Why is Martin Brodeur not considered a top 10 player of all time?

[KingBran]

Yes, here's what you said: "Just because someone can explain how great he was doesn't make it any less valid in my opinion."

Your opinion is wrong, because context matters.

Anyone who doesn't want to consider context either (1) doesn't understand the context, or (2) has a horse in the race.

That's your opinion.

I understand the context just fine. However I put more stock in the actual performance and accomplishment than playing "Well if this didn't happen" or "If he wasn't on this team"

You know, speculating things that didn't actually happen but pretending IF they did how things would be different.

Yeah I must be crazy thinking the actual facts can get in the way of speculation on context.

 

[Doctor No]

Yep, and that's the usual response from people who don't want to consider context. Thanks for playing your part.

By the way, no one's suggesting that people "pretend what would happen if things were different". Context still matters regardless.

 

[Doctor No]

And I never suggested that you didn't understand the context - I said that you either didn't understand the context, or that you had a horse in the race.

 

[KingBran]

Yep, and that's the usual response from people who don't want to consider context. Thanks for playing your part.

By the way, no one's suggesting that people "pretend what would happen if things were different". Context still matters regardless.

Hey whatever you have to say to make yourself feel good about believing "well he only did this because of that" as no sort of accomplishment. Hooray for you. Brodeur actually did those things, won those medals and trophies and made those stats. Regardless of how you want to explain how it happened.

Do you think Roy wasn't as good as his numbers either because he played on teams full of HOF'ers too?

You know... context. Roy probably wasn't that great either right? I mean I could have been goalie on the 2001 Avalanche and won a cup right? Because... context.

 

[Doctor No]

Do you think Roy wasn't as good as his numbers either because he played on teams full of HOF'ers too?

Yes. Yes, I do.

Was that the answer you were hoping for?

For what it's worth, there's a fair distance between saying "context matters" (which is what I did say) and saying that Brodeur "wasn't that great" (which is what you want to believe that I said).

 

[KingBran]

Yes. Yes, I do.

Was that the answer you were hoping for?

For what it's worth, there's a fair distance between saying "context matters" (which is what I did say) and saying that Brodeur "wasn't that great" (which is what you want to believe that I said).

I never said or thought that you didn't think he was great. But it was obvious you think less of Broduer because of the teams he played on. I wanted to see if you thought the same of Roy or had some sort of weird agenda against Brodeur because lots of Roy fans feel like you do. However they think the context matters for Brodeur but not Roy. I am sure it goes both ways but I see it more from the Roy fans because his numbers were a bit below Brodeur's.

All that said, I admire your honesty and being consistent in your believe of context. We differ in opinions on what matters. I am a results guy when it comes to these things, you weigh context much more heavily. Just two different views is all.

 

[Doctor No]

To clear things up, I entirely believe that Martin Brodeur was one of the best of the best goaltenders. I don't "think less of Brodeur" because of the teams that he played on.

However, I think that any reasonable person would agree that if you gave Stephane Fiset Brodeur's opportunities (and vice versa), Fiset's career would look better and Brodeur's career would look worse.

Or Ken Dryden and Gilles Meloche.

Or yes, Patrick Roy and Craig Billington.

Because context matters. Would Fiset have Brodeur's exact career (and Brodeur have Fiset's exact career) if they were swapped? No, absolutely not. But would it have zero impact? Again, no.

Context is the fun part, too, because if we could definitively rank the best players in hockey history with a copy of Total Hockey and a calculator, then what would the point be? (It's somewhat ironic that people denigrate so-called "advanced" stats because you "can't use numbers, and have to watch the game" to rank players, but still use their chosen numbers to defend their case. Not you specifically.)

I'm a student of goaltending history, and I'm a fan of Brodeur's. I'm a fan of Fiset's. Roy's. Meloche's. You'd probably find it weird to watch a game in the same room as me, because I usually root for both goalies. With that said, I'm sure that I have biases. We all do. This sort of thing is difficult, and people aren't going to agree. But that's okay - this is a discussion forum, and discussions make it interesting.

