HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Is Henrik Lundqvist An HOFer?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-21-2013, 08:08 AM
  #176
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,079
vCash: 500
Sure Thomas has the higher peak, between him and Lundqvist, but he also has the lower valleys and there is the question of GP and consistency.

511 (2nd) for Lundqvist and 374 (12th) for Thomas. Then there is the point of having Chara for well over 1/3 of the game out there to patrol the backside while Thomas is aggressive on the shooter.

Maybe Thomas is the best goalie of the lockout, if he actually plays last season or before losing his job to Task, then earning it back.

There is no maybe with Lundvist, he has been consistently excellent since the lockout and is a well deserving #1 goalie over that time period.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2013, 08:59 AM
  #177
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,804
vCash: 500
It's partially a question of how much you weigh peak vs consistency. At any given moment, Lundqvist may not necessarily be the best goaltender in the world. Could be Quick, Rinne, Thomas, etc. But Lundqvist's value comes from being consistently excellent year in and year out since he stepped into the league. He's just a given back there. The only knock on him, and it's a completely legitimate knock, is that he's not as consistently excellent in the Spring as he is in the Fall and Winter.

Crease is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2013, 10:02 AM
  #178
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Sure Thomas has the higher peak, between him and Lundqvist, but he also has the lower valleys and there is the question of GP and consistency.

511 (2nd) for Lundqvist and 374 (12th) for Thomas. Then there is the point of having Chara for well over 1/3 of the game out there to patrol the backside while Thomas is aggressive on the shooter.

Maybe Thomas is the best goalie of the lockout, if he actually plays last season or before losing his job to Task, then earning it back.

There is no maybe with Lundvist, he has been consistently excellent since the lockout and is a well deserving #1 goalie over that time period.
Tim Thomas didn't lose his job to Rask in 2010; he was injured in February/March and Boston stayed with the hot goaltender in the playoffs while Thomas put off hip surgery in case Rask didn't deliver. I mean, if a .915 is enough to lose a starting job in the NHL and qualify as a valley in your opinion, wouldn't Lundqvist have a pretty big valley himself in 2007, 2008, and 2009 when he had a cumulative .915 over three seasons? Or do we ignore that he kept collecting 70-72 GP because New York didn't have someone as good as Rask to pick up the slack?

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2013, 12:40 PM
  #179
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
I'm not ignoring team influence. In fact, I was discussing it with you in the Top 40 thread until you stopped responding to legitimate points raised by both TCG and myself.
Thanks for pointing out that there were replies there. I hadn’t realized. I was watching for bolded threads and for whatever reason that thread never showed as bold all weekend. I’ll answer those points over there.

Quote:
Only four goaltenders have led the league in save percentage as a starter multiple times since the statistic became official: Roy, Hasek, Belfour, and Thomas. Thomas did it with leads of .007 and .008. Belfour did it with leads of .004 and less than .001, meaning we haven't seen a goaltender do what Thomas did in those two seasons since Hasek in 95/98/99 and Roy in 89/90. And Thomas' save percentage jumps up in the playoffs both in terms of cumulative numbers and game-to-game consistency, with one of the runs being a .940 Conn Smythe when the league average was .911.
We’re talking about two different leagues though. I think that, for the most part, save percentage was closely tied to actual goaltender performance. With the exception of Martin Brodeur, from 1987 to 2004, it seemed that the goalies considered the best were also the ones who had the highest save percentages most frequently. But team style of play and coaching have distorted that lately. People should be somewhat skeptical of goalies such as Thomas/Rask, Rinne, Backstrom, and Hitchcock and Dave Tippett’s recent creations.

It’s funny, save percentage just seems to have finally won the stats battle as the best simple stat that exists for goalies, but just as it did, team effects became more pronounced and now we’re in more danger of overusing the stat than ever before.

Quote:
Lundqvist has consistency, but Thomas has an incredibly high peak (I just compared it to Hasek and Roy) that makes up 25% of the eight year sample. You realize Thomas' leads over his own backups during his Vezina years were by .023 and .020, yes? The fact that Rask is better than the New York backups doesn't make Lundqvist better at stopping the puck; Rask could've come into the league as a #1 goaltender and been successful.
– I readily acknowledge that Rask as a comparable is better than what the other goalies have typically had to contend with. That said, he still hasn’t been tested in a variety of situations. In other words, his greatness as an NHL goaltender has not been definitively proven.

