I go with Espo. the cup is why everyone plays hockey and it's the most important thing, but don't get fooled into thinking it's the most important thing for us to use when evaluating players.
Esposito and Smith both posted regular season save percentages vastly above the league average in their eras. Smith was excellent in this regard, Espo even better. Espo did it for considerably more games, too - he was easily the workhorse goalie of his generation - as opposed to being almost entirely in a platoon situation (the 2nd or 3rd-best coach of all-time thought this was the best way, apparently, so who are we to argue?)
In the playoffs Smith outperformed the league average in sv% by an excellent margin while Esposito only exceeded it by 4 points. This played its part in leading to 4 cups for Smith, and none for Esposito. Smith's team situation was obviously very favourable in comparison. Regardless, it's impossible to conclude anything other than Smith's playoff resume is better.
But the gap in sustained regular season performance is just too huge. I find it difficult to imagine any scenario in which a five-time postseason all-star (plus 3rd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 6th, 7th, 7th) is inferior to a guy who did it once (plus 5th, 7th, 8th). And their regular season records constitute 88% of their combined GP total.
Let me just add that I am not in any way dismissing Smith as "just a goalie who won some cups by playing on a good team". I think he performed excellently, and the numbers and Smythe trophy show it. But they did make it easier on him. The larger sample size for his performance, suggests that he was a very good, but not necessarily excellent goalie most of the time.
But Smith was money goalie who was clutch in playoffs while Espo's post season failures highlighted his career (Game 7 center ice goal vs Habs in 71 is moment he is best remembered for)
Billy Smith. Very good in the regular season, great in the playoffs.
As for the team argument:
Isles overall standings during their cup finals years: 5, 1, 1, 7, 3.
Blackhawks during Esposito's best years: 2, 3, 4, 4, 3.
Pretty good teams. They did run into some stiff competition a couple of times and lost very winnable series other times.
Ran up against the emergent Bruins in '70.. they split them in the regular season and were swept by them in the playoffs. They give up 20 goals in the 4 games for a 5.00GAA.
In 71, their best chance for a cup they went to 7 against Montreal who had finished 10 points below them in the overall standings and who they had split in the regular season. They also had a 3-2 lead in the series before losing the final two.
72 swept by a Rangers team that had two more wins than them in the regular season who they were 1-2-3 in the regular season. They give up 17 goals in the 4 game sweep for a 4.25GAA.
'73 they got outclassed in the finals by Montreal who this time around were certainly a better team (120pts to 93 regular season). Chicago got shelled for 33 goals against in the 6 game finals or a 5.50GAA.
'74 103 point Chicago loses to the 113 point Bruins after having a record of 2-0-3 against them in the regular season. They lose three in a row after being up 2-1 against Boston and give up 27 goals in the 6 games or a 4.50GAA.
This being the days before the average scoring went way up too..
Billy Smith. Very good in the regular season, great in the playoffs.
As for the team argument:
Isles overall standings during their cup finals years: 5, 1, 1, 7, 3.
Blackhawks during Esposito's best years: 2, 3, 4, 4, 3.
only problem with this is that Esposito was the MVP of the team every year. He had a ton to do with the teams finishing as high as they did. He was performing at a much higher level than Smith, and doing it for the whole season as opposed to half. Any player contribution model would rate Smith's contribution to the team's regular season success significantly lower than Espo's. (I checked hockey-reference's point shares, which is elementary and not the only model, but gets the job done fairly well, and Espo had 9 seasons with scores higher than Smith's highest)
I assume you prefer Claude Lemieux to Marcel Dionne too?
It sure isn't crazy to put Smith ahead of him. I think Esposito was the better individually talented goalie but no doubt Smith has the more decorated career, and you have to give him his share of the credit too. It isn't just the Smythe in 1983, but the reputation Smith gets as a money goalie cannot be taken lightly. For some reason as time goes on the goalies that were always considered clutch goalies in their era seem to be brushed aside. I've had arguments on this very site about the legitimacy of Fuhr's "money" goaltending. Well, Smith was every bit Fuhr's equal, if not more in that regards.
