So, 2nd, 5th, 6th, 8th, 8th? How terrible, especially compared to Lundqvist's glorious 4th, 4th, 7th, 8th, 10th on a super-defensive team.
Lundqvist is not likely to be ranked ahead of Giacomin, and rightly so, due to longevity.
But I'd take his sv% record over Giacomin's, easily, once league size and divisional parity are taken into consideration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe
I'm not as high on Cujo as you are, but I think he was the best Leafs player in both their losses to the Devils in 2000 and 2001. Especially 2000, when Mats Sundin spent as much energy running and hiding from Scott Stevens as he did trying to create offense.
After 1975, Giacomin never played more than 33 games. So where does Giacomin beat Lundqvist in longevity, again? Giacomin has 5 All-Star seasons. Then 5 more seasons where he played in a tandem, and his tandem partner outperformed him (sometimes badly) in 4 of them! In Giacomin's best post-1971 season (1975), he didn't get a single vote for the All-Star team. Then he has 3 more seasons of 33, 33, and 9 games played.
I hate to keep talking about a player who isn't available yet, but if you think Lundqvist has been at least a borderline star every year since the lockout, that beats Giacomin 7 years to 5. And that's not even talking about what happened during the lockout year.
Seriously, what does Giacomin add to his resume outside of 1966-67 to 1970-71? I'm open to arguments that he did something of note during this time, but I'm really close to seeing him as someone like Guy Lafleur, where his quality of play outside his peak was low enough where it can almost be thrown out entirely. Add in Giacomin's weak playoff record, and I really don't see anything of note outside of his 5 regular seasons.
Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 01-03-2013 at 03:46 PM.
I hate to keep talking about a player who isn't available yet
I don't think he should be talked about at all either, just some people keep dragging him up as some kind of 'comparable', while he should be compared to the likes of Rinne, Backstrom and Quick - a tiny bit of awards, gaudy sv% on super-defensive teams and little career to speak of yet.
After 1975, Giacomin never played more than 33 games. So where does Giacomin beat Lundqvist in longevity, again? Giacomin has 5 All-Star seasons. Then 5 more seasons where he played in a tandem, and his tandem partner outperformed him (sometimes badly) in 4 of them! In Giacomin's best post-1971 season (1975), he didn't get a single vote for the All-Star team. Then he has 3 more seasons of 33, 33, and 9 games played.
I hate to keep talking about a player who isn't available yet, but if you think Lundqvist has been at least a borderline star every year since the lockout, that beats Giacomin 7 years to 5. And that's not even talking about what happened during the lockout year.
Seriously, what does Giacomin add to his resume outside of 1966-67 to 1970-71? I'm open to arguments that he did something of note during this time, but I'm really close to seeing him as someone like Guy Lafleur, where his quality of play outside his peak was low enough where it can almost be thrown out entirely. Add in Giacomin's weak playoff record, and I really don't see anything of note outside of his 5 regular seasons.
He was still a strong, competent NHL goalie outside of those years.
And although there's strong evidence that he made some all-star teams by "default", it appears his voting record is, on the whole, better than Lundqvist's.
I don't think he should be talked about at all either, just some people keep dragging him up as some kind of 'comparable', while he should be compared to the likes of Rinne, Backstrom and Quick - a tiny bit of awards, gaudy sv% on super-defensive teams and little career to speak of yet.
Lundqvist has easily proven himself better than those three.
He was still a strong, competent NHL goalie outside of those years.
Define "strong." Is being outperformed by Gilles Villemure on the same team in 3 out of 4 seasons, "strong?"
And let's stick to the 15 goalies who are available for voting. It's hard enough to vote on 15 guys without arguing about guys who aren't options. To the extent that I've been a part of that, I shouldn't have been.
Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 01-03-2013 at 05:18 PM.
I don't think he should be talked about at all either, just some people keep dragging him up as some kind of 'comparable', while he should be compared to the likes of Rinne, Backstrom and Quick - a tiny bit of awards, gaudy sv% on super-defensive teams and little career to speak of yet.
