully.

The issue is this approach looks only at the quantity of the shots, and not the quality of the shots. Let's look at Martin Brodeur and Mike Dunahm in 2004. To be clear, I'm not suggesting Dunham was the better goalie, but the numbers illustrate an interesting point.

The article I posted touches on the subject of shot quality. Goalies will typically face the same number of quality shots per game regardless of how many total shots they face.

Brodeur faced 24.6 shots per game, while Dunham faced 26.7 shots per game. According to your theory, this would suggest that Brodeur was at a disadvantage (or that Dunham had his save percentage inflation).

This is when we can bring in the ability of Brodeur's puckhandling and rebound control.

Let's dig deeper. At even strength, they faced virtually the same numbers (19.9 shots per game for Brodeur, 20.0 shots per game Dunham). However Dunham faced far more shots on the powerplay - 5.6 shots against per game, which was the 3rd highest for goalies appearing in 50+ games. Brodeur faced only 3.9 shots against per game on the powerplay, the 2nd lowest for goalies appearing in 50+ games.

See above.

In reality, Dunham's apparent "advantage" was the result of him facing more shots in more difficult situations that Brodeur! They were virtually even at ES, but because Dunham's team was less disciplined and exposed their goalie to more powerplays, Dunham actually played in a more difficult environment - but your shot-counting approach would suggest the opposite.

Here's the problem, I never said one goalie who averages 24 shots against is automatically gonna have a lower SV% than a goalie who averages 27 shots against. As I told Guinea Pig, goalie quality still counts as does goalie performance.
 

nowhereman

Registered User
Jan 24, 2010
9,280
7,685
Los Angeles
easily Ray Bourque. He couldn't lead his team to anything, so the only way was to get a cup on a superstar stacked AVS.

Lidstrom on the other hand was vital to 4 cups.
Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? If anything, that makes Bourque look even better, considering what he accomplished individually on a good but not great team. And, sorry to burst your bubble, but Lidstrom played on some of the most stacked teams in NHL history. If anything, HE benefited from playing with other great players as much as anyone.
 

GuineaPig

Registered User
Jul 11, 2011
2,425
206
Montréal
2008 is really the only Vezina I didn't agree with.
Here's the problem, I never said one goalie who averages 24 shots against is automatically gonna have a lower SV% than a goalie who averages 27 shots against. As I told Guinea Pig, goalie quality still counts as does goalie performance.

But you're completely ignoring the implications of what you say. If there is a causative element between fewer shots against and goalie save percentages, then on aggregate teams that faced fewer shots would have lower save percentages than teams that allow higher shots (assuming that goalie quality over the league as a whole was roughly evenly distributed; i.e. the low-shot teams weren't hoarding all the great goalies). This should be a trend that is robust and displays itself strongly over time. That at first glance there doesn't seem to be any correlation between team shots allowed and team save percentage is a massive indicator that your hypothesis holds no predictive value.
 

Voight

#winning
Feb 8, 2012
40,705
17,088
Mulberry Street
easily Ray Bourque. He couldn't lead his team to anything, so the only way was to get a cup on a superstar stacked AVS.

Lidstrom on the other hand was vital to 4 cups.

Bourque carried two half-ass Bruins teams to the finals and put up a decent showing against a dynasty team.
 

vadim sharifijanov

Registered User
Oct 10, 2007
28,844
16,334
Bourque carried two half-ass Bruins teams to the finals and put up a decent showing against a dynasty team.

to be more precise, in bourque's peak handful of years, he took his okay bruins teams on deep runs to at least the third round, against the '88 oilers, '90 oilers, '91 penguins, and '92 penguins.
 

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,175
7,315
Regina, SK
to be more precise, in bourque's peak handful of years, he took his okay bruins teams on deep runs to at least the third round, against the '88 oilers, '90 oilers, '91 penguins, and '92 penguins.

Teams that had GF/GA ratios of 0.81, 0.90, 1.06 and 0.95 without him on the ice.

The best Bourque's off-ice ratio was in these four seasons was 1.06. Lidstrom only had a worse team situation once, in 2010 (0.96). His 2nd worst was 1999 (1.09).
 
Last edited:

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,175
7,315
Regina, SK
BTW wouldn't it be easier just to write it as (GA/TOI) x 60?

However you want to write it, it includes the same variables. People can disagree on how team-influenced sv% is, but what should not be open for discussion is whether GAA is more team-influenced or not. OF COURSE IT IS. If you start by taking a goalie's error rate (inverse of sv%), which is somewhat team and somewhat goalie influenced to begin with, and then multiplying it by how heavy their shot load was, you end up with something that's more team-influenced. not less. not the same. more.
 