-********* No one said Thomas was a bad goalie. In his Vezina years, he did badly outplay the other goalies on his teams. And I’m glad you see that as a useful stat, because Lundqvist outshines the entire NHL in that regard.

Quote:
So for Lundqvist to be higher than Thomas in an eight-year sample, he should either have two save percentage titles (his highest finish is fourth), a higher cumulative save percentage (he doesn't), a better playoff resume (he has a penchant for playing as many below average games as above average games), or more trophies (he collected fewer than 10/30 Vezina votes every season from 2007-2011 for having high-GP stats, only winning one Vezina to Thomas' two and a Conn Smythe)

I mean, the difference in GP is practically the same as the difference in GP between Alexander Ovechkin and Sidney Crosby. It's not that big of a deal, considering Boston was trying to play Rask as much as possible since he was the goalie of the future. If you think a concentrated number of GP would have negatively impacted Tim Thomas, may I suggest the 2005-06 season (38 games in 95 days; 7th in save percentage) and the 2011 playoffs (25 games in 62 days; Conn Smythe)?

-********* If we’re trying to distill their eight season performance into one number, then let’s stop trophy counting and look at cumulative save percentage. Because if trophy counting matters, it must be acknowledged that for him to have an extra vezina with numbers that aren’t any more impressive, his lows had to be lower… right?

*
-********* While it’s correct that Thomas has him by two points, the GP difference is a massive one. Averaging numbers tend to regress to the mean in a larger sample size. If you could replay the last 8 seasons and find 137 more games for Thomas, would you place a bet, with even odds, that he maintains a .922 save percentage over that larger sample? Everything that we know about statistics indicates that this is not a smart bet to place.

*
-********* I disagree that this is similar to Crosby and Ovechkin in terms of the magnitudes involved. Crosby over the last 8 years has cumulatively been a 15.7% better producer than Ovechkin. Ovechkin has played 27.9% more games. In the case of Lundqvist/Thomas, Thomas has an edge of 1.3% (his error rate of 7.849% is 1.3% better than Lundqvist’s 7.953%; what I also noticed is that their sv% gap of “two points” is a rounding anomaly, because they’re actually just a hair over a point apart, .92151 to .92047), and Lundqvist has played 36.7% more games.

*
-********* People confidently state that Crosby is the best post-lockout forward, and for good reason. His production edge is far enough ahead that the difference in GP is not significant enough to change our confidence in that. Looking at Ovechkin’s 1.22 PPG in 601 games, if Crosby was just 1.3% better in points per game and played 36.7% fewer games, it would not be fair to call him a better player. (Crosby would have 1.236 PPG in 440 games – 543 points).

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
Remind me again how close did Lundqvist get to a Conn Smythe?
seriously, that’s all you have to say to that?

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2013, 02:52 PM
  #180
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Thanks for pointing out that there were replies there. I hadn’t realized. I was watching for bolded threads and for whatever reason that thread never showed as bold all weekend. I’ll answer those points over there.
I've had the same thing happen to me with those sticky threads before.


Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
We’re talking about two different leagues though. I think that, for the most part, save percentage was closely tied to actual goaltender performance. With the exception of Martin Brodeur, from 1987 to 2004, it seemed that the goalies considered the best were also the ones who had the highest save percentages most frequently. But team style of play and coaching have distorted that lately. People should be somewhat skeptical of goalies such as Thomas/Rask, Rinne, Backstrom, and Hitchcock and Dave Tippett’s recent creations.
There's skepticism and then there's guilty until proven innocent. Look at Tomas Vokoun: What if he continues in these playoffs (currently a .949) and wins a Stanley Cup himself? Are the save percentage skeptics going to accept that Vokoun, another goaltender with a higher save percentage than Lundqvist since 2005-06, might actually be as good? Or are the skeptics going to continue writing him off for alternating seasons of high-home and high-road save percentages that paralleled his win/loss record?

Thomas is beyond that; there's no more reason to be skeptical of him. Both times he led the league in save percentage, he won the Vezina and the 1st Team with high road numbers and a margin over his teammates. Every goalie with two Vezina/1st Team selections is a HOFer. And a .967 over seven games against the dominant President's Trophy winner (1st in the league in both GF and GA) is going to be the playoff that gets talked about alongside Sawchuk, Parent, and Roy.


Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
It’s funny, save percentage just seems to have finally won the stats battle as the best simple stat that exists for goalies, but just as it did, team effects became more pronounced and now we’re in more danger of overusing the stat than ever before.
So are we supposed to revert back into the mentality that secured Lundqvist a low percentage of Vezina votes in 2007-2009: Voting because of high-GP related statistics? I think it can be overused too: Look at 2009, when 15 goaltenders landed between .920 and .915 (5th-19th place). Is there really much of a difference that can't be accounted for with special teams factors, shot recording, etc.? But when a goaltender separates himself from the pack, he should get credit.

Save Percentage Leads (50 GP minimum)
2006: Kiprusoff (.001)
2007: Brodeur (.001)
2008: Giguere (.001)
2009: Thomas (.007)
2010: Miller (.003)
2011: Thomas (.008)
2012: Smith (.000)
2013: Bobrovsky (.003)


Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I readily acknowledge that Rask as a comparable is better than what the other goalies have typically had to contend with. That said, he still hasn’t been tested in a variety of situations. In other words, his greatness as an NHL goaltender has not been definitively proven.
So if he turns out to be really good too, you have to go back and give Thomas the same credit that everyone else gives him?


Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
No one said Thomas was a bad goalie. In his Vezina years, he did badly outplay the other goalies on his teams. And I’m glad you see that as a useful stat, because Lundqvist outshines the entire NHL in that regard.
Having horrible backups doesn't make someone better, nor does having great backups make someone worse. A question of value, perhaps, but not a question of better or worse. For instance, I would never use Biron's .923 in 2011 that equaled Lundqvist's number against Lundqvist.


Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
If we’re trying to distill their eight season performance into one number, then let’s stop trophy counting and look at cumulative save percentage. Because if trophy counting matters, it must be acknowledged that for him to have an extra vezina with numbers that aren’t any more impressive, his lows had to be lower… right?
I think an isolation of a small sample of years only magnifies the importance of dominant regular seasons and dominant playoffs. Cumulatives work to lessen dominant statistical seasons by chipping away at them for a few points every year. I'll give you an example: Sakic versus Jagr. Cumulatively, Jagr only scores at a pace of 2 extra points per 82 games, but we know that there is a very real gap between them.

As for Thomas and Lundqvist, Thomas has seen 79.3% of the amount of Lundqvist's shots. For Thomas to dip down to Lundqvist's cumulative save percentage, he would need to stop exactly 2699 of the next 2945 shots. In the playoffs, he would need to stop exactly 236 of the next 280 shots. But Thomas isn't a .910 goaltender over this eight year sample; he's a .923 goaltender. And he might very well be a HOFer right now.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2013, 09:31 PM
  #181
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,133
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Lundqvist, like Liut from 1979-'87 in his first 8 years is in the running as the best goalie. I personally would take Billy Smith over Liut in those years though. Fuhr to a lesser extent although he had only played 6 seasons.

Lundqvist battles it out with Luongo and Thomas in my opinion. If you think it's a walk for Lundqvist then there must be some explanation as to why it took him 7 years to not only win a Vezina but garner an all-star nod. Luongo and Thomas both have individual seasons better than him in this time frame (2007 and 2011 for Thomas). Both have much better playoff runs than him where they were the most important cog on their team (2011 for both). Lundqvist is now currently down 3-0 in the Bruins series. He's far from an infallible goalie, he is a goalie that plays strong technically but from what I have seen in his career not one that has elevated his play high enough to carry his team further. That should make anyone hesitate to put him #1 since 2005.

Goalies that most would describe as not as good as him such as Ward or Fleury have found a way to put together very nice playoff runs that Lundqvist hasn't equalled.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2013, 07:03 AM
  #182
reckoning
Registered User
 
reckoning's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,192
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Lundqvist is now currently down 3-0 in the Bruins series. He's far from an infallible goalie, he is a goalie that plays strong technically but from what I have seen in his career not one that has elevated his play high enough to carry his team further. That should make anyone hesitate to put him #1 since 2005.
You don't think back-to-back shutouts in Games 6 and 7 against one of the top offensive teams in the league is an example of a goalie elevating his play to carry his team further? Without Lundqvist, the Rangers aren't even close to making the playoffs.

Quote:
Goalies that most would describe as not as good as him such as Ward or Fleury have found a way to put together very nice playoff runs that Lundqvist hasn't equalled.
Maybe "found a way to put together very nice playoff runs" could also mean "were fortunate enough to have great offensive support from their teams top scorers in that playoff run". In Ward's 2006 Cup run, Staal had 28 points and Brind'amour had 12 goals. In Fleury's 2009 playoffs, Crosby and Malkin each had over 30 points.

