Who retired with MORE hardware than they probably deserved?

[quoipourquoi]

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.

He scored 12 goals, 14 assists, and 26 points in 15 games following the Ray Bourque trade in 1999-00 too. Having said that, he was already having a good season, and had a really good final 60 or so games the year before in 1998-99. But yeah, Bourque and Sakic: those two clicked.

 

[SladeWilson23]

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

97 was his most dominant season, but I still think of 2007 as his most complete season.

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

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/nhl-goalies-better-with-high-shot-volumes/

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.

It's not fixed, but it's really tight. I believe the number of high quality chances today ranges anywhere between 8 to 13 high danger chances per team per game. Remember, that's among all 30 teams, so any gap team to team is likely to be very small.

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.

It might be overstated, but I do think that 1.1 difference in SA/60 is at least eye opening.

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?

It's not the number of shots itself that is in important. The number of games where the goalie sees either a low amount or high amount of shots is what's important.

I'm saying because Brodeur played in a ton of low shot total games his SV% was deflated as a result. The important factor is the ratio of games between high shot volume and low shot volume games.

Most of the great goalies of this era like Lundqvist, Rask, Price, etc face 30 shots between 40% and 50% of the time. The low end of the spectrum today would be Quick who is at 29%. So Quick is essentially the Brodeur of today.

 

[GuineaPig]

This feels like Tim Thomas arguments all over again.

 

[SladeWilson23]

This feels like Tim Thomas arguments all over again.

What do you mean?

 

[Johnny Engine]

It's not fixed, but it's really tight. I believe the number of high quality chances today ranges anywhere between 8 to 13 high danger chances per team per game. Remember, that's among all 30 teams, so any gap team to team is likely to be very small.

13 high danger chances per game is 62.5% more than 8, which over the course of a season, is a big difference. That's the same as saying teams face anywhere from 21 to 34 shots a game, which nobody would call "really tight".

I have no doubt that the teams that give up fewer chances doesn't correlate exactly to the number of shots they give up, but a team making their goalie face anywhere from 656 to 1066 dangerous chances over the course of an 82 games season isn't a negligible difference.

 

[SladeWilson23]

13 high danger chances per game is 62.5% more than 8, which over the course of a season, is a big difference. That's the same as saying teams face anywhere from 21 to 34 shots a game, which nobody would call "really tight".

Again, that spread out over among all 30 teams. That's a gap of 0.4333 chances per team per game. The 30th and the 1st place team in any category don't play each other in all 82 games.

I have no doubt that the teams that give up fewer chances doesn't correlate exactly to the number of shots they give up, but a team making their goalie face anywhere from 656 to 1066 dangerous chances over the course of an 82 games season isn't a negligible difference.

When you take into account it's the separation between all 30 teams, it is pretty negligible. Also, the number I gave you is the per 60 number not per game so that's my bad. So multiplying by 82 wouldn't really work.

 

[Johnny Engine]

Again, that spread out over among all 30 teams. That's a gap of 0.4333 chances per team per game. The 30th and the 1st place team in any category don't play each other in all 82 games.

When you take into account it's the separation between all 30 teams, it is pretty negligible. Also, the number I gave you is the per 60 number not per game so that's my bad. So multiplying by 82 wouldn't really work.

Hold on, are you saying that range applies to any given game rather than an average for a team? Because if the former, it doesn't pass the smell test at all. I've seen too many games where teams have either dozens of chances, or almost none at all, for that to seem right.
If the latter, then it doesn't matter who the team is playing. A team that gives up 8 chances a game regularly might give up 5 against a poor team or 11 against a good one, but it washes out over the course of a season.

Like I said, percentage associated with the 8 to 13 figure is almost exactly the same as the usual range of shots for (low twenties to mid thirties), and goals against (the low 2s to the mid 3s). Nobody expects the gap between two teams that are right next to each other to be big. Heck, if you take the 83-goal gap between last year's Stars and Devils, and divide that by 30, and then by 82, you get an infinitesimally small number. Nobody would argue that team goal scoring doesn't vary much.

 

[GuineaPig]

See this is why it reminds me of the Tim Thomas arguments. There's a fundamental misunderstanding of some very basic mathematical concepts.

What do you mean? (re: Tim Thomas)

There's a user on this board who argues that Tim Thomas' 2011 playoffs was mediocre. Like, he was a bad goalie during that time (when he had a 0.940 sv pct). The argument is based around the concept that he let in goals at crucial times, and made too many unnecessary saves. So the end conclusion is that Thomas' save percentage is misleadingly good, and he should've stopped less shots and at the same time saved more goals.

Like basic problems with numbers and what they mean here.

 

[Voight]

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.

