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 9 (HOH Top Goaltenders)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-09-2013, 09:34 PM
  #126
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,253
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
Or maybe it's not pretending that players who didn't accomplish anything of note did, and back it up by machinations like yelling '3rd in Vezina voting!' as if it meant anything when it was 7 out of 30 ballots, and then say that Lundqvist wasn't bad in playoffs, when his 2005-06 performance wasn't just bad but absolutely dreadful.

Or making lists of 'Top save% since lockout', then setting the cutoff at 350 GP so that just 12 goalies even make it past that criterium. And then arguing where are the crappy goalies I listed on that list, when in reality they're right there with Lundqvist.

Behold the same list with cutoff at 190 GP:

Thomas .922
Vokoun .921
Rinne .921
Lundqvist .920
Luongo .919
Backstrom .918
Hiller .918
Halak .918
Howard .917
Miller .916
Price .916
Quick .916
Bryzgalov .915
Anderson .915

An era of parity and gaudy numbers for everyone.
Explain how this constitutes parity and how just 15 of 40 goalies with 190 GP over .915 means "everybody"...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I think Lundqvist is on pace to have a much better career than Joseph, but he isn't there yet. But I really don't think he should be ranked much behind Joseph.

Joseph Vezina record: 2nd (1999), 3rd (1993), 3rd (2000), 4th (1994), 5th (1997), 8th (2001)
Lundqvist Vezina record: 1st (2012), 3rd (2006), 3rd (2007), 3rd (2008), 4th (2011), 6th (2009), 6th (2010)

Remove the repeats:
Joseph: 2nd, 5th, 8th
Lundqvist: 1st, 3rd, 6th, 6th

Lundqvist already has a significantly better Vezina record than Cujo. Joseph has many more seasons as a "pretty good" goalie, but how far does that get him?
You're forgetting competition. Joseph was up against 4 guys in our top-15, Lundqvist just one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
That doesn't suggest anything out of the ordinary, does it? Seems like a pretty typical split, actually. Possible home overcounting in 2006 but possible home undercounting in 2011 and 2012 probably evens out.

Edit: I guess the slightly higher road save percentage (when higher home save percentages are the norm) does suggest a small amount of home undercounting over his career.
I was thinking the same thing. Slight home undercounting. Maybe not enough to make a noticeable difference though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
In theory yes. But look at the number of goalies we included by year:

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...5&postcount=70

Either the quality of goaltending plummeted around 1980 and remained lower than it ever was in the 70s, or we are underrating modern goalies by at least a little bit.

And that's only after just including Barrasso and Joseph. Before those two were added last round, the top 28 had less representation from any period after 1980 than any time period since the 1926 consolidation with the exception of the notoriously weak late 30s/early 40s: http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...1&postcount=63

I don't think that goaltending of the last 30 or so years has been significantly worse than it was from 1945-1980. If anything, it should be stronger, since Europe is now producing NHL-calibre goalies. So yes, I do think we are underrating modern goalies at least a little bit.
Obviously.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
Where's Marty?

Didn't he win a couple Vezinas?
Haha.... nice snipe there. But he's next with .914, and that includes an abysmal age 38 season and another at age 39 that was below the league average. You can't really hold those against him, can you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring Back Scuderi View Post
Awards, he's above the level of Jim Carey or Ryan Miller but not Eddie Giacomin (who didn't make my ballot last round)

Numbers, it seems you're missing the point. GARG allows you to look at them across eras and that's where Lundqvist impresses me. Look at them relative to the league average if you'd prefer.

I'm sympathetic to your opinion of the eye test even if we disagree with it's application towards Lundqvist.
You're right; however, it should be noted that for the first 3/4 of the relevant part of Barrasso's career, starting goalies as a whole tended to play fewer games, so if "adjusted for era", so to speak, Barrasso would look better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
It's basically like a forward maintaining a point-per-game average over 7 straight seasons against doing it for 2-4 seasons. It isn't even close to the same accomplishment.
That's exactly what I was thinking too. We're talking about a "rate stat" here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pappyline View Post
Well. You didn't answer my point.
You did not answer my question. Do you seriously think the 7th-best goalie born between 1924 and 1931 is better than the best (or 2nd best) born in the last 39 years?