67 others

Registered User
Jul 30, 2010
2,618
1,724
Moose country
easily Ray Bourque. He couldn't lead his team to anything, so the only way was to get a cup on a superstar stacked AVS.

Lidstrom on the other hand was vital to 4 cups.

Good grief.

Bourque had he started the NHL in Lidstrom's era would hold the record for Norris trophies. Lidstrom played vs either 40 year old versions of great defensemen, or realatively "Meh" competition.

Vital to 4 cups? Nobody disputes that. But also vital for those cups were Yzerman, Fedorov, Shanahan, Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Hasek, not to mention extreme depth. Let's face it, Detroits 2nd line was usually superior to the Bourque Bruins first line and the Detroit 3rd line had Selke winners. Also, remove Lidstrom and Bourque from each Roster and compose a top 6 defense each year. The Bruins have nobody while detroit has depth behind Lidstrom and some of the best coaches of all time.

So complaining Bourque went to a Stacked team is a bit laughable given Detroit was like New york in throwing the big bucks to get all the biggest names, except they did it smart. 2nd highest Payroll in the NHL at the time. Detroit was just as stacked as Colorado.
 

67 others

Registered User
Jul 30, 2010
2,618
1,724
Moose country
Bourque carried two half-ass Bruins teams to the finals and put up a decent showing against a dynasty team.

Not to mention teams tailored their strategy to shut the bruins down around 100% focus on Ray Bourque. Because they could. Almost nobody else on that team could ignite offense or carry the puck into the zone with efficiency, Neely aside.

If team said "hey, let's shut Lidstrom down!", well good luck with that. Lidstrom's play revolved around passing it to any number of hall of fame players and collecting secondary assists. You can curtail Lidstrom, but then you are leaving Yzerman, Fedorov and a dozen other HHOF career players open.

Its not exactly surprising Sakic had a career year once Bourque was sitting back there playing that type of game for him. Sakic largely credits Bourque with that year too. So do the rest of the team.
 

SladeWilson23

I keep my promises.
Sponsor
Nov 3, 2014
26,735
3,220
New Jersey
But you're completely ignoring the implications of what you say.

No I'm not. All I'm saying is that in all cases, goalies have a lower SV% in their lower shot volume games. So playing in a lot of lower shot volume games will have a deflating effect in their overall SV%.

I'm not in any way, shape, or form saying a goalie who faces 25 shots a game is guaranteed to have a lower SV% than a guy who faces 30 shots.

If there is a causative element between fewer shots against and goalie save percentages, then on aggregate teams that faced fewer shots would have lower save percentages than teams that allow higher shots (assuming that goalie quality over the league as a whole was roughly evenly distributed; i.e. the low-shot teams weren't hoarding all the great goalies).

The whole point is to show that there is a distinct disadvantage of a goalie inflating his SV% when he plays on a strong defensive team. That's what I'm saying.

A lot of low shot volume games = SV% deflation
A lot of high shot volume games = SV% inflation

This should be a trend that is robust and displays itself strongly over time. That at first glance there doesn't seem to be any correlation between team shots allowed and team save percentage is a massive indicator that your hypothesis holds no predictive value.

That's because not all goalies are created equal.

However you want to write it, it includes the same variables. People can disagree on how team-influenced sv% is, but what should not be open for discussion is whether GAA is more team-influenced or not. OF COURSE IT IS. If you start by taking a goalie's error rate (inverse of sv%), which is somewhat team and somewhat goalie influenced to begin with, and then multiplying it by how heavy their shot load was, you end up with something that's more team-influenced. not less. not the same. more.

SV% is just as team effected. It's just for different reasons.
 

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,175
7,315
Regina, SK
...yep, gonna have to come to the same conclusion others in this thread have - you started with the conclusion that Brodeur deserved all his Vezinas and worked backwards from there. Too many inconsistencies, as people with more time than I have pointed out.
 

67 others

Registered User
Jul 30, 2010
2,618
1,724
Moose country
Before opening the thread, I felt bad for thinking Lidstrom. But he does have a lot of Norris Trophies...on merit, certainly, but seven?!?! or whatever it is...

I'm also unsure if Crosby was meant to be included on this thread or the "robbed" thread...I can't imagine any rational case for Crosby to deserve less hardware than he has...that sounds like a flimsy hypothesis...
Before opening the thread, I was coming in expecting a lot of arguing between Lidstrom vs Bourque supporters, "goalies on good teams vs Bad teams" supporters, and all the usual arguments.