Sounds a lot like Thomas to me.
Am I fool for taking Liut over him despite Thomas's peak value and playoff edge?
For starters, he has been much more highly regarded by the hockey establishment, contending for the Vezina four times (or is it five now)
Statistically, he's posted a significantly better save% than all of them (except Rinne who didn't play in the higher scoring 06, 07 seasons so it's a wash) for significantly more games than all of them, with fewer question marks attached to how "honest" a number his sv% really is. Nashville and Minnesota historically boost their goalies' sv%, and Quick has only really been good from a sv% standpoint for one season.
After 1975, Giacomin never played more than 33 games. So where does Giacomin beat Lundqvist in longevity, again? Giacomin has 5 All-Star seasons. Then 5 more seasons where he played in a tandem, and his tandem partner outperformed him (sometimes badly) in 4 of them! In Giacomin's best post-1971 season (1975), he didn't get a single vote for the All-Star team. Then he has 3 more seasons of 33, 33, and 9 games played.
I hate to keep talking about a player who isn't available yet, but if you think Lundqvist has been at least a borderline star every year since the lockout, that beats Giacomin 7 years to 5. And that's not even talking about what happened during the lockout year.
Seriously, what does Giacomin add to his resume outside of 1966-67 to 1970-71? I'm open to arguments that he did something of note during this time, but I'm really close to seeing him as someone like Guy Lafleur, where his quality of play outside his peak was low enough where it can almost be thrown out entirely. Add in Giacomin's weak playoff record, and I really don't see anything of note outside of his 5 regular seasons.
1971-72 season saw a balanced 78 game scheduled. Each team played the other 13 teams 6 times, 3 home and 3 away. Six of the 14 teams did not make the playoffs - Detroit, Buffalo, Vancouver, California, Los Angeles and Philadelphia.
Boston finished with 119 pts, Rangers with 109, Montreal with 108, Chicago with 107.
Gilles Villemure played 37 games, 34 starts. Ed Giacomin started 44 games.
22 of Gilles Villemure's starts were against the six non-playoff teams. 12 starts against playoff teams but only 4 against Boston - 1H, Chicago - 1H, Montreal - 1H/1A.
14 of Ed Giacomin's starts were against non-playoff teams but 14 starts were against the elite three teams.
This should be considered when comparing Giacomin's and Villemure's performance with the 1971-72 Rangers.
The other seasons could benefit from similar scrutiny.
I posted charts on each player's career previously, but I want to use this one to show that not all award winners are created equal. There were 18 instances where post-expansion goalies up for voting won a 1st or 2nd berth.
I ranked these awards by Taco's Goals Above Replacement Goaltender (GARG) column. Goal Differential (GD) is also listed in the table. These figures are calculated using SV% so keep the concerns of that metric in mind (arena biases, no accounting for shot quality, etc.)
