HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Round 2, Vote 8 (HOH Top Goaltenders)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-30-2012, 05:21 PM
  #51
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 34,413
vCash: 500
I'm not a huge Luongo fan, but I think of him as closer to this generation's Esposito than its Giacomin. Before he started getting ripped in the Canadian media for his playoff shortfalls, he was widely perceived as a hands-down top-3 goalie of his generation. I really don't think this dismantling of his reputation is going to stand the test of time, or it shouldn't anyway.

I'm a little curious how to handle LeSueur. Is it fair to say he was the greatest pre-Vezina goalie?

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2012, 05:28 PM
  #52
vecens24
Registered User
 
vecens24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 5,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
I'm not a huge Luongo fan, but I think of him as closer to this generation's Esposito than its Giacomin. Before he started getting ripped in the Canadian media for his playoff shortfalls, he was widely perceived as a hands-down top-3 goalie of his generation. I really don't think this dismantling of his reputation is going to stand the test of time, or it shouldn't anyway.

I'm a little curious how to handle LeSueur. Is it fair to say he was the greatest pre-Vezina goalie?
Possibly. He along with Paddy Moran, maybe Tom Paton?

I've never really seen it with LeSueur. Anyone want to try to convince me?

vecens24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2012, 05:31 PM
  #53
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
2009 vs. Chicago, .879 series, .767 final game

2010 vs. Chicago, .897 series, .857 final game

2011 vs. Boston, .891 series, .850 final game

2012 he was a backup, but still posted glorious .891 in a losing effort

Vancouver lost five series during his tenure, and he personally caused three of the losses. I rest my case.
Pretty much meaningless to show save percentages in such a short sample of time.

Basically it just means he won some and lost some.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
They lose against Boston regardless of Luongo because they fail to score a goal in the final game. Furthermore, Luongo had two shutouts AND the Nucks averaged one goal a game.

As for 2009, well, Luongo had sub-par performances in two games, but his team didn't score in the other losses.
Agreed - I'm not much of a Luongo fan myself - but no way his team was winning the Stanley Cup.

They turned tail and ran against Boston.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Engine View Post
Save percentages from tiny samples like that basically say that he lost those games. Considering that his Sv% from the 3 games he won were 1.000, .933, and 1.000, you should see how much these things can fluctuate. It would be interesting to see how many 7 game series you can find where a goalie's average Sv% in games they lost looks anything short of awful.

As far as "actively losing series", that reads like the worst kind of narrative-building. What my own eyes told me was that that Luongo often reminds me of the annoying AI goalies in EA NHL games - if they get down by 2 or three goals, they pretty much all but put a gun in their mouths and just stop trying to stop pucks. Whether he holds together and loses 4-1 or buckles and lets in 8, his teams still loses and does so as a team. But that's what I saw. What we should be looking at, is how does his playoff performance, in both winning and losing causes, stack up against say, Giacomin? If nobody looks at this before I get home, I'll take a look.
Agreed. Luongo didn't actively lose anything.

In fact I'd make the case he was the only reason they were in a 7 game series at all.

He had a Cujo level of scoring support from his team.

And similarly to Cujo being labelled a first round goaltender, a narrative is being built to make Luongo take much more than his share of the blame for those losses imo.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
IF Luongo had a .987 SV%, his team would have lost regardless (game 7, Boston).

A goalie cannot lose a game by himself if his team doesn't score.
Quote:
Originally Posted by intylerwetrust View Post
two 1-0 shutouts in the 2011 finals, Canucks score 8 goals in 7 games, get shutout in game 7, and Luongo is to blame? really?
Yeah.. at least his team scoring didn't dry up until he made the finals or he'd be getting the Cujo first rounder treatment.


Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Wow, how on earth is Luongo getting so dismissed when Giacomin is a virtual shoo-in?
Again, I don't particularly like Luongo to be honest, but I don't get it either.

