HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk > Polls - (hockey-related only)
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2

How many of Brodeur's Vezinas did he deserve to win

View Poll Results: How many of Brodeur's Vezinas did he deserve to win
all 4 125 60.10%
3 of 4 44 21.15%
2 of 4 26 12.50%
less than 2 13 6.25%
Voters: 208. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-04-2009, 02:14 AM
  #126
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,481
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Center Shift View Post
Here is a partial list of Vezina Trophy winners:
1982: Billy Smith, 46 games played
1984: Tom Barrasso, 42 games played
1989: Patrick Roy, 48 games played
1990: Patrick Roy, 54 games played
1994: Dominik Hasek, 58 games played

Define: "not enough games".

Marty Turco set a modern-day record for the lowest GAA in a season in 2002-03, as well as putting up the fourth highest official save percentage mark ever recorded. He may not have been better than Brodeur in the games he did not play, but he was record-breaking in the games he did play, and in my book that more than makes up for it the missing 10 games or so to meet your arbitrary standards.
Goalies in general played fewer games back then. 58 games was a lot in the 80s. It was "borderline starter" by 2003.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2009, 02:16 AM
  #127
Matty Sundin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 277
vCash: 500
If you're trying to imply he only won his Vezinas because of pass success then why didn't he win in 2006? Because Kiprusoff was more deserving. I guess you could debate 2007 with Loungo but it could of went either way as they were both deserving.

Matty Sundin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2009, 02:20 AM
  #128
ContrarianGoaltender
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 570
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haakon84 View Post
Why are you obsessed with standards?

Brodeur played in 18 more games for his team and had 10 more wins.

He also posted a 2 GAA and a .915 save %. with 9 shutouts.

You posted no goaltender since the position has drastically changed.
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.

ContrarianGoaltender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2009, 02:22 AM
  #129
haakon84
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,212
vCash: 500
Quote:
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
Old
01-04-2009, 02:28 AM
  #130
ContrarianGoaltender
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 570
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haakon84 View Post
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's.
False analogy, sorry. You are talking about cherry-picking best and worst, I'm talking about projecting what a guy would have done with slightly more opportunity. Unless you are able to prove that games 56-73 are the worst games of a goalie's entire season.

ContrarianGoaltender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2009, 02:35 AM
  #131
haakon84
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,212
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Center Shift View Post
False analogy, sorry. You are talking about cherry-picking best and worst, I'm talking about projecting what a guy would have done with slightly more opportunity. Unless you are able to prove that games 56-73 are the worst games of a goalie's entire season.
Alright, maybe the voters took into consideration the fact that Dallas had scored 30 more goals than the Devils that season.

They also took into consideration all the other factors that I've mentioned and valued Brodeur as the better goaltender through the course of that season.

EDIT: and going by your logic how come Roloson has never won the Vezina? He has put up comparable numbers in 03-04 to the ones you have mentioned. Also he played on a worse team than the Stars team Turco backed. They were an extremely stacked team that year.


Last edited by haakon84: 01-04-2009 at 02:40 AM.
haakon84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2009, 02:44 AM
  #132
ContrarianGoaltender
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 570
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haakon84 View Post
Alright, maybe the voters took into consideration the fact that Dallas had scored 30 more goals than the Devils that season.

They also took into consideration all the other factors that I've mentioned and valued Brodeur as the better goaltender through the course of that season.
Why would they take goals for into consideration? I thought we were grading Marty Turco and Marty Brodeur on their goaltending skills, not their scoring skills. If you are implying that Brodeur did more with less, Turco had a way better winning percentage (.706 to Brodeur's .623), which is the kind of difference you would expect for a better goalie playing on a better team.

On a per-game basis that year, Turco beat Brodeur in everything. Wins, shutouts, GAA, save percentage, everything. The difference between them was games played. I agree that the voters probably weighted games played very highly in their choice. I disagree with that weighting, and that's why I think that Vezina was undeserved.

