HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
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
01-04-2013, 12:29 PM
  #126
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,450
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
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.
Does Lundqvist have four extra 3rd place finishes in AST?

You can argue about just how deserved Giacomin's ASTs were, sure. Doesn't change one bit on the fact that he was simply held in higher esteem than Lundqvist - why, and whether deservedly, is another matter. But I don't see people running around yelling that Vanbiesbrouck beats say Gardiner backing it up with an argument that boils down to 'old awards are (potentially) based on hogwash'.

Quote:
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.
And Giacomin ranked clearly better. In smaller league, yes, but by this 'Xth place in smaller league equals Yth place in larger one' we should be voting some average large-league guy like Hiller over Bower, right?

Quote:
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"
It's a well-known fact that the Rangers are and were (from 2008 onward, as Tortorella took over) a defense-first team, sometimes to the point of absurdity, so trying to make it look untrue is just silly.

Lundqvist vs. backups in the era:
2008-09 Lundqvist .916 & 2.43, Valiquette .907 & 2.84
2009-10 Lundqvist .921 & 2.38, bunch of crappy guys 0.888 & 3.00
2010-11 Lundqvist .923 & 2.28, Biron .923 & 2.13
2011-12 Lundqvist .930 & 1.97, Biron .904 & 2.46

That's one season where Biron equaled him, the Vezina season where he grossly outplayed Biron, a season where a bunch of crappy AHL goalies crapped the bed as backups, and a season where he hardly did all that hot compared to his AHL-level backup (who BTW 'outplayed' Lundqvist stats-wise in 2007-08). Nothing out of ordinary, and hardly a proof that Rangers weren't a defense-first team, right?

Quote:
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.
What's the average between 2005 and 2011? For Lundqvist's .909 in that timespan hardly feels above average for playoff SV%.

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 12:37 PM
  #127
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
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.
Lundqvist career playoffs Goals above Replacement: 23.2
By season: +14.6, +6.1, +2.9, +2.5, +1.6, -4.5
http://hockeygoalies.org/bio/lundqvist.html

Giacomin career playoff Goals above Replacement: 4.1
By sesaon: +7.3, +3.9, +3.0, +1.7, +0.1, -.1.5, -2.6, -3.0, -4.8
http://hockeygoalies.org/bio/giacomin.html

Lundqvist was fantastic overall in 2012 as his team lost - Giacomin never had such a run. Lundqvist was terrible in 2006, but Giacomin was terrible on multiple occasions.

Lundqvist's GAA has increased in 3 playoffs and decreased in 3 playoffs (which is fairly poor, GAAs should go down in the playoffs).
Giacomin's GAA has risen in 5 playoffs, decreased in 3 playoffs, and remained the same in 1 (which worse)

I'm really not finding a modern goalie who has a chance to be considered, who was statistically anywhere close to as poor as Giacomin was in the playoffs.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 01:05 PM
  #128
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,074
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Lundqvist career playoffs Goals above Replacement: 23.2
By season: +14.6, +6.1, +2.9, +2.5, +1.6, -4.5
http://hockeygoalies.org/bio/lundqvist.html

Giacomin career playoff Goals above Replacement: 4.1
By sesaon: +7.3, +3.9, +3.0, +1.7, +0.1, -.1.5, -2.6, -3.0, -4.8
http://hockeygoalies.org/bio/giacomin.html

Lundqvist was fantastic overall in 2012 as his team lost - Giacomin never had such a run. Lundqvist was terrible in 2006, but Giacomin was terrible on multiple occasions.

Lundqvist's GAA has increased in 3 playoffs and decreased in 3 playoffs (which is fairly poor, GAAs should go down in the playoffs).
Giacomin's GAA has risen in 5 playoffs, decreased in 3 playoffs, and remained the same in 1 (which worse)

I'm really not finding a modern goalie who has a chance to be considered, who was statistically anywhere close to as poor as Giacomin was in the playoffs.
Maybe I badly worded my idea.

The Giacomin's Rangers often ended up losing against teams they should have lost to anyways.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 01:19 PM
  #129
Mike Farkas
Hockey's Future Staff
Moron!
 
Mike Farkas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,850
vCash: 500
Why talent evaluation is important in the process: You can tell the difference between a goalie that's a product of a defensive system or a goalie that happens to be on a defensive team. Major difference. Statistics - to date - just can't sort that out it seems.