Context matters.

 

[Pantokrator]

I used to hate the credit Brodeur got because his numbers were so good and yet he played for a defensive juggernaut. I remember one game (I think vs. Vancouver) where he faces 8 shots in the entire GAME!

At the same time, Luongo was facing 40 and 50 shots for Florida. I used to think he got the shaft because his team defense was terrible and I thought how good Luongo's numbers would be if he played for that Devil's team.

Then Luongo got traded to a team with better defense and his save % didn't get significantly better.

It made me realize that it is not easy for a goalie to face 8 shots in a game. Brodeur did the most with the situation given to him, and no one can fault that. It is no different than Ken Dryden.

On top of that, Brodeur was consistent. I think that was his biggest and most underrated strength. He stayed healthy and was consistently good enough for his team to win cups.

 

[Doctor No]

One of the problems with internet discussions in general is that it's become so polarizing, and there's no room for middle ground. Everyone accuses everyone else of having ulterior motives, and everyone has to get further and further out on their limb of the tree. Same problem with politics lately, but let's not go there.

I'm attempting to stay near the trunk of the tree, even if people won't let me do that.

I don't have a horse in the race. From my time here, I could show you ten PMs that call me a "Brodeur homer", and ten PMs that call me a "Brodeur hater" (honest truth).

 

[Doctor No]

I remember one game (I think vs. Vancouver) where he faces 8 shots in the entire GAME!

Good memory. 2-1 win at Vancouver (and Mike Fountain), December 18, 1996.

He also faced six shots in a complete game once (a playoff game, no less).

Trivia time - what's the greatest number of shots faced by Martin Brodeur in an NHL game? Hint: it was a regular season game, and it went to a shootout (I'm not counting the shootout attempts in the total).

 

[KingBran]

To clear things up, I entirely believe that Martin Brodeur was one of the best of the best goaltenders. I don't "think less of Brodeur" because of the teams that he played on.

However, I think that any reasonable person would agree that if you gave Stephane Fiset Brodeur's opportunities (and vice versa), Fiset's career would look better and Brodeur's career would look worse.

Or Ken Dryden and Gilles Meloche.

Or yes, Patrick Roy and Craig Billington.

Because context matters. Would Fiset have Brodeur's exact career (and Brodeur have Fiset's exact career) if they were swapped? No, absolutely not. But would it have zero impact? Again, no.

Context is the fun part, too, because if we could definitively rank the best players in hockey history with a copy of Total Hockey and a calculator, then what would the point be? (It's somewhat ironic that people denigrate so-called "advanced" stats because you "can't use numbers, and have to watch the game" to rank players, but still use their chosen numbers to defend their case. Not you specifically.)

I'm a student of goaltending history, and I'm a fan of Brodeur's. I'm a fan of Fiset's. Roy's. Meloche's. You'd probably find it weird to watch a game in the same room as me, because I usually root for both goalies. With that said, I'm sure that I have biases. We all do. This sort of thing is difficult, and people aren't going to agree. But that's okay - this is a discussion forum, and discussions make it interesting.

Context matters.

And just like I said in the other examples... If this happened instead of that maybe a different team wins the Stanley cup in a certain year or a certain player doesn't score a clinching goal to put a team in the playoffs or this or that... If this happened then blah, if that happened then blah....

 

[Doctor No]

And just like I said in the other examples... If this happened instead of that maybe a different team wins the Stanley cup in a certain year or a certain player doesn't score a clinching goal to put a team in the playoffs or this or that... If this happened then blah, if that happened then blah....

Yes, I agree. Except for the "blah blahs".

 

[Datsyukian Deke]

I would say because the others don't involve a sister-in law, but that wouldn't be fair...

 

[Pantokrator]

Good memory. 2-1 win at Vancouver (and Mike Fountain), December 18, 1996.

He also faced six shots in a complete game once (a playoff game, no less).

Trivia time - what's the greatest number of shots faced by Martin Brodeur in an NHL game? Hint: it was a regular season game, and it went to a shootout (I'm not counting the shootout attempts in the total).

