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
01-10-2013, 10:52 AM
  #151
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,355
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.
I have no problem throwing out years with very low vote totals, but he still has 4 years getting significant AST votes, where the two guys you mentioned have 1 each. There's really no way to say he has the same awards recognition as those guys. I know you are a knowledgeable guy from my experience with you on this board and the ATD, but for others that don't know you as well statements like that might harm your credibility. I'd rather see you acknowledge his awards recognition, and then counter it with other arguments, like some of the other things you have said... "he doesn't pass the eye test for me," etc.

Hawkey Town 18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 10:52 AM
  #152
BM67
Registered User
 
BM67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In "The System"
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,579
vCash: 500
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.
That .931 home SV% in 05-06 really looks like a home over counting assisted number, and likewise the .915 at home in 10-11 looks like an under counting deflated number.

The .926 at home in 11-12 isn't screaming as loudly, and looking deeper there doesn't seem to be home under counting that year. There's only a total of 29 more shots in Rangers road games that year, and also 6 more goals. (2295 - 2324; 199 - 205) The Rangers and both teams combined have a higher shooting% in Rangers road games. (9.05% - 10%; 8.67% - 8.82%) The opponent does shoot slightly better in Rangers home games. (8.21% - 7.78%)

Mostly the Rangers just ran a tighter ship at home.

BM67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 10:58 AM
  #153
Doctor No
Mod Supervisor
Retired?
 
Doctor No's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 23,980
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
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.
You're deliberately using loaded words such as "mediocre" in this situation.

Doctor No is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 11:07 AM
  #154
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,605
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
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...
And what would you think of a goalie who played for 7 seasons for Ottawa, never led them anywhere and received minimal accolades (you wouldn't know of his other placements in the voting)?

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 11:09 AM
  #155
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,605
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco MacArthur View Post
You're deliberately using loaded words such as "mediocre" in this situation.
Perhaps it's a wrong choice of word. Mediocre doesn't seem loaded to me, but then I'm not a native speaker. How about averagish? Pedestrian? Meh? Unimpressive?

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 11:23 AM
  #156
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,605
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkey Town 18 View Post
I have no problem throwing out years with very low vote totals, but he still has 4 years getting significant AST votes, where the two guys you mentioned have 1 each. There's really no way to say he has the same awards recognition as those guys. I know you are a knowledgeable guy from my experience with you on this board and the ATD, but for others that don't know you as well statements like that might harm your credibility. I'd rather see you acknowledge his awards recognition, and then counter it with other arguments, like some of the other things you have said... "he doesn't pass the eye test for me," etc.
So Lundqvist has 4 years with significant votes and Carey has one?

Let me refresh your memory a bit.

Jim Carey finished 3rd in Vezina voting as rookie, appearing on 11 ballots out of 26. That's significantly more than Lundqvist did in any of the years 2007-11. He was also 3rd in AST voting that year.

Next year, he was 8th in Hart voting.

And we all know he was a fraud, yet the awards and placements are there, even if for a shorter period than Lundqvist's.

Miller was 8th in AST in 2010-11, with glorious one vote. And 4th in Hart in 2009-10.

Yes, Lundqvist has them beat as far as voting goes. But then, I'm not saying he's as bad as them. He's just much closer to them than to a Cup-winning, record-setting, Smythe winner with twice the Vezinas that Lundqvist has.

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 11:33 AM
  #157
Doctor No
Mod Supervisor
Retired?
 
Doctor No's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 23,980
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
Perhaps it's a wrong choice of word. Mediocre doesn't seem loaded to me, but then I'm not a native speaker. How about averagish? Pedestrian? Meh? Unimpressive?
Average isn't a true statement, as he's definitively above average.

Doctor No is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 11:33 AM
  #158
Mike Farkas
Hockey's Future Staff
Moron!
 
Mike Farkas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,165
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
And what would you think of a goalie who played for 7 seasons for Ottawa, never led them anywhere and received minimal accolades (you wouldn't know of his other placements in the voting)?
I'd rank him way higher than the one- or two-hit wonder, for starters.

