I think "number" would be a useless but somewhat neat addition to the "goaltenders" table because most goalies didn't change that much and most goalies use the same basic set of numbers and it would add a slight novelty to it that very few would enjoy.
I think "number" would be a useless but somewhat neat addition to the "goaltenders" table because most goalies didn't change that much and most goalies use the same basic set of numbers and it would add a slight novelty to it that very few would enjoy.
*Ducks a punch thrown by TDMM*
If you want to commit to researching the numbers of all the guys added (including the pre-NHL and European goalies), then I can add the column. It's the only "category" that isn't easily found on wikipedia or hockeydb. As is, we didn't even find the numbers for all the defensemen from last year's list, and nobody seems to care.
Well, you didn't bother arguing when everyone else was putting together well-reasoned and sound arguments. And you probably haven't read those well-reasoned and sound arguments, either.
So I wouldn't expect that you'd bother at this point.
Seriously - we worked our ***** off for this. Don't come in here and piss all over it with flippant remarks.
Well, you didn't bother arguing when everyone else was putting together well-reasoned and sound arguments. And you probably haven't read those well-reasoned and sound arguments, either.
So I wouldn't expect that you'd bother at this point.
Seriously - we worked our ***** off for this. Don't come in here and piss all over it with flippant remarks.
Well, his career speaks for itself. I wasn't around to hear all the arguments, nor do I really want to look back on them.
People are always going to bring up the "he had a great team around him argument." However, post-lockout to up until this season, he bailed some Devils teams out that had a lot of holes. It wasn't until last season that the Devils actually had a great team top-to-bottom, and they went to the SCF.
I'd be willing to bet the main focus against him was the team around him, but Brodeur was just as crucial to that team as they were to him. His play made the trapping system work just as much as the players in front of him.
It's really hard to compare guys from completely different eras especially guys who played in the 50s and 60s compared to guys who played now. My question is what were the main points for putting guys like Sawchuk, Hall, and Plante above Brodeur? That had to be some kind of collective agreement on why they were better than him, I guess that would make me understand it better...
Well, his career speaks for itself. I wasn't around to hear all the arguments, nor do I really want to look back on them.
People are always going to bring up the "he had a great team around him argument." However, post-lockout to up until this season, he bailed some Devils teams out that had a lot of holes. It wasn't until last season that the Devils actually had a great team top-to-bottom, and they went to the SCF.
I'd be willing to bet the main focus against him was the team around him, but Brodeur was just as crucial to that team as they were to him. His play made the trapping system work just as much as the players in front of him.
It's really hard to compare guys from completely different eras especially guys who played in the 50s and 60s compared to guys who played now. My question is what were the main points for putting guys like Sawchuk, Hall, and Plante above Brodeur? That had to be some kind of collective agreement on why they were better than him, I guess that would make me understand it better...
The two bolded statements contradict one another.
The threads are there - go read them. Respect the effort that was put into this project (even if you don't agree with the result).
Yes, it's really hard to compare players from different eras. However, if you're going to do an all-time ranking, it's a requirement (as hard as it may be).
The threads are there - go read them. Respect the effort that was put into this project (even if you don't agree with the result).
Yes, it's really hard to compare players from different eras. However, if you're going to do an all-time ranking, it's a requirement (as hard as it may be).
I don't want to divulge into every nook and cranny of the arguments, but I'm just curious to know the main pieces. There had to be a few main points that made some people vote those guys over Brodeur, whether it be winning percentage, teams, award voting, or whatnot.
I'm just curious as to what those arguments were, I'm open to changing my opinion, but I'm just curious to see the validity of the argument for those guys?
Well, his career speaks for itself. I wasn't around to hear all the arguments, nor do I really want to look back on them.
People are always going to bring up the "he had a great team around him argument." However, post-lockout to up until this season, he bailed some Devils teams out that had a lot of holes. It wasn't until last season that the Devils actually had a great team top-to-bottom, and they went to the SCF.
I'd be willing to bet the main focus against him was the team around him, but Brodeur was just as crucial to that team as they were to him. His play made the trapping system work just as much as the players in front of him.