By comparison, how are the Rangers top scorers this season doing in the playoffs:

Derek Stepan: 3 points in 10 games
Rick Nash: 4 points in 10 games
Brad Richards: 1 point in 10 games

reckoning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2013, 07:48 AM
  #183
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,383
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by reckoning View Post
You don't think back-to-back shutouts in Games 6 and 7 against one of the top offensive teams in the league is an example of a goalie elevating his play to carry his team further? Without Lundqvist, the Rangers aren't even close to making the playoffs.
For some people around here goaltenders are Stanley Cup winners or chokers with no middle ground.


Quote:
By comparison, how are the Rangers top scorers this season doing in the playoffs:

Derek Stepan: 3 points in 10 games
Rick Nash: 4 points in 10 games
Brad Richards: 1 point in 10 games
Right -- so far in his playoff career Lundqvist is looking like he is going to have Cujo like support from his team.

The Rangers just don't score!

I get the feeling that Tortorella isn't going to be there an awful lot longer.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2013, 08:24 AM
  #184
the edler
Inimitable
 
the edler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,344
vCash: 500
Goalies' not my specialty but I think Lundqvist needs to win something more to be a HOFer. Not necessarily a cup but at least one more Vezina. At least.

Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
Tim Thomas.
Ha! He wasn't even the starter in the last Olympics. We're talking 8 years now, not 2 or 3.

the edler is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2013, 09:24 AM
  #185
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by the edler View Post
Ha! He wasn't even the starter in the last Olympics. We're talking 8 years now, not 2 or 3.
You mean they didn't start a goalie with a hip injury over Vezina-season Ryan Miller - who was a .935 leading up to February? What a shocking development. Tell me, who was Henrik Lundqvist's competition? Jonas Gustavsson? Mikael Tellqvist?

Is that where we're going next? Comparing Tim Thomas to Ryan Miller and Jonathan Quick and wondering why he doesn't outplay them as well as Lundqvist outplays Gustavsson and Tellqvist?

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2013, 09:30 AM
  #186
GuineaPig
Registered User
 
GuineaPig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Montréal
Posts: 2,125
vCash: 500
I think that it's important to chip in here that given the way variance affects goalies (as well as the teams they play for), trying to construct narratives out of small sample sizes is an inherently misleading endeavor.

GuineaPig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2013, 10:04 AM
  #187
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by reckoning View Post
You don't think back-to-back shutouts in Games 6 and 7 against one of the top offensive teams in the league is an example of a goalie elevating his play to carry his team further? Without Lundqvist, the Rangers aren't even close to making the playoffs.
I think Games 6/7 are the highlight of his playoff career thus far, but when we're looking at a goalie who goes from a .920 in the regular season to a .920 in the playoffs and comparing him to a goalie who goes from a .922 in the regular season to a .933 in the playoffs, it becomes a question of whether the first goalie is elevating his play relative to the second goalie.

And the whole not-even-close-to-making-the-playoffs thing rubs me the wrong way. Sometimes I think people give extra credit to players on teams that finish 4th-8th in the Conference because it's easier to say, "Oh, if they lose this elite player, they're a non-playoff team." Martin Biron has been a .913 since coming to New York. Truthfully, if Lundqvist wasn't there, they would've picked someone up who was better than Martin Biron, but whatever. Anyway, say the Rangers had a .913 save percentage this year: Their goal differential is still positive, and every team in the East with a positive goal differential made the playoffs.

I don't doubt that he's offered the most value at his position in eight years, but that has more to do with the Rangers having shallow goaltending depth than Lundqvist making an argument for being the best.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2013, 10:56 AM
  #188
reckoning
Registered User
 
reckoning's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,192
vCash: 500
One could make an argument that a good comparable for Lundqvist at a different position would be Dale Hawerchuk's first 8 seasons. He was consistently good every year. Was recognized as the best centre (aside from Gretzky) one season, and for for most of the other years would be considered in the top 5 or top 10 centres. You could make an argument that he was the game's best centre (after Gretzky and Lemieux) in that cumulative 8 year span, but it certainly wouldn't be a sure thing as equally good or better arguments could be made for Trottier, Stastny, Savard, etc. And he never made it past the second round of the playoffs. He always played well and produced in the post-season, but one player can take a team only so far. And most of his legacy was made in those 8 years. He had about 5 more seasons where he was a point-a-game player, but no more top 10 finishes, all-star selections, or trips to the Stanley Cup Final.