Bourques Competition - Coffey, Langway, Leetch, Murphy, Stevens, Chelios, MacInnis, Howe, Blake etc

Lidstroms - Pronger, Niedermayer, Zubov, Gonchar, Chara

They did share some of the same competition (Blake, MacInnis, Chelios etc) but the point is Bourque had a lot more high-end competition and still ended up with only two less Norris'.

Shea Weber was robbed of the Norris in 2011 and even arguably 2012 - does that mean when he's 40 we should award him two ?

** lists are the players at their peaks/primes**

 

[Michael Farkas]

Mischaracterizing an argument to construe it as a misunderstanding of basic math concepts is an abhorrent way to cover for the accuser's fundamental misunderstanding of the game itself...

 

[67 others]

Bourques Competition - Coffey, Langway, Leetch, Murphy, Stevens, Chelios, MacInnis, Howe, Blake etc

Lidstroms - Pronger, Niedermayer, Zubov, Gonchar, Chara

They did share some of the same competition (Blake, MacInnis, Chelios etc) but the point is Bourque had a lot more high-end competition and still ended up with only two less Norris'.

Shea Weber was robbed of the Norris in 2011 and even arguably 2012 - does that mean when he's 40 we should award him two ?

** lists are the players at their peaks/primes**

Its easy to look at 40 year old Chelios and 40 year old Bourque being runner up to lidstrom and think...."Yup, its close, but in their primes, no way does Lidstrom win these ones"

The media is so fickle with how they vote for the Norris trophy.

Especially in the 80's

At times, they would simply give it to the highest scorer even if their defense was merely average or less(Coffey, Carlyle), other times, they decided to vote and reward defense only throwback guys like Langway.

I can imagine Lidstrom fans being incensed if Stevens beat Lidstrom for a Norris in the early 2000's, and remember them going ape over how much Green did not deserve consideration the year he came in 2nd to Chara ahead of Lidstrom because he played an offense first Style.


If we want to argue trophies, Bourque should have had MORE trophies(And Lidstrom less. But diluted talent era). And Not just Norris trophies. He lost a Hart to prime Gretzky and basically tied for the Hart with Prime Messier.

The year he had 96 points with +51 and behind Coffey's 126 with +52(Playing with Gretzky) and they both came in 2nd and 3rd to Langway's 33 points and +13. Ray was the best of both worlds there, and in the modern era, would have been a shoe in.

And the list goes on.

But ignoring Lidstrom/Bourque just say this out loud:

Rank these teams going into the stanley cup finals on a scale of 1 to 10 with the player capabilities the year listed:
Team 1 1996-97: Steve Yzerman, Sergei Fedorov, Vlad Konstantinov, Larry Murphy, Mike Vernon
Team 2 1987-88: Ken Linseman, Steve Kaspar, Glen Wesley, Gord Kluzak, Reggie Lemelin
Team 3 2001-02: Steve Yzerman, Sergei Fedorov, Chris Chelios, Matthieu Dandenault, Dominic Hasek
Team 4 1989-90: Craig Janney, Bob Sweeney, Glen Wesley, Garry Galley, Andy Moog
Team 5: 2007-08: Pavel Datsyuk, Henrik Zetterberg, Brian Rafalski, Nick Kronwall, Chris Osgood
Team 6: 1987-88: Wayne Gretzky, Mark Messier, Steve Smith, Kevin Lowe, Grant Fuhr
Team 7: 1989-90: Mark Messier, Jari Kurri, Steve Smith, Kevin Lowe, Bill Ranford

 

[Epsilon]

I don't have the data in front of me to do it, but an interesting way to quantify this question (and the related "less" question) would be to look at normalized voting shares for each trophy then divide it by number of trophies won (or some adjusted form of that).

 

[SladeWilson23]

Hold on, are you saying that range applies to any given game rather than an average for a team? Because if the former, it doesn't pass the smell test at all. I've seen too many games where teams have either dozens of chances, or almost none at all, for that to seem right.
If the latter, then it doesn't matter who the team is playing. A team that gives up 8 chances a game regularly might give up 5 against a poor team or 11 against a good one, but it washes out over the course of a season.

Yes there will be plenty of games where a team badly out plays another. And yes it does wash out over the course of a season.

BOS: 8.94 HDCA/60 (1st)
ARZ: 13.14 HDCA/60 (30th)

PIT: 13.32 HDCF/60 (1st)
COL: 8.47 HDCF/60 (30th)

Also, if you were to look at any team, you'll realize that their HDCF and HDCA per 60 is very close.

Like I said, percentage associated with the 8 to 13 figure is almost exactly the same as the usual range of shots for (low twenties to mid thirties), and goals against (the low 2s to the mid 3s). Nobody expects the gap between two teams that are right next to each other to be big. Heck, if you take the 83-goal gap between last year's Stars and Devils, and divide that by 30, and then by 82, you get an infinitesimally small number. Nobody would argue that team goal scoring doesn't vary much.