In 1982 right at the heart of the Isles dynasty they somehow struggled to get past Pittsburgh. In overtime of the 5th game of the best of 5 Pittsburgh rushes away on a two-on-one down the ice. There is a point blank shot from the hashmarks by Paul Gardner. Smith comes up huge and a couple minutes later Tonelli scores for the Islanders. He did the same thing in 1984 against Bob Brooke in overtime (remember the "Drive for 5" was still alive at this time). He shut the Oilers down in 1983 something that I am sure a lot of gamblers would have lost money on. He played great in some crucial situations underneath a microscope and with a team known for choking before 1980. Those 1980 playoffs are forgotten a bit, but the Isles faced the Bruins, Sabres and Flyers in the last three rounds.
Smith was able to deliver in the gut check times. I don't think the Soviets beat Canada 8-1 in 1981 if Smith is in net, let's just say.
Esposito had much better regular seasons, but there isn't a lot you can say about his postseasons. He had Hull and Mikita on the 1971 Hawks and a 2-0 lead late in the 2nd period of Game 7 of the Cup final - at home! Then Lemaire takes a long shot from near center and it floats in. Henri Richard scores two goals in the third. That was just criminal. And the less you talk about Esposito in the 1973 playoffs, the better. He did substandard things with very good teams when the chips were down.
Even in 1972 Can/Rus you could argue and say Espo was the best goalie of the three who played on either team (Dryden, Tretiak). But in reality, that isn't a great thing to say because none played very well at all. In Game 5 Esposito let in 4 unanswered goals and failed to make the big save. Canada has a 4-1 lead and the Russians storm back to make it a 5-4 final. In all honesty, in hindsight this was a game where Canada could have gotten back into the series (it was a 2-1-1 Soviet advantage at the time) and that game made it a 3-1-1 advantage and if not for some heroics from Henderson, we never win and that game would have stuck out like a sore thumb.
I'm just saying, the more you examine their careers, the more you tend to favour Smith. I think Esposito had more natural talent, but I still would have wanted Smith on my team over him
Espo, seventies lord has pretty much laid out the reasons why.
Goalies are by far the most difficult players to evaluate IMO as their team situation is extremely important.
Put the question another way, which of their 2 respective teams (with another goalie the same one inserted for both teams) at their peaks or primes were better and it's not close as most everyone is going to take the Islanders.
This doesn't diminish what Smith did he was very clutch and great in the playoffs but those Isle teams were sickeningly awesome.
(I checked hockey-reference's point shares, which is elementary and not the only model, but gets the job done fairly well, and Espo had 9 seasons with scores higher than Smith's highest)
No, it doesn't. We have laughed at them all the time until now.
Quote:
I assume you prefer Claude Lemieux to Marcel Dionne too?
Nope. And that is a completely absurd analogy.
The only thing Tony has going for him is more games played, which is certainly something, but I'll take the playoff performances of Smith over some extra regular season games. So the Isles had a competent backup and a coach smart enough to use him. Good for them.
If the MVP of those Chicago teams had been come close to maintaining his well above average play in the playoffs he would have most likely won a couple of those series he had a good chance at and have a ring. He didn't.
The object of the game isn't having a pretty stat line or good regular season - except so far as making the playoffs. The object of the game is to win the Cup.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil
It isn't just the Smythe in 1983, but the reputation Smith gets as a money goalie cannot be taken lightly. For some reason as time goes on the goalies that were always considered clutch goalies in their era seem to be brushed aside. I've had arguments on this very site about the legitimacy of Fuhr's "money" goaltending. Well, Smith was every bit Fuhr's equal, if not more in that regards.
I'm generally a bit of a clutch skeptic in so far as I think that a lot of the time it gets assigned in hindsight, but yeah, Fuhr and Smith have pretty good cases as the legitimate article. As for those guys being brushed aside, I chose Fuhr in this years ATD so trust me, I know all about their play being dismissed.
Quote:
Esposito had much better regular seasons, but there isn't a lot you can say about his postseasons. He had Hull and Mikita on the 1971 Hawks and a 2-0 lead late in the 2nd period of Game 7 of the Cup final - at home! Then Lemaire takes a long shot from near center and it floats in. Henri Richard scores two goals in the third. That was just criminal. And the less you talk about Esposito in the 1973 playoffs, the better. He did substandard things with very good teams when the chips were down.