I was not disappointed. The very first post was basically cheese on a mousetrap with C4.
 

SladeWilson23

I keep my promises.
Sponsor
Nov 3, 2014
26,735
3,220
New Jersey
...yep, gonna have to come to the same conclusion others in this thread have - you started with the conclusion that Brodeur deserved all his Vezinas and worked backwards from there. Too many inconsistencies, as people with more time than I have pointed out.

The inconsistencies come from the fact that Brodeur beat out Luongo, Kipper, and Turco for DIFFERENT reasons.

2003
Turco: Great season, could have won.

2004
Luongo: Good SV%, but bad record and meh GAA.
Kipper: Great SV% and GAA, but not enough games.
Turco: Great season, but just falls short of Brodeur.

2007
Luongo: Great season, but falls just short of Brodeur.

2008
Nabokov: Should have won it, but his SV% hurt him.

So how could I use the same arguments for different goalies?
 

Bloomfield*

Registered User
Feb 15, 2017
728
5
Those who say lidstrom didnt deserve his trophies didnt watch him in the 90s when he lost two norris trophies, one was pure robbery by blake who had no business winning. He also was highly involved turning red wings around.
 

67 others

Registered User
Jul 30, 2010
2,618
1,724
Moose country
Those who say lidstrom didnt deserve his trophies didnt watch him in the 90s when he lost two norris trophies, one was pure robbery by blake who had no business winning. He also was highly involved turning red wings around.

I have been watching since 1980. And support Lidstrom in most arguments. But not against Bourque.

Nobody is ever going to dispute that he was one of the wings most important players.

But every thread of "Yzerman vs Sakic", people chime "They would never have won the cup without Yzerman. The man is amazing and one of the greatest ever".

"Scotty Bowman is the greatest coach and hockey mind of all time."
Babcock is heralded at one of the greatest of this generation.

In every Fedorov vs XXXX thread, "Fedorov's clutch playoff play and Selke caliber two way play was crucial to the cups!"

This is also said about Datsyuk and Zetterberg.

"Shanahan was the missing piece of sandpaper they needed"

"Draper's Selke caliber play gave the wings the depth they needed down the middle. He is better than Lehtonen!"

"Konstantinov was amazing and gave the blueline a solid top 4. If he had not been in that accident, he probably wins a Norris trophie or two"

"Chelios still has it. At age 40 with no PP time, he is runner up for norris and has an argument that he should have won with his incredible 5 on 5 play and PK abilities"

Note that a much younger Chelios was much better at 30 than he was that year.

And yes, everyone says the same about Lidstrom.

You know what is true in those statements? Almost all of it.

At what point are people going to stop pretending like Bourque had an identical situation to Lidstrom that he just could not capitalize on?

So let's not pretend it was a one man show and that Bourque should have done the same thing with a much weaker Boston squad lacking Hockey Hall of famers.

In his early years they had some incredible forwards on the top line, but not the depth on the 2nd lines or at D to beat the Dynasty Isles team.

In his mid-late 80's years, A team routinely having top forward scorers with 70 points in the 80's at a time most contending teams had 120+ point forwards, and players like Ken Linesman on the 2nd line. We could get into how soft Janney was in contrast to how excellent Neely was, but that has been done 100 times.

Instead let's do Neely vs Shanahan in a poll. That one will be close aye?

Ok, moving on to Centers, 1988 style. Since the wings had two #1 C's, I have a hard time pairing these matchups

Yzerman vs Ken the rat Linesman. What? That poll was closed in 5 minutes after going 150 to 2, with the 2 being accident presses? Shucks.

Ok, how about Fedorov vs Steve Kaspar? What? Same thing?

Kaspar and Linseman combined for 144 points as the top 2 scoring bruins forwards. For reference, the 4th and 5th highest scoring members of the Dynasty Oilers group that beat them combined to score 162 points. For further reference, Gretzky and Messier in 19 playoff games each combined for 77 points that year. I am a bit baffled as to how Bourque ended those playoffs at +16 playing 28-30 minutes a night or more.

The Shameful thing is, this is when the bruins were considered to have depth.

Kozlov or Larionov vs Courtnall or Randy Burridge ? That's actually a bit closer. But not really.

Defense.....Konstantinov or, Larry Murphy or 40 year old Norris runner up Chellios against Gord Kluzak, Glen Wesley or, Michal Thelven or Barry pedersen or ready to retire at -135 Reed Larson........