Mike Farkas is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 01:38 PM
  #130
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
Does Lundqvist have four extra 3rd place finishes in AST?
Three 3rd-place finishes for the Vezina, yes. (and a 4th and two 6ths)

Quote:
You can argue about just how deserved Giacomin's ASTs were, sure. Doesn't change one bit on the fact that he was simply held in higher esteem than Lundqvist - why, and whether deservedly, is another matter. But I don't see people running around yelling that Vanbiesbrouck beats say Gardiner backing it up with an argument that boils down to 'old awards are (potentially) based on hogwash'.
But it obviously matters whether it’s deservedly or not…

And there is very good reason to believe Giacomin’s awards are “based on hogwash”, and absolutely no reason to believe that about Gardiner, so you have no point there.

Quote:
And Giacomin ranked clearly better. In smaller league, yes, but by this 'Xth place in smaller league equals Yth place in larger one' we should be voting some average large-league guy like Hiller over Bower, right?
I’d be really interested to know how you came to that conclusion.

Bower led the NHL in sv% five times… Hiller has ranked 4th and 7th. And neither time he was one of the more heavily used goalies in the league.

What is your point?

Quote:
It's a well-known fact that the Rangers are and were (from 2008 onward, as Tortorella took over) a defense-first team, sometimes to the point of absurdity, so trying to make it look untrue is just silly.

Lundqvist vs. backups in the era:
2008-09 Lundqvist .916 & 2.43, Valiquette .907 & 2.84
2009-10 Lundqvist .921 & 2.38, bunch of crappy guys 0.888 & 3.00
2010-11 Lundqvist .923 & 2.28, Biron .923 & 2.13
2011-12 Lundqvist .930 & 1.97, Biron .904 & 2.46

That's one season where Biron equaled him, the Vezina season where he grossly outplayed Biron, a season where a bunch of crappy AHL goalies crapped the bed as backups, and a season where he hardly did all that hot compared to his AHL-level backup (who BTW 'outplayed' Lundqvist stats-wise in 2007-08). Nothing out of ordinary, and hardly a proof that Rangers weren't a defense-first team, right?
As everyone should know by now, small, single-season samples for goalies don’t always tell the whole story.

Over that whole period, it’s .922 to .906 for Lundqvist, and this ignores the first three years of his career, where he outplayed other NYR goalies by over 20 points.

What point have you even begun to make here? My god…

Quote:
What's the average between 2005 and 2011? For Lundqvist's .909 in that timespan hardly feels above average for playoff SV%.
So we’re cutting off his best playoff now? And the one with the biggest sample? Why on earth would we do that?

Since the lockout he’s been .917 and the average has been .914.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 01:53 PM
  #131
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
Why talent evaluation is important in the process: You can tell the difference between a goalie that's a product of a defensive system or a goalie that happens to be on a defensive team. Major difference. Statistics - to date - just can't sort that out it seems.
The Rangers brought in Villemure with the intentions of making him Giacomin's tandem partner, after Giacomin's first 4 playoffs, all of which were terrible. The intention was to give Giacomin rest during the season so hopefully he'd have something left in the playoffs. And it sort of worked, Giacomin was pretty average in the playoffs (not good but not awful like his first 4 seasons) when he tandemed in the regular season.

I'll try to find a link when I'm on my computer (on phone now), but it's pretty conclusive evidence that the Rangers GM thought Giacomin couldn't handle a full workload and then perform well in the playoffs.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 01:54 PM
  #132
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,201
vCash: 500
You each get 1 more post on Lundqvist in this thread. After that, I'm going to start deleting them. Too many available options to be sidetracked.

You can always start a new thread (or just wait until he's an option).

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 02:33 PM
  #133
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
You each get 1 more post on Lundqvist in this thread. After that, I'm going to start deleting them. Too many available options to be sidetracked.

You can always start a new thread (or just wait until he's an option).
maybe let's just stop now. You are right.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 02:51 PM
  #134
Mike Farkas
Hockey's Future Staff
Moron!
 
Mike Farkas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,850
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
The Rangers brought in Villemure with the intentions of making him Giacomin's tandem partner, after Giacomin's first 4 playoffs, all of which were terrible. The intention was to give Giacomin rest during the season so hopefully he'd have something left in the playoffs. And it sort of worked, Giacomin was pretty average in the playoffs (not good but not awful like his first 4 seasons) when he tandemed in the regular season.

I'll try to find a link when I'm on my computer (on phone now), but it's pretty conclusive evidence that the Rangers GM thought Giacomin couldn't handle a full workload and then perform well in the playoffs.
A) That's not really who I was referring to, it was actually geared towards an ineligible. Which I will not follow up with and have remained quiet to date (in this thread) about him.