If so, it is possible that it might be a good idea to review your criteria and whether they're really objective and impartial.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 09:39 PM
  #127
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,253
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ContrarianGoaltender View Post
The games played point is an important one, but just wanted to clarify that everyone is not actually getting similar numbers. The last few seasons were much lower scoring than the first couple of seasons right after the lockout while the new rules were being applied and heavily enforced, which makes it look like guys who played all the way through do not separate themselves from the rest of the pack as much as they actually did.

League average save percentage:
2005-06: .901
2006-07: .905
2007-08: .909
2008-09: .908
2009-10: .911
2010-11: .913
2011-12: .914

That's a huge improvement in six seasons, so much so that the difference in average save percentage between 2011-12 and 2005-06 is the same as the difference between 2005-06 and 1991-92.

That's how guys like Jimmy Howard who became starters in 2009-10 can show up not far below much better goalies in the post-lockout list. If you adjust the save percentages relative to league average, the cream rises to the top. Take, for example, the top goalies since 2009-10 (a period of relatively consistent average save percentage) with 100 or more GP. It's Thomas at #1 with .926, Lundqvist #2 with .924, Rinne and Vokoun at .922 (two guys with probably slightly inflated stats), Miller in 5th at .921 and everyone else at .920 or lower.

Here are Lundqvist's annual save percentages adjusted to the 2011-12 league average of .914:

2005-06: .932
2006-07: .925
2007-08: .917
2008-09: .921
2009-10: .924
2010-11: .924
2011-12: .930
Average: .925

That's why there's a world of difference between Lundqvist and guys like Backstrom, Hiller or Howard.
of course!

how did I not point this out myself?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
Lot of power plays in 2006, CG, no? That must have some effect on those numbers I feel, no? Though, it's not very relevant to your point in general, it just caught my eye...
Yes, definitely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pappyline View Post
I think the demographics of the voters is important also and the ages at least should be divulged.
OK.

Keeping in mind, of course, that no one's age has given them an apparent advantage or disadvantage when it comes to the "art" of appropriately ranking players from different eras.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 09:56 PM
  #128
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,883
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pappyline View Post
I think the demographics of the voters is important also and the ages at least should be divulged.
A participant survey was done for the Defensemen Project, which included age, and the results are linked right below the final list. I'm assuming we're doing the same for this one.

Hawkey Town 18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 10:10 PM
  #129
Rob Scuderi
Moderator
 
Rob Scuderi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 3,062
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
You're right; however, it should be noted that for the first 3/4 of the relevant part of Barrasso's career, starting goalies as a whole tended to play fewer games, so if "adjusted for era", so to speak, Barrasso would look better.
That's why I calculated out the GARG per game figures when comparing his numbers to Lundqvist, where Barrasso came out ahead.

I don't think Barrasso should really be defined by SV% anyways, but the claim was he's significantly better than Lundqvist in that regard.

Rob Scuderi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 10:20 PM
  #130
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,133
vCash: 500
Up for Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post

You did not answer my question. Do you seriously think the 7th-best goalie born between 1924 and 1931 is better than the best (or 2nd best) born in the last 39 years?
Results of the project clearly show that three of the goalies born between 1924-1931 are better than the best born since 1972 - Martin Brodeur and three more have already been rated behind Brodeur. So the ranking of the 7th best is up for discussion as are others born between 1973 and 1993.

Those born from the last 20 years are not up for discussion.

Point is that the era that produced the O6 goalies has a complete history. The 1973 to 1992 era is far complete in terms of goalie history. In context, this means if you take the midpoint, 30 year old goalie, then Bower, Worsley, were far from top 40 candidates during their age 30 season, while Hall, Sawchuk, Plante, built a good part of their top 5 resume past the age 30 while Lumley flat lined to where he belongs. Same for present day goalies. Is Thomas at age thirty part of this project? Never. Defensemen - Nicklas Lidstrom - 1 Norris, is not close to Top 10 consideration as a defenseman.