I get the impression he is a bit mentally fragile but he didn't collapse nearly as bad as some of the other stars on his team.

I'll never forget Sedin getting decked by Thomas and almost doing a back flip embellishing it or Marchand punching one of them in the face 100 times while he (and the rest of the team) stood there and watched.

Luongo played plenty well enough to win a Stanley Cup - despite his weaker performances - if the team didn't seemingly have their will broken.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2012, 06:12 PM
  #54
Rob Scuderi
Registered User
 
Rob Scuderi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 2,788
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
On my original list, I had Vachon, Giacomin, Luongo, Joseph, and Vanbiesbrouck all right after each other, as basically equals. Someone tell me again what makes any of them better than the others.
Yeah that group is really tough for me. I've posted mostly about the older goalies, but I'm having a hard time seeing how my top 8 isn't going to be seriously slanted towards post-expansion guys this round.

I took Beezer over Vachon last round which I think could make for a good comparison. I'm having a hard time picking between them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vecens24 View Post
Possibly. He along with Paddy Moran, maybe Tom Paton?

I've never really seen it with LeSueur. Anyone want to try to convince me?
I think Riley Hern was probably better than Moran and definitely Paton. I had Hern over LeSueur on my original list, but that was really a case of taking GAA figures at face value more than anything else.

LeSueur's career started with a bang for sure though, he got killed in a two-game Stanley Cup challenge against Ottawa playing for Smiths Falls (from the FAHL) and they liked him so much they brought him on for their next challenge. What's impressive to me, is that Ottawa was still winning Stanley Cups with the goalies between Bouse Hutton and LeSueur yet they still weren't content. After they got LeSueur though the job was his until Benedict came in so he definitely gave them what they were looking for.

Rob Scuderi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2012, 06:31 PM
  #55
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 41,036
vCash: 500
Lesueur is a dark horse to make my top 4 this round after seeing how highly the big names thought of him when they voted on the "all-time all-star team" in 1925. But first I need to be convinced that he stands out over the other pre-WW1 HHOFers (Paddy Moran, Riley Hern, and John Bouse Hutton). My "project" this round will be to collect newspaper sources on the 4 of them. (there are profiles of 3 of them in the pre-1950 research thread, so hopefully it won't be too daunting). If anyone wants to help, PM me.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 12-30-2012 at 11:45 PM. Reason: I CAN'T SPELL "LESUEUR!"
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2012, 06:48 PM
  #56
ContrarianGoaltender
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 577
vCash: 500
The top two candidates from this round on my original list were Curtis Joseph and Roberto Luongo, and those are the same top two I still have going into this discussion. I am also strongly considering John Vanbiesbrouck and Tom Barrasso for spots in my top 4.

After the last voting round where we put three more original six goalies on the list, the official save percentage era (1983-84 to present) has become even more horribly underrepresented, in my opinion. The only goalies from that period already voted in are Roy, Hasek, Brodeur, Belfour and Fuhr, plus the tail end of Billy Smith's career where he didn't do all that much to add to his resume. There are seven goalies already ranked between 1910 to 1938, an equivalent length of time, and the next one of Giacomin or Vachon to get on the list makes it 10 goalies that played in the 1970s. Yet still we have basically five from the last 25 years, a period that included widespread technical innovation, the rise of the full-time goalie coach and better goalie coaching through all levels of hockey, and a wider talent pool from more athletes choosing to play goal and more top goaltenders entering the league from Europe?

It seems quite likely to me that we're either penalizing guys too much for playing in the shadow of Roy, Hasek and Brodeur, or we're focusing too much on team results (particularly Cups, which are much harder to come by in an expanded league) or else we're not properly accounting for how difficult it is to win awards when competing against 29 other top goalies, rather than just five other guys (and often realistically fewer than that once you consider that the GAA-biased writers rarely threw anything the way of the guys on the worst teams in the league). It's also obvious that a much greater emphasis is placed on playoff performances for recent goalies relative to how older goalies were judged, which seems to be a glaring double standard.

