Why did Brodeur win the Vezina in 03-04?

[nwaZ*]

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/NHL_2004_goalies.html

03-04 looks a bit weird. Luongo posted .931 over 72 games on a pretty bad Panthers team while Brodeur had .917 over 75 games on a far superior Devils team. Is it the GAA? Number of wins?

Click to read more...

 

[MXD]

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/NHL_2004_goalies.html

03-04 looks a bit weird. Luongo posted .931 over 72 games on a pretty bad Panthers team while Brodeur had .917 over 75 games on a far superior Devils team. Is it the GAA? Number of wins?

There is a good way to describe this, and it implies the use of profanities and vulgarity.

 

[Moose Head]

I think the belief was that Brodeur was more valuable to a team because of his ability to better control rebounds and his stickhandling. While Luongo's was saving a lot of shots, he made life tougher for his d-men than Brodeur. GM's saw this and went with Brodeur. Basically the belief was that NJ's low shots against had a lot to do with Brodeur. Luongo's high shots against had a lot to do with Luongo.

 

[amnesiac]

Wins wins wins...

like baseball, its a dumb stat that the voters put too much weight on.

 

[JimmyChan9191]

I think the belief was that Brodeur was more valuable to a team because of his ability to better control rebounds and his stickhandling. While Luongo's was saving a lot of shots, he made life tougher for his d-men than Brodeur. GM's saw this and went with Brodeur. Basically the belief was that NJ's low shots against had a lot to do with Brodeur. Luongo's high shots against had a lot to do with Luongo.

Isn't Luongo a good puckhandler as well though? Obviously not as good as Brodeur but pretty good in his own right too. There was a very large difference between the save percentage, .931 vs. 9.17.

 

[Moose Head]

Isn't Luongo a good puckhandler as well though? Obviously not as good as Brodeur but pretty good in his own right too. There was a very large difference between the save percentage, .931 vs. 9.17.

I just indicating the perception that might have led to the vote. GM's at that time just loved Brodeur and everything he gave a team, and he's the guy they'd want in net if they had a choice, regardless of what some stats might indicate.

Me, if I had a vote, would have probably given it to Luongo. But I can understand why Brodeur won it.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Isn't Luongo a good puckhandler as well though? Obviously not as good as Brodeur but pretty good in his own right too. There was a very large difference between the save percentage, .931 vs. 9.17.

Absolutely not - Luongo was never a good puckhandler.

It's more than just that though - NHL GMs vote on more than just on-paper stats, and NJ's score keeper was systematically undercounting shots at the time, which would artificially lower his save percentage compared to a goalie playing his home games in an arena with a more liberal definition of what counts as a shot.

All that said, the main reason Luongo didn't win is because his team didn't make the playoffs or really even come that close.

Kiprusoff probably would have won if it hadn't taken Calgary until the middle of the season to give him the starter's job.

 

[Copmuter*]

All that said, the main reason Luongo didn't win is because his team didn't make the playoffs or really even come that close.

That should be irrelevant

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

He was Brodeur.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

That should be irrelevant

But it clearly is extremely relevant.

 

[DisgruntledGoat*]

Absolutely not - Luongo was never a good puckhandler.

It's more than just that though - NHL GMs vote on more than just on-paper stats, and NJ's score keeper was systematically undercounting shots at the time, which would artificially lower his save percentage compared to a goalie playing his home games in an arena with a more liberal definition of what counts as a shot.

All that said, the main reason Luongo didn't win is because his team didn't make the playoffs or really even come that close.

Kiprusoff probably would have won if it hadn't taken Calgary until the middle of the season to give him the starter's job.

Didn't Florida have a reputation for overcounting shots at the time, as well? I remember a joke about about the arena counting shots from warm-up. The thought being was that Florida didn't have much going for them except Luongo's star status so they wanted to play that up.

Be interesting to go back and see if there was a difference between the shot totals Luongo faced at home and on the road.

Regardless, I had no issue with Brodeur winning it then and still don't. Stats don't tell the whole story and Brodeur was pretty cleary was the best around.

 

[nik jr]

Didn't Florida have a reputation for overcounting shots at the time, as well? I remember a joke about about the arena counting shots from warm-up. The thought being was that Florida didn't have much going for them except Luongo's star status so they wanted to play that up.

Be interesting to go back and see if there was a difference between the shot totals Luongo faced at home and on the road.

Regardless, I had no issue with Brodeur winning it then and still don't. Stats don't tell the whole story and Brodeur was pretty cleary was the best around.

luongo's SA and sv% were lower at home.

home: .926 ---- 31.97 SA/game
road: .935 ----- 34.21 SA/game


luongo's GAA was also better on the road (2.28 vs 2.55), but florida's record was much worse.

luongo was 16-16-7 at home, but 9-17-7 on road. florida scored only 79g on road (1.88 goals per game). at home, florida scored 109g (2.60 goals per game)

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/l/luongro01/splits/2004/



i viewed brodeur's wins in '03 and '04 as basically career awards and reputational.