I've never heard anyone claim that Dale Hawerchuk doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame.

reckoning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2013, 11:37 AM
  #189
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,511
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by reckoning View Post
One could make an argument that a good comparable for Lundqvist at a different position would be Dale Hawerchuk's first 8 seasons. He was consistently good every year. Was recognized as the best centre (aside from Gretzky) one season, and for for most of the other years would be considered in the top 5 or top 10 centres. You could make an argument that he was the game's best centre (after Gretzky and Lemieux) in that cumulative 8 year span, but it certainly wouldn't be a sure thing as equally good or better arguments could be made for Trottier, Stastny, Savard, etc. And he never made it past the second round of the playoffs. He always played well and produced in the post-season, but one player can take a team only so far. And most of his legacy was made in those 8 years. He had about 5 more seasons where he was a point-a-game player, but no more top 10 finishes, all-star selections, or trips to the Stanley Cup Final.

I've never heard anyone claim that Dale Hawerchuk doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame.
Apples and oranges. Forwards seem to have a much easier time to make the Hall than goalies (or D-men, for that matter). Whether that's how it should be is of course debatable.

Also, the bolded doesn't apply to Lundqvist.

MadArcand is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2013, 11:55 AM
  #190
begbeee
Registered User
 
begbeee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Slovakia
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 3,958
vCash: 500
One thing for sure, Lundqvist is a name which stands out, along with Thomas and Luongo, as a part of post Roy-Hasek-Brodeur-Belfour generation. As it stands, I tend to believe only Thomas meets the criteria, sure longevity is not there, but peak is incredibly high. Lundqvist has nice longevity but peak value is shallow.

begbeee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2013, 11:57 AM
  #191
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by reckoning View Post
One could make an argument that a good comparable for Lundqvist at a different position would be Dale Hawerchuk's first 8 seasons. He was consistently good every year. Was recognized as the best centre (aside from Gretzky) one season, and for for most of the other years would be considered in the top 5 or top 10 centres. You could make an argument that he was the game's best centre (after Gretzky and Lemieux) in that cumulative 8 year span, but it certainly wouldn't be a sure thing as equally good or better arguments could be made for Trottier, Stastny, Savard, etc. And he never made it past the second round of the playoffs. He always played well and produced in the post-season, but one player can take a team only so far. And most of his legacy was made in those 8 years. He had about 5 more seasons where he was a point-a-game player, but no more top 10 finishes, all-star selections, or trips to the Stanley Cup Final.

I've never heard anyone claim that Dale Hawerchuk doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame.
I actually quite like this, though Hawerchuk had a head-start by beginning his NHL career at such a young age before declining in his early-30s. And if I'm a betting man, Lundqvist, who started at 23, is a HOFer unless he does the same. But I can't say I agree with the idea that he is the goalie with the best HOF resume since 2005 at this moment when Thomas is on the table as well.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2013, 12:24 PM
  #192
the edler
Inimitable
 
the edler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
You mean they didn't start a goalie with a hip injury over Vezina-season Ryan Miller - who was a .935 leading up to February? What a shocking development. Tell me, who was Henrik Lundqvist's competition? Jonas Gustavsson? Mikael Tellqvist?

Is that where we're going next? Comparing Tim Thomas to Ryan Miller and Jonathan Quick and wondering why he doesn't outplay them as well as Lundqvist outplays Gustavsson and Tellqvist?
Come on. Quick wasn't the Quick before 11–12 and while Miller had a great season he wasn't exactly Hasek or Roy, more like Jim Carey. Miller is what Carey would have turned out to be if he only cared an ounce more about the game. If Thomas had an injured hip why was he even on the team? That doesn't sound like a good tactic if the No. 1 goalie falters. But yeah, you know when I think about it your goalies are so great I wonder how it's even physically or metaphysically possible to score a goal on them?

And Tellqvist? Pfft, he wasn't even on the team. You know you have great depth at the goalie position when you have to leave out a guy like Tellqvist.

the edler is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2013, 12:39 PM
  #193
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
There's skepticism and then there's guilty until proven innocent. Look at Tomas Vokoun: What if he continues in these playoffs (currently a .949) and wins a Stanley Cup himself? Are the save percentage skeptics going to accept that Vokoun, another goaltender with a higher save percentage than Lundqvist since 2005-06, might actually be as good? Or are the skeptics going to continue writing him off for alternating seasons of high-home and high-road save percentages that paralleled his win/loss record?
I don't know, what side of the Vokoun debate do you think I am on? I think he's always been a very good goalie.