Mike Farkas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 11:41 AM
  #159
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,355
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
So Lundqvist has 4 years with significant votes and Carey has one?

Let me refresh your memory a bit.

Jim Carey finished 3rd in Vezina voting as rookie, appearing on 11 ballots out of 26. That's significantly more than Lundqvist did in any of the years 2007-11. He was also 3rd in AST voting that year.

Next year, he was 8th in Hart voting.

And we all know he was a fraud, yet the awards and placements are there, even if for a shorter period than Lundqvist's.

Miller was 8th in AST in 2010-11, with glorious one vote. And 4th in Hart in 2009-10.

Yes, Lundqvist has them beat as far as voting goes. But then, I'm not saying he's as bad as them. He's just much closer to them than to a Cup-winning, record-setting, Smythe winner with twice the Vezinas that Lundqvist has.
Apologies for the Carey mistake, Miller was the only one I had looked up...I was incorrectly assuming they were the same.

Hawkey Town 18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 11:46 AM
  #160
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,610
vCash: 500
I knew that Lundqvist's 7 consecutive seasons of getting at least 4 votes for the Vezina was a lot, but I wanted to put it in historical context. So I did a quick study.

Note that the NHL has increased from 21 teams in the 1980s to 30 teams in the late 90s and beyond. So the number of GMs voting on the Vezina went from 21 to 30. Makes it easier to get more votes in modern days? Maybe. Maybe not - with 30 teams, you now have 30 starting goalies all of whom could hit a hot streak and get Vezina votes. We're talking consistency as a top goalie here - not peak - so being "capped" at 21 or 30 votes doesn't matter so much.

A "vote" is when an NHL GM gives the goalie his 1st, 2nd, or 3rd place vote for the Vezina.

Most consecutive seasons with at least 2 Vezina votes
14. Martin Brodeur (1994-2008)
9. Dominik Hasek (1994-2002)
7. Henrik Lundqvist (2006-2012)
6. Grant Fuhr (1984-1989)
6. Patrick Roy (1987-1992)
5. Ed Belfour (1991-1995)
5. Roberto Luongo (2004-2009)
4. John Vanbiesbrouck (1986-1989)
4. Patrick Roy (2000-2003)
4. Miikka Kiprusoff (2004-2008)
3. Mike Liut (1986-1988)
3. Ron Hextall (1987-1989)
3. Bryan Hayward (1987-1989)
3. John Vanbiesbrouck (1994-1996)
3. Ed Belfour (1998-2000)
3. Curtis Joseph (1999-2001)
3. Marty Turco (2003-2006)
3. Nicklas Backstrom (2007-2009)
3. Evgeni Nabokov (2008-2010)

Most consecutive seasons with at least 3 Vezina votes
14. Martin Brodeur (1994-2008)
7. Henrik Lundqvist (2006-2012)
6. Dominik Hasek (1994-1999)
5. Grant Fuhr (1985-1989)
5. Patrick Roy (1988-1992)
5. Ed Belfour (1991-1995)
4. Patrick Roy (2000-2003)
4. Miikka Kiprusoff (2004-2008)
3. John Vanbiesbrouck (1994-1996)

3. Ed Belfour (1998-2000)
3. Marty Turco (2003-2006)
3. Roberto Luongo (2007-2009)
3. Evgeni Nabokov (2008-2010)

Most consecutive seasons with at least 4 Vezina votes
7. Henrik Lundqvist (2006-2012)
6. Martin Brodeur (1996-2001)
5. Patrick Roy (1988-1992)
5. Martin Brodeur (2003-2008)
3. Grant Fuhr (1986-1988)
3. Ed Belfour (1991-1993)
3. Dominik Hasek (1997-1999)
3. Patrick Roy (2001-2003)
3. Marty Turco (2003-2006)
3. Miikka Kiprusoff (2004-2007)

