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.

Goalies that exceeded expectations/underperformed in Cup runs

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-03-2013, 01:16 AM
  #51
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,647
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
You stated quite clearly what is expected of a SC goalie as being the objective standard.
You're really getting hung up on the phrase objective standard, and I don't know why. We can be talking hockey, you know...

When I said objective standard, I meant (and I phrased it as) the level of expectations of a Stanley Cup winner, as opposed to the level of expectations subject to the given goaltender (which is what you applied to your posts about Osgood and Niemi in defense of them exceeding low expectations).

You seem determined to draw out some kind of mathematical formula to determine what does and does not constitute an expected performance from a Stanley Cup goaltender. Well, I never promised you one. All I said is that whatever standard that is, you have to apply the same standard to every goaltender objectively rather than applying higher or lower expectations subject to the goaltender's reputation.

Niemi played better than what we expected of him. (Subjective standard)
Niemi played worse than what we expect of a Stanley Cup winner. (Objective standard)


Either you get it or you don't, but I really don't want to explain it again.

quoipourquoi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2013, 10:32 PM
  #52
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,168
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
The elite ones. 10 of his 22 games were above .940 (which is to say they were at or above the range of 16/17 or 32/34 with an average of 24.9 shots against). All ten of those games were wins. When he played well, they won.

A lot of Stanley Cup teams would still win their Stanley Cup with a .941 cumulative goaltender. If Olaf Kolzig in 1998 is your measuring stick, check yourself, because that was one of the best runs of the last 30 years.
The thing is though, no one can deny that Osgood has great numbers. But did anyone walk into a series against Detroit wondering how to beat Chris Osgood? They wondered how to beat the left wing lock, how to get through Lidstrom or how to stop Yzerman and Fedorov down the middle. Like it or not, Osgood was very much window dressing in the Wings net. He didn't face the quality of shots that other goalies did and that also helps explain his GAA and his save percentage. Simply put, Osgood was usually a goalie who was average to ever so slightly above average set up behind a very difficult team to play against.

Why I used Kolzig in 1998 was more or less an example of whether or not a similar goalie could do what Osgood did in the Detroit net. Kolzig wasn't any worse of a goalie at that time in my opinion. Heck, neither was Felix Potvin for that record. That's the thing you have to look at, is he a goalie who was interchangeable or was he someone who the Wings relied upon? I just don't remember times, especially in 1998, where you would say that Osgood saved Detroit's bacon. That's the idea with this thread, whether a goalie just simply did his job or went above and beyond. Fleury in 2009 had some weak moments but he also had some moments where he bailed out the Pens. You just didn't see that with Osgood in 1998.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2013, 11:35 PM
  #53
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 26,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Simply put, Osgood was usually a goalie who was average to ever so slightly above average set up behind a very difficult team to play against.
Dont understand this post Phil. Osgoode was the "system" goalie. You beat the system, Bowmans throwback "system", you beat Detroit. He was therefore the right guy at the right time because he played "system". Reactively, he was sharp. Fast hands, but more important;y he could skate, had fast feet. Decent but yes, average skill set. It was more than enough as he bought-in. Willing to redefine himself several times over. I respect that.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2013, 12:08 AM
  #54
nik jr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Congo-Kinshasa
Posts: 10,797
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padan View Post
Osgood definitely exceeded expectations in 2009. He was 36 by then and just came off his statistically worst regular season in the NHL, and played even better than in 2008 (agree with "eva unit zero").

EDIT: Sorry, didn't read "quoipourquoi"'s clarification...
osgood was absolutely horrendous in '09 regular season, until march, when he started to play as he had in the past. conklin was OK until late in the season, when he started to really suck.

if DRW had had average goaltending that season, they easily would have won the presidents' trophy. only 4 teams had better GAA than conklin's 2.51, and conklin was very replaceable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
Osgood was considered a favorite alongside Zetterberg, with Franzen and Lidstrom getting the odd mention.