B) It didn't stop us from putting tandem goalie Billy Smith in already (not that serious...)

Mike Farkas is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 06:14 PM
  #135
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,509
vCash: 500
From the SI Vault, a piece by Mark Mulvoy:
Jan 11, 1971 - It Takes Two To Win The Cup

Quote:
Well, it's almost that time of year again, the time for the New York Rangers to begin their annual collapse. But, wait, something is wrong. The Rangers do not seem to be collapsing. Right now they're holding fast in a neck-and-neck race with Boston in the front of the East Division, and for 24 hours last week they were even in the lead. What's wrong with these Rangers? Two goalies, that's what's wrong.

Of course, the Rangers, like every other NHL team, have had two goalies for the last four years and they both suited up for every game according to the rule book. But up to this year the other goalie has been just that: the other goalie. The goalie has been lean, hawklike Eddie Giacomin, who looks like Savonarola and, also like that passionate Italian, has ended up each season a martyr to his own excessive zeal. Aging second-stringers like Don Simmons and the late Terry Sawchuck, who had been one of the best, were there merely to help Giacomin during practice sessions or to stand in the goal about once a month against the Penguins or the Kings. Giacomin, the best goalie in hockey, wanted to play in every game, and his boss, Emile Francis, a former goalie himself, was quite content to have him do so.

The result was that along about mid-February or early March, Giacomin began to look like a man who had been lost on Mount Kilimanjaro for most of the winter. Obviously fatigued both physically and mentally from the strain of playing so often, he would start to fight the puck instead of stopping it naturally. His judgment and his reflexes both suffered, and the effect was that he let in some bad—and costly—goals.

Last season, for instance, New York won only four of its last 18 games, dropping from first place in the East Division to fourth. This was good enough to get the Rangers into the playoffs, but there Giacomin's weariness was even more evident, as indeed it has been over the last four years. In that time the Rangers have won only four of their 20 Stanley Cup games as Giacomin's goals-against average, always under 2.62 during the regular season, rose to between 3.00 and 4.13.

Rather than blame Giacomin for this annual collapse, most hockey people have pointed their fickle fingers at Francis for stubbornly insisting that one goalie can play an entire NHL schedule. The 1964 rule requiring two goalies was not an idle whim of the lawgivers. When expansion introduced the jet plane and coast-to-coast travel to hockey, the two-goalie system became a physical necessity. Every divisional champion and all the Stanley Cup winners over the last three years have rotated two and, in the case of the St. Louis Blues, even three goaltenders during the season.
It looks to me as though Giacomin wasn't as good as his regular season voting record and he wasn't as bad as his playoff performance. Both were caused by Emile Francis's preference for playing one goalie when the rest of the league was playing two goalies.

For those who take style into account, here's a comparison of Giacomin and Villemure from the same article.

Quote:
Giacomin, who catches the puck with his left hand, and Villemure, who catches it with his right ("We're an ambidextrous team," Ed says), both play somewhat the same stand-up style in goal. However, their similarity ends there.

"You can hear Giacomin all over the ice," says Brad Park, the Rangers' young defenseman. "He's always yelling at us, telling us where the puck is and who is chasing us." Villemure says what needs to be said but does it quietly. "He'll never have a voice like Eddie's," says Park. "Who has?"

As his voice might indicate, Giacomin is also more aggressive than Villemure. If a puck is loose around the goal, Villemure will try to fall on it and get a face-off. Not Giacomin. He likes to control the puck with his stick, make clearing passes to his teammates and even take an occasional shot at an empty net at the other end of the rink. "Someday I'm going to become the first NHL goalie to score a goal," he says.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 07:10 PM
  #136
Mike Farkas
Hockey's Future Staff
Moron!
 
Mike Farkas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,850
vCash: 500
Notes Giacomin as the "best goalie in hockey" - let's assume that's true for a moment (not that voting records would lead us to believe otherwise anyway), can any of the other candidates make that claim for anything more than a season maybe? LeSueur? Even that, I'm highly cautious of the era...

The peak value guys would have to be licking their chops at 3, 4 years as the best in hockey, if true, no? TDMM, I'm looking your way specifically. Not as a call out by any means, but as someone I know who is not in Giacomin's corner but openly values peaks over plateaus...

Mike Farkas is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 12:26 PM
  #137
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 7,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
Notes Giacomin as the "best goalie in hockey" - let's assume that's true for a moment (not that voting records would lead us to believe otherwise anyway), can any of the other candidates make that claim for anything more than a season maybe? LeSueur? Even that, I'm highly cautious of the era...