In time the post 1972 goalies will find their appropriate slot once their career winds down or is over.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 10:37 PM
  #131
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,693
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ContrarianGoaltender View Post
I'll deal with this one first. Your assumption is wrong, my post was primarily about Henrik Lundqvist and Roberto Luongo and modern goalies being underrepresented on this list, a drum I've been beating for the last two votes.
Considering at no point did you attempt to cite a statistic involving either Lundqvist or Luongo but instead made statements about Roy, Fiset, big equipment, unadjusted save percentages from 1996 to 2003, and revising the #1 goaltender, I'm going to say that your post was not primarily about Lundqvist and Luongo. But I would very much like to read a post of yours about Luongo, because even if someone does not believe Tim Thomas is better than Henrik Lundqvist, I find the belief of some that Lundqvist is better than Luongo to be baffling.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
And that's before getting into possible undercounting in NY (I'll wait for BM67 to post on that, but I remember seeing it in a previous post).
Tim Thomas has a better home save percentage than Henrik Lundqvist. Tim Thomas has a better road save percentage than Henrik Lundvist. I don't see under-counting as being a factor with Thomas' splits of .927/.938 and .940/.937 in his Vezina years. If you believe that Lundqvist's lead in GP warrants saying that he has a slightly better regular season career, sure. But talk about his playoffs. Compare his playoffs to Tim Thomas' playoffs. Compare his playoffs to Miikka Kiprusoff's playoffs. Compare his playoffs to Roberto Luongo's playoffs. Because I don't know why we keep talking about Curtis Joseph and Ed Giacomin and Patrick Roy and Ryan Miller and Carey Price and Tom Barrasso, when Henrik Lundqvist's playoffs are a legitimate reason to not vote for him.

An .835 against New Jersey in 2006.
Three sub-.900 games against Buffalo in 2007.
Two 5-goal games against Pittsburgh in 2008.
Two 40-minute hooks of .714 and .750 to lose a series lead against Washington in 2009.
Two shootout GAs to lose a playoff berth in 2010.
Four sub-.900 games against New Jersey in 2012.

Five goals on 32 shots against Russia in 2006.
Three goals on 24 shots against Czech Republic in 2006.
7th in save percentage among goaltenders with 3 GP in 2006.
Four goals on 14 shots against Slovakia in 2010.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 11:00 PM
  #132
Mike Farkas
Hockey's Future Staff
Grace Personified
 
Mike Farkas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,801
vCash: 500
While Lundqvist doesn't have a sterling playoff record...Tim Thomas isn't exactly a playoff god himself...

Been there four times, ousted in the first round twice, ousted by a weaker Carolina team in the second round in '09...

He was relatively unchallenged in 2011 for the Smythe, it's not like it was the grand performance of a lifetime either, it's just that no one else had a playoffs to remember either... in fact, he really nearly almost got the Bruins knocked in the first round against Montreal as they were able to perforate him quite readily...

He actually put the Bruins behind the 8-ball quite a bit...they figured a way out of it, which is what you want certainly, but like I said up-thread, the playoff performance is more or a less a microcosm of his career...plagued by inconsistency and ups and downs...

So what's the score, 1 playoffs to 0 for Thomas over Hank? 1 playoffs to 0.5? (Henrik's 2011-12?). It's something, sure, but Lundqvist has five regular seasons over Thomas...he blows his doors off for the purposes of this list...just fustigates him...

__________________
http://twitter.com/MichaelFarkasHF

YouTube Channel: The Two-Line Pass - Hockey news, knowledge, video breakdowns and more: http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKAI...52Q577Q/videos

Latest installments:Ep. 2 - Cody Franson Overplayed His Hand

Ep. 3 - NHL Expansion Process
Mike Farkas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 03:40 AM
  #133
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 43,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
Tim Thomas has a better home save percentage than Henrik Lundqvist. Tim Thomas has a better road save percentage than Henrik Lundvist. I don't see under-counting as being a factor with Thomas' splits of .927/.938 and .940/.937 in his Vezina years. If you believe that Lundqvist's lead in GP warrants saying that he has a slightly better regular season career, sure. But talk about his playoffs. Compare his playoffs to Tim Thomas' playoffs. Compare his playoffs to Miikka Kiprusoff's playoffs. Compare his playoffs to Roberto Luongo's playoffs. Because I don't know why we keep talking about Curtis Joseph and Ed Giacomin and Patrick Roy and Ryan Miller and Carey Price and Tom Barrasso, when Henrik Lundqvist's playoffs are a legitimate reason to not vote for him.