Speaking of which... why isn't Osgood's 2009 mentioned here? Despite what the numbers, he was actually playing better in 2009 than 2008. He was a stone cold lock for the Conn Smythe as late as Period 1 of Game 7 of the Finals.
i would have had osgood 4th after zetterberg, datsyuk and lidstrom.

i don't see any argument for franzen. he scored most of his points in blowouts vs colorado, and he missed most of WCF and missed a game vs pittsburgh.

i would have voted zetterberg again in '09. i would also have lidstrom above osgood.

nik jr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2013, 05:08 AM
  #55
wunderpanda
sabre of damocles
 
wunderpanda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 3,329
vCash: 500
It's hard to think of Brodeur and Roy being in a position to exceed expectations. They were always considered the best goalies in the league and it was up to the team to play up to their levels. If they were always considered capable of stealing a series, even with a weaker team in front of them, isn't the expectation they will win? Especially if its a matter of their weaker team scoring enough to allow Roy / Brodeur the chance to win.

So the team may have exceeded expectations, but the goalies simply met expectations.

wunderpanda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2013, 09:16 AM
  #56
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,168
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Dont understand this post Phil. Osgoode was the "system" goalie. You beat the system, Bowmans throwback "system", you beat Detroit. He was therefore the right guy at the right time because he played "system". Reactively, he was sharp. Fast hands, but more important;y he could skate, had fast feet. Decent but yes, average skill set. It was more than enough as he bought-in. Willing to redefine himself several times over. I respect that.
Yes but he was interchangeable Killion. Vernon wins, then leaves, Osgood comes in and wins with the same team. He stays a few years, then gets shoved out for Hasek and the Wings win immediately. The bottom line, the Wings didn't really go out and get a star goalie because they didn't need one. He was a middle of the pack goalie his whole career. This is telling when we are unable to point out a shining moment in his playoff career where he was even feared.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2013, 11:01 AM
  #57
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,647
vCash: 500



More happened in that Dallas series than a center ice goal.

quoipourquoi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2013, 05:15 PM
  #58
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Yes but he was interchangeable Killion. Vernon wins, then leaves, Osgood comes in and wins with the same team. He stays a few years, then gets shoved out for Hasek and the Wings win immediately. The bottom line, the Wings didn't really go out and get a star goalie because they didn't need one. He was a middle of the pack goalie his whole career. This is telling when we are unable to point out a shining moment in his playoff career where he was even feared.
First-team all-star Vladimir Konstantinov and rookie Anders Eriksson are NOT the same, even if they both were top four defensemen on the Wings along with Lidstrom, Murphy, and Fetisov.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2013, 06:21 PM
  #59
Hawksfan2828
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Libertyville, IL
Posts: 10,192
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Alright, I am going to put each goalie from each year into three different groups. First group is playing below expectations despite a Cup win. Second group is doing what is expected (playing what is expected of a Cup goalie) in a Cup run. Last group will be the goalies who exceeded expectations in a Cup run. These are often the Smythe winners. I'll narrow it down from 1970 onwards.

Played below expectations:
Dryden 1973, Dryden 1979, Osgood 1998, Niemi 2010

Met expectations:
Cheevers 1970, Cheevers/Johnston 1972, Dryden 1978, Smith 1981, Smith 1982, Fuhr 1984, Fuhr 1985, Fuhr 1987, Fuhr 1988, Barrasso 1991, Brodeur 1995, Roy 1996, Belfour 1999, Brodeur 2000, Hasek 2002, Khabibulin 2004, Giguere 2007, Osgood 2008, Fleury 2009

Exceeded expectations:
Dryden 1971, Parent 1974, Parent 1975, Dryden 1976, Dryden 1977, Smith 1980, Smith 1983, Roy 1986, Vernon 1989, Ranford 1990, Barrasso 1992, Roy 1993, Richter 1994, Vernon 1997, Roy 2001, Brodeur 2003, Ward 2006, Thomas 2011, Quick 2012

Any objections here?

Just to clarify a couple of things. Dryden in 1973 was part of a wild Cup final with far too many goals against by Chicago. Tony Esposito just played worse. Dryden also had some dull moments in 1979. Osgood let in three goals outside of the blueline in 1998, one of them a center ice shot in overtime. Then of course Niemi in 2010. He won the Cup for the reason that the Flyers goaltending was just worse. Michael Leighton in general.
You think Niemi played below expectations in 2010? he only won a cup.

Don't get me wrong I like Niemi and I think he was underrated until this season but the consensus has been that Niemi exceeded expectations in 2010.

The Hawks didn't even take a series to 7 in 2010.