The peak value guys would have to be licking their chops at 3, 4 years as the best in hockey, if true, no? TDMM, I'm looking your way specifically. Not as a call out by any means, but as someone I know who is not in Giacomin's corner but openly values peaks over plateaus...
Giacomin will most likely be in my top 4 this time.

Of interest, though, is that Cheevers went into the HOF 2 years before Giacomin even though he retired 2 years after Giacomin and was a WHA defector. Clearly Cheevers was highly regarded at the time.

The only mention I've heard of Cheevers in the last 2 rounds here is how he doesn't belong yet. Even though in the '74 series, Soviets vs. WHA, several Russian players stated he was the best goalie they had ever faced.

He really was a big game player. His only great stats are wins/loss. But much like Fuhr's Oilers, the Bruins didn't mind hanging Cheevers out to dry a few times in order to get more scoring chances.

Dennis Bonvie is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 01:38 PM
  #138
Canadiens1958
Moderator
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,447
vCash: 500
Gerry Cheevers

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
Giacomin will most likely be in my top 4 this time.

Of interest, though, is that Cheevers went into the HOF 2 years before Giacomin even though he retired 2 years after Giacomin and was a WHA defector. Clearly Cheevers was highly regarded at the time.

The only mention I've heard of Cheevers in the last 2 rounds here is how he doesn't belong yet. Even though in the '74 series, Soviets vs. WHA, several Russian players stated he was the best goalie they had ever faced.

He really was a big game player. His only great stats are wins/loss. But much like Fuhr's Oilers, the Bruins didn't mind hanging Cheevers out to dry a few times in order to get more scoring chances.
Gerry Cheevers has Billy Smith type regular season GP numbers in the NHL without the dynasty team playoff performance.

Major difference is that in the first four post expansion seasons Giacomin had relatively long and impressive regular seasons compared to Cheevers. Neither stood out in the playoffs with Giacomin having a few disasters.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 07:15 PM
  #139
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 7,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Gerry Cheevers has Billy Smith type regular season GP numbers in the NHL without the dynasty team playoff performance.

Major difference is that in the first four post expansion seasons Giacomin had relatively long and impressive regular seasons compared to Cheevers. Neither stood out in the playoffs with Giacomin having a few disasters.
Cheevers was 53-34 in the playoffs with 19 of those losses coming against Canadiens championship teams.

Went 12-1 in Bruins Cup win in 1970.

Dennis Bonvie is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 07:17 PM
  #140
Chalupa Batman
Mod Supervisor
 
Chalupa Batman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 21,947
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
Cheevers was 53-34 in the playoffs with 19 of those losses coming against Canadiens championship teams.

Went 12-1 in Bruins Cup win in 1970.
Cheevers also had some very good horses in front of him. Don't tell me what his teams did; tell me what he did.

Chalupa Batman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 08:06 PM
  #141
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 7,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco MacArthur View Post
Cheevers also had some very good horses in front of him. Don't tell me what his teams did; tell me what he did.
They did have some very good horses.

But the Bruins only led the league during the regular season twice while Cheevers played for them. Clearly they didn't have the horses that the Islanders, Canadiens and Oilers had after Cheevers returned to the NHL. But the goalies for those teams are already in.

Between those 3 teams they won 12 Cups. Only once did their goalie win the Smythe. Billy Smith won it in '83 with a 13-3 record and 2.68 GAA. Cheevers in '70 was 12-1 with a 2.23 GAA.

Dennis Bonvie is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 08:15 PM
  #142
Canadiens1958
Moderator
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,447
vCash: 500
Leads

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
Cheevers was 53-34 in the playoffs with 19 of those losses coming against Canadiens championship teams.

Went 12-1 in Bruins Cup win in 1970.
Yet in 13 of the 19 Bruin loses against the Canadiens the Bruins had a one or two goal lead in the game.

Comparable to Don Simmons, who playing with a weaker Bruins team against stronger Canadiens teams, lost the lead in only 2 of 8 loses.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 08:25 PM
  #143
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 7,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Yet in 13 of the 19 Bruin loses against the Canadiens the Bruins had a one or two goal lead in the game.

Comparable to Don Simmons, who playing with a weaker Bruins team against stronger Canadiens teams, lost the lead in only 2 of 8 loses.
From what I recall the Bruins were not losing those leads because of their goaltending.

Game 2 in 1971 and game 7 in 1979 were the two biggest losses for the Bruins against the Canadiens. Both games they had leads and lost them, but Cheevers didn't play in either.

