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, 01:01 PM
  #176
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
All that, and Luongo is still definitely going in my top 5 this round and probably in my top 4. .
I am on board with Lundqvist here, but I still see the case for him over guys like Beezer and Luongo to be really weak.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 01:04 PM
  #177
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,979
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I am on board with Lundqvist here, but I still see the case for him over guys like Beezer and Luongo to be really weak.
That's because you've always been more of a "career value" guy. I've always been more of an "extended prime" guy (which despite some recent comments is not the same as "peak"). My opinion is that Lundqvist has had a stretch of 8 years (including his MVP in the SEL in 2005 over locked out NHL stars) that is a step up from any comparable stretch that Luongo or Beezer had. And you know what? Part of that might just be the much-maligned "eye test."

Beezer's a lock for my top 3 regardless, and Luongo does look better to me after seeing his stats in Florida still impress even after being adjusted for possible funny business.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 01-10-2013 at 01:10 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 01:11 PM
  #178
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 3,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
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.
But we're not getting the full story in any of those years. What did the 23 GMs who did not recognize Lundqvist in 2007 think about him? How about the 21 GMs in 2008? Or the 22 GMs in 2009? Or the 26 GMs in 2010? Or the 21 GMs in 2011?

How do we not know that these 4-9 votes are not coming from the same GMs every season? GMs that happen to value GP? GMs that happen to value Wins? GMs that happen to value SOs? You're acting like they're infallible because of their position.

I've seen more arguments on HOH about Vezina votes than any other award.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 01:18 PM
  #179
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,979
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
But we're not getting the full story in any of those years. What did the 23 GMs who did not recognize Lundqvist in 2007 think about him? How about the 21 GMs in 2008? Or the 22 GMs in 2009? Or the 26 GMs in 2010? Or the 21 GMs in 2011?

How do we not know that these 4-9 votes are not coming from the same GMs every season? GMs that happen to value GP? GMs that happen to value Wins? GMs that happen to value SOs? You're acting like they're infallible because of their position.

I've seen more arguments on HOH about Vezina votes than any other award.
Well, it's pretty clear that the GMs who didn't vote for him in 2010 but who did in every other season value making the playoffs, since 2010 was the only year he didn't make the playoffs.

And no, I don't think 1-2 GMs are infallible. I do think that 7-9 of them aren't going to be totally out to lunch about the exact same thing at the exact same time.

By the way, where was this scrutiny of awards voting when it came to sportswriters from the 1970s (for which we do have complete unofficial save percentage records)?

And yes, there are always the stats geeks on hfboards who argue that Tomas Vokoun should be racking up Vezinas, but I don't take them seriously.

Edit: You like save percentage? Lundqvist beats Luongo by a small margin during the 7 years they were in the league together. There are reasons to pick Luongo over Lundqvist (career value at the top of the list), but there are reasons to take Lundqvist, as well.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 01:25 PM
  #180
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
That's because you've always been more of a "career value" guy. I've always been more of an "extended prime" guy
That's an oversimplification. If they were just as good as eachother over their best 7-8 seasons then they’re tied on that basis, and if there is more gravy for longer career players, then they should be higher.

You seem to be overvaluing the fact that these years were consecutive for him.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 01:44 PM
  #181
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,979
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
That's an oversimplification. If they were just as good as eachother over their best 7-8 seasons then they’re tied on that basis, and if there is more gravy for longer career players, then they should be higher.

You seem to be overvaluing the fact that these years were consecutive for him.
I don't think Beezer's best 7-8 seasons are as good as Lundqvist's 7-8 seasons, and I honestly I don't think it's that close, once you consider that Beezer put up half his Vezina record in the late 80s against very weak competition.

Beezer's 1986 Vezina is one of the weakest wins ever - a very narrow win over absolutely terrible competition. 9 of 21 first place votes, only beating Bob Froese 60-58 in Vezina points.

Beezer's 1994 2nd place finish to Hasek was great (Hasek and Beezer were WAY ahead of everyone), but he really didn't have many seasons like that.

If you pick Beezer over Lundqvist, it's not because of his best seasons, it's because he has more solid seasons.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 01-10-2013 at 01:52 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 01:50 PM
  #182
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 3,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
And no, I don't think 1-2 GMs are infallible. I do think that 7-9 of them aren't going to be totally out to lunch about the exact same thing at the exact same time.
Oh, really?

1993: 13 of 24 GMs leave Curtis Joseph off of their ballots despite playing 68 Games and leading the league in Shots Against and Save Percentage. Joseph's Blues make the playoffs, but the GMs are more drawn to voting for Ed Belfour, who records 41 Wins to Joseph's 29 and 7 Shutouts to Joseph's 1 while playing with Norris-winning Chris Chelios. Ultimately, Belfour appears on 22 of 24 ballots, with more 1st Place votes (15) than Joseph has total votes (11).