An .835 against New Jersey in 2006.
Three sub-.900 games against Buffalo in 2007.
Two 5-goal games against Pittsburgh in 2008.
Two 40-minute hooks of .714 and .750 to lose a series lead against Washington in 2009.
Two shootout GAs to lose a playoff berth in 2010.
Four sub-.900 games against New Jersey in 2012.

Five goals on 32 shots against Russia in 2006.
Three goals on 24 shots against Czech Republic in 2006.
7th in save percentage among goaltenders with 3 GP in 2006.
Four goals on 14 shots against Slovakia in 2010.
So basically, if you take a goalie with an average record in the clutch and only focus on the bad games, you can make him look bad. Come on, you're a stats guy. You know better than this. You know Lundqvist's GAR, GVT, or whatever save percentage based metric you want to use shows him to be a pretty typical playoff performer among goalies available now. Kipper was great in 2004, but that was just one year. Luongo has had more bad playoff rounds than Lundqvist, and it's not like Luongo was as bad as Giacomin in the playoffs. Again, how is Lundqvist worse in the playoffs than Vachon?

Yes, Tim Thomas has a better playoff record than Lundqvist. And you know what? Thomas has one of the best playoff records of ANYONE this round, if not the very best. His regular season resume is so thin, his playoffs are why he's available.

I said before that Tim Thomas is really tough to compare to other guys this round due to his unique career. But I really think Lundqvist isn't that hard - he's had 7 straight years (8 if you include the lockout and you should) as one of the top goalies in the world. Lundqvist has one of the best resumes of anyone available this round. If you think Thomas (who is a difficult comparison) has a better record than Lundqvist, then vote Thomas 1st or 2nd this round. You shouldn't vote Lundqvist under inferior goalies just because you think Thomas is better.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 03:45 AM
  #134
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 43,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
While Lundqvist doesn't have a sterling playoff record...Tim Thomas isn't exactly a playoff god himself...
I'm going to have to disagree with this. I think Thomas has one of the best playoff records of any modern goalie. His 2011 is legendary, and even when his team lost early previously, he wasn't really the cause - he doesn't have any rounds where he totally bombed like Lundqvist in 2006, Luongo a few times, and Giacomin most of the times he was in the playoffs.

I have Lundqvist over Thomas too, but it's because I think Lundqvist was consistently elite for long enough to be the best goalie of of his generation so far (there, I said it), while Thomas just doesn't have enough strong seasons. But I don't think you should diminish Thomas in the playoffs; sure, Thomas hasn't been a bonafide starter for all that long, but when he was, he was great in the playoffs.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 03:45 AM
  #135
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,800
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkey Town 18 View Post
Why are you only focusing on awards in this case as a binary, won it or didn't win it, when for every other goaltender for this entire project everyone has been making comparisons using awards voting finishes...taking 2nd places, 3rd places, 4th places, etc. into consideration? It seems obvious to me that looking at all voting finishes, and not just wins, gives us more information.

To be clear, this is not a personal attack, the two methods of comparison show very different results in this case, and I am trying to understand why you think one way is more valuable than the other.

If you only look at Vezina wins only, Lundqvist is on the same level as the two guys you mentioned. If you consider his finishes beyond first place he has a MUCH better resume than them, as has already been shown. You are taking the former route...Tell us why that is the method you have chosen and convince us why we should be looking at it in the same way?
Because lot of his placements came with abysmally small vote/ballot totals, as qouipourqoui pointed out. That's especially damning in the AST case, where a pro-NYR bias is likely. And e.g. being named on 2 ballots out of 131 and finishing 9th in the voting on paper is utterly worthless in my book.