Name
Year
Team
GP
SV% (League Average)
Rank
GAA
Rank
GD
GARG
All-Star
Vachon
1975
LAK
54
.926 (.890)
1/25
2.24
2/25
61.8
86.5
2nd Team
Luongo
2004
FLA
72
.931 (.911)
3
2.43
27
49.3
86.4
2nd Team
Vanbiesbrouck
1994
FLA
57
.924 (.895)
2
2.53
4
57.3
86.0
2nd Team
Thomas
2011
BOS
57
.938 (.913)
1
2.00
1
46.9
74.1
1st Team
Luongo
2007
VAN
76
.921 (.905)
4
2.29
T6
35.9
68.4
2nd Team
Thomas
2009
BOS
54
.933 (.908)
1
2.10
1
41.4
66.9
1st Team
Barrasso
1993
PIT
63
.901 (.885)
4
3.01
3
31.9
60.2
2nd Team
Liut
1981
STL
61
.892 (.876)
11/31
3.34
T14/31
30.6
58.2
1st Team
Giacomin
1967
NYR
68
.917 (.907)
3/6
2.61
4/6
24.0
55.1
1st Team
Vachon
1977
LAK
68
.903 (.891)
8/31
2.71
7/31
25.0
53.5
2nd Team
Vanbiesbrouck
1986
NYR
61
.887 (.874)
T9
3.32
5
21.0
45.3
1st Team
Giacomin
1971
NYR
45
.922 (.903)
2/22
2.16
2/22
23.0
41.1
1st Team
Giacomin
1968
NYR
66
.915 (.910)
6/19
2.44
5/19
11.5
39.8
2nd Team
Giacomin
1969
NYR
70
.912 (.908)
T7/16
2.55
5/16
8.7
38.6
2nd Team
Giacomin
1970
NYR
70
.916 (.912)
8/15
2.36
4/15
8.5
37.6
2nd Team
Barrasso
1984
BUF
42
.893 (.873)
T3
2.84
2
23.3
38.7
1st Team
Barrasso
1985
BUF
54
.887 (.875)
5
2.66
1
16.1
35.3
2nd Team
Liut
1987
HAR
59
.885 (.880)
T12
3.23
8
8.2
32.6
2nd Team
Giacomin's voting record is the best by far, but they also look to be weak awards. His career high of 55.1 GARG was bested by Joseph three separate times (92.6 in '93, 74.4 in '92, 74.0 in '94).
It's interesting to me that Barrasso's Buffalo awards rank near the bottom. His 1998 season, courtesy of the Constantine bump, ranks slightly better than his 1st AST team season with a 47.9 GARG.
I wouldn't have guessed Luongo's two seasons being named a Second Teamer would rank so high either. It's interesting those seasons compares favorably to Thomas's two years leading the league in SV%.
I don't take Vachon's record with the Canadiens too seriously (see the Habs goalies during this period) but I definitely prefer him to Giacomin at this point.
Very interesting - one of the things I've been meaning to do, but haven't gotten around to it (I've only recently added the needed data to my site, and I've been busy making a lot more biography updates that are sorely needed - including a big one tonight; never thought that I'd be working on becoming a PHP coding expert at this point in my life) is see how often the leader in GAR wins the award voting for the season.
Following that, when the leader in GAR doesn't win the award voting, is there a pattern that we can detect as to why?
But your point is a good one - there are "great" seasons, "Great" seasons, and "GREAT!" seasons, and when all is said and done, they get boiled down to a binary measure (did they win X or not?) that loses a lot of the necessary nuance.
Indeed. As Einstein once said, information is not knowledge. You do lose much of the contextual nuance, however, in blending contemporaneous media reports, reliable anecdotal information, perhaps personal experience, a little imagination, good to go.
1971-72 season saw a balanced 78 game scheduled. Each team played the other 13 teams 6 times, 3 home and 3 away. Six of the 14 teams did not make the playoffs - Detroit, Buffalo, Vancouver, California, Los Angeles and Philadelphia.
Boston finished with 119 pts, Rangers with 109, Montreal with 108, Chicago with 107.
Gilles Villemure played 37 games, 34 starts. Ed Giacomin started 44 games.
22 of Gilles Villemure's starts were against the six non-playoff teams. 12 starts against playoff teams but only 4 against Boston - 1H, Chicago - 1H, Montreal - 1H/1A.
14 of Ed Giacomin's starts were against non-playoff teams but 14 starts were against the elite three teams.
This should be considered when comparing Giacomin's and Villemure's performance with the 1971-72 Rangers.
The other seasons could benefit from similar scrutiny.
You're absolutely right that strength of competition needs to be considered and what you say certainly makes Giacomin look closer to Villemure in 1971-72 than the raw stats would indicate.
But the writers who watched them play seem to think Villemure was better:
1971-72: GOALTENDER: (378/378) Tony Esposito 161; Ken Dryden 135; Gerry Cheevers 28; Lorne Worsley 19; Gilles Villemure 14; Roger Crozier 12; Bernie Parent 5; Ed Giacomin 4
1972-73: GOALTENDER (432/432) Ken Dryden 238, Tony Esposito 83, Gilles Villemure 42, Roy Edwards 21, Roger Crozier 13, Ed Giacomin 11, Cesare Maniago 7, Dave Dryden 5, Jim Rutherford 4, Rogie Vachon 3, Gilles Meloche 2, Phil Myre 1, Jacques Plante 1, Dan Bouchard 1
After 72-73, neither Giacomin or Villemure received any more votes.