Yes but in any given game, the likelihood of the chances and shots being close is pretty high. Goals are a little bit trickier, but the aggregate isn't ultimately what's important anyways.

See this is why it reminds me of the Tim Thomas arguments. There's a fundamental misunderstanding of some very basic mathematical concepts.

You need to fill me in.

There's a user on this board who argues that Tim Thomas' 2011 playoffs was mediocre. Like, he was a bad goalie during that time (when he had a 0.940 sv pct). The argument is based around the concept that he let in goals at crucial times, and made too many unnecessary saves. So the end conclusion is that Thomas' save percentage is misleadingly good, and he should've stopped less shots and at the same time saved more goals.

Like basic problems with numbers and what they mean here.

I'm not actually trying to discredit anyone for facing a ton of shots. The difference between Luongo and Thomas though is that Luongo's GAA was noticeably worse than Thomas's. Thomas should be compared to Hasek, not Luongo.

But what I'm really trying to drive home is the reverse effect. Whether a goalie consistently allows 2 goals on 24 shots or 2 goals on 28 shots, neither goalie should be considered better than the other. Brodeur was the guy allowing 2 goals on 24 shots during the DPE, and it deflated his SV% as a result, just like Quick's SV% is being deflated by the Kings.

SV% is heavily influenced by game by game shot volumes.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

97 was his most dominant season, but I still think of 2007 as his most complete season.

I think Brodeur was a bit better in 1997 than in 2007 (though he was closer to deserving the Vezina in 2007 than in 1997 - thanks Hasek).

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/nhl-goalies-better-with-high-shot-volumes/

It's not fixed, but it's really tight. I believe the number of high quality chances today ranges anywhere between 8 to 13 high danger chances per team per game. Remember, that's among all 30 teams, so any gap team to team is likely to be very small.

Thanks for the link. This data certainly supports your position. I have two issues with it though. First, they only look at games with less than twenty and more than forty shots, which I`d imagine represents around 10% of games these days - it would be interesting to see if there`s a meaningful difference in the shots between, say, a 23- and 33-shot game (which probably represents around the 20th and 80th percentile). Second, it doesn`t take into account the situation (ES vs PP). I think that`s likely the single most important team-based factor impacting save percentage. Despite those flaws, this does support your position.

It's not the number of shots itself that is in important. The number of games where the goalie sees either a low amount or high amount of shots is what's important.

I'm saying because Brodeur played in a ton of low shot total games his SV% was deflated as a result. The important factor is the ratio of games between high shot volume and low shot volume games.

Most of the great goalies of this era like Lundqvist, Rask, Price, etc face 30 shots between 40% and 50% of the time. The low end of the spectrum today would be Quick who is at 29%. So Quick is essentially the Brodeur of today.

Thanks for clarifying. Your position, essentially, is that goalie performance is the biggest determinant of save percentage, but it can be negatively impacted by facing a low number of shots.

That`s why in my first post in the thread I was asking if it`s possible to quantify the relationship. It`s like saying "Gretzky's numbers are overstated because he played in such a high scoring era". That's factually correct, but even after any reasonable adjustment, he'd still be the highest scoring player in NHL history. I`m curious to see how significant an adjustment to Brodeur`s (or Quick's) numbers would actually be.

 

[SladeWilson23]

I think Brodeur was a bit better in 1997 than in 2007 (though he was closer to deserving the Vezina in 2007 than in 1997 - thanks Hasek).

He deserved it both years.

Thanks for the link. This data certainly supports your position. I have two issues with it though. First, they only look at games with less than twenty and more than forty shots, which I`d imagine represents around 10% of games these days - it would be interesting to see if there`s a meaningful difference in the shots between, say, a 23- and 33-shot game (which probably represents around the 20th and 80th percentile).

I think he did that to show how even the two extremes don't show any difference which means any two data points in between would be even closer. But I can't speak for him.

Second, it doesn`t take into account the situation (ES vs PP). I think that`s likely the single most important team-based factor impacting save percentage. Despite those flaws, this does support your position.

This is a fair point.

Thanks for clarifying. Your position, essentially, is that goalie performance is the biggest determinant of save percentage, but it can be negatively impacted by facing a low number of shots.

Yes and no. I'm more trying to emphasize that it can be negatively impacted when playing in a lot of low shot volume games. It's not the raw number of shots at the end of the season that's important. The important thing is the low shot to high shot games ratio.

That`s why in my first post in the thread I was asking if it`s possible to quantify the relationship. It`s like saying "Gretzky's numbers are overstated because he played in such a high scoring era". That's factually correct, but even after any reasonable adjustment, he'd still be the highest scoring player in NHL history. I`m curious to see how significant an adjustment to Brodeur`s (or Quick's) numbers would actually be.

Agreed, and I wouldn't know the first way to go about trying to do it.