I actually agree with MadArcand that comparing Roberto Luongo to Ed Giacomin could be considered an insult, I just think that the guy who should be insulted is not Giacomin but Luongo. And not just Luongo but pretty much every other goalie who played in the NHL in the last decade. Roberto Luongo has a very strong case to be the #2 goalie of the 2000-2009 decade(*). Unless you're going pretty much solely based on peak value and/or playoff performance, I think Brodeur and Luongo separate pretty clearly from the rest of the pack over that span, especially in terms of overall achievement. And yet we're going to say that the #2 goalie of the 2000-2009 decade is worse than the, what, #5 or #6 goalie of the 1970s who had better teammates, a shorter prime and fewer career games played than Luongo? How does that make sense?

Luongo represented Canada as a top-2 goalie option in three straight best-on-best tournaments. He's in the top 10 all-time in career regular season GVT, and has a career save percentage of .919 at a time when league average was .908. As a point of comparison, Tim Thomas, whose career is mostly peak and whose save percentage peak is outstanding, has a .921 compared to .909 league average, almost exactly the same level of outperformance as Luongo, even though Luongo has faced almost twice as many career shots against. And while I think some of the arguments about Thomas' team situation are exaggerated, it should still be noted that unlike Thomas Luongo has been elite in multiple team contexts, including being the only post-expansion goalie to be voted to a season-end All-Star Team while playing on a non-playoff team.

Now is the time of the list to award elite consistency rather than whoever happened to time their hot streaks or team situations well enough to win a seasonal award here or there. The cases for Joseph and Vanbiesbrouck are pretty similar, it's that their long careers of very good play while on several different teams should be rated as a better indicator of talent than other guys who may have had a couple of seasons with better awards recognition but were for the most part considered to be not as good, or who were competing against much shallower talent pools for awards and Cups.

(*)-If you want to argue that Luongo wasn't the second-best goalie from 2000 to 2009 then go ahead and make the argument, but I'd still like to know whether you would be planning to vote that guy this round (if available), or if you'd still end up ranking him behind the 10th best guy from the original six or 1970s.


Last edited by ContrarianGoaltender: 12-30-2012 at 06:52 PM. Reason: typo
ContrarianGoaltender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2012, 06:53 PM
  #57
Sens Rule
Registered User
 
Sens Rule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,740
vCash: 500
Makes you realize how tough the HHOF standards are for Goalies. I guess these guys are 29th to 44th on all-time lists really in this thread. And half of them aren't in the HHOF or won't likely ever get in. Standards are so tough for goalies. The "most important" position. Even in a 60-40 platoon a starter is playing 60% of the minutes for a teams season and likely every playoff minute.

Should there really be double the number of goalies in the HHOF? Should Barrasso, for example, or Vachon really be waiting for election at this point? Considering the skaters that have been elected?

Sens Rule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2012, 07:04 PM
  #58
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 8,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ContrarianGoaltender View Post
The top two candidates from this round on my original list were Curtis Joseph and Roberto Luongo, and those are the same top two I still have going into this discussion. I am also strongly considering John Vanbiesbrouck and Tom Barrasso for spots in my top 4.

After the last voting round where we put three more original six goalies on the list, the official save percentage era (1983-84 to present) has become even more horribly underrepresented, in my opinion. The only goalies from that period already voted in are Roy, Hasek, Brodeur, Belfour and Fuhr, plus the tail end of Billy Smith's career where he didn't do all that much to add to his resume. There are seven goalies already ranked between 1910 to 1938, an equivalent length of time, and the next one of Giacomin or Vachon to get on the list makes it 10 goalies that played in the 1970s. Yet still we have basically five from the last 25 years, a period that included widespread technical innovation, the rise of the full-time goalie coach and better goalie coaching through all levels of hockey, and a wider talent pool from more athletes choosing to play goal and more top goaltenders entering the league from Europe?

