View Single Post
01-04-2009, 02:22 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,212
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Center Shift View Post
I'm not obsessed with standards. You are the one disqualifying Turco because he didn't play in enough games, without definining exactly what that cutoff line is. As far as I can tell, the Vezina goes to the goalie "adjudged to be the best at his position". When they change that to read "adjudged to be the best at his position with at least 65 games played", then I'll be forced to revise my opinion.

Do you not see opportunity (e.g. coaching choice/organizational philosophy/quality of backup goalie/difficulty of travel schedule/simple preference/etc.) playing any kind of role in the number of games played by a goalie in a particular season? If Turco had played 18 more games in 2002-03, his stats may very well have gotten worse. But he would only have had to go 10-8-0, 2.94, .884 to match Brodeur's seasonal stats. I think those numbers would have been well within reach of a guy who went 31-10-10, 1.72, .932, don't you? If Turco had actually done that and played those 18 awful games, that would suddenly make him deserving of the Vezina Trophy because of the most games played = best goalie argument? That just doesn't make any sense to me.
Those are very plausible numbers for a goaltender to hit if he is fatigued and his team is not playing well.

If you want to play the "if" game.

If you take out Brodeur's 18 worst games I'm sure his numbers are very comparable to Turco'

haakon84 is offline   Reply With Quote