Even in 1972 Can/Rus you could argue and say Espo was the best goalie of the three who played on either team (Dryden, Tretiak). But in reality, that isn't a great thing to say because none played very well at all. In Game 5 Esposito let in 4 unanswered goals and failed to make the big save. Canada has a 4-1 lead and the Russians storm back to make it a 5-4 final. In all honesty, in hindsight this was a game where Canada could have gotten back into the series (it was a 2-1-1 Soviet advantage at the time) and that game made it a 3-1-1 advantage and if not for some heroics from Henderson, we never win and that game would have stuck out like a sore thumb.
I'm just saying, the more you examine their careers, the more you tend to favour Smith. I think Esposito had more natural talent, but I still would have wanted Smith on my team over him
You pretty much summed it up. Esposito probably has a better chance of getting you to the dance but the guys like Smith and Fuhr are the ones you want in the big game because, with the value of the hindsight we have now looking at their careers, they just made those key saves that changed the momentum of games or series.
Espo, seventies lord has pretty much laid out the reasons why.
Goalies are by far the most difficult players to evaluate IMO as their team situation is extremely important.
Put the question another way, which of their 2 respective teams (with another goalie the same one inserted for both teams) at their peaks or primes were better and it's not close as most everyone is going to take the Islanders.
This doesn't diminish what Smith did he was very clutch and great in the playoffs but those Isle teams were sickeningly awesome.
What I was trying to point out though was to watch the games in those dynasty years, it wasn't always easy. They had some patches where they desperately needed Smith to bail them out. The question begs: Does Esposito lead them to 4 Cups in a row? I'm not sure he does and to be honest he didn't do well when there WAS a great Hawks team in front of him. There is enough of a body of work in the postseason to determine that Esposito took a nosedive in comparison to his regular seasons
No, it doesn't. We have laughed at them all the time until now.
not in regards to their goalie ratings. And all player contribution models work generally the same way. they would all have similar results. show me one that doesn't.
Quote:
The object of the game is to win the Cup.
Yes it is. but that's a foolish way to evaluate players.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil
They had some patches where they desperately needed Smith to bail them out.
Can you elaborate on this? From what I recall they had incredible offensive output, rarely needed to win a game by a goal and rarely had their backs to the wall in this entire 4-year period.
he's referring to most of us in the history section. it's a fair comment, because it's true in regards to point shares for forwards and especially defensemen. But ultimately the statement is misinformed because goalie point shares are very straightforward and to my knowledge have not been the subject of criticism here.
he's referring to most of us in the history section. it's a fair comment, because it's true in regards to point shares for forwards and especially defensemen. But ultimately the statement is misinformed because goalie point shares are very straightforward and to my knowledge have not been the subject of criticism here.
Ah. In that case, I agree with you.
Iain does some nice work laying out the shares system (or at least his version of his) in his recent blogs. It's good groundwork for this sort of discussion (or so I believe).
Smith was able to deliver in the gut check times. I don't think the Soviets beat Canada 8-1 in 1981 if Smith is in net, let's just say.
also, this was not a "gut check game". once it's out of reach, it's out of reach, and all goalies are suceptible to letting up in situations like that.
Out of curiosity, as it was before my time , how much truth was there to this?:
Quote:
In 1969, Chicago Blackhawk's goalie, Tony Esposito, sewed a piece of web meshing between the legs of his goalie pants. Tony's spiderweb stopped hockey pucks from going through his legs. During a game, a shot caught in his web and rebounded back at the shooter, nearly hitting him in the face. Soon after, the National Hockey League outlawed goalies from using Tony's web.
to be honest I was never sure if this was one of those rumours that percolates until it is almost taken for fact or if it really happened.
if it did happen then how much does this change how that season looks? One of the big points people bring up is the 15 shutout season, and how it is the high water mark of the modern era. But do you give that season an asterisk? If so, and you discount that season or at the very least devalue it, that would take away a lot of the argument for Tony.
also, this was not a "gut check game". once it's out of reach, it's out of reach, and all goalies are suceptible to letting up in situations like that.
The point being that if it had been Smith it may not have gotten out of reach.