 

[GuineaPig]

i viewed brodeur's wins in '03 and '04 as basically career awards and reputational.

I wouldn't say it was that; rather that the GM's largely valued wins over every other stat when it came to ranking goalie performance.

 

[nik jr]

I wouldn't say it was that; rather that the GM's largely valued wins over every other stat when it came to ranking goalie performance.

i think if that were the reason, other seasons would have very different vezina results. theodore would not have won, turco would not have been 2nd in '03, and kiprusoff and luongo would not have been finalists in '04.


'01
hasek: 3rd in wins; 3rd in sv% (among starters)
cechmanek: 8th in wins; 4th in sv%
brodeur: 1st in wins; 16th in sv%
nabokov: 11th in wins; 9th in sv%
roy: 2nd in wins; 11th in sv%
burke: 14th in wins; 2nd in sv%


'02
theodore: 14th in wins; 1st in sv%
roy: 8th in wins; 2nd in sv%
burke: 6th in wins; 4th in sv%. (cechmanek, 3rd in sv%, played only 46 games.)
nabokov: 3rd in wins, 7th in sv%
brodeur: 2nd in wins
hasek: 1st in wins; 8th in sv%


'03
brodeur: 1st in wins; 13th in sv%
turco: 10th in wins; 1st in sv% (55 games)
belfour: 3rd in wins; 4th in sv%
roy: 4th in wins; 5th in sv%
lalime: 2nd in wins
roloson: 17th in wins; 2nd in sv% (50 games)


'04
brodeur: 1st in wins; 11th in sv%
kiprusoff: 16th in wins; 1st in sv% (only 38 games)
luongo: 14th in wins; 3rd in sv%
turco: 2nd in wins; 15th in sv%
raycroft: 10th in wins; 4th in sv%
nabokov: 8th in wins; 6th in sv%


'06
kiprusoff: 2nd in wins; 2nd in sv%
brodeur: 1st in wins; 10th in sv%
lundqvist: 11th in wins; 3rd in sv%
vokoun: 6th in wins; 4th in sv%
legace: 5th in wins; 6th in sv%
turco: 3rd in wins
hasek: 18th in wins; 1st in sv% (only 43 games)



there must be some GMs who weigh wins heavily, but sv% looks like a better predictor.

big outlier is brodeur, but he had already won 2 cups, which is huge for a goalie's reputation, and been a vezina finalist several other times. accumulation of reputation seems to be important to voters for vezina, norris and selke.

 

[Big Phil]

i viewed brodeur's wins in '03 and '04 as basically career awards and reputational.

I really don't understand how people come to this conclusion. Roy retired in 2003, Hasek wasn't the same anymore. If Brodeur isn't the most reliable and best goalie in the game in these years, who is? Think about it, you are a GM, you can pick any goalie in the NHL on your team in 2003 or 2004. Who is it? Don't answer that, because the World Cup in 2004 did a lot of that for you. Canada picked Brodeur in 2004 to start over Luongo. Luongo does get into that semi final game where he plays weak but comes through in overtime against the Czechs. However, in the final Brodeur was healthy enough and they went back to him. As a Canadian, I always felt safer when he was in net then.

And I think wins count for a decent portion of things as well. We do know that Brodeur would win a lot of games. It is interesting to wonder just how many wins the Devils get over the years if Brodeur isn't there for 70 games a year.

I will say this, from 2002-'08 he was the best goalie in the game. Can we agree? So I'll go further than just 2003 and 2004.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Because they knew he was gonna be a Canuck in a few years, and the league hates the Canucks.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I really don't understand how people come to this conclusion. Roy retired in 2003, Hasek wasn't the same anymore. If Brodeur isn't the most reliable and best goalie in the game in these years, who is? Think about it, you are a GM, you can pick any goalie in the NHL on your team in 2003 or 2004. Who is it? Don't answer that, because the World Cup in 2004 did a lot of that for you. Canada picked Brodeur in 2004 to start over Luongo. Luongo does get into that semi final game where he plays weak but comes through in overtime against the Czechs. However, in the final Brodeur was healthy enough and they went back to him. As a Canadian, I always felt safer when he was in net then.

And I think wins count for a decent portion of things as well. We do know that Brodeur would win a lot of games. It is interesting to wonder just how many wins the Devils get over the years if Brodeur isn't there for 70 games a year.

I will say this, from 2002-'08 he was the best goalie in the game. Can we agree? So I'll go further than just 2003 and 2004.

The Vezina trophy is suppose to go to the best goalie in that particular season, not from a particular bunch of years or by who a GM would like as his own goalie.

 

[billybudd]

Didn't Florida have a reputation for overcounting shots at the time, as well? I remember a joke about about the arena counting shots from warm-up. The thought being was that Florida didn't have much going for them except Luongo's star status so they wanted to play that up.