Dennis Bonvie is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 08:39 PM
  #144
Canadiens1958
Moderator
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,447
vCash: 500
1979

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
From what I recall the Bruins were not losing those leads because of their goaltending.

Game 2 in 1971 and game 7 in 1979 were the two biggest losses for the Bruins against the Canadiens. Both games they had leads and lost them, but Cheevers didn't play in either.
Suggest checking games 1 and 2 in 1979. Bruins lost a one and two goal leads with Cheevers in goal:

http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin/hsppogames.cgi

In those two games he stopped 32 of 41 shots over two games. Excellent team defense simply wasted.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 09:43 PM
  #145
BM67
Registered User
 
BM67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In "The System"
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,553
vCash: 500
Cheever's OT record is not very good for a "money goalie". 7-10, with 8 of the games ending with him making 1 or less saves, a 4-4 record with a total of 3 saves. 3-6 in games ending in less than 5 minutes of OT.

BM67 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 10:16 AM
  #146
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 7,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Suggest checking games 1 and 2 in 1979. Bruins lost a one and two goal leads with Cheevers in goal:

http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin/hsppogames.cgi

In those two games he stopped 32 of 41 shots over two games. Excellent team defense simply wasted.
Should be pointed out that Cheevers was 38 at the time, not exactly in his prime.

I don't recall if there were any glaring soft goals in those games. Still, they are 2 games at the end of Cheevers career against an all-time dynasty team.

Dennis Bonvie is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 11:05 AM
  #147
Canadiens1958
Moderator
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,447
vCash: 500
Okay

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
Should be pointed out that Cheevers was 38 at the time, not exactly in his prime.

I don't recall if there were any glaring soft goals in those games. Still, they are 2 games at the end of Cheevers career against an all-time dynasty team.
If you insist. 1968, Bruins were swept in four, but lead in three, 1969, Bruins lead in two of the four games they lost.1971, excluding game 2 which was EJ, Bruins led in two of the three loses with Cheevers.Prime or late career, it did not matter

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 12:55 PM
  #148
bluesfan94
#BackesforSelke
 
bluesfan94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 5,800
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
Notes Giacomin as the "best goalie in hockey" - let's assume that's true for a moment (not that voting records would lead us to believe otherwise anyway), can any of the other candidates make that claim for anything more than a season maybe? LeSueur? Even that, I'm highly cautious of the era...

The peak value guys would have to be licking their chops at 3, 4 years as the best in hockey, if true, no? TDMM, I'm looking your way specifically. Not as a call out by any means, but as someone I know who is not in Giacomin's corner but openly values peaks over plateaus...
Thomas, I guess.

bluesfan94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 01:04 PM
  #149
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass
It looks to me as though Giacomin wasn't as good as his regular season voting record and he wasn't as bad as his playoff performance. Both were caused by Emile Francis's preference for playing one goalie when the rest of the league was playing two goalies.
I think this is probably true, as well.

I mean, Giacomin's playoff performances are pretty uniquely bad. Usually if a goalie bombs so badly several times in a row, he's replaced, but instead of replacing Giacomin, the Rangers brought in a tandem partner.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
Notes Giacomin as the "best goalie in hockey" - let's assume that's true for a moment (not that voting records would lead us to believe otherwise anyway), can any of the other candidates make that claim for anything more than a season maybe? LeSueur? Even that, I'm highly cautious of the era...

The peak value guys would have to be licking their chops at 3, 4 years as the best in hockey, if true, no? TDMM, I'm looking your way specifically. Not as a call out by any means, but as someone I know who is not in Giacomin's corner but openly values peaks over plateaus...
I value prime, not peak per say. As in an extended period of time when a player is close to his best. But even so, I'm sure it would be incredibly easy to find a single article by a single reporter calling every post-expansion goalie available "the best in the league" at some point. I don't put much stock into a single quote, unless it is a well-respected "hockey guy," and even then I try to find more support.

Anyway, Giacomin was 1st Team All Star twice - three seasons apart from each other, so it's not like he was blowing the competition away (none of the goalies available now were blowing the competition away, except maybe LeSueur).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
Giacomin will most likely be in my top 4 this time.
Even though his save percentage numbers are unimpressive?


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 01-06-2013 at 01:22 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 01:06 PM
  #150
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesfan94 View Post
Thomas, I guess.
Yeah, I think after 2011, Thomas has as good a case as anyone to be "best in the world." I'm honestly not sure who I like better between Thomas and Giacomin. Thomas has the peak, Giacomin has the more consistent prime, Thomas was much better in the playoffs.

TheDevilMadeMe 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 05:04 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.