Most consecutive seasons with at least 5 Vezina votes
6. Martin Brodeur (1996-2001)
5. Martin Brodeur (2003-2008)
4. Patrick Roy (1989-1992)
4. Henrik Lundqvist (2006-2009)
3. Grant Fuhr (1986-1988)
3. Dominik Hasek (1997-1999)
3. Patrick Roy (2001-2003)
3. Miikka Kiprusoff (2004-2007)

Hopefully this will drive in the point of just how difficult it is for a goalie to get recognition season after season in the modern NHL.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 01-10-2013 at 12:06 PM. Reason: thanks, mike
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 11:49 AM
  #161
Mike Farkas
Hockey's Future Staff
Moron!
 
Mike Farkas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,165
vCash: 500
Impressive, TDMM, thanks for that.


Last edited by Mike Farkas: 01-10-2013 at 12:06 PM.
Mike Farkas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 11:51 AM
  #162
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,605
vCash: 500
How about you look at total rather than consecutive? Because really, it's irrelevant if one goalie gets 7 consecutive votes and another gets 5 and 5 - the latter is significantly better.

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 12:06 PM
  #163
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,610
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
How about you look at total rather than consecutive? Because really, it's irrelevant if one goalie gets 7 consecutive votes and another gets 5 and 5 - the latter is significantly better.
I already did. In post 5 of this thread.

To the extent that voting records show anything useful, consecutive mentions are more a measure of consistency, while total mentions are more a measure of longevity (which Lundqvist obviously doesn't have yet).

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 12:11 PM
  #164
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,605
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I already did. In post 5 of this thread.

To the extent that voting records show anything useful, consecutive mentions are more a measure of consistency, while total mentions are more a measure of longevity (which Lundqvist obviously doesn't have yet).
I meant with 2 or 3 votes. 1 vote can be tricky, as one can always run into own GM bias.

EDIT: nevermind, we have asterisks there. But the 3, 4 and 5-vote ones would be cool.

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 12:16 PM
  #165
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,610
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
I meant with 2 or 3 votes. 1 vote can be tricky, as one can always run into own GM bias.
Seasons with only 1 vote are marked in post 5 so you can ignore them if you wish (I always ignore a single vote when it's a writer; I have mixed feelings as to whether to ignore it when it's a single GM voting on the Vezina). I started doing that this round.

Beezer has 8 total seasons with 2 or more votes, Lundqvist has 7, Luongo has 6, Kipper has 5, Thomas and Richter have 3 each. Obviously some goalies (like Beezer) have quite a few more solid seasons on their resumes where they did not get recognition, if you think seasons like that add anything.

Quote:
EDIT: nevermind, we have asterisks there. But the 3, 4 and 5-vote ones would be cool.
I'll see if I have time. I'm not going to do something comprehensive like I did for consecutive seasons, as that would take forever, but I'll try to throw something up for the guys available this round if nobody else gets to it first.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 12:24 PM
  #166
ContrarianGoaltender
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 577
vCash: 500
I think Claude Julien was certainly beneficial to Tim Thomas' stats in some way, but I think suggesting that Thomas is a creation of Zdeno Chara is flat-out false.

Here are on the on-ice save percentages at 5 on 5 of Boston defencemen for each season since 2007-08 from Behind the Net:

2007-08: 1. Ward .938, 2. Stuart .936, 3. Hnidy .934, 4. Wideman .926, 5. Chara .924, 6. Ference .913

2008-09: 1. Stuart .947, 2. Ference .944, 3. Hunwick .938, 4. Ward .933, 5. Wideman .933, 6. Hnidy .930, 7. Chara .926

2009-10: 1. Seidenberg .941, 2. Chara .928, 3. Boychuk .926, 4. Stuart .925, 5. Hunwick .924, 6. Ference .918, 7. Wideman .917

2010-11: 1. Boychuk .951, 2. McQuaid .945, 3. Chara .940, 4. Ference .935, 5. Kaberle .931, 6. Seidenberg .927

2011-12: 1. McQuaid .941, 2. Ference .925, 3. Boychuk .919, 4. Seidenberg .918, 5. Chara .916, 6. Corvo .916

It should be noted that Chara was facing tough competition, meaning that his actual performance would be a bit better than the numbers suggest, while some of the team's bottom-pairing defencemen had their numbers similarly boosted for facing off against weak competition. However, it is still quite clear that Chara is not the guy primarily responsible for the team's high save percentages, given that Thomas was usually stopping a higher percentage of shots against with Chara off the ice.