I'm going to guess 42 shots is the most he ever faced.

 

[seventieslord]

To clear things up, I entirely believe that Martin Brodeur was one of the best of the best goaltenders. I don't "think less of Brodeur" because of the teams that he played on.

However, I think that any reasonable person would agree that if you gave Stephane Fiset Brodeur's opportunities (and vice versa), Fiset's career would look better and Brodeur's career would look worse.

Or Ken Dryden and Gilles Meloche.

Or yes, Patrick Roy and Craig Billington.

Because context matters. Would Fiset have Brodeur's exact career (and Brodeur have Fiset's exact career) if they were swapped? No, absolutely not. But would it have zero impact? Again, no.

Context is the fun part, too, because if we could definitively rank the best players in hockey history with a copy of Total Hockey and a calculator, then what would the point be? (It's somewhat ironic that people denigrate so-called "advanced" stats because you "can't use numbers, and have to watch the game" to rank players, but still use their chosen numbers to defend their case. Not you specifically.)

I'm a student of goaltending history, and I'm a fan of Brodeur's. I'm a fan of Fiset's. Roy's. Meloche's. You'd probably find it weird to watch a game in the same room as me, because I usually root for both goalies. With that said, I'm sure that I have biases. We all do. This sort of thing is difficult, and people aren't going to agree. But that's okay - this is a discussion forum, and discussions make it interesting.

Context matters.

This is a really simply stated, yet very important post. You're good at those.

And thanks for saving me from all the back and forth with Blueton. I didn't want or need that.

Full disclosure - I think Brodeur is, at worst, the 6th greatest goalie of all-time.

Brodeur did the most with the situation given to him, and no one can fault that. It is no different than Ken Dryden.

It's not like Ken Dryden, or like Roy. Dryden had a highly advantageous team situation and he responded by being voted/considered/named the top goalie in the league six times and posting the kinds of personal numbers you'd expect from a guy who was awesome to begin with, and also had those advantages: top-3 in sv% 6 times (1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3)

Roy's team situation was similar to Brodeur's - not in style, but in terms of the quality he was surrounded with - and he took those advantages and he turned it into a career where he was top-5 in the league in sv% as often as he wasn't (1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5) - not to mention three Conn Smythes.

I'm not saying Dryden is better all-time than Brodeur, either - a full 15 years of being, at worst, the 7th best goalie in the league, half the time top-3, carries more value with a longevity guy like me, compared to being most likely a top-2 goalie for 6 of 8 full seasons. But at their respective peaks, I don't compare Brodeur's situation and results to Dryden's at all. Dryden transcended his advantages and posted results so strong no one could question him. Brodeur didn't always do that, and that's why some question him to this day.

 

[Killion]

I used to hate the credit Brodeur got because his numbers were so good and yet he played for a defensive juggernaut. I remember one game (I think vs. Vancouver) where he faces 8 shots in the entire GAME!

At the same time, Luongo was facing 40 and 50 shots for Florida. I used to think he got the shaft because his team defense was terrible and I thought how good Luongo's numbers would be if he played for that Devil's team.

Then Luongo got traded to a team with better defense and his save % didn't get significantly better.

It made me realize that it is not easy for a goalie to face 8 shots in a game. Brodeur did the most with the situation given to him, and no one can fault that. It is no different than Ken Dryden.

On top of that, Brodeur was consistent. I think that was his biggest and most underrated strength. He stayed healthy and was consistently good enough for his team to win cups.