It's really hard to compare guys from completely different eras especially guys who played in the 50s and 60s compared to guys who played now. My question is what were the main points for putting guys like Sawchuk, Hall, and Plante above Brodeur? That had to be some kind of collective agreement on why they were better than him, I guess that would make me understand it better...
So read back and you'll find those arguments. Or, maybe, someone here has the patience to summarize them for your edification.
I do do know one thing, though. This isn't a thread for people to post propaganda for their favorites. The people in here have put in a lot of work studying these guys and weighing their careers in an effort to come to some kind of consensus on a ranking for them. Having someone come in and dump on their work while offering NOTHING constructive themselves is more than a bit irritating.
That's fine - if someone wants to regurgitate the salient points made back then, they're free to do so.
However, let's do it in the overall (stickied) thread. None of the players are Vote 3 eligible, and therefore, it's off-topic here.
You'll gain a lot of understanding by reading through both threads - and you'll probably gain an appreciation for the players who finished ahead of Brodeur in the rankings. It wasn't an easy vote.
That's fine - if someone wants to regurgitate the salient points made back then, they're free to do so.
However, let's do it in the overall (stickied) thread. None of the players are Vote 3 eligible, and therefore, it's off-topic here.
You'll gain a lot of understanding by reading through both threads - and you'll probably gain an appreciation for the players who finished ahead of Brodeur in the rankings. It wasn't an easy vote.
EDIT: thanks to TDMM for moving these.
Way too many things to read through. Had I actually read throughout the discussion, I might have been able to actually read through them, but I didn't. No one remembers or has a brief recollection on the main pieces that separated Brodeur from the five above him?
Way too many things to read through. Had I actually read throughout the discussion, I might have been able to actually read through them, but I didn't. No one remembers or has a brief recollection on the main pieces that separated Brodeur from the five above him?
Like I said in the post you quoted, if someone wants to regurgitate the salient points made back then, they're free to do so.
I won't be doing it; I've already told you where to find it. "TL;DR" doesn't play well for me.
Way too many things to read through. Had I actually read throughout the discussion, I might have been able to actually read through them, but I didn't. No one remembers or has a brief recollection on the main pieces that separated Brodeur from the five above him?
I would gladly give a quick run down to someone who appreciated the hard work put into the process and respected the people involved. But you are acting so childishly I wonder why I'm dignifying you with any response at all.
__________________
Every post comes with the Nalyd Psycho Seal of Approval.
I would gladly give a quick run down to someone who appreciated the hard work put into the process and respected the people involved. But you are acting so childishly I wonder why I'm dignifying you with any response at all.
I'm not downplaying the hard work involved I just don't understand what arguments could've actually put those guys ahead of Brodeur. Granted, it's totally different time periods, but Brodeur has literally everything going in his favor, so there had to be one or two major things that made Brodeur's accomplishments seem much more minimal to the majority. I didn't exactly read every part of the argument either, and I'm sure you guys probably analyzed the statistics of the statistics. That plus something I'm missing that puts those guys over Brodeur, I'm just wondering what exactly that is.
I'll admit, my first comment probably was a bit childish, but I read through parts of the threads or at least peaked at them, so I guess it was a bit naive and misconceived. It's clear you guys put a lot of time and effort into that, but that statement was made before realizing that.
I'm not downplaying the hard work involved I just don't understand what arguments could've actually put those guys ahead of Brodeur. Granted, it's totally different time periods, but Brodeur has literally everything going in his favor, so there had to be one or two major things that made Brodeur's accomplishments seem much more minimal to the majority. I didn't exactly read every part of the argument either, and I'm sure you guys probably analyzed the statistics of the statistics. That plus something I'm missing that puts those guys over Brodeur, I'm just wondering what exactly that is.
I'll admit, my first comment probably was a bit childish, but I read through parts of the threads or at least peaked at them, so I guess it was a bit naive and misconceived. It's clear you guys put a lot of time and effort into that, but that statement was made before realizing that.
In the amount of time it took to make your posts, read the answers, think of replies, etc you could have read the threads involved, seen the arguments and rebuttals.