In fact, the overall evidence I've seen from guys who have looked into it suggests that individual players simply do not have a substantial impact on team shot quality, and therefore individual goalie statistics.

ContrarianGoaltender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 12:32 PM
  #167
Mike Farkas
Hockey's Future Staff
Moron!
 
Mike Farkas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,165
vCash: 500
That fits my underlying line of reasoning even better really...that is, that it's a coach's game now. Which it is. Forget the Chara stuff, I couldn't care less (no disrespect to you or the numbers TCG because they are interesting) about Chara really...I think he helps make the system work all things considered, but this isn't a debate about Chara's effectiveness...

By the way, besides Lundqvist and Thomas, are there any other goalies up for vote?

Mike Farkas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 12:55 PM
  #168
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,678
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Obviously some goalies (like Beezer) have quite a few more solid seasons on their resumes where they did not get recognition, if you think seasons like that add anything.
Donít you?

Just because no GMs thought you were a top-3 goalie in a season doesnít mean you couldnít have had a great season. Certainly 2 GMs thinking you were top-3 doesnít constitute some sort of magic line between a good and a throwaway season.

2 is just 2 away from 4, but itís also just 2 away from 0, if you know what Iím saying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
That fits my underlying line of reasoning even better really...that is, that it's a coach's game now. Which it is. Forget the Chara stuff, I couldn't care less (no disrespect to you or the numbers TCG because they are interesting) about Chara really...I think he helps make the system work all things considered, but this isn't a debate about Chara's effectiveness...

By the way, besides Lundqvist and Thomas, are there any other goalies up for vote?
Yeah, the numbers are what they are. I thought it was mainly Julien, FWIW. Not that Chara doesnít help the team massively, but as for whether he helps save percentage in particular, I was never sure of. Julien, we know he does.

Chara probably helps keep shots against down as opposed to shot quality. Thatís just my guess. And if Iím wrong than that is probably still explained by the fact that he takes the hardest matchups.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 01:20 PM
  #169
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,320
vCash: 500
Slot

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post

Yeah, the numbers are what they are. I thought it was mainly Julien, FWIW. Not that Chara doesnít help the team massively, but as for whether he helps save percentage in particular, I was never sure of. Julien, we know he does.

Chara probably helps keep shots against down as opposed to shot quality.
Thatís just my guess. And if Iím wrong than that is probably still explained by the fact that he takes the hardest matchups.
Chara keeps the opposition away from the slot area which is where the high % quality shots come from. Pronger, Stevens and a few others had the same effect.

Chara arrived in Boston one season before Julien who was hired after a fiasco in Montreal and NJ - losing the dressing room both times

The issue with the Claude Julien system is that it works only if the team has a huge physical defenseman - Chara, Pronger, etc. Basic Pronger system that was transported from St. Louis via Edmonton, Anaheim, winding up in Philadelphia. Or Scott Stevens system that disappeared in NJ after Stevens had to retire.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 01:29 PM
  #170
ContrarianGoaltender
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
That fits my underlying line of reasoning even better really...that is, that it's a coach's game now. Which it is. Forget the Chara stuff, I couldn't care less (no disrespect to you or the numbers TCG because they are interesting) about Chara really...I think he helps make the system work all things considered, but this isn't a debate about Chara's effectiveness...
No problem, just trying to help you out by focusing your argument. I think you make some good points about Thomas and Julien, although I still think you're glossing over Thomas' early Bruins career a little too lightly (he was much better than replacement level, for sure), and I think Tuukka Rask is probably pretty good, which does at least slightly diminish the whole "he barely outplayed his backups" argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
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.
I see absolutely no evidence that it is in any way reasonable to expect Roberto Luongo to have made the playoffs in Florida. The Panthers had both a terrible offence and terrible shot prevention, which meant they needed excellent goaltending just to be in games to begin with.