Alternately, did you ever consider just how spectacular Brodeur could and absolutely would have appeared if the roles were reversed & he switched sides with Luongo? He was that good. Full toolbox. The other thing to consider & study is why was it that he only faced 8 shots? How many dump-in's, mis-passes etc did Brodeur go out & aggressively corral, playing the puck himself negating any opportunities in handing over puck possession to the other team? And how many shots "didnt count" because he had the angle nailed forcing the shooter to shoot wide? As far as Im concerned those are "saves" as is being pro-active in playing the puck. Stopping things before they can ever get started. Critical thought. Absolutely key & something Brodeur had in spades and I mean beyond a Luongo or even Roy who's actions & reactions at times were either just plain stupid or showboat.... So no, while its "not easy" to face low shot counts the shot counts dont tell the whole story. Low shot counts, your talking a fully integrated team from the crease out coming & going, the goalie a key piece, built from crease out. Communication, transition, brick wall, just dont let anything get started. Leafs played that way under Imlach & I dont think anyone thought Bower or Sawchuk were any less the goalies than Glenn Hall or Gump Worsley, Eddie Johnston in Boston who faced a shooting gallery every game but who despite his heroics generally drew the short straw.

I'm going to guess 42 shots is the most he ever faced.

If thats correct, 42, 62, 31 or 17 it doesnt really matter. Did the Devils win? Get the 'W' despite the total team breakdown? Goals are a series of mistakes. It just so happens the goalie makes the last one. Brodeur however as you mentioned, extremely consistent and as went his game so went the Devils. He was key, critical. On-ice Conductor. Calming influence. Leader.

 

[Doctor No]

Correct answer is 51 shots faced! And Brodeur stopped them all (plus four of four shootout attempts).

January 12, 2010.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Context

Alternately, did you ever consider just how spectacular Brodeur could and absolutely would have appeared if the roles were reversed & he switched sides with Luongo? He was that good. Full toolbox. The other thing to consider & study is why was it that he only faced 8 shots? How many dump-in's, mis-passes etc did Brodeur go out & aggressively corral, playing the puck himself negating any opportunities in handing over puck possession to the other team? And how many shots "didnt count" because he had the angle nailed forcing the shooter to shoot wide? As far as Im concerned those are "saves" as is being pro-active in playing the puck. Stopping things before they can ever get started. Critical thought. Absolutely key & something Brodeur had in spades and I mean beyond a Luongo or even Roy who's actions & reactions at times were either just plain stupid or showboat.... So no, while its "not easy" to face low shot counts the shot counts dont tell the whole story. Low shot counts, your talking a fully integrated team from the crease out coming & going, the goalie a key piece, built from crease out. Communication, transition, brick wall, just dont let anything get started. Leafs played that way under Imlach & I dont think anyone thought Bower or Sawchuk were any less the goalies than Glenn Hall or Gump Worsley, Eddie Johnston in Boston who faced a shooting gallery every game but who despite his heroics generally drew the short straw.

If thats correct, 42, 62, 31 or 17 it doesnt really matter. Did the Devils win? Get the 'W' despite the total team breakdown? Goals are a series of mistakes. It just so happens the goalie makes the last one. Brodeur however as you mentioned, extremely consistent and as went his game so went the Devils. He was key, critical. On-ice Conductor. Calming influence. Leader.

Context has to be considered in the developmental curve of Martin Brodeur and Roberto Luongo.

Both were developed in the minor hockey system in St.Leonard, then a suburb of Montreal, now amalgamated. In fact the two arenas are named after each.

Basically the same "How to..." book for young goaltenders. Brodeur, the son of a amateur, minor league goalie, 1956 Olympian was playing goalie as a pre-schooler, Luongo the son of immigrants, started late, pre-teen. Roughly the same size, 1" and 3 lbs difference.

Major difference post minor hockey was their team situation. In junior Brodeur split responsibilities, maturing slowly. Luongo was expected to take charge and win.

In the NHL, Brodeur joined New Jersey, a team where he was expected to be the foundation. He was. Luongo, drafted by the Islanders joined an organization without a foundation, starting a career long journey thru similar organizations.

 

[Killion]

Context has to be considered in the developmental curve of Martin Brodeur and Roberto Luongo.

Both were developed in the minor hockey system in St.Leonard, then a suburb of Montreal, now amalgamated. In fact the two arenas are named after each.

Basically the same "How to..." book for young goaltenders. Brodeur, the son of a amateur, minor league goalie, 1956 Olympian was playing goalie as a pre-schooler, Luongo the son of immigrants, started late, pre-teen. Roughly the same size, 1" and 3 lbs difference.