I rate Lundqvist higher than Miller and much higher than Carey, but let's not pretend he has achieved some great accomplishments awards wise - because he simply hasn't. And what he might (and quite possibly will) achieve in the future should have no bearing on the rating right now, so any conjectures about him being barely halfway into his career are pointless.

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 03:47 AM
  #136
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 43,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
Because lot of his placements came with abysmally small vote/ballot totals, as qouipourqoui pointed out. That's especially damning in the AST case, where a pro-NYR bias is likely. And e.g. being named on 2 ballots out of 131 and finishing 9th in the voting on paper is utterly worthless in my book.

I rate Lundqvist higher than Miller and much higher than Carey, but let's not pretend he has achieved some great accomplishments awards wise - because he simply hasn't. And what he might (and quite possibly will) achieve in the future should have no bearing on the rating right now, so any conjectures about him being barely halfway into his career are pointless.
And yet Lundqvist's Vezina record is significantly better than his AST record.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 03:50 AM
  #137
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,800
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Explain how this constitutes parity and how just 15 of 40 goalies with 190 GP over .915 means "everybody"...
19 out of 40 posted .914 or higher, including horrid goalies like Huet or Anderson.

And if we contract it to TDMM's original 350 GP cutoff, it's 8 out of 12, with 10 out of 12 at .910 or better. The other two are Turco and Roloson, two goalies who played their twilight years in the era.

'Nuff said.

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 04:00 AM
  #138
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,800
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
While Lundqvist doesn't have a sterling playoff record...Tim Thomas isn't exactly a playoff god himself...

Been there four times, ousted in the first round twice, ousted by a weaker Carolina team in the second round in '09...

He was relatively unchallenged in 2011 for the Smythe, it's not like it was the grand performance of a lifetime either, it's just that no one else had a playoffs to remember either... in fact, he really nearly almost got the Bruins knocked in the first round against Montreal as they were able to perforate him quite readily...

He actually put the Bruins behind the 8-ball quite a bit...they figured a way out of it, which is what you want certainly, but like I said up-thread, the playoff performance is more or a less a microcosm of his career...plagued by inconsistency and ups and downs...

So what's the score, 1 playoffs to 0 for Thomas over Hank? 1 playoffs to 0.5? (Henrik's 2011-12?). It's something, sure, but Lundqvist has five regular seasons over Thomas...he blows his doors off for the purposes of this list...just fustigates him...
What's with your extreme hate-on for Thomas?

2005-06
RS: Thomas .917, Lundqvist .922
Playoffs: Thomas N/A, Lundqvist .835

2006-07
RS: Thomas .905, Lundqvist .917
Playoffs: Thomas N/A, Lundqvist .924


2007-08
RS: Thomas .921, Lundqvist .912
Playoffs: Thomas .914, Lundqvist .909


2008-09
RS: Thomas .933, Lundqvist .916
Playoffs: Thomas .935, Lundqvist .908


2009-10
RS: Thomas .915, Lundqvist .921
Playoffs: Thomas N/A, Lundqvist N/A

2010-11
RS: Thomas .938, Lundqvist .923
Playoffs: Thomas .940, Lundqvist .917


2011-12
RS: Thomas .920, Lundqvist .930
Playoffs: Thomas .923, Lundqvist .931


Thomas completely crushed Lundqvist in three seasons. Lundqvist was significantly better twice, and slightly better twice. In no way does he have five regular seasons over Thomas.

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 08:20 AM
  #139
Mike Farkas
Hockey's Future Staff
Grace Personified
 
Mike Farkas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,801
vCash: 500
That's just not how it works, simply. Why you keep going back to it when it's not a proper means of evaluation is troubling.

Mike Farkas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 08:22 AM
  #140
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 43,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
What's with your extreme hate-on for Thomas?