Quote:
Thomas is beyond that; there's no more reason to be skeptical of him. Both times he led the league in save percentage, he won the Vezina and the 1st Team with high road numbers and a margin over his teammates. Every goalie with two Vezina/1st Team selections is a HOFer. And a .967 over seven games against the dominant President's Trophy winner (1st in the league in both GF and GA) is going to be the playoff that gets talked about alongside Sawchuk, Parent, and Roy.
You're overstating my degree of skepticism. I think it's quite possible he was the best goalie in the league for those two seasons; I just think the margin of victory (sv%) distorts what the difference actually was.

Quote:
So are we supposed to revert back into the mentality that secured Lundqvist a low percentage of Vezina votes in 2007-2009: Voting because of high-GP related statistics? I think it can be overused too: Look at 2009, when 15 goaltenders landed between .920 and .915 (5th-19th place). Is there really much of a difference that can't be accounted for with special teams factors, shot recording, etc.? But when a goaltender separates himself from the pack, he should get credit.
No, over a one season sample I don't think that there's a big difference between .920 and .915. Over 8 years, absolutely. One point over 8 years? Easily explainable by coaching and smaller sample.

Quote:
So if he turns out to be really good too, you have to go back and give Thomas the same credit that everyone else gives him?
Yes, in retrospect it will help Thomas' case if Rask turns out to be a true star that always greatly outplays his backups and posts high numbers regardless of who his coach is. That's a fair thing to say. On the other side of the coin, in two seasons if New Jersey brings in someone like Brian Elliott and the team continutes to allow 23 shots per game and he can rack up 40 wins each season by just posting a .910 save percentage, then it's going to play a part in reevaluation of Brodeur.

Quote:
Having horrible backups doesn't make someone better, nor does having great backups make someone worse. A question of value, perhaps, but not a question of better or worse. For instance, I would never use Biron's .923 in 2011 that equaled Lundqvist's number against Lundqvist.
Nor would I - it's one season! Biron's been in New York for three seasons now; he's played 44 games and they paint a clear picture.

Quote:
I think an isolation of a small sample of years only magnifies the importance of dominant regular seasons and dominant playoffs. Cumulatives work to lessen dominant statistical seasons by chipping away at them for a few points every year.
What's wrong with that? I called him "the best goalie over the last 8 years". Not "the best goalie for all of the last 8 years" or "more often the best goalie than anyone else was over the last 8 years".

Quote:
I'll give you an example: Sakic versus Jagr. Cumulatively, Jagr only scores at a pace of 2 extra points per 82 games, but we know that there is a very real gap between them.
That's not really a parallel for a variety of small reasons that add up to a large one. Jagr's a winger, Jagr typically had inferior linemates, Jagr was much less reliant on the PP for his production, and Jagr's dominant possession game was largely responsible for him being scored on about 7% less often at even strength. It's not simply that he peaked higher, although that's part of it... I realize that's the point you're trying to make, but both he and Sakic had 8 seasons at 1.32 PPG or higher, and aside from an anomaly 1995-96, Jagr was about 9-10% ahead production wise in those years.

Quote:
As for Thomas and Lundqvist, Thomas has seen 79.3% of the amount of Lundqvist's shots. For Thomas to dip down to Lundqvist's cumulative save percentage, he would need to stop exactly 2699 of the next 2945 shots. In the playoffs, he would need to stop exactly 236 of the next 280 shots. But Thomas isn't a .910 goaltender over this eight year sample; he's a .923 goaltender. And he might very well be a HOFer right now.
It's not as simple as saying that. these extra games wouldn't be tacked on the beginning or end of some season, they would be interspersed along the way, and they can affect what happens in the other games that have already been played due to the increased workload. Could he be "just" a .916 goalie over 2945 shots? Absolutely, in fact, it's silly that you would dismiss it as absurd. But it doesn't really have to be a question of whether that would happen. We can stick to what actually did happen.*Statistics do tend to regress to the mean in larger samples, that's why being proven in a larger sample is more impressive. In the end, the difference is one sv% point, in a 37% larger sample, with much less in the way of team and coaching question marks.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2013, 12:44 PM
  #194
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by the edler View Post
Come on. Quick wasn't the Quick before 11–12 and while Miller had a great season he wasn't exactly Hasek or Roy, more like Jim Carey. Miller is what Carey would have turned out to be if he only cared an ounce more about the game. If Thomas had an injured hip why was he even on the team? That doesn't sound like a good tactic if the No. 1 goalie falters. But yeah, you know when I think about it your goalies are so great I wonder how it's even physically or metaphysically possible to score a goal on them?