 

[Bloomfield*]

Bourques Competition - Coffey, Langway, Leetch, Murphy, Stevens, Chelios, MacInnis, Howe, Blake etc

Lidstroms - Pronger, Niedermayer, Zubov, Gonchar, Chara

They did share some of the same competition (Blake, MacInnis, Chelios etc) but the point is Bourque had a lot more high-end competition and still ended up with only two less Norris'.

Shea Weber was robbed of the Norris in 2011 and even arguably 2012 - does that mean when he's 40 we should award him two ?

** lists are the players at their peaks/primes**

Lidstrom was robbed of hart trophy a couple of times. If anything, he should had more hardware. That's how important he was. Look at the red wings after he retired. They went from a contender every year to a regular playoff team with no chance at the cup.


Lidstrom is also known for shutting down 1997 super prime beast Lindros in the cup finals. Probably the hardest task of them all, and Lindros was frustrated like hell.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Mickey Redmond has single-handedly mutated an entire generation-and-a-half of Michiganders into...whew...*whistles*

 

[Neutrinos]

Lidstrom was robbed of hart trophy a couple of times. If anything, he should had more hardware. That's how important he was. Look at the red wings after he retired. They went from a contender every year to a regular playoff team with no chance at the cup.


Lidstrom is also known for shutting down 1997 super prime beast Lindros in the cup finals. Probably the hardest task of them all, and Lindros was frustrated like hell.

"Robbed" would suggest that Lidstrom was the clear favorite for the Hart trophy

What years would those have been?

 

[Michael Farkas]

1997-2011

 

[GuineaPig]

I don't know if he should've won any, but I'd argue he should've certainly been a finalist in at least 2002-03 and 2007-08.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Lidstrom is also known for shutting down 1997 super prime beast Lindros in the cup finals. Probably the hardest task of them all, and Lindros was frustrated like hell.

An historically exaggerated role yes.
Vlad did his part when up against Lindros as well that year but the MAIN crux of the actual shutting down came from Bowman's formation of 2 dedicated lines of forwards who's only job was to hound Lindros from behind with constant back pressure.

Not trying to take anything away from the job Lidstrom did but I'm not going to exaggerate it either. He had a lot of help, a hell of a lot.

 

[67 others]

Lidstrom was robbed of hart trophy a couple of times. If anything, he should had more hardware. That's how important he was. Look at the red wings after he retired. They went from a contender every year to a regular playoff team with no chance at the cup.


Lidstrom is also known for shutting down 1997 super prime beast Lindros in the cup finals. Probably the hardest task of them all, and Lindros was frustrated like hell.

There are exactly 0 years you can make a case for Lidstrom winning the Hart trophy.

Bourque has several years he legitimately could have won the thing.

I love the line about the wings suddenly being a "regular" playoff team without him. Let's be real. They were a regular playoff team 3 years before he retired.

2009-10: 102 points, lost in the 1st round 4-1 to the Sharks
2010-11: 104 points, lost in the 2nd round in 4-3 to the Sharks
2011-12: 102 points, lost in the 1st round 4-1 to the Predators

He retires:

2012-13: Lockout short season. 56 points in 48 games. Lost in 2nd round after taking the Dynasty Hawks to 7 games.
2013-14: Lost Datsyuk and Zetterberg for almost half the season each, still put up 93 points. Lost 4-1 to the Bruins
2014-15: 100 point season. Lost 4-3 to the Bolts
2015-16: Babcock leaves. Still have 93 point season. Datsyuk and Zetterberg showing their age.
2016-17: Datsyuk leaves wings to go to Russia, Detroit is suddenly the worst team in the Atlantic division and 4th worst in the NHL.

Hmmm. I see no correlation between Lidstrom leaving and the sky falling here. Datsyuk on the other hand......

 

[MXD]

.

(...)

Lidstrom is also known for shutting down 1997 super prime beast Lindros in the cup finals. Probably the hardest task of them all, and Lindros was frustrated like hell.

Which is.... entirely irrelevant for Norris and Hart award purposes. I mean, I never saw anyone suggest that Patrick Roy should've won the Vezina and the Hart in 1993 because of his playoffs heroics.

 

[MXD]

This said, if you want to argue that Lidstrom should've gotten the Connie Smythe that year (instead of his teammate Vernon, or even ahead of Sergei Fedorov who is more frequentely referred to as the guy who was actually robbed that year), be my guest, but I just can't remember a Connie Smythe winner having such pedestrian numbers.

 

[The Panther]

This said, if you want to argue that Lidstrom should've gotten the Connie Smythe that year (instead of his teammate Vernon, or even ahead of Sergei Fedorov who is more frequentely referred to as the guy who was actually robbed that year), be my guest, but I just can't remember a Connie Smythe winner having such pedestrian numbers.

Are you getting confused with Connie Francis, chanteuse?