You're absolutely right that strength of competition needs to be considered and what you say certainly makes Giacomin look closer to Villemure in 1971-72 than the raw stats would indicate.
But the writers who watched them play seem to think Villemure was better:
1971-72: GOALTENDER: (378/378) Tony Esposito 161; Ken Dryden 135; Gerry Cheevers 28; Lorne Worsley 19; Gilles Villemure 14; Roger Crozier 12; Bernie Parent 5; Ed Giacomin 4
1972-73: GOALTENDER (432/432) Ken Dryden 238, Tony Esposito 83, Gilles Villemure 42, Roy Edwards 21, Roger Crozier 13, Ed Giacomin 11, Cesare Maniago 7, Dave Dryden 5, Jim Rutherford 4, Rogie Vachon 3, Gilles Meloche 2, Phil Myre 1, Jacques Plante 1, Dan Bouchard 1
After 72-73, neither Giacomin or Villemure received any more votes.
No hilite packages or youtube in those days. Same writers picked Worsley ahead of Villemure and Worsley appeared in only 34 games, three less than Villemure.
LA writers only saw Villemure as he started and played all six games, California five. The early seventies was a period where goalies playing less than half a season received a fair number of AST votes.
Geez, theres a name I havent seen in awhile; Gilles Villemure. One of the rare right handed goalies. Played extremely well from 70-72 in NY, excellent standup who knew his angles. I think it was injuries that saw him lose his favoured spot on the charts, a trade to Chicago, winding up backup to the backup to Tony Esposito, retirement around 76 or so.
You're absolutely right that strength of competition needs to be considered and what you say certainly makes Giacomin look closer to Villemure in 1971-72 than the raw stats would indicate.
But the writers who watched them play seem to think Villemure was better:
1971-72: GOALTENDER: (378/378) Tony Esposito 161; Ken Dryden 135; Gerry Cheevers 28; Lorne Worsley 19; Gilles Villemure 14; Roger Crozier 12; Bernie Parent 5; Ed Giacomin 4
1972-73: GOALTENDER (432/432) Ken Dryden 238, Tony Esposito 83, Gilles Villemure 42, Roy Edwards 21, Roger Crozier 13, Ed Giacomin 11, Cesare Maniago 7, Dave Dryden 5, Jim Rutherford 4, Rogie Vachon 3, Gilles Meloche 2, Phil Myre 1, Jacques Plante 1, Dan Bouchard 1
After 72-73, neither Giacomin or Villemure received any more votes.
if we know exactly which games they both played, it wouldn't be too hard to eliminate the competition bias. Just calculate Villemure's sv% against east teams and against west teams, and do the same for Giacomin.
Not sure if anyone would want to go to all that work. Villemure's numbers are so far ahead that even just eyeballing it, it's hard to imagine that Giacomin outplayed him, though if you're really generous you can make it very close.
A Thomas with 1/3 of the accomplishments and mediocre playoff record at best, sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 70s
For starters, he has been much more highly regarded by the hockey establishment, contending for the Vezina four times (or is it five now)
Statistically, he's posted a significantly better save% than all of them (except Rinne who didn't play in the higher scoring 06, 07 seasons so it's a wash) for significantly more games than all of them, with fewer question marks attached to how "honest" a number his sv% really is. Nashville and Minnesota historically boost their goalies' sv%, and Quick has only really been good from a sv% standpoint for one season.
Lundqvist has been 3-3 when compared to Backstrom as far as who had the best save% on year to year basis. And in 2010-11, he was tied with his backup, the legendary Martin Biron. He surely has an edge on them, but they're much closer to him than the guys currently up for voting.