There's an equation called the Pythagorean points equation that predicts a team's winning percentage based on its goals scored and allowed (GF^2/(GF^2+GA^2). That formula can be used to estimate what kind of team save percentage the Panthers needed to be expected to match the 8th place team in the conference, given that team's record and Florida's actual goal scoring and shots against numbers:

2000-01: 88 pts, 200 GF, 2550 SA, .927 save % needed
2001-02: 87 pts, 180 GF, 2658 SA, .936 save % needed
2002-03: 83 pts, 176 GF, 2718 SA, .936 save % needed
2003-04: 91 pts, 188 GF, 2821 SA, .940 save % needed
2005-06: 92 pts, 236 GF, 2848 SA, .927 save % needed

And those are team save percentages. They don't include what Luongo's backups did, which generally was not much. Florida was 25-61-21 when other goalies got the decision instead of Luongo, making the threshold for Luongo to clear even more crazily demanding.

Assuming Luongo got the same goal support as other goalies per minute, here's the individual save percentages he needed to post in his minutes to have a win/loss record good enough to put his team at or around 8th place in the East:

2000-01: .950
2001-02: .951
2002-03: .944
2003-04: .945
2005-06: .930

Even if you assume that Luongo's stats were padded by 3 shots per game by the home scorekeeper or by his poor puckhandling or some other factor, his required save percentage doesn't change all that much:

2000-01: .945
2001-02: .946
2002-03: .939
2003-04: .940
2005-06: .924

You can even make it 6 shots a game off his stats and Luongo still needed to be .932 or better in every season other than 2005-06. In short, Luongo needed to be pretty much Dominik Hasek in his prime just for his team to have a chance at contending for 8th place. Luongo was not that good, obviously, and so his teams didn't even come close.

And speaking of Hasek, the 1995-96 Buffalo Sabres are a pretty good analogy to what Luongo had to deal with in Florida. Those Sabres had a slightly below league average offence and terrible shot prevention. Adjusting the numbers to league average, they were actually fairly similar to Luongo's Panthers teams in terms of overall support (all numbers adjusted to 2000-01's league environment), with if anything Hasek getting more support than Luongo did because the Panthers were worse offensively:

1996 Sabres: 2.71 GPG, 32.1 SA/60
2001 Panthers: 2.41 GPG, 30.7 SA/60
2002 Panthers: 2.29 GPG, 32.3 SA/60
2003 Panthers: 2.20 GPG, 31.8 SA/60
2004 Panthers: 2.43 GPG, 33.5 SA/60
2006 Panthers: 2.55 GPG, 31.7 SA/60

Hasek had better goal support and generally about the same shot prevention in front of him, and his team still missed the playoffs by 15 points even though he led the league in save percentage. Unless you're prepared to knock Hasek for not coming close that season, I don't see why it's even a small strike against Luongo that he never made the playoffs until 2006-07.

ContrarianGoaltender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 01:48 PM
  #171
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 3,575
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
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.
I cannot agree with this at all.

2001 Florida: 24th in scoring, 3rd in SA; Luongo .920, Kidd .893
2002 Florida: 27th in scoring, 2nd in SA; Luongo .915, Kidd .895
2003 Florida: 29th in scoring, 1st in SA; Luongo .918, Hurme .907
2004 Florida: 23rd in scoring, 1st in SA; Luongo .931, Shields .879
2006 Florida: 22nd in scoring, 2nd in SA; Luongo .914, McLennan .906
2006 Olympics: Luongo .929, Brodeur .923

You cannot blame Luongo for these teams' failures to make the playoffs or his relatively poor placement on Vezina ballots. He was in a situation that restricted him from posting gaudy Win and SO totals (the statistics with which there is a strong correlation of Vezina votes - just think of 2004, when he only appeared on half of the ballots), so while he would prove himself capable of playing high-60 and low-70 games, he did not reap the reward of Vezina votes. And let's not pretend that Luongo fell apart in Vancouver; he was still a solid goaltender.