It seems quite likely to me that we're either penalizing guys too much for playing in the shadow of Roy, Hasek and Brodeur, or we're focusing too much on team results (particularly Cups, which are much harder to come by in an expanded league) or else we're not properly accounting for how difficult it is to win awards when competing against 29 other top goalies, rather than just five other guys (and often realistically fewer than that once you consider that the GAA-biased writers rarely threw anything the way of the guys on the worst teams in the league). It's also obvious that a much greater emphasis is placed on playoff performances for recent goalies relative to how older goalies were judged, which seems to be a glaring double standard.

I actually agree with MadArcand that comparing Roberto Luongo to Ed Giacomin could be considered an insult, I just think that the guy who should be insulted is not Giacomin but Luongo. And not just Luongo but pretty much every other goalie who played in the NHL in the last decade. Roberto Luongo has a very strong case to be the #2 goalie of the 2000-2009 decade(*). Unless you're going pretty much solely based on peak value and/or playoff performance, I think Brodeur and Luongo separate pretty clearly from the rest of the pack over that span, especially in terms of overall achievement. And yet we're going to say that the #2 goalie of the 2000-2009 decade is worse than the, what, #5 or #6 goalie of the 1970s who had better teammates, a shorter prime and fewer career games played than Luongo? How does that make sense?

Luongo represented Canada as a top-2 goalie option in three straight best-on-best tournaments. He's in the top 10 all-time in career regular season GVT, and has a career save percentage of .919 at a time when league average was .908. As a point of comparison, Tim Thomas, whose career is mostly peak and whose save percentage peak is outstanding, has a .921 compared to .909 league average, almost exactly the same level of outperformance as Luongo, even though Luongo has faced almost twice as many career shots against. And while I think some of the arguments about Thomas' team situation are exaggerated, it should still be noted that unlike Thomas Luongo has been elite in multiple team contexts, including being the only post-expansion goalie to be voted to a season-end All-Star Team while playing on a non-playoff team.

Now is the time of the list to award elite consistency rather than whoever happened to time their hot streaks or team situations well enough to win a seasonal award here or there. The cases for Joseph and Vanbiesbrouck are pretty similar, it's that their long careers of very good play while on several different teams should be rated as a better indicator of talent than other guys who may have had a couple of seasons with better awards recognition but were for the most part considered to be not as good, or who were competing against much shallower talent pools for awards and Cups.

(*)-If you want to argue that Luongo wasn't the second-best goalie from 2000 to 2009 then go ahead and make the argument, but I'd still like to know whether you would be planning to vote that guy this round (if available), or if you'd still end up ranking him behind the 10th best guy from the original six or 1970s.
Brodeur's career SP is .913. Maybe Luongo should have been top 5.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2012, 07:37 PM
  #59
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,625
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
Is anyone else leaning Tim Thomas over Roberto Luongo? Just curious since I believe we've all seen their entire careers.
Not leaning, I have Thomas at least 10 spots over Luongo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
Agreed. Luongo didn't actively lose anything.

In fact I'd make the case he was the only reason they were in a 7 game series at all.
I like it how everyone focuses on the Boston series and ignores the fact that he completely, utterly, crapped the bed in the two years prior, and very nearly did the same (against the same opponent) in 2011 too.

Luongo has been great in regular season, but playoff goalie, he's not.

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2012, 07:40 PM
  #60
Sens Rule
Registered User
 
Sens Rule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,740
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
Brodeur's career SP is .913. Maybe Luongo should have been top 5.
Which places Brodeur 16th all-time. Wow as a Sens fan I am excited to find out Craig Anderson is 15th All-time with a better save percentage then Brodeur. The all-time list is ALL active players save for the top spot.... Mr. Hasek.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/lead...ct_career.html

Jonas Hiller is 6th all-time in Save percentage...

