Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe
And I do think those guys should be rewarded for being workhorses (not that they are workhorses and nothing more - well, Kipper and Ward are of late but at least Kipper used to be great for his short peak). I don't think it's a surprise to anyone that Lundqvist is going to be my #1 this round. I actually was one of the few ones to have Kipper on my list last time - in 7th I think, so if I don't change things, Kipper would be in my top 4. But I really saw last round as basically a top 6, then the field, so it's possible I could bump Kipper for someone from the field (even for someone like Thomas).
|
And that's fine - it's your opinion - but here's my mentality on the situation: A goaltender cannot control how often his coach plays him. And I've seen goaltenders with high-GP have good seasons, goaltenders with high-GP have bad seasons, goaltenders with average-GP have good seasons, and goaltenders with average-GP have bad seasons.
I don't much care if it's 55-65 games, 66-76 games, or if you're like Kiprusoff in 2004 or Thomas in 2006 and have 38 games on the back-nine of the season. I am yet to be convinced that more GP means a deterioration of play when there are so many examples of the opposite occurring. When you're good for a reasonable amount of time, you get a gold star for the season in my book.
I don't think voters think this way - Hell, I know they don't. And I think the voters' faith in GP-based statistics has resulted in Vezina and All-Star votes going to undeserving goaltenders in several years. Nabokov on 28 Vezina ballots in 2008 is the type of thing that still gives me nightmares. 28 GMs, and I wish someone could convince me that they didn't first just look at the Wins column only for a few of them to dock him one spot because Brodeur was visibly and statistically better.
Workhorses get Vezina votes; Fuhr started the trend in 1988.
And that's fine until I'm arguing not against a player's season but instead against the existence of a trend. And no, Lundqvist isn't as guilty as Kiprusoff, but being a top-eight goaltender in his workhorse seasons and a top-two goaltender in his lighter-work seasons still doesn't reach the Thomas' peaks. I see no reason to vote for a low-peak goaltender with that shallow of a resume (no longevity either and middle-of-the-road playoffs). That would be like voting for Tomas Vokoun.
Thomas' 2009 and 2011 season/playoffs are
that far ahead of Lundqvist's 2006 and 2012 in my eyes. Maybe they're not quite Hasek 1999 (though watch out: 70% of Vezina voters don't agree that he was the best that season, and 22% had him outside the top-three), but they're
up there. I'm not going to look too much at someone's extra 90 GP if they're not even on a remotely similar level at their absolute bests.
We know Lundqvist will have a better career. He's only getting better, and Thomas is only getting stranger. But right now? Lundqvist is mostly just filler. It's Ed Belfour's 1990s career
after the hot start
and without the awesome playoffs. It's putting him on a good pace, but there aren't the type of highlights that warrant being called the best in the game, especially when someone else was spiking so much higher than everybody else twice in the same seven years while having an all-time great playoff career.
Their careers end today, I'd say Thomas was the best.