Although, in Luit's defense, while he admits it was a terrible game by his personal standards, he didn't get an awful lot of help.
If I'm making up an all-time list, I would have to think hard about Espo vs. Smith. If I'm drafting in an ATD, I wouldn't even consider Esposito with Smith on the board. Yes, Espo's teams let him down at times, but at other times he let his teams down. Fate was cruel to Espo, perhaps, but it is what it is.
Out of curiosity, as it was before my time , how much truth was there to this?:
to be honest I was never sure if this was one of those rumours that percolates until it is almost taken for fact or if it really happened.
if it did happen then how much does this change how that season looks? One of the big points people bring up is the 15 shutout season, and how it is the high water mark of the modern era. But do you give that season an asterisk? If so, and you discount that season or at the very least devalue it, that would take away a lot of the argument for Tony.
It is true. (edit: sorry, i don't know if the anecdote about the puck flinging back is true)
But apparently everyone was doing what they could to look for an edge in those unregulated times.
Espo was one of the best at pushing the envelope.
I've never seen a picture of it so I can't say how bad it was (or how long "shortly" means) - I can't imagine it was very noticeable, so I can't imagine it was of a substantial size, either.
If I'm making up an all-time list, I would have to think hard about Espo vs. Smith. If I'm drafting in an ATD, I wouldn't even consider Esposito with Smith on the board. Yes, Espo's teams let him down at times, but at other times he let his teams down. Fate was cruel to Espo, perhaps, but it is what it is.
In an ATD you have to get to the playoffs in an advantageous situation to go far. Smith, a goalie who rarely played much more than half the season in real life, can't be counted to do any more than that in an ATD. So it has a ripple effect on your team. You have to make sure you take a workhorse regular season goalie as a backup (Luongo, maybe) to share starts with him, and to get the right guy you have to take him early, perhaps first among backups. Even still, that doesn't change that the goalie you rely on the most is perhaps the worst regular season goalie in the entire draft. No team with Smith should finish 1st or 2nd, and if they did, people either didn't look hard enough at goaltending, or the GM drafted incredibly shrewdly with every other selection.
Espo on the other hand can handle 65-75 starts and has a proven history of being in the statistical leaders year in, year out, and being regarded as one of the three finest goalies in the league more often than he wasn't. He's one of the best regular season goalies of all-time and can propel a team into the #1 or #2 spot.
Obviously it can be said that once he's in the playoffs Smith would outperform Espo. But the team with Espo is getting easier matchups from the start than Smith's team, all things being equal. It's a risky proposition putting your eggs in the Smith basket and saying "he'll save our bacon in the playoffs, at least".
In the 4 years that the Isles won the cup, Smith did face an average number of shots and stop 89.9% of them which was much better than what other goalies were doing. But as far as being "clutch" - he had one elimination game in that entire 4-year period, against the Pens in the 1st round of 1982 (which they won in OT). They were 10-6 in one-goal games (meaning they were in one one-goal game per series) and 10-3 in OT (yes, this means they never won a one-goal game in regulation, of course there may be a few ENG in there skewing things)
What most people don't realize, though, is the incredible offensive dominance the Isles displayed in the playoffs. In 78 games, this team scored 364 goals (4.67 per game)... 39 of their 60 wins were by three goals or more. In only one series did they not win a game by three goals (1980 against Boston)
This was a very dominant team. So dominant, in fact, that there was rarely an opportunity for their goalie to be clutch.
he's referring to most of us in the history section. it's a fair comment, because it's true in regards to point shares for forwards and especially defensemen. But ultimately the statement is misinformed because goalie point shares are very straightforward and to my knowledge have not been the subject of criticism here.
The main problem is they give too much credit to the goalie for just showing up.
I guess it depends upon how available replacement level talent is. In my work, I generally define "replacement level" as a save percentage 0.015 lower than league average (removing the goaltender under observation from that calculation).
There's a lot of value in being a consistently durable league-average goaltender.
I guess it depends upon how available replacement level talent is. In my work, I generally define "replacement level" as a save percentage 0.015 lower than league average (removing the goaltender under observation from that calculation).
There's a lot of value in being a consistently durable league-average goaltender.