Sens Rule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2012, 07:40 PM
  #61
Rob Scuderi
Registered User
 
Rob Scuderi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 2,788
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
Brodeur's career SP is .913. Maybe Luongo should have been top 5.
No offense, but based on the Connell conversations, it seems you're more interested in career averaging stats more than some others.

Really glad TCG laid that groundwork, I read Luongo-Giacomin comparisons the same way though so maybe I just see it similarly.

I went Lundqvist-Thomas-Luongo on my original list but I'm definitely going to have it the opposite this time. Honestly, Thomas still isn't doing it for me and I think the Kerr comparisons are pretty fair.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sens Rule View Post
Which places Brodeur 16th all-time. Wow as a Sens fan I am excited to find out Craig Anderson is 15th All-time with a better save percentage then Brodeur. The all-time list is ALL active players save for the top spot.... Mr. Hasek.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/lead...ct_career.html

Jonas Hiller is 6th all-time in Save percentage...
Thanks, should have just posted this instead.

Rob Scuderi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2012, 07:47 PM
  #62
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 8,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring Back Scuderi View Post
No offense, but based on the Connell conversations, it seems you're more interested in career averaging stats more than some others. Really glad TCG laid that groundwork, I read Luongo-Giacomin comparisons the same way though so maybe I just see it similarly.

I went Lundqvist-Thomas-Luongo on my original list but I'm definitely going to have it the opposite this time. Honestly, Thomas still isn't doing it for me and I think the Kerr comparisons are pretty fair.



Thanks, should have just posted this instead.
No offense taken.

I am interested in career average stats when they are of interest.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2012, 09:11 PM
  #63
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,625
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring Back Scuderi View Post
Lundqvist-Thomas-Luongo
Wow. I may be hating on Luongo now, but he's lightyears ahead of Lundqvist.

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2012, 09:31 PM
  #64
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
Luongo has been great in regular season, but playoff goalie, he's not.
I agree he hasn't been lights out in the playoffs or anything but I think you're overstating how poorly he has played.

He did pitch two 1-0 shutouts in the Stanley Cup finals with very little support from his team.

Besides, if playoffs are so important why do you give Fuhr such a hard time?

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2012, 09:36 PM
  #65
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ContrarianGoaltender View Post
After the last voting round where we put three more original six goalies on the list, the official save percentage era (1983-84 to present) has become even more horribly underrepresented, in my opinion. The only goalies from that period already voted in are Roy, Hasek, Brodeur, Belfour and Fuhr, plus the tail end of Billy Smith's career where he didn't do all that much to add to his resume. There are seven goalies already ranked between 1910 to 1938, an equivalent length of time, and the next one of Giacomin or Vachon to get on the list makes it 10 goalies that played in the 1970s. Yet still we have basically five from the last 25 years, a period that included widespread technical innovation, the rise of the full-time goalie coach and better goalie coaching through all levels of hockey, and a wider talent pool from more athletes choosing to play goal and more top goaltenders entering the league from Europe?
Does seem rather odd, doesn't it?

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2012, 09:45 PM
  #66
Rob Scuderi
Registered User
 
Rob Scuderi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 2,788
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
Wow. I may be hating on Luongo now, but he's lightyears ahead of Lundqvist.
Yeah, it was really just a gut feeling rank that doesn't hold up in this round of voting. We're judging goalies on what they did, not who I want to win for a one-off game tomorrow based on what they've done lately.

I liked Glenn Hall and Tony O much earlier in this process, so I'm not going to continue being punitive towards Luongo because I'm more familiar with his situation.

Rob Scuderi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2012, 11:44 PM
  #67
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 41,036
vCash: 500
Whatever you think of Luongo vs Lundqvist, I think there's a case that Lundqvist has already equaled fellow Ranger Giacomin's NHL career, and then you add his gold medal at the Olympics...

I definitely think the goalie project is in danger of (wrongly IMO) following the old HOH tradition of hanging on the flaws of recent players while glossing over the flaws of older players. Where was the pointed criticism for singlehandedly blowing playoff series when Tony Esposito was being ranked 16th?