Be interesting to go back and see if there was a difference between the shot totals Luongo faced at home and on the road.

Regardless, I had no issue with Brodeur winning it then and still don't. Stats don't tell the whole story and Brodeur was pretty cleary was the best around.

Florida had a reputation for overcounting hits at around that time. There was one year where someone only moderately physical lead the NHL in hits by an unfathomable margin, driven by like a 3-1 discrepancy in hits per game between home and away. Panther D...Svehla maybe? Whoever it was, it was so bad that the NHL discontinued the stat for half a decade.

It's possible they overcounted shots, too, but I've only ever seen that said about Nashville.

 

[Sadekuuro]

The Vezina trophy is suppose to go to the best goalie in that particular season, not from a particular bunch of years or by who a GM would like as his own goalie.

Kipper was the best goalie in '04, but he didn't play enough.

 

[canuckster19]

Isn't Luongo a good puckhandler as well though? Obviously not as good as Brodeur but pretty good in his own right too. There was a very large difference between the save percentage, .931 vs. 9.17.

I'm sorry, I'll always have fond memories of Luongo's time in Vancouver but...

 

[nik jr]

I really don't understand how people come to this conclusion. Roy retired in 2003, Hasek wasn't the same anymore. If Brodeur isn't the most reliable and best goalie in the game in these years, who is? Think about it, you are a GM, you can pick any goalie in the NHL on your team in 2003 or 2004. Who is it? Don't answer that, because the World Cup in 2004 did a lot of that for you. Canada picked Brodeur in 2004 to start over Luongo. Luongo does get into that semi final game where he plays weak but comes through in overtime against the Czechs. However, in the final Brodeur was healthy enough and they went back to him. As a Canadian, I always felt safer when he was in net then.

And I think wins count for a decent portion of things as well. We do know that Brodeur would win a lot of games. It is interesting to wonder just how many wins the Devils get over the years if Brodeur isn't there for 70 games a year.

I will say this, from 2002-'08 he was the best goalie in the game. Can we agree? So I'll go further than just 2003 and 2004.

that is pretty much exactly the mentality i was talking about.

i think luongo was better than brodeur from '02-'08. i think he probably should have won vezina in '04 and '07. kiprusoff probably would have won in '04 if he had played a full season, though.

i probably would have voted belfour in '03, kiprusoff in '06 and brodeur in '08.




i decided to look at other split stats, and several of these others had higher SA and sv% on the road. that does not necessarily mean shots were undercounted, though.


'03 belfour at home: .919 ----- 29.06 SA/game
'03 belfour on road: .926 ----- 29.57 SA/game

'04 belfour at home: .914 ----- 25.45 SA/game
'04 belfour on road: .925 ----- 24.73 SA/game



'03 luongo at home: .907 ----- 28.97 SA/game
'03 luongo on road: .928 ------ 32.85 SA/game

'04 luongo at home: .926 ---- 31.97 SA/game
'04 luongo on road: .935 ----- 34.21 SA/game

'06 luongo at home: .920 ----- 31.87 SA/game
'06 luongo on road: .909 ------ 34.51 SA/game

'07 luongo at home: .916 ----- 25.39 SA/game
'07 luongo on road: .927 ------ 27.34 SA/game

'08 luongo at home: .919 ----- 25.26 SA/game
'08 luongo on road: .916 ------ 30.71 SA/game



there's a huge difference for '06 kiprusoff.

home: 29-6-4, .940 sv%, 1.57 GAA, 9 SO ---- 26.00 SA/game
road: 13-14-7, .904 sv%, 2.64 GAA, 1 SO ---- 26.77 SA/game

Kipper was the best goalie in '04, but he didn't play enough.

that is why calgary's appearance in the finals is not as amazing as it seems based on their seeding. when kiprusoff started, calgary's record was about as good as any team's.

 

[Big Phil]

The Vezina trophy is suppose to go to the best goalie in that particular season, not from a particular bunch of years or by who a GM would like as his own goalie.

I would say Brodeur qualified for both. You can have better stats and still not be a better goalie. It is the big picture.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I would say Brodeur qualified for both. You can have better stats and still not be a better goalie. It is the big picture.

So your contention is Brodeur was the best goalie despite having the inferior numbers, facing less shots and facing way less quality chances?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

So your contention is Brodeur was the best goalie despite having the inferior numbers, facing less shots and facing way less quality chances?

Not inferior numbers (plural). Inferior save percentage. Superior GAA (and wins).

And of course there was a sense at the time that Brodeur had really big positives that weren't captured by save percentage, while Luongo was the opposite.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Isn't Luongo a good puckhandler as well though? Obviously not as good as Brodeur but pretty good in his own right too.

Absolutely not - Luongo was never a good puckhandler.

oh my, no. luongo was/is a terrible puckhandler. gave us fits every time he left the crease.