1999: 70% of GMs do not name Dominik Hasek their #1 goaltender. 22% leave him off of the ballot completely. Martin Brodeur records 11 votes despite finishing below the Top-20 in Save Percentage, 12th in GAA, and 13th in SOs. He leads the league in Wins, however, with 39.

2001: Martin Brodeur, again, records 10 votes despite finishing below the Top-20 in Save Percentage. He leads the league in Wins.

2008: 43% of GMs name Evgeni Nabokov the best goaltender. 87% name him as either #1 or #2. Evgeni Nabokov is below the Top-20 in Save Percentage, below the Top-10 in Shots Against, but instead simply leads the league in Wins.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
You like save percentage? Lundqvist beats Luongo by a small margin during the 7 years they were in the league together. There are reasons to pick Luongo over Lundqvist (career value at the top of the list), but there are reasons to take Lundqvist, as well.
Because this sample does not contain all of Luongo's prime. In fact, it cuts off four seasons in which Luongo was top-ten in the statistic. This is a very poor argument, comparing one goaltender's short career to the overlap of another goaltender's late-prime and decline. I'm amazed you would even think that this would be worth mentioning at all.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 02:01 PM
  #183
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,979
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
Because this sample does not contain all of Luongo's prime. In fact, it cuts off four seasons in which Luongo was top-ten in the statistic. This is a very poor argument, comparing one goaltender's short career to the overlap of another goaltender's late-prime and decline. I'm amazed you would even think that this would be worth mentioning at all.
Is your position that Luongo was better before the lockout than afterwards?

As for GMs voting for Martin Brodeur despite his low official save percentages; it's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that NJ was massively undercounting shots, so looks like the GMs knew more than the stat guys there (at least until the stat guys finally got around to more closely scrutinizing save percentages and proved that arena effects were real).

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 02:07 PM
  #184
Mike Farkas
Hockey's Future Staff
Moron!
 
Mike Farkas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,098
vCash: 500
I'm not sure why people discount Brodeur on save pct., the system that he played in just doesn't really allow for it...GMs saw through the stats and realized that he's a hugely impactful goaltender in the NHL...

And there's real value in being able to play at a high level for that long over the course of a season. Nabokov played 77 games that year. Every night he basically had to start...people that have been around the game on the ice (like, GMs for instance) realize how difficult that is today...

I'm not saying it weighs more than this, or it's worth as much as that...I'm just saying, that discounting that completely as "just games played...pssh..." is not how it's looked at inside the NHL...or even the levels below that...

Mike Farkas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 02:11 PM
  #185
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I don't think Beezer's best 7-8 seasons are as good as Lundqvist's 7-8 seasons, and I honestly I don't think it's that close, once you consider that Beezer put up half his Vezina record in the late 80s against very weak competition.

Beezer's 1986 Vezina is one of the weakest wins ever - a very narrow win over absolutely terrible competition. 9 of 21 first place votes, only beating Bob Froese 60-58 in Vezina points.

Beezer's 1994 2nd place finish to Hasek was great (Hasek and Beezer were WAY ahead of everyone), but he really didn't have many seasons like that.

If you pick Beezer over Lundqvist, it's not because of his best seasons, it's because he has more solid seasons.
Wouldn't one need to pretty much eliminate Roy and Hasek (and maybe even Belfour too) in order to put Beezer on equal footing with Lundqvist as far as all-time great competition for the Vezina is concerned?

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 02:11 PM
  #186
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,979
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
I'm not sure why people discount Brodeur on save pct., the system that he played in just doesn't really allow for it...GMs saw through the stats and realized that he's a hugely impactful goaltender in the NHL...
Or to put it more ironically, the GMs saw through the simple and flawed save percentage stat and saw what more advanced statistical scrutiny (home/road splits) can now show. :p

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 02:17 PM
  #187
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,979
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Wouldn't one need to pretty much eliminate Roy and Hasek (and maybe even Belfour too) in order to put Beezer on equal footing with Lundqvist as far as all-time great competition for the Vezina is concerned?
Years where Beezer got at least 2 votes for the Vezina:

Vanbiesbrouck Vezina record: 1st (1986), 2nd (1994), 4th (1989), 6th (1992), 6th (1987), 6th (1988), 6th (1995), 7th (1996),

Years where he faced Roy and Hasek: 2nd (1994), 6th (1995), 7th (1996)
Years when he faced Roy but not Hasek: 4th (1989), 6th (1992)
Years against very weak competition: 1st (1986), 6th (1987), 6th (1988)

Roy was technically in the league from 1986-1988, but he wasn't anything special in the regular season. And to be honest, Roy wasn't getting all that many votes from 1994-1996 either.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 02:17 PM
  #188
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 3,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Is your position that Luongo was better before the lockout than afterwards?
I'd say he peaked in 2003-04, but there's a good career split for before and after the lockout.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
As for GMs voting for Martin Brodeur despite his low official save percentages; it's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that NJ was massively undercounting shots, so looks like the GMs knew more than the stat guys there (at least until the stat guys finally got around to more closely scrutinizing save percentages and proved that arena effects were real).
I could see how his .906 on the road in 2001 really knocked their socks off. And I talked about Nabokov, Hasek, Joseph, and Belfour too. Not just something that can be explained by New Jersey's timekeepers.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 02:18 PM
  #189
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,276
vCash: 500
Playoffs is another area where I think Beezer beats out Lundqvist that should be taken into consideration. Beezer has 2 long playoff runs with low seeded teams.