2005-06
RS: Thomas .917, Lundqvist .922
Playoffs: Thomas N/A, Lundqvist .835

2006-07
RS: Thomas .905, Lundqvist .917
Playoffs: Thomas N/A, Lundqvist .924


2007-08
RS: Thomas .921, Lundqvist .912
Playoffs: Thomas .914, Lundqvist .909


2008-09
RS: Thomas .933, Lundqvist .916
Playoffs: Thomas .935, Lundqvist .908


2009-10
RS: Thomas .915, Lundqvist .921
Playoffs: Thomas N/A, Lundqvist N/A

2010-11
RS: Thomas .938, Lundqvist .923
Playoffs: Thomas .940, Lundqvist .917


2011-12
RS: Thomas .920, Lundqvist .930
Playoffs: Thomas .923, Lundqvist .931


Thomas completely crushed Lundqvist in three seasons. Lundqvist was significantly better twice, and slightly better twice. In no way does he have five regular seasons over Thomas.
You wouldn't rank forwards based on "points-per-game." You shouldn't rank goalies based on save percentage, IMO. You should use a save-percentage based metric that takes into account games played like GAR or GVT.

There's a reason Lundqvist finished significantly over Thomas in 2007-08 Vezina voting. Edit: Apparently GAR really likes Thomas' 2007-08 though.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 01-10-2013 at 08:40 AM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 08:28 AM
  #141
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 43,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
I find the belief of some that Lundqvist is better than Luongo to be baffling.
.
Lundqvist has a slightly better Vezina record, and I think it's deserved. I know you and some others will disagree, but I just don't put all that much stock into Luongo racking up great save percentages for teams in Florida that weren't even close to making the playoffs - if he was a true difference maker, it seems those teams should have at least come close to making the dance even if they didn't quite make it. But they generally weren't even close. And NHL GMs seem to agree with me. Exception being 2003-04, when his save percentage was just so high that it had to be a sign of something good, but no, I wouldn't have given him the Vezina.

Once Luongo went to a team where he had expectations, he was great for a few years, then showed obvious signs of having trouble handling the pressure.

Basically, Lundqvist has a slightly better Vezina record, and as someone who saw their whole careers, I actually agree with the NHL GMs on this one.

But it's not like I think it's a huge difference - Luongo has a great shot at my top 4 too.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 08:30 AM
  #142
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,800
vCash: 500
Why don't we just throw out any real indicators of goalie's performance out and go just with GP? Because you're coming awfully close to it.

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 08:34 AM
  #143
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 43,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
Why don't we just throw out any real indicators of goalie's performance out and go just with GP? Because you're coming awfully close to it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 08:37 AM
  #144
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,800
vCash: 500
Really? Because you're claiming that being mediocre for 70 games is better than being great for 60.

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 08:39 AM
  #145
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 43,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
Really? Because you're claiming that being mediocre for 70 games is better than being great for 60.
Now being a Vezina finalist is "mediocre?"

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 08:48 AM
  #146
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,800
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Now being a Vezina finalist is "mediocre?"
Vezina finalist with a bit above average SV%, with voters blinded by the Carey Factor (tons of shutouts?)? Note that the 10 shutouts indicate a massive slew of horribly bad games too, considering his SV% and GAA.

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 09:26 AM
  #147
Mike Farkas
Hockey's Future Staff
Grace Personified
 
Mike Farkas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,801
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I'm going to have to disagree with this. I think Thomas has one of the best playoff records of any modern goalie. His 2011 is legendary, and even when his team lost early previously, he wasn't really the cause - he doesn't have any rounds where he totally bombed like Lundqvist in 2006, Luongo a few times, and Giacomin most of the times he was in the playoffs.

I have Lundqvist over Thomas too, but it's because I think Lundqvist was consistently elite for long enough to be the best goalie of of his generation so far (there, I said it), while Thomas just doesn't have enough strong seasons. But I don't think you should diminish Thomas in the playoffs; sure, Thomas hasn't been a bonafide starter for all that long, but when he was, he was great in the playoffs.
Well, I'll have to disagree with your disagreement then. Thomas gave up a bundle of bad goals against Montreal specifically in that first round and the Bruins nearly couldn't recover. It's all on video, I would be happy to break down some tape if my opinion needs to be backed further. A bad, untimely goal is much more deflating than a good save is inflating. Especially in the playoffs, when there's so much momentum and emotion involved.

If Thomas' 2011 is legendary than Quick's 2012 must be the best performance of all time. He never let it get close. There was never any doubt with Quick. There was doubt with Thomas, every series but the Philadelphia one, Thomas put the Bruins in serious trouble. With Quick, it was steady and at times spectacular. Which I'll take 10 times out of 10 over unsteady and at times spectacular.