And Tellqvist? Pfft, he wasn't even on the team. You know you have great depth at the goalie position when you have to leave out a guy like Tellqvist.
If Thomas had an injured hip? He had hip surgery.

http://www.weei.com/sports/boston/ho...y-nearly-wasnt


And if you think I'm being biased about the physics and metaphysics of my USA goaltenders just because I think American goaltending has been better than Swedish goaltending in the last eight years (Ryan Miller was the best player in the Olympics, by the way), you clearly don't know me, because I always just cheer for Finland and Canada. I'm merely pointing out that Lundqvist wouldn't have gotten the start over Miller either, so your point about not being an Olympic starter means nothing. Unless you also think that Fredrik Modin was a better player than Martin St. Louis because St. Louis couldn't even make his Olympic team.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2013, 01:44 PM
  #195
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I don't know, what side of the Vokoun debate do you think I am on? I think he's always been a very good goalie.
Well then, where do you think he fits into all of this? Four teams since 2005, always between .917 and .926. Cumulative is higher than Lundqvist. Doesn't have much of a playoff resume, but he's looked strong when he gets to play. Top-five in save percentage four times to Lundqvist's three. Does the fact that Florida is hard on a goalie's Win/Loss record (subsequently leaving him with few Vezina votes) preclude him from Lundqvist's company, or are we saying that 11 extra games per year is the important factor?


Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
You're overstating my degree of skepticism. I think it's quite possible he was the best goalie in the league for those two seasons; I just think the margin of victory (sv%) distorts what the difference actually was.
Perhaps I am, but if you believe Julien distorts a save percentage by more than .007 or .008 to the point that someone else possibly should be carrying Tim Thomas' Vezina trophies, then I must ask, who would it have been? Particularly in 2009, when most agreed that his closest competition was a Hitchcock goalie?


Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Yes, in retrospect it will help Thomas' case if Rask turns out to be a true star that always greatly outplays his backups and posts high numbers regardless of who his coach is. That's a fair thing to say. On the other side of the coin, in two seasons if New Jersey brings in someone like Brian Elliott and the team continutes to allow 23 shots per game and he can rack up 40 wins each season by just posting a .910 save percentage, then it's going to play a part in reevaluation of Brodeur.
That's fair. Personally, I'm already there with Rask, especially after 2012-13.


Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
It's not as simple as saying that. these extra games wouldn't be tacked on the beginning or end of some season, they would be interspersed along the way, and they can affect what happens in the other games that have already been played due to the increased workload. Could he be "just" a .916 goalie over 2945 shots? Absolutely, in fact, it's silly that you would dismiss it as absurd. But it doesn't really have to be a question of whether that would happen. We can stick to what actually did happen.*Statistics do tend to regress to the mean in larger samples, that's why being proven in a larger sample is more impressive. In the end, the difference is one sv% point, in a 37% larger sample, with much less in the way of team and coaching question marks.
That was a charge made during the Top-40 project, and based upon his performance with an increased workload in 2005-06 and the 2011 playoffs, I don't believe there to be a reason to question his ability to play more than he did and at a very high level. And if you want to look at a larger sample of GP to get away from the one point save percentage difference over eight years, you can always check their career playoff statistics.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2013, 06:37 PM
  #196
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,133
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
Apples and oranges. Forwards seem to have a much easier time to make the Hall than goalies (or D-men, for that matter). Whether that's how it should be is of course debatable.

Also, the bolded doesn't apply to Lundqvist.
You beat me to it. Hawerchuk had much harder competition at centre than a goalie does. Two different positions, two different standards. You have to compare goalies to other goalies in this instance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by reckoning View Post
You don't think back-to-back shutouts in Games 6 and 7 against one of the top offensive teams in the league is an example of a goalie elevating his play to carry his team further? Without Lundqvist, the Rangers aren't even close to making the playoffs.


Maybe "found a way to put together very nice playoff runs" could also mean "were fortunate enough to have great offensive support from their teams top scorers in that playoff run". In Ward's 2006 Cup run, Staal had 28 points and Brind'amour had 12 goals. In Fleury's 2009 playoffs, Crosby and Malkin each had over 30 points.