Last edited by Hawksfan2828: 05-04-2013 at 06:27 PM.
Hawksfan2828 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2013, 06:32 PM
  #60
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,271
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
You're really getting hung up on the phrase objective standard, and I don't know why. We can be talking hockey, you know...

When I said objective standard, I meant (and I phrased it as) the level of expectations of a Stanley Cup winner, as opposed to the level of expectations subject to the given goaltender (which is what you applied to your posts about Osgood and Niemi in defense of them exceeding low expectations).

You seem determined to draw out some kind of mathematical formula to determine what does and does not constitute an expected performance from a Stanley Cup goaltender. Well, I never promised you one. All I said is that whatever standard that is, you have to apply the same standard to every goaltender objectively rather than applying higher or lower expectations subject to the goaltender's reputation.

Niemi played better than what we expected of him. (Subjective standard)
Niemi played worse than what we expect of a Stanley Cup winner. (Objective standard)


Either you get it or you don't, but I really don't want to explain it again.
I think part of the problem is that you threw out the phrase objective standard and still haven't defined what it actually is.

Without a definition it doesn't really exist, and especially not in and objective way.

In reality everyone has their own subjective view on what the standard for a SC winning goalie should be.

It's like the phrase great art, while most people kinda know what it means it's never really defined.

Your example doesn't work either because Niemie played better than was expected (playoffs compared to his regular season) for the subjective standard.

For the the "objective standard" , as you are calling it we would have to compare his playoff record that season to.... well no really defined criteria).

To me it's quite simple, if there really isn't a defined standard for a winning SC goalie how can we compare anyone to it and then actually call it objective?

We can't.

One could at least make an attempt to define the "standard" and say something like well in 20 of the last 21 cups the SC winning goaltender met at least 4 out 5 requirements of some sort of standard and then viola you would have your standard, or at the very least a pretty good argument for one.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2013, 06:38 PM
  #61
Trebek
Mod Supervisor
 
Trebek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,945
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawksfan2828 View Post
You think Niemi played below expectations in 2010? he only won a cup.
Of course, every goalie in the thread (as defined by the original poster) won a Cup.

Trebek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2013, 04:10 PM
  #62
Hammer Time
Registered User
 
Hammer Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,908
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawksfan2828 View Post
You think Niemi played below expectations in 2010? he only won a cup.

Don't get me wrong I like Niemi and I think he was underrated until this season but the consensus has been that Niemi exceeded expectations in 2010.

The Hawks didn't even take a series to 7 in 2010.
Giving up 21 goals in 6 games in the Stanley Cup Finals is below the performance you would normally expect from a Cup winning goaltender.

By comparison, Brodeur gave up 19 goals in the 2001 SCF, and Luongo gave up 20 goals in the 2011 SCF (both are often criticized for blowing it for their team).

Hammer Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2013, 10:56 PM
  #63
vadim sharifijanov
#bryantreevesbad
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 11,606
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wunderpanda View Post
It's hard to think of Brodeur and Roy being in a position to exceed expectations. They were always considered the best goalies in the league and it was up to the team to play up to their levels. If they were always considered capable of stealing a series, even with a weaker team in front of them, isn't the expectation they will win? Especially if its a matter of their weaker team scoring enough to allow Roy / Brodeur the chance to win.

So the team may have exceeded expectations, but the goalies simply met expectations.
it's not what big phil is asking for, but roy's career is interesting because every time he won a cup, he did exceed the expectations people had for him that year.

- 1986: obviously nobody saw that coming. rookie goalie carrying a relatively average habs team (relatively average for a cup winner).

- 1993: people were wondering if he was done. three straight series losses to boston. then came out of nowhere and put up the greatest single playoff run i've ever seen.

- 1996: people were wondering if he was done again. shelled by the wings, traded from montreal, four years from his last vezina, three long years from his last cup, coming off the only season of his career where he missed the playoffs.

- 2001: people really should have stopped wondering if roy was done by this point. but outdueled by belfour two straight years, eclipsed by hasek as the best in the game. then wins his record third conn smythe.


in all of the years when we would have called roy the favourite goalie to win the stanley cup (any of the years after his conn smythes; his '89-'92 peak; the powerhouse avs' presidents trophy year of '97), he didn't actually win.


but it's patrick roy, competitive homicidal maniac. maybe he had to have people writing him off to hit his highest gear.

vadim sharifijanov 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 07:29 PM.

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.