I'd also like to point out...

Tim Thomas NHL career without Claude Julien as a head coach: 108 GP - 45-43-14, 3.00 GAA, .909 save pct., 4 shutouts

Career with Julien as head coach: 320 GP - 180-99-31, 2.24 GAA, .927 save pct., 33 shutouts

Games under Julien without Chara: 9 GP - 5-3-1, 2.74 GAA, .915 save pct., 0 shutouts

Career NHL games without Chara: 51 GP - 20-17-11, 2.78 GAA, .916 save pct., 1 shutout

Mike Farkas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 09:36 AM
  #148
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 43,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
If Thomas' 2011 is legendary than Quick's 2012 must be the best performance of all time. He never let it get close. There was never any doubt with Quick. There was doubt with Thomas, every series but the Philadelphia one, Thomas put the Bruins in serious trouble. With Quick, it was steady and at times spectacular. Which I'll take 10 times out of 10 over unsteady and at times spectacular.
I don't want to get into a long debate about this, but I pick Thomas's 2011 over Quick's 2012 without a second thought. LA just bulldozed through the playoffs and Quick was barely tested in a lot of games. There actually is a poll between the two on the history board if you want to give your two cents there: http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1207383 Edit: I see you already have.

Quote:
I'd also like to point out...

Tim Thomas NHL career without Claude Julien as a head coach: 108 GP - 45-43-14, 3.00 GAA, .909 save pct., 4 shutouts

Career with Julien as head coach: 320 GP - 180-99-31, 2.24 GAA, .927 save pct., 33 shutouts

Games under Julien without Chara: 9 GP - 5-3-1, 2.74 GAA, .915 save pct., 0 shutouts

Career NHL games without Chara: 51 GP - 20-17-11, 2.78 GAA, .916 save pct., 1 shutout
This on the other hand, is quite interesting, although could one say that Thomas wasn't in his (short) prime yet until he got Julien? Though this does get back to the Giacomin critique a little bit - if a goalie is only successful for a brief period of time, all while being given team advantages, it does call him into question somewhat.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 09:49 AM
  #149
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,253
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
And e.g. being named on 2 ballots out of 131 and finishing 9th in the voting on paper is utterly worthless in my book..
I agree with you on this.

But that's not what happened in the Vezina voting.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 09:52 AM
  #150
Mike Farkas
Hockey's Future Staff
Grace Personified
 
Mike Farkas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,801
vCash: 500
Re: "wasn't in his prime" - No, respectfully, that's just a reverse justification of statistics. Like I talk about, creating a narrative to back the numbers. What happened, happened.

Late bloomers exist, sure, they come up around, 24, 25, 27...when you don't crack the league as a starter until you're like 33 or whatever...you just weren't good enough...and that showed in his first couple seasons. He was a replacement level goalie at best.

It's funny that he would not be good enough from 1994 to 2007, but all of a sudden is a top-40 goalie of all-time when Claude Julien signs on and Thomas puts together two noteworthy seasons out of the deal? That seems a little strange...no?

Some might call it a hoax.

I mean, again, I feel bad, it's an adorable little story...but we're talking about the best goalies of all time here. We have one that proved he couldn't do it at any other time other than under Claude Julien with a HHOF d-man in front of him. And even then he only squeezed out two seasons that are heavily based on exaggerated statistics (exaggerated, in this case meaning, the team is designed to allow weak shots through, that's how they get the puck back...that's the whole system)...and they were against pretty weak competition...I mean, he one won Vezina against a draft bust in Steve Mason, right? I mean...honestly...sometimes I feel like I'm in bizarro world...what if we didn't see Thomas?

What if this happened in the 1920's or something. There's a goalie that couldn't hack it for 10, 12 years...then ended up on one of those powerhouse defensive teams like Ottawa...killed it for two seasons and then quit hockey...there's no freakin' way that he would have made any list...not one. Why are we talking about him now...? I just can't figure it out...

Mike Farkas 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 12:44 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.