Major difference post minor hockey was their team situation. In junior Brodeur split responsibilities, maturing slowly. Luongo was expected to take charge and win.

In the NHL, Brodeur joined New Jersey, a team where he was expected to be the foundation. He was. Luongo, drafted by the Islanders joined an organization without a foundation, starting a career long journey thru similar organizations.

Yes, context including background from amateur on up all factors I like to take into account, be at least semi-knowledgeable about & here we have an excellent example. Brodeur & Luongo. One nurtured slowly, the other expected to perform right out of the box and who's career almost preordained as to one of a much more transient nature from the get-go. Have Gun Will Travel. Much more Mercenary. Obviously different personality types but with several things in common, including in both cases great senses of humour, ability to laugh at themselves, bounce back, the kind of resiliency of which confidence is born. St. Leonards a terrific organization as are most in Quebec when it comes to developing goaltending talent. A school in which even the Coaching & Scouting fraternity are really quite astute in understanding the position & identifying talent even when they themselves may have never played the position themselves which is obviously very helpfiul though not mandatory.

 

[Pantokrator]

Alternately, did you ever consider just how spectacular Brodeur could and absolutely would have appeared if the roles were reversed & he switched sides with Luongo? He was that good. Full toolbox. The other thing to consider & study is why was it that he only faced 8 shots? How many dump-in's, mis-passes etc did Brodeur go out & aggressively corral, playing the puck himself negating any opportunities in handing over puck possession to the other team? And how many shots "didnt count" because he had the angle nailed forcing the shooter to shoot wide? As far as Im concerned those are "saves" as is being pro-active in playing the puck. Stopping things before they can ever get started. Critical thought. Absolutely key & something Brodeur had in spades and I mean beyond a Luongo or even Roy who's actions & reactions at times were either just plain stupid or showboat.... So no, while its "not easy" to face low shot counts the shot counts dont tell the whole story. Low shot counts, your talking a fully integrated team from the crease out coming & going, the goalie a key piece, built from crease out. Communication, transition, brick wall, just dont let anything get started. Leafs played that way under Imlach & I dont think anyone thought Bower or Sawchuk were any less the goalies than Glenn Hall or Gump Worsley, Eddie Johnston in Boston who faced a shooting gallery every game but who despite his heroics generally drew the short straw.

If thats correct, 42, 62, 31 or 17 it doesnt really matter. Did the Devils win? Get the 'W' despite the total team breakdown? Goals are a series of mistakes. It just so happens the goalie makes the last one. Brodeur however as you mentioned, extremely consistent and as went his game so went the Devils. He was key, critical. On-ice Conductor. Calming influence. Leader.

I think you think I am attacking Brodeur. I was just guessing the answer to that poster's question about how many shots he faced. He asked what was the most shots he faced in a game. I wasn't criticizing Brodeur.

Something that you bring up that irks me is the way the league has hindered a goalie's ability to handle the puck. A goalie like Brodeur or Hextall worked hard to learn how to handle the puck. It isn't an unfair advantage, any goalie can learn it. I think they need to allow the goalies to roam and handle the puck like before.

 

[Killion]

I think you think I am attacking Brodeur. I was just guessing the answer to that poster's question about how many shots he faced. He asked what was the most shots he faced in a game. I wasn't criticizing Brodeur.

Something that you bring up that irks me is the way the league has hindered a goalie's ability to handle the puck. A goalie like Brodeur or Hextall worked hard to learn how to handle the puck. It isn't an unfair advantage, any goalie can learn it. I think they need to allow the goalies to roam and handle the puck like before.