Lundqvist has been 3-3 when compared to Backstrom as far as who had the best save% on year to year basis.
And Minnesota goalies have always had high save percentages for over a decade, no matter their name. So that point is moot.
Case in point:
Backstrom's sv% in the past 6 seasons: .918
All other Minnesota goalies combined: .916
Lundqvist's sv% in the past 7 seasons: .920
All other NYR goalies combined: .900
In a much less forgiving environment for goalies' sv% figures, he has posted better numbers. This isn't rocket science.
Even Rinne has been just 14 points ahead of his team's backups and only maintained that over 4 years, not 7. With Quick, it's 11 points over 4 years.
Quote:
And in 2010-11, he was tied with his backup, the legendary Martin Biron. He surely has an edge on them, but they're much closer to him than the guys currently up for voting.
As you can see from the above, that is cherrypicking. In 5 of 7 seasons, Lundqvist has been at least 7 sv% points ahead of his most frequent backup, and in the larger, 2-season sample size for Biron, he has proven to be clearly unable to play at a Lundqvist level for more than a few freak games.
How does this relate to players up for voting now? I can see the case that Giacomin is no better than Lundqvist, even if I don't 100% agree. It's a good case for not including him in your top-4.
I really can't see how one can look at four extra ASTs and conclude that they're irrelevant and that gaudy sv% numbers in gaudy-sv%-era on extraordinarily defense-minded team negate them.
Especially if the crux of the case against Giacomin are his playoff failings - something that Lundqvist had in spades until last season.
I really can't see how one can look at four extra ASTs and conclude that they're irrelevant and that gaudy sv% numbers in gaudy-sv%-era on extraordinarily defense-minded team negate them.
Especially if the crux of the case against Giacomin are his playoff failings - something that Lundqvist had in spades until last season.
Lundqvist and Giacomin are similar in that their playoff woes are wayyyy ovverrated.
Lundqvist only lost one round against a lowest-ranked club, that was in the Semi-Finals last season.
I really can't see how one can look at four extra ASTs and conclude that they're irrelevant
The ASTs are important, and we're all trying to understand just what, but in all honesty, 3rd place nowadays might be arguably better than 2nd back then, wouldn't you say? And they were not very well backed up statistically and there's a good case they were mainly GP-based.
Quote:
and that gaudy sv% numbers in gaudy-sv%-era on extraordinarily defense-minded team negate them.
You're ignoring the facts here.
Number 1, who has ever made a sv% argument for Lundqvist or against Giacomin that was era-biased? We've talked about how they ranked in the league, or compared to the league average, or to their own backups.
Second, the team argument against Lundqvist falls apart when it is shown that other NYR goalies in the past 7 years clearly haven't benefitted greatly from this "extraordinarily defense-minded team"
Whereas with Giacomin during his 5 consecutive AST seasons, his 2.44 GAA was only marginally better than the 2.49 the other NYR goalies compiled.
That does raise very important questions - questions that have only needed to be raised regarding Smith and Fuhr so far - and they have a ton more redeeming qualities, obviously.
Quote:
Especially if the crux of the case against Giacomin are his playoff failings - something that Lundqvist had in spades until last season.
Did you see the part where Giacomin performed below replacement level in his playoff career? Lundqvist hasn't been stellar as a whole, but he's been better than average, which is a whole lot better than replacement level, which is a whole lot better than where Giacomin's numbers put him.
It's practically identical (tiny marginal edge to Giacomin), but that's before you consider the significantly better competition Barrasso faced and the fact that he was much better in the playoffs.
And yes, Giacomin's competition was much worse - guys like Tretiak, Holecek, and Dzurilla were in Europe and so were guys capable of maybe a 1-season wonder season. Barrasso also faced some prime years of Roy, Hasek, and Brodeur, while as TCG pointed out, Giacomin's 5 All-Star years fit perfectly between two strong cohorts, but didn't really compete much against them.
Taking into account competition, I think Beezer/Jospeh vs Giacomin could be a wash in terms of awards voting, and that's before you get into the playoffs.