EDIT: In 96' they were actually seeded 4th in the conference, but we all remember how incredible he was that year

Hawkey Town 18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 02:19 PM
  #190
ContrarianGoaltender
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 570
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
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.
That's fair enough, as long as the discount is reasonable, because otherwise you're penalizing a guy for his circumstance to some degree.

But with respect to the point about Luongo and pressure, I'm not convinced that Luongo's problem is pressure. I think Luongo's problem is dealing with adversity. This is, after all, a guy who in his first ever playoff game made 72 saves in a 4OT win. He won and played well in his first playoff game, his first playoff game seven, and his first appearance in a best-on-best international (SF against the Czechs in '04 World Cup).

He was 31/32 in the game 7 against Chicago in 2011 and 34/36 in the 2010 Olympic gold medal final, two of the most high-pressure games a Canadian goalie has ever faced (although to be fair I thought he was protected pretty well by his team in both of them). Luongo's playoff overtime record is actually quite outstanding (9-7, with those 7 GA coming on 155 shots for a .955 save percentage), and he's also 4-0 in international OT games, counting the two just mentioned. If it wasn't for the fact that Luongo's reputation is mud in general among hockey fans, his last-second save against Slovakia would go down in Canadian international hockey history as one of the most clutch moments ever. Even off the ice, Luongo made it into the money in the World Series of Poker, a forum where shrinking violets generally don't have any success at all.

Yet at the same time, he occasionally turns into a sieve in blowouts. When the other team runs him they can take him off his game. When the Canucks were ravaged by injuries and things started turning against them down the stretch in 2007-08, Luongo couldn't bail them out. When Cory Schneider got the surprise start in game 6 against Chicago in 2011, Luongo skated around like he was confused and didn't look like he was preparing for a playoff game, and perhaps not surprisingly when he was forced into the game later ended up majorly fighting the puck before his team lost in OT on a weak rebound.

Perhaps this tells the story of Luongo as much as anything else, a breakdown of his save percentages by score in the 2011 playoffs:

Lead by 4+: 0/2, .000
Lead by 3: 18/19, .947
Lead by 2: 56/60, .933
Lead by 1: 154/164, .939
Game tied: 257/276, .931
Down by 1: 84/92, .913
Down by 2: 24/32, .750
Down by 3: 41/45, .911
Down by 4+: 16/21, .762

With the score tied, he's usually great. One goal goes in, and you start to worry. Two goals go in, and then sometimes so does everything else. It's certainly a strike against him, but if you're a great team (like, say, Team Canada) then you're usually just fine with Luongo in net.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Is your position that Luongo was better before the lockout than afterwards?
I think Luongo was at least as good in 2002-03 and 2003-04 as he was later in Vancouver, he just finally got the recognition because his team was in the playoff mix.

The other important thing with respect to comparing Lundqvist to Luongo when they were both in the league is that Luongo's injury in 2009 is widely considered to have had a considerable impact on his subsequent play, particularly his athleticism and lateral movement. After that his road save % numbers started nosediving, he had a down year overall in 2009-10, he started struggling a lot more in the playoffs, particularly against fast, skilled offensive teams like the Blackhawks and particularly on the penalty kill when he was left a bit more vulnerable, and he generally didn't look like the earlier version of himself.

I'd certainly take Lundqvist over Luongo since 2009. But tack on Luongo's earlier Florida years instead of his last three and I think it's pretty close, with probably a slight edge to Luongo, all things considered.

ContrarianGoaltender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 02:19 PM
  #191
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 3,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Roy was technically in the league from 1986-1988, but he wasn't anything special in the regular season. And to be honest, Roy wasn't getting all that many votes from 1994-1996 either.
Are you only looking at Vezina shares at this point?

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 02:24 PM
  #192
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 3,384
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...
I would love to hear what Tim Thomas should have done differently in 2009.