Edit: Don't get me wrong, I do think Luongo has shown a mental weakness in big games - that's why he's still available now. I just don't think it should wipe out the rest of his resume in a way that it wouldn't for an older player.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 12-31-2012 at 12:05 AM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 12:53 AM
  #68
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 22,307
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ContrarianGoaltender View Post

I actually agree with MadArcand that comparing Roberto Luongo to Ed Giacomin could be considered an insult, I just think that the guy who should be insulted is not Giacomin but Luongo. And not just Luongo but pretty much every other goalie who played in the NHL in the last decade. Roberto Luongo has a very strong case to be the #2 goalie of the 2000-2009 decade(*). Unless you're going pretty much solely based on peak value and/or playoff performance, I think Brodeur and Luongo separate pretty clearly from the rest of the pack over that span, especially in terms of overall achievement. And yet we're going to say that the #2 goalie of the 2000-2009 decade is worse than the, what, #5 or #6 goalie of the 1970s who had better teammates, a shorter prime and fewer career games played than Luongo? How does that make sense?


(*)-If you want to argue that Luongo wasn't the second-best goalie from 2000 to 2009 then go ahead and make the argument, but I'd still like to know whether you would be planning to vote that guy this round (if available), or if you'd still end up ranking him behind the 10th best guy from the original six or 1970s.
I have to agree, with certain reservations though...

- 2000 to 2009 is incredibly favorable to Luongo. Kiprussof, Lundqvist, Thomas, Turco, and even Joseph can't really be considered, due to not-playing or being post-prime. I don't think anybody had Turco, Theodore, Bulin and Vokoun above Luongo -- 2nd in that span is certainly interesting, but years are slanted to take out of some of his most serious competition (most notably, Thomas and Lundqvist).

- Vachon didn't had better teammates than Luongo as a whole, unless you give A LOT of importance to his stint as a Hab.

- Giacomin had bad playoffs... but he ended up being pretty decent in the end when his career was over. Might have cost a few series to his team... that they probably should never have won anyways. A lot like Luongo.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 04:18 AM
  #69
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,625
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
I agree he hasn't been lights out in the playoffs or anything but I think you're overstating how poorly he has played.

He did pitch two 1-0 shutouts in the Stanley Cup finals with very little support from his team.

Besides, if playoffs are so important why do you give Fuhr such a hard time?
I give any goalie who had consistent periods of suckage in either RS or POs a bit of hard time. I'd definitely have Fuhr top 4 by now if he was still available, though.

Quote:
Whatever you think of Luongo vs Lundqvist, I think there's a case that Lundqvist has already equaled fellow Ranger Giacomin's NHL career, and then you add his gold medal at the Olympics...
Really? 1 Vezina vs. 1 Vezina. 1 1st AST vs. 2. 0 2nd ASTs vs. 3. He's not even close as far as accomplishments go, plus he plays on super-defensive over-exposed team and is over-hyped himself.

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 03:22 PM
  #70
ContrarianGoaltender
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
I have to agree, with certain reservations though...

- 2000 to 2009 is incredibly favorable to Luongo. Kiprussof, Lundqvist, Thomas, Turco, and even Joseph can't really be considered, due to not-playing or being post-prime. I don't think anybody had Turco, Theodore, Bulin and Vokoun above Luongo -- 2nd in that span is certainly interesting, but years are slanted to take out of some of his most serious competition (most notably, Thomas and Lundqvist).
I agree that those years work out very well for Luongo, that's how it always works for some guys when you look at periods of a decade or whatever. Switch the years to 2003 to 2012 and I think Luongo still probably ends up at #2 though. He definitely still does if you are mainly going based on some kind of cumulative performance stat like GVT or goals saved above league average. And if you think Lundqvist or Thomas deserves that spot, then they should also be candidates now, as it can still be argued that ranking 4th against the 2003-2012 goalie crop remains more impressive than wherever Giacomin ranked against his peer group throughout his career.