2007 Vancouver: 11th in scoring; Luongo .921, Sabourin .906
2008 Vancouver: 23rd in scoring; Luongo .917, Sanford .898
2009 Vancouver: 13th in scoring; Luongo .920, Sanford .906
2010 Vancouver: 2nd in scoring; Luongo .913, Raycroft .911
2010 Olympics: Luongo .927, Brodeur .867
2011 Vancouver: 1st in scoring; Luongo .928, Schneider .929
2012 Vancouver: 4th in scoring; Luongo .919, Schneider .937


For Florida to have achieved the goal differential of the 8th place Eastern Conference team, they would have needed Luongo to post the following:

2001: .966 in 47 games
2002: .952 in 58 games
2003: .945 in 65 games
2004: .955 in 72 games
2006: .918 in 75 games

Making the playoffs was only plausible for Luongo and the Panthers in 2006, so perhaps your standard for being a "difference maker" is a little too high. You've seen his backups' statistics: Florida would have been worse without him. Even good players miss the playoffs.

But do players who miss the playoffs get Vezina votes?

2001
Sean Burke (a non-playoff goaltender) is named on only four ballots despite being the leader in save percentage among goalies with at least 50 GP. Burke plays 62 GP at .922 with a winning record while his backup plays 25 GP at .896.

2002
Tommy Salo is named on two ballots (0-0-3).

2003
Tomas Vokoun is named on one ballot (0-0-1).

2004
Dwayne Roloson is named on three ballots (0-0-3) despite being the league leader in save percentage at .933. Roberto Luongo, as mentioned, is left off of 15 ballots despite posting a .930 over 72 games.

2006
Manny Fernandez is named on two ballots (0-0-2) after ranking 5th in save percentage. Roberto Luongo is named on two ballots (0-1-1).


So he doesn't make the Top-Six for So-and-So years club. Something that Lundqvist only does because in his non-playoff year, the same three goaltenders are named on more than half of the ballots, leaving such strong influence in minority votes that a goaltender (Nabokov) who appeared on only 10% of the ballots is named in 4th Place. Again, I stress that this does not make Nabokov a Top-Four goaltender based upon Vezina votes - that is NOT the question asked in a Vezina vote. It means that three GMs said he was Top-Three. That's all.

But top-six sounds nicer than:

2007: Left off of 77% of Vezina ballots; 91% of AS ballots
2008: Left off of 70% of Vezina ballots; 56% of AS ballots
2009: Left off of 73% of Vezina ballots; 96% of AS ballots
2010: Left off of 87% of Vezina ballots; 98% of AS ballots
2011: Left off of 70% of Vezina ballots; 70% of AS ballots


Saying Top-Six tells us nothing. We don't know how the majority felt about Lundqvist. We only know that a small minority believed he was Top-Three in these given years. This is like the late-1980s Yzerman Selke vote discussion all over again.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 01:50 PM
  #172
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 3,575
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ContrarianGoaltender View Post
There's an equation called the Pythagorean points equation that predicts a team's winning percentage based on its goals scored and allowed (GF^2/(GF^2+GA^2). That formula can be used to estimate what kind of team save percentage the Panthers needed to be expected to match the 8th place team in the conference, given that team's record and Florida's actual goal scoring and shots against numbers:

2000-01: 88 pts, 200 GF, 2550 SA, .927 save % needed
2001-02: 87 pts, 180 GF, 2658 SA, .936 save % needed
2002-03: 83 pts, 176 GF, 2718 SA, .936 save % needed
2003-04: 91 pts, 188 GF, 2821 SA, .940 save % needed
2005-06: 92 pts, 236 GF, 2848 SA, .927 save % needed

And those are team save percentages. They don't include what Luongo's backups did, which generally was not much. Florida was 25-61-21 when other goalies got the decision instead of Luongo, making the threshold for Luongo to clear even more crazily demanding.