ContrarianGoaltender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2009, 02:54 AM
  #133
haakon84
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,212
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Center Shift View Post
Why would they take goals for into consideration? I thought we were grading Marty Turco and Marty Brodeur on their goaltending skills, not their scoring skills. If you are implying that Brodeur did more with less, Turco had a way better winning percentage (.706 to Brodeur's .623), which is the kind of difference you would expect for a better goalie playing on a better team.

On a per-game basis that year, Turco beat Brodeur in everything. Wins, shutouts, GAA, save percentage, everything. The difference between them was games played. I agree that the voters probably weighted games played very highly in their choice. I disagree with that weighting, and that's why I think that Vezina was undeserved.
Well I'm sorry if we had this discussion in 03 my reasoning would be a little solid.

Goals really have nothing to do with it. That was dumb.

But.

I was wrong; Brodeur played in 21 more games. He played in 90% of his teams games as opposed to 63%.

For every 2 games Turco played Brodeur played 3.

That should be weighted heavily when comparing statistics. If you think otherwise, I disagree and move on.

And again voting is not based solely on stats; otherwise Turco would have won in '02-'03 and Roloson would have won in '03-'04.

haakon84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2009, 03:08 AM
  #134
haakon84
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,212
vCash: 500
Oh take a look at Roman Cechmanek's stats that year. Whose to say he shouldn't have won it?

57 GP
1.83 GAA
.925 save%
33-15-10
6 SO

haakon84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2009, 03:21 AM
  #135
Master_Of_Districts
Registered User
 
Master_Of_Districts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Black Ruthenia
Country: Belarus
Posts: 1,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haakon84 View Post
Oh take a look at Roman Cechmanek's stats that year. Whose to say he shouldn't have won it?

57 GP
1.83 GAA
.925 save%
33-15-10
6 SO
You're right.

Even Cechmanek was more deserving than Brodeur in 2002-03.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Master_Of_Districts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2009, 03:32 AM
  #136
ContrarianGoaltender
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 570
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haakon84 View Post
That should be weighted heavily when comparing statistics. If you think otherwise, I disagree and move on.
Thanks for this discussion, I think it clarified the different positions. If you place a heavy weighting on games played then it makes more sense. The pro-Brodeur side sees him as a very valuable workhorse, while the other side sees him as a good goalie who just gets more chances to win games than everyone else, and that will of course lead to a different perception of value.

Just one parting comment - games played is not a perfect measure of skill, because a lot of what determines it comes down to choice. Some teams give their starter a lot of games and some teams don't. You mentioned Cechmanek, so let's take the Flyers as an example. Since 1990, no Philadelphia goalie has played more than 62 games in a single season, meaning they probably haven't had a single goalie in the last 20 years who meets your criteria for being eligible for the Vezina Trophy.

Of course they haven't had anyone of Brodeur's quality in goal, but they have had several guys have played 65-70+ games in other places as well as guys who have had very good seasons. Still, they never got the same huge workload as they themselves and their peers had on other teams. I think the reason is their organizational philosophy, and if you rate goalies based on their games played you are going to be biased for or against certain teams.

Not to mention things like travel, the number of back-to-backs a team has to play, the amount of money a team decides to play their backup goalie, whether a team has a hot prospect in the system or not, etc. That's why I think games played should count somewhat, but not nearly as much as the more important stats like save percentage. Brodeur won at least 2 of his Vezinas mostly on the back of his games played total, and therefore they were probably undeserved.

ContrarianGoaltender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2009, 05:12 AM
  #137
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,481
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master_Of_Districts View Post
You're right.

Even Cechmanek was more deserving than Brodeur in 2002-03.

Thanks for pointing that out.
Vezina voting in 2002-03:

Martin Brodeur: 24-3-2
Roman Cechmanek: 0-1-3


TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2009, 05:13 AM
  #138
Rickety Cricket
Registered User
 
Rickety Cricket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Not Kent Huskins
Country: United States
Posts: 28,433
vCash: 500
All 4.

Rickety Cricket is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2009, 05:47 AM
  #139
Master_Of_Districts
Registered User
 
Master_Of_Districts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Black Ruthenia
Country: Belarus
Posts: 1,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Vezina voting in 2002-03:

Martin Brodeur: 24-3-2
Roman Cechmanek: 0-1-3

I agree -- the General Managers were comically misguided in their voting that year.