It should also be noted that actual awards voting worked out pretty terribly for Luongo, considering he twice finished as 2AST to Martin Brodeur (including 2007 which many would argue was Brodeur's best season). Luongo also lost a prime season to the 2004-05 lockout. Giacomin, on the other hand, mainly took advantage of the brief window of opportunity between the aging original six goalie cohort and the emergence of Esposito, Dryden, Parent and Vachon, as well the fact that he was on an original six team in the brief period of time when the original six completely dominated against the new expansion teams. He also played a lot of games while many other teams were going with platoons, which certainly helped him out in terms of awards.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
- Vachon didn't had better teammates than Luongo as a whole, unless you give A LOT of importance to his stint as a Hab.
Florida of the 2000s was worse than the 1970s Kings, but sure, Vachon did play in some weak team situations, and overall team effects were generally larger in the '70s which means it is quite possible that Vachon had a harder time of it than Luongo. To rate him above Luongo one would certainly have to make that argument, given that Luongo has much better adjusted save stats (Vachon had a career .896 save percentage compared to .894 league average, Luongo is at .919 vs. .908).

Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
- Giacomin had bad playoffs... but he ended up being pretty decent in the end when his career was over. Might have cost a few series to his team... that they probably should never have won anyways. A lot like Luongo.
I'd probably agree with that, whether they played poorly or not their teams still generally lost to teams that should have beat them. The Rangers usually ended up losing to Boston or Montreal, and the 2011 Finals was the first time that Luongo's team lost to a playoff opponent with a worse regular season record.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
Really? 1 Vezina vs. 1 Vezina. 1 1st AST vs. 2. 0 2nd ASTs vs. 3. He's not even close as far as accomplishments go, plus he plays on super-defensive over-exposed team and is over-hyped himself.
I guess that depends on your definition of accomplishments.

Career save percentage vs. league average:

Ed Giacomin: .902 career, .902 league average
Henrik Lundqvist: .920 career, .909 league average

That puts Giacomin at zero goals above average, and Lundqvist 144 goals above average so far in his NHL career. There's more to goaltending analysis than simply looking at save percentage, but in this case it seems hard to suggest there was anything other than a sizable gap between the two given that Giacomin had a better defence and was competing against goalies on expansion teams, whereas Lundqvist was dominating against a much stronger and deeper goalie talent pool.

Comparing against backups, it certainly looks like one of them was overhyped and carried by his team while the other was a true difference-maker:

Giacomin, 1966-67 to 1973-74: .618 win %, 2.59 GAA
NYR Backups, 1966-67 to 1973-74: .641 win %, 2.49 GAA

Lundqvist, 2005-06 to 2011-12: .605 win %, 2.27 GAA
NYR Backups, 2005-06 to 2011-12: .518 win %, 2.73 GAA

I always thought the point of goaltending was to stop the other team from scoring goals, not to convince writers to vote for you at the end of the season. In terms of helping his team win hockey games, I'd say that Lundqvist accomplished significantly more.

ContrarianGoaltender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 03:32 PM
  #71
tony d
Honey Nut Cheerios
 
tony d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Behind A Tree
Country: Canada
Posts: 37,079
vCash: 500
Going to be interesting to see were Luongo goes on the final list, the guy's been a pretty good regular season goalie but his playoff record is questionable.

__________________
tony d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 05:01 PM
  #72
kmad
Riot Survivor
 
kmad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 32,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony d View Post
Going to be interesting to see were Luongo goes on the final list, the guy's been a pretty good regular season goalie but his playoff record is questionable.
He seems to waver between absolutely brilliant and absolutely terrible. I wonder what his save percentage is against teams that aren't Boston or Chicago.

kmad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 05:09 PM
  #73
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 22,307
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ContrarianGoaltender View Post
I agree that those years work out very well for Luongo, that's how it always works for some guys when you look at periods of a decade or whatever. Switch the years to 2003 to 2012 and I think Luongo still probably ends up at #2 though. He definitely still does if you are mainly going based on some kind of cumulative performance stat like GVT or goals saved above league average. And if you think Lundqvist or Thomas deserves that spot, then they should also be candidates now, as it can still be argued that ranking 4th against the 2003-2012 goalie crop remains more impressive than wherever Giacomin ranked against his peer group throughout his career.
I'm curious about where you'd rank Kipper. Luongo vs. Kipper (for 03-12) is certainly debatable.