Assuming Luongo got the same goal support as other goalies per minute, here's the individual save percentages he needed to post in his minutes to have a win/loss record good enough to put his team at or around 8th place in the East:

2000-01: .950
2001-02: .951
2002-03: .944
2003-04: .945
2005-06: .930
Beat me by 19 minutes! I was doing my rough and dirty math for about an hour!

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 01:53 PM
  #173
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ContrarianGoaltender View Post
And speaking of Hasek, the 1995-96 Buffalo Sabres are a pretty good analogy to what Luongo had to deal with in Florida. Those Sabres had a slightly below league average offence and terrible shot prevention. Adjusting the numbers to league average, they were actually fairly similar to Luongo's Panthers teams in terms of overall support (all numbers adjusted to 2000-01's league environment), with if anything Hasek getting more support than Luongo did because the Panthers were worse offensively:

1996 Sabres: 2.71 GPG, 32.1 SA/60
2001 Panthers: 2.41 GPG, 30.7 SA/60
2002 Panthers: 2.29 GPG, 32.3 SA/60
2003 Panthers: 2.20 GPG, 31.8 SA/60
2004 Panthers: 2.43 GPG, 33.5 SA/60
2006 Panthers: 2.55 GPG, 31.7 SA/60

Hasek had better goal support and generally about the same shot prevention in front of him, and his team still missed the playoffs by 15 points even though he led the league in save percentage. Unless you're prepared to knock Hasek for not coming close that season, I don't see why it's even a small strike against Luongo that he never made the playoffs until 2006-07.
I'm not getting in on Luongo about the playoffs, but I don't think the Sabres were comparable to Florida at all. The Sabres allowed a high number of shots but were generally one of the better teams at a) clearing out rebounds, b) eliminating screens, and c) preventing high quality chances. Hasek won the Vezina in 2000-01. He went to Detroit the following season; a Detroit team that had the TWO BEST DEFENSEMEN IN THE LEAGUE. That team at Hasek's later Wings teams were excellent at reducing SA. But those teams weren't as great 1-6 at clearing the crease as Hasek's Sabres teams, and it showed in Hasek's stats. If that Wings team clears the crease of rebounds and players like Hasek's Sabres teams did, his GAA might be near or even under 1 in that 01-02 season. Luongo had neither benefit; he faced a high number of shots with a high percentage of quality chances.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 01:56 PM
  #174
ContrarianGoaltender
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
Beat me by 19 minutes! I was doing my rough and dirty math for about an hour!
Sorry! I had the advantage of already having some of the stats on hand.

ContrarianGoaltender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 01:56 PM
  #175
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,610
vCash: 500
Basically, I didn't trust the numbers coming out of Florida, but TCG put some of that to rest with his "even if Luongo's poor puckhandling and possible overcounting in Florida are inflating his save percentages" post.

And I say "some of it," because yes, I do discount a goalie who plays well when there's no pressure versus one who plays well when under pressure. If Florida was never close to making the playoffs, it means Luongo never faced a do-or-die situation there. And in Vancouver, do-or-die situations have proven to be a weakness.

All that, and Luongo is still definitely going in my top 5 this round and probably in my top 4.

Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
Saying Top-Six tells us nothing. We don't know how the majority felt about Lundqvist. We only know that a small minority believed he was Top-Three in these given years. This is like the late-1980s Yzerman Selke vote discussion all over again.
I'm not one to casually dismiss the opinions of multiple NHL GMs, who have armies of scouts supporting them.

These aren't laypeople, fans, or sportswriters, these are NHL GMs, the people who are supposed to be "experts."

7 of 30 NHL GMs (the minimum number to vote for Lundqvist in 6 of his 7 seasons) would be a small sample of laypeople, but it's not a small sample of experts. If approxminately 25% of the experts think something, it probably means something. If 25% of the experts think something 6 times? It definitely means something.

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 04:16 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.