Oh no, I wasnt under that impression, in fact quite the opposite. Understood you were a Big Fan of Marty's. Absolutely. Was just ruminating in providing alternate realities, trains of thought.... And yeah, the "Brodeur Rule", pathetic. All in the name of the league wanting "more goals scored". This kind of nonsense has been going on for decades with changes to the sizes & dimensions of the crease, the introduction of the trapezoid behind the net & so on. Crease changes made to "protect the goalie" initially, protection they dont need btw and I say this as an old-goalie myself. Never had a problem making room for myself beyond the square non-highlighted crease and with my stick if necessary. Venture into it the player pays the price. There are in addition to the obvious keeping the puck in play & negating one on ones or two on ones with the goalie playing the puck well outside of his crease various safety factors involved be it Icing or races for the puck between your Defenceman and an opposing Forward & so on & so forth. Being strong on your skates & good with your stick as a goalie, acting at times as Brodeur did as a sort of Deep Defenceman in transitioning the game before trouble brews to offence are or at least were strengths, things taught, practiced & demanded of must goalies for years & years. Part of your kit, tricks of the trade. And now its Outlawed. Absurd. Even skating, being strong on your skates. Its shocking to me how weak many of these BF Goalies are on their skates, almost useless, Pee Wee level with their sticks, zero rebound control, not engaged in the play. Dont really communicate with their Defence and their in the NHL? Doesnt compute. These idiots at the top & followed en mass from amateur through Junior are micro-managing the game to death I fear.

 

[Carolinas Identity*]

I would say because the others don't involve a sister-in law, but that wouldn't be fair...

he is a public figure

he plays by different rules than you and i do

 

[billingtons ghost]

I've mentioned this before -

Brodeur's shot totals weren't entirely a product of the defense in front of him. His rebound control, puck handling, and game management were better than any goalie in history - and mentally he was as strong as Roy (minus the twitches). Knowing how to get a puck out of the zone yourself; knowing when to freeze the puck; knowing where to put a rebound -

These things matter much more than most people would account - and they certainly don't show up in any statistics.

I think if Brodeur played in the league 20 years from now, when we could quantify the types of shots and chances faced - and have a Corsi-ish stat for goaltenders where Brodeur's shot-suppression could be measured - he'd get alot more credit.

(but of course Hasek's ridiculous-chance-o-meter stat would be unsurpassed).

I think watching the past years of Cory Schneider who (at the tail end of Brodeur's career) was much his superior athletically and technically... but who couldn't win a game to save his life because of the 'intangibles' mentioned above whilst Brodeur kept on winning ... has really brought home to me how truly excellent Marty was.

Also - watching him continue to win after those great defensemen retired or left helpe cement it for me.


Previously, I was a subscriber to the 'Marty was *good* but his situation made him great' camp. I was wrong about that.

Edit: and I think Giguere has his Conn Smythe

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I've mentioned this before -

Brodeur's shot totals weren't entirely a product of the defense in front of him. His rebound control, puck handling, and game management were better than any goalie in history - and mentally he was as strong as Roy (minus the twitches). Knowing how to get a puck out of the zone yourself; knowing when to freeze the puck; knowing where to put a rebound -

These things matter much more than most people would account - and they certainly don't show up in any statistics.

I think if Brodeur played in the league 20 years from now, when we could quantify the types of shots and chances faced - and have a Corsi-ish stat for goaltenders where Brodeur's shot-suppression could be measured - he'd get alot more credit.

(but of course Hasek's ridiculous-chance-o-meter stat would be unsurpassed).

I think watching the past years of Cory Schneider who (at the tail end of Brodeur's career) was much his superior athletically and technically... but who couldn't win a game to save his life because of the 'intangibles' mentioned above whilst Brodeur kept on winning ... has really brought home to me how truly excellent Marty was.

Also - watching him continue to win after those great defensemen retired or left helpe cement it for me.


Previously, I was a subscriber to the 'Marty was *good* but his situation made him great' camp. I was wrong about that.

Edit: and I think Giguere has his Conn Smythe

So do you consider him a Top 10 player of all-time?

 

[billingtons ghost]

So do you consider him a Top 10 player of all-time?

Depends on how goalies are treated in the list. My list would be pretty skater heavy so perhaps there would be no goalies in the top 10. So my immediate answer would be 'no'...

If Hasek or Roy make it into the top10, then so does Marty. I find it pretty hard to separate those 3, no matter how hard I try.