Derp

You are right, I would certainly take a 38 year old Fetisov over half of those guys. Maybe not over Wesley. But Wesley falls well below the others.

Ok. Should I skip Osgood, Vernon or Hasek vs Reggie Lemelin?

Coach O'Reilly vs Bowman or Babcock?
Ugh, better move on to 1990.

Oh this is much better!

Yzerman vs Janney? Closed....
Fedorov vs 46 point in the high scoring era Bob Sweeney? Closed
Shanahan vs Neely is about the same, although Neely was more of a beast here.
Kozlov vs Carpenter is actually close!

Defense has changed a bit! Wesley still there and we know where he stands as a #2 compared to the wings #2-4. And he is joined by......Garry galley? Greg Hawgood? OH a Rookie Don Sweeney. At least he matches well with Fetisov.

Moog! ok, he was a pretty darn good goalie and it is a bit closer there.

Milbury vs Bowman or Babcock.....

Let's move on to the early 90's.......

Ill skip the year the Bruins were beating the Penguins in the series 2-0 and Neely had 16 goals in 16 games before being kneed into ineffectiveness game 3(Which ruined his career) and the whole locker caught the flu during the series. Let's think about how I feel going to work at a regular job with the flu a minute. Now try to talk me into playing a competitive contact sport at the highest level.....

We could of course hold a competitive poll for 2nd line C Ken Hodge vs Fedorov and redo Yzerman vs Janney, but why bother?

Defense also looks much the same.

Milbury vs Babcock or Bowman......

Moving on a little later in the 90's.

OATES! SWEET. Shame this is when the Bruins truly became a 1 line team and they lost the incredible depth of Carpenter/Burridge/Courtnall types.. Terrific top line tho even though Neely was almost always sitting out.

Juneau had a smoking start to his career for 1 year didn't he? Shame his point totals and skills decided to catch the Clap.

I still remember thinking "Wow, they got Iafrate! Some depth at D". If the internet had existed then as it does today, its likely the Bruins never trade for him knowing his career was done and his knees were shot. The whole 12 games he played for them.

That kind of concludes the years the Bruins were competitive.

Its tempting to do some Ted Donato, Josef Stumpel and Jason Allison vs Datsyuk and Zetterberg to illustrate the later parts of careers for comparison or play musical goalies with Jim Carey, Jon Casey, Blaine Lacher, Robbie Tallas or Byron Dafoe (or even the skeleton of Bill Ranford)

In fact, I am pretty sure Datsyuk and Zetterberg clean up nicely vs Linesman, Janney, Kaspar and Hodge too.

:popcorn:

Instead of transplanting the whole team, Just pretend you are replacing the Centers(Yzerman/Fedorov/Datsyuk/Zetterberg with Janney, Hodge, Kaspar, Linesman etc) and tell me how confident you are going head to head with the 80's Oilers.

Yeah, those situations are nothing alike.
 

Hockey Outsider

Registered User
Jan 16, 2005
9,163
14,490
2008 is really the only Vezina I didn't agree with. But in a weird way I felt it was redemption for not winning the Vezina in 97

Agreed that Brodeur was phenomenal in 1997. I thought it was his best season, but he had the misfortune of competing against prime Hasek.

The article I posted touches on the subject of shot quality. Goalies will typically face the same number of quality shots per game regardless of how many total shots they face.

I don't recall seeing that article, but I'll read it if you (or someone else) can direct me to it.

I'm open to seeing the evidence, but for now I'm skeptical. That would suggest there's a "fixed" number of quality shots/opportunities per game. That's contrary to all of my experience playing and watching hockey. I might be wrong, but I'd want to see the evidence.

This is when we can bring in the ability of Brodeur's puckhandling and rebound control.

I looked at his four Vezina winning seasons and Brodeur faced essentially the same number of shots per minute as his backups did (25.2 per 60 minutes vs 24.1). I agree that Brodeur was a great puckhandler, but I think its impact on shots against is greatly overstated. If Brodeur's puckhandling significantly reduced his shots faced, presumably he would face fewer shots per hour than his generally mediocre backups, who played behind the same defense.

Here's the problem, I never said one goalie who averages 24 shots against is automatically gonna have a lower SV% than a goalie who averages 27 shots against. As I told Guinea Pig, goalie quality still counts as does goalie performance.

Almost every time Brodeur is compared to another goalie, you say that he's at a disadvantage, as facing fewer shots deflates his save percentage. If you're not saying it's a disadvantage to face fewer shots, what exactly is your position?
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad