Or if Datsyuk doesn't get injured the year after that, MAF has zero rings.
Revisionist history, yay.
There's no revisionist history, we're only talking about MAF's 2 performances, and how he did his part good enough for his team to be in the position to win 2 Cups.
It's not like Luongo was the reason they won the gold, Henrik had the more impressive Gold medal performance.
That's not how this works. Winning a championship is listed on an individual player's resume despite it being a team accomplishment.
People say "Luongo's never won anything, that means he's not clutch!"
The response is, of course "He won the championship in the most pretigious and difficult international tournament." (.927 tournament save percentage, .944 in the gold-medal game, 1.000 in overtime)
The retort comes back "Yeah, but they would have won it without him!" (Generally translates to: championships are important, unless they're won by a player I don't like.)
That's simply not valid. If you want to consider team accomplishment when evaluating players, you have to accept them for everyone. And if you're going to go through and analyze each player's performance, why then use the shorthand of championships? And then, what about players who dominated in playoffs but played for mediocre teams, and therefore never actually won a championship? The "Championships" crowd will still say "Yeah, what did he ever win?"
In my experience, trotting out championships is an effort to support a predetermined conclusion, not as a data point to make a determination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuineaPig
I've always found it amusing how hard people have tried to downplay Luongo's performance in 2010.
Agreed, and moreover the focus on team accomplishments when evaluating individual players is pretty short-sighted sometimes.
Agreed, and moreover the focus on team accomplishments when evaluating individual players is pretty short-sighted sometimes.
Absolutely. But I always find it hilarious that people have tried to re-assert the narrative that "Luongo is a choker, and never plays well in high-pressure situations" over games where he played well.
Likewise, I don't hold Lundqvist's lack of playoff success against him. He hasn't played well, but he also hasn't played much. I expect he'll have many good playoff runs in his future.
The weird flipside is Fleury, who hasn't played all that well over his career in the playoffs (and outside of 2008, where he admittedly was great, he's been downright bad), but will nevertheless have fans claiming he's the most "clutch" goalie in the league.
The thing with Luongo's 2010 olympics is that we have the benefit of an incredibly large sample of hockey fans who watched his performance, so we don't need to rely on looking at box score afterwards to judge his performance.
And he was not as good as his box score; did not inspire his teammates that he was unstoppable.
I wouldn't neccessary say that Canada won in spite of him (though he sure didn't help his case in the Gold medal game), but they didn't win because of him either. He was just there.
Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 03-08-2012 at 10:53 AM.
If he keeps playing the way he does for another 5 or so years, I say yes. I think he should easily win the Vezina this year, everytime I see him play he's been stellar.
I think he is product of his team, closer to Osgood than Lundqvist. That doesnt mean he is bad, but IMO HOF is not near for him. He has time to add some great seasons to his resume but now he has no monster-season.
He has often been left for dead in his career. The Pens haven't always been a team that put up a wall in front of him. Fleury has saved their bacon many, many times. He is not a product of the Pens. I don't see the Osgood comparison. Osgood rarely had a time when he was called upon to bail out the Red Wings. There aren't many times in his career when you felt he stole a game. Fleury has done that with the Pens. He is closer to Fuhr than he is Osgood for sure, not only in style, but in importance to his team's success. I personally haven't forgotten his athleticism on some plays in 2009. After Thomas, probably the goalie who had the best playoff run since the lockout.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord
MAF has pretty much hovered at average throughout his career… usually a bit above. He is forming a Mike Vernon career thus far, so you should love him. But, he hasn’t come close to the Vezina and hasn’t deserved to.
9th in Hart voting last year. Not bad. Showed just how people viewed him with the abscence of Crosby and Malkin. If he ends up with a Vernon career then all I can say is that things could be worse for him. Vernon may never get into the HHOF but his name forever hovers when goalies are brought up. He's 27 now, so he has a lot more to tack onto his career. This guy could win three more Cups.
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Made Me
If you had to pick 1 right now, who has a better chance Henrik or Luongo?
This should be a gimme - Luongo. Lundqvist didn't enter the NHL until 2005. Luongo was a 2nd team all-star in 2004 and a World Cup winner (partial credit) by then. Had a Hart caliber season in 2007 and finished only behind Crosby that season. He has his warts in the postseason but played well up until the final last year. He just laid an egg in every game the Canucks lost and had a very bi-polar series. But it still beats Lundqvist's playoff resume and he certainly beats him in Vezina voting.
9th in Hart voting last year. Not bad. Showed just how people viewed him with the abscence of Crosby and Malkin.
I have to nitpick this one. This doesn't really show how "people viewed him" because what really happened was that 15 of 120+ voters named him on their ballots. We really don't know what the other 100+ voters thought. Maybe they saw him as average, maybe they'd have named him if the ballot was 8 names long. We don't know. Hart voting means a lot for the top guys, but exponentially less as we go down the list, and is a weak indicator of greatness or value when such a small percentage of the ballots is involved.
I have to nitpick this one. This doesn't really show how "people viewed him" because what really happened was that 15 of 120+ voters named him on their ballots. We really don't know what the other 100+ voters thought. Maybe they saw him as average, maybe they'd have named him if the ballot was 8 names long. We don't know. Hart voting means a lot for the top guys, but exponentially less as we go down the list, and is a weak indicator of greatness or value when such a small percentage of the ballots is involved.
Not crazy at all when you think of it. He had 58 votes in total. Actually had one 1st place vote (no I don't agree with that, but still). Had more 2nd place votes than Pekka Rinne who finished 4th. Had a few 3rd and 4th place votes too. Enough people figured he was a difference maker last year. Finished higher than Stamkos. Finished higher than Henrik Sedin. And you know as well as I do that goalies never get the benefit of the doubt with the Hart, so 9th is not bad at all. It isn't as if he finished 20th with a 5th place vote and I am making a case for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Victory
Not yet, but he will be once his career is done.
And MAF a hall of famer? Hahah funny.
So Lundqvist will be one once his career is done but the mere mention of Fleury and it makes you laugh? (Sigh) Well, it reminds me of the days when I literally got laughed at by people on these boards back in 2007 when I predicted Martin St. Louis would be a HHOFer. We'll revisit Fleury's case in 5-6 years from now, it probably won't be very comical by then.
Not crazy at all when you think of it. He had 58 votes in total. Actually had one 1st place vote (no I don't agree with that, but still). Had more 2nd place votes than Pekka Rinne who finished 4th. Had a few 3rd and 4th place votes too. Enough people figured he was a difference maker last year. Finished higher than Stamkos. Finished higher than Henrik Sedin. And you know as well as I do that goalies never get the benefit of the doubt with the Hart, so 9th is not bad at all. It isn't as if he finished 20th with a 5th place vote and I am making a case for it.
58 voting points, not 58 votes. Sorry, but it is a terrible argument to hang your hat on when just over 10% of voters put him on their ballots. If stamkos was on 12 ballots, do you really think that means people saw fleury as a bigger difference maker? The VAST MAJORITY of the voters named NEITHER player; therefore, we don't really know what the vast majority thought. We know that 15 likely preferred fleury and 12 likely preferred stamkos. The other 100? No clue.
Absolutely. But I always find it hilarious that people have tried to re-assert the narrative that "Luongo is a choker, and never plays well in high-pressure situations" over games where he played well.
Likewise, I don't hold Lundqvist's lack of playoff success against him. He hasn't played well, but he also hasn't played much. I expect he'll have many good playoff runs in his future.
The weird flipside is Fleury, who hasn't played all that well over his career in the playoffs (and outside of 2008, where he admittedly was great, he's been downright bad), but will nevertheless have fans claiming he's the most "clutch" goalie in the league.
Indeed. Cam Ward is also viewed as CLUTCH. He's so clutch that he can't even get his team into the playoffs most of the time!
I have yet to see anyone invoking "clutch" play to not also engage in selective representation of evidence. They focus on the good performances of the players want to big up, and focus on the bad performances of the players they want to bring down. Similarly, they hand-wave any evidence that does not support their position on a player.
No one has been able to demonstrate clutch ability in any organized, convincing way. It's all anecdotes and opinions.
And besides that, whenever someone says Player X plays his best in the playoffs, I always ask "Why is it all right for him to not play his best ALL THE TIME? Doesn't being a playoff clutchy player mean he doesn't give his best the rest of the time? How is that a positive quality?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey
My canned response: are there any goalies with "a few" Vezinas who are NOT in?
Good point. If you're seen as the best goaltender in the world multiple times, you should be automatic. Team success or no team success.
For the years the Vezina was awarded on merit, the following goalies have won three or more:
George Hainsworth: 3
Tiny Thompson: 4
Bill Durnan: 3
Patrick Roy: 3
Dominik Hasek: 6
Martin Brodeur: 4
Clearly "a few Vezinas" is far above the minimum requirement for Hall-of-Fame status. Many Hall of Fame goalies have less than "a few" Vezinas.
And besides that, whenever someone says Player X plays his best in the playoffs, I always ask "Why is it all right for him to not play his best ALL THE TIME? Doesn't being a playoff clutchy player mean he doesn't give his best the rest of the time? How is that a positive quality?"
The answer would be that they are human beings and it is unreasonable to expect a human being to perform at peak level 82 times in a given year.
Quote:
Good point. If you're seen as the best goaltender in the world multiple times, you should be automatic. Team success or no team success.
For the years the Vezina was awarded on merit, the following goalies have won three or more:
George Hainsworth: 3
Tiny Thompson: 4
Bill Durnan: 3
Patrick Roy: 3
Dominik Hasek: 6
Martin Brodeur: 4
Clearly "a few Vezinas" is far above the minimum requirement for Hall-of-Fame status. Many Hall of Fame goalies have less than "a few" Vezinas.
[/quote]
I'm confused. As far as I know, the Vezina wasn't awarded on merit when Hainsworth, Thompson, and Durnan played. But that would just make your point stronger.
The answer would be that they are human beings and it is unreasonable to expect a human being to perform at peak level 82 times in a given year.
So add the playoffs to that, and then the same reasoning can be used for any player who performs worse in the playoffs.
It's easy to say the playoffs are more important, but the playoffs aren't guaranteed either. You need to play well in the regular season to even make the playoffs in the first place (and a higher seed generally means easier opponents in the postseason as well), so playing better in the playoffs is not automatically preferable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe
I'm confused. As far as I know, the Vezina wasn't awarded on merit when Hainsworth, Thompson, and Durnan played. But that would just make your point stronger.
It was awarded on merit from inception to 1946, and then from 1982 to the present.
I'm confused. As far as I know, the Vezina wasn't awarded on merit when Hainsworth, Thompson, and Durnan played. But that would just make your point stronger.
You know, I'd never actually looked at it before, but it seems that the "most valuable" goaltender (which is who the award was supposed to go to) always just happened to play for the team that allowed the fewest goals each season before 1946. The change that year looks to simply be a codification of accepted practice. Interesting.
Indeed. Cam Ward is also viewed as CLUTCH. He's so clutch that he can't even get his team into the playoffs most of the time!
I see your overall point and don't really disagree that consistency is as important as "clutchness". But if you ask anybody, and I mean ANYBODY, who has followed Ward's career they will confirm that he raises and lowers his level of play based on the intensity around him. When the team is sleepwalking, he is good enough but very beatable. But he turns into a different player when there's a sense of urgency and focus. The eyeball test is unmistakeable.
Part of it has to do with his demeanor.... you'll rarely meet a more "normal" goalie personality-wise. Just completely calm, stable all the time. When the chips are down, he doesn't seem to mind the extra pressure at all. Just takes the effort up a notch while remaining unflappable. It's visible in his body language.
That said, I don't think he's remotely close to a HOF induction. Maybe for that exact reason -- a lack of consistency. If he was in that playoff zone all the time, he'd be a Vezina candidate.
This conversation led to what was an interesting discovery to me.
I have read old newspaper articles that said the Vezina went to the most valuable goaltender and was confused. Apparently, that was in the definition of the award until 1946 even if it appears to have been awarded like the Jennings. I guess by 46, that was viewed as stupid
This conversation led to what was an interesting discovery to me.
I have read old newspaper articles that said the Vezina went to the most valuable goaltender and was confused. Apparently, that was in the definition of the award until 1946 even if it appears to have been awarded like the Jennings. I guess by 46, that was viewed as stupid
It was supposed to be. But they just gave it to the goalie on the best defensive team. I'd never compared the two lists before now, for whatever reason.
funny.