If only they didn't base their voting on team statistics...

Master_Of_Districts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2009, 01:44 PM
  #140
TANK200
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 526
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
1) Statistical Argument
First 2004. For Brodeur: 38-25 = difference of 13 wins. 2.42-2.03 = difference of 0.39 GAA, 11-7 = difference of 4 shutouts. For Luongo: 931-.917 = difference of .014 save %

Now 2008. For Brodeur: .920-.910 = difference of .010 save %. For Nabokov: 46-44 = difference of 2 wins. 2.17-2.14 = difference of 0.03 GAA. 6-4 = difference of 2 shutouts

In 2004, Brodeur blew Luongo out of the water in every category but save %. In 2008, Brodeur and Nabokov had incredibly similar stats, with a slight edge to Nabokov. Except save %, which was a much larger discrepancy.

2) Realistic Argument 1
Luongo missed the playoffs in 2004. Huge strike against him. The Vezina generally goes to the MVP of goalies, and how much worse could the Panthers be?

3) Realistic Argument 2
Like I said earlier in the thread, when two players have a great case for the Vezina, it goes to the superstar veteran. This is also true of the Norris trophy.


To be fair, I do honestly think that 2004 should be Brodeur's only controversial Vezina. He was slightly, but clearly better than Luongo in 2007 and Nabokov in 2008. In 2003, Turco was slightly better in the games he played, but Brodeur played so many more games, he helped his team more than Turco did. The old "Turco sure wasn't helping his team win (the job of any NHL player) in the games he didn't play" argument. And not surprisingly, Turco's stats went down in subsequent years as he played more games (not singling out Turco; this happens to most goalies).

I do think Brodeur was a good choice in 2004, since their was already a precedent for goalies failing to make the playoffs having an uphill climb to win the Vezina. But I can see where others might say, "What the hell else was Luongo supposed to do playing behind that horrible team?"
Although I disagree with your opinion on Brodeur's first two Vezinas, this is probably the best post in the thread so far, since it establishes the bases for the opinions on both sides of the arguments.

1)
I won't bother commenting on the Nabokov comparison because I agree that Brodeur was the best in 2008, as he also was in 2007.

For 2004, Brodeur did clearly beat Luongo in every category other than sv% (which Luongo destroyed Brodeur in); however, it was all but impossible for Luongo to beat him in any other statistical category. The Panthers allowed 10 shots more per game than the Devils. How could one expect Luongo to equal Brodeur in either GAA or shutouts? In addition, the Panthers scored 25 fewer goals than the Devils in 2003-2004. Should Luongo have been anywhere close to Brodeur in wins that season? Also consider that the Panthers recieved 115 more minor penalties that season. Given that shot quality on powerplays tends to be higher than at even strength, Luongo's save percentage is all the more impressive.


2)
Luongo did take a big hit for missing the playoffs in 2003-2004, but he really should not have. If the Vezina was awarded to the goalie adjudged to be most valuable to his team, this would make sense. However, given the description of "best goaltender", a playoff berth should not be a deciding factor in award voting.


3)
Indeed, close calls tend to go to superstar veterans, but I don't see the race in 2003 as a particularly close one. The difference in save percentage between the two goalies that year was .018, which is massive. The fact the Dallas also recieved 84 more minor penalties than New Jersey indicates that the quality of shots against Turco may have also been a bit higher. Yes, Brodeur's extra 18 or so games makes a difference, but enough to to make up .018 in save percentage and better per game numbers in every category?

If the Vezina was an MVP trophy, I would have no problem with a Brodeur victory in either 2003 or 2004, but he should not have recieved an award for "best goaltender" in either of those seasons.


On another note, I hope that those saying they think he deserved these awards based on "what I saw", I hope you watched each goaliem play a significant number of games (ie. 20+), so you are not basing your opinion on on a few games during a hot or cold streak for any of the goalies.

TANK200 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:57 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.