By comparison, how are the Rangers top scorers this season doing in the playoffs:

Derek Stepan: 3 points in 10 games
Rick Nash: 4 points in 10 games
Brad Richards: 1 point in 10 games
You know, Cujo had wonderful 1st round series as well. In fact, that's usually where it ended. His play depreciated in value after the first round. What I am saying right now is not that Lundqvist isn't a potential HHOFer, but that he has a lot of ground to make up. It is the hardest position to penetrate. Since Tretieak got inducted in 1989 we've seen Smith, Fuhr, Roy and Belfour get inducted. That's it. The main point I was trying to focus on is that Lundqvist is still behind "close but no cigar" goalies that I mentioned earlier on a career value standpoint. Is he even at Pete Peeters' level yet? That's a serious question. The guy has only played 8 seasons. He doesn't make it in if he retires tomorrow.

The other goalies that I mentioned who Lundqvist has competition with (Ward, Fleury, Luongo, Thomas, Miller, etc.) were mentioned because they've all done something Lundqvist has already, if not more. Say what you want about Ward and Fleury having good teams, but Ward won the Conn Smythe and Fleury was easily the most valuable Pen in 2009 behind Malkin and Crosby, and in 2008. He's got a ways to go right now, that's all I am saying.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2013, 10:09 PM
  #197
Sonny Lamateena
Registered User
 
Sonny Lamateena's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,098
vCash: 50
Something else to consider when judging current goalies is the shootout. It has been part of the NHL since Lundqvist joined the NHL 8 years ago and can play a key role in a teams record.

During that time the Rangers goaltenders have the best Sv% at .738%. Lundqvist has a record of 45 W and 30 L, he has faced 287 shots and has a .763 Sv%. His backups have a 9W and 10L record and .631 Sv% on 65 shots.

Rangers shooters have only had a 31.2 shooting % in the shootout which is 22nd best.

In only 2 of the 8 seasons have the Rangers been more than 5 points from missing the playoffs so obviously the 45 extra points Lundqvist has helped get the Rangers is pretty significant.

In the last 8 years the Rangers late in games and in OT are definitely guilty of sitting back and playing for the shootout believing that even with NY's anemic offense their best chance to win is sending Lundvist 1 on 1 with the other teams best shooters.

Sonny Lamateena is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2013, 03:37 AM
  #198
GuineaPig
Registered User
 
GuineaPig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Montréal
Posts: 2,125
vCash: 500
Shootouts are an interesting aspect. They most definitely contribute to a team's overall success, but for both skaters and goalies they have been almost completely ignored when it comes to awards voting/discussion.

I think Lundqvist absolutely merits additional consideration based on his shootout performance. As much as people might not like it, it's a part of the game now.

GuineaPig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2013, 12:41 PM
  #199
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,133
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuineaPig View Post
Shootouts are an interesting aspect. They most definitely contribute to a team's overall success, but for both skaters and goalies they have been almost completely ignored when it comes to awards voting/discussion.

I think Lundqvist absolutely merits additional consideration based on his shootout performance. As much as people might not like it, it's a part of the game now.
I don't know, a 45-30 record in shootouts and that adds something to his resume? It is just another regular season win..........or loss. There were times when Jussi Jokinen was nearly automatic on the shootout. But other than that this is the only time that I can think of the shootout really adding to any talk of career value. Every player does it now, and every player has times when they do well or not. Maybe a player like Bure or Mario would be guys that would score 8/10 times and that would make a difference. But until someone comes around where they are a lock cinch to score, or make a trio of saves, then it won't add anything to a player's season.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2013, 01:46 PM
  #200
GuineaPig
Registered User
 
GuineaPig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Montréal
Posts: 2,125
vCash: 500
Puck prospectus calculates the influence of shootout performance into GVT, so one can get an idea of what kind of impact a player can have. In 2011/12 for example, Kovalchuk contributed 5.2 goals above replacement, and the highest goalie, Varlamov, contributed 5.1. Definitely not negligible, even if year-to-year variance will naturally result in peaks and troughs. They estimate over the past two seasons (pro-rated for 82 games in 2012/13's case) Lundqvist contributed four goals above replacement. Not a huge amount, but a sizeable chunk (~7-8%) of his overall performance.

In larger samples the effects can be largely obscured, but in individual seasons players can really augment (or badly harm) their team's record in the shootout.

GuineaPig 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 04:00 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.