Quote:
It should also be noted that actual awards voting worked out pretty terribly for Luongo, considering he twice finished as 2AST to Martin Brodeur (including 2007 which many would argue was Brodeur's best season). Luongo also lost a prime season to the 2004-05 lockout. Giacomin, on the other hand, mainly took advantage of the brief window of opportunity between the aging original six goalie cohort and the emergence of Esposito, Dryden, Parent and Vachon, as well the fact that he was on an original six team in the brief period of time when the original six completely dominated against the new expansion teams. He also played a lot of games while many other teams were going with platoons, which certainly helped him out in terms of awards.
Humm... Well, games played should be factored in positively for Giacomin. Playing non-platoon is a platoon era should be considered a plus. The flipside is -- if Giacomin earned his AST'S FOR THE SOLE REASON that he played a bit more, well, they kinda "lose" some value (that's obvious...) -- but I don't see how it could be viewed differently than, say, Frank Nighbor continuing to be a 60-minute player when nobody was doing so. Also, the "comparative" part of me says that if Giacomin doesn't get in, then a guy like Roger Crozier has no business whatsoever to do in the Top-60.

Again, full disclosure -- i think it's about time for Giacomin.


Quote:
Florida of the 2000s was worse than the 1970s Kings, but sure, Vachon did play in some weak team situations, and overall team effects were generally larger in the '70s which means it is quite possible that Vachon had a harder time of it than Luongo. To rate him above Luongo one would certainly have to make that argument, given that Luongo has much better adjusted save stats (Vachon had a career .896 save percentage compared to .894 league average, Luongo is at .919 vs. .908).
At that point, Luongo played A LOT with the Canucks and I factored that when I said that Luongo had better teammates (as a whole) than Vachon). Not to mention -- being bad in the 2000 was not quite being bad in the 1960-1970.



Quote:
I guess that depends on your definition of accomplishments.

Career save percentage vs. league average:

Ed Giacomin: .902 career, .902 league average
Henrik Lundqvist: .920 career, .909 league average
Thanks for that info. It's highly unlikely that Lundqvist doesn't end up in my Top-8 as soon as he appears for voting, unless the "results" for this round are, let's say, "unsatisfying".

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 11:21 PM
  #74
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 8,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Whatever you think of Luongo vs Lundqvist, I think there's a case that Lundqvist has already equaled fellow Ranger Giacomin's NHL career, and then you add his gold medal at the Olympics...

I definitely think the goalie project is in danger of (wrongly IMO) following the old HOH tradition of hanging on the flaws of recent players while glossing over the flaws of older players. Where was the pointed criticism for singlehandedly blowing playoff series when Tony Esposito was being ranked 16th?

Edit: Don't get me wrong, I do think Luongo has shown a mental weakness in big games - that's why he's still available now. I just don't think it should wipe out the rest of his resume in a way that it wouldn't for an older player.
Then why punish Giacomin, either?

Lundqvist hadn't accomplished much of anything until last year (when the Rangers put out a Defensive core that blocked more shots than anyone). Yet he had already equaled Giacomin and his 5 consecutive all-star berths?

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-01-2013, 01:28 AM
  #75
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,895
vCash: 500
The thing about Luongo is that if his defence protected him from bullying, he'd be significantly better.

__________________
Every post comes with the Nalyd Psycho Seal of Approval.
Nalyd Psycho 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 09:48 AM.

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.