Montreal, Game 1: 26/28, .929
Montreal, Game 2: 30/31, .968
Montreal, Game 3: 23/25, .920
Montreal, Game 4: 26/27, .963

Carolina, Game 1: 26/27, .963
Carolina, Game 2: 22/24, .917
Carolina, Game 3: 38/41, .927
Carolina, Game 4: 27/31, .871
Carolina, Game 5: 19/19, 1.000
Carolina, Game 6: 31/33, .939
Carolina, Game 7: 34/37, .919

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 02:27 PM
  #193
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,979
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkey Town 18 View Post
Playoffs is another area where I think Beezer beats out Lundqvist that should be taken into consideration. Beezer has 2 long playoff runs with low seeded teams.

EDIT: In 96' they were actually seeded 4th in the conference, but we all remember how incredible he was that year
Beezer's 1996 was awesome. How impressive was he in 1986? I know his Rangers upset the Flyers and Capitals, but how did Beezer perform himself?

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 02:28 PM
  #194
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,979
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
Are you only looking at Vezina shares at this point?
Why would I look at anything other than Vezina voting in response to "you should remove Roy and Hasek to fairly compare their Vezina records?"

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 02:33 PM
  #195
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,166
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Beezer's 1996 was awesome. How impressive was he in 1986? I know his Rangers upset the Flyers and Capitals, but how did Beezer perform himself?
Beezers playoff save pct. was 21 points over the league average in '86.

Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 02:36 PM
  #196
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,979
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
Beezers playoff save pct. was 21 points over the league average in '86.
Well, that doesn't tell the whole story, but it's a great cliffnotes version of what happened.

Why on Earth did Beezer have a reputation as a weak playoff goalie before 1996 then? I am remembering this correctly, right?

Edit, nevermind, you're giving regular season numbers.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 01-10-2013 at 02:46 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 02:39 PM
  #197
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,979
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
I would love to hear what Tim Thomas should have done differently in 2009.

Montreal, Game 1: 26/28, .929
Montreal, Game 2: 30/31, .968
Montreal, Game 3: 23/25, .920
Montreal, Game 4: 26/27, .963

Carolina, Game 1: 26/27, .963
Carolina, Game 2: 22/24, .917
Carolina, Game 3: 38/41, .927
Carolina, Game 4: 27/31, .871
Carolina, Game 5: 19/19, 1.000
Carolina, Game 6: 31/33, .939
Carolina, Game 7: 34/37, .919
Yeah, I have no idea how anyone would have complaints about Thomas's playoff record.

Very short time as a relevant goalie? Fair
Possible product of his team? I can see it to an extent.
Questioning his playoffs? I don't get it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ContrarianGoaltender View Post
Perhaps this tells the story of Luongo as much as anything else, a breakdown of his save percentages by score in the 2011 playoffs:

Lead by 4+: 0/2, .000
Lead by 3: 18/19, .947
Lead by 2: 56/60, .933
Lead by 1: 154/164, .939
Game tied: 257/276, .931
Down by 1: 84/92, .913
Down by 2: 24/32, .750
Down by 3: 41/45, .911
Down by 4+: 16/21, .762

With the score tied, he's usually great. One goal goes in, and you start to worry. Two goals go in, and then sometimes so does everything else. It's certainly a strike against him, but if you're a great team (like, say, Team Canada) then you're usually just fine with Luongo in net.
Thanks for doing this. Looks like "protecting a deficit" was Luongo's biggest weakness, at least in 2011. "Protecting a deficit" is a Doc Emrickism often used to praise Brodeur's ability to close the door on the other team when his team is down by 1 or 2 goals, even if those earlier goals were Brodeur's fault.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 02:42 PM
  #198
ContrarianGoaltender
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 570
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
Beezers playoff save pct. was 21 points over the league average in '86.
21 points over the regular season average, but just 2 points above the playoff average in 1986, which was an unusually low-scoring postseason. Vanbiesbrouck wasn't even top 5 in save percentage in those playoffs.

ContrarianGoaltender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 02:42 PM
  #199
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,203
vCash: 500
Internal Team Evaluations

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
I'm not sure why people discount Brodeur on save pct., the system that he played in just doesn't really allow for it...GMs saw through the stats and realized that he's a hugely impactful goaltender in the NHL...

And there's real value in being able to play at a high level for that long over the course of a season. Nabokov played 77 games that year. Every night he basically had to start...people that have been around the game on the ice (like, GMs for instance) realize how difficult that is today...

I'm not saying it weighs more than this, or it's worth as much as that...I'm just saying, that discounting that completely as "just games played...pssh..." is not how it's looked at inside the NHL...or even the levels below that...
The NHL GMs, coaches rely on their internal team evaluations when they vote.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 02:44 PM
  #200
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,166
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ContrarianGoaltender View Post
21 points over the regular season average, but just 2 points above the playoff average in 1986, which was an unusually low-scoring postseason. Vanbiesbrouck wasn't even top 5 in save percentage in those playoffs.
I'm looking at the '86 season as a whole: From the first drop of the puck to the lifting of the Cup.

Morgoth Bauglir 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 03:14 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.