You know that, I know that and anyone who actually bothered to watch knows that. (including HHOF voters).
It's silly and farcical.
we should probably just ask the older posters here all the questions we want answered, as their memories hold the key to everything, and they never, ever fail, nor are they subject to sensationalization or romanticism.
Also, I see what you did there, equating "being too young to have seen it live and not having access to 70 games worth of footage" with "not bothering to watch". Clever!
we should probably just ask the older posters here all the questions we want answered, as their memories hold the key to everything, and they never, ever fail, nor are they subject to sensationalization or romanticism.
Also, I see what you did there, equating "being too young to have seen it live and not having access to 70 games worth of footage" with "not bothering to watch". Clever!
Has nothing to do with "older," posters, your ageism aside. Nor does it have anything to do with memories. In this instance, you are not arguing with posters here. You are arguing with everyone associated with the sport.
Water is wet.
Tomorrow is Tuesday.
Billy Smith is one of the very best clutch goaltenders of all time.
Except in your opinion. To which you are fully entitled.
I challenge you to find a single hockey person over the age of 40 - someone who remembers the early 1980s - who would agree with your comment that my and other's opinion of Billy Smith is based on "sensationalization" or "romanticism". Then again, perhaps you do not respect ANYONE's memory moreso than your cherry-picked, presented-out-of-context, stats.
There have been numerous times when you present good numeric cases, and indeed, demonstrate that one did not have to witness a player or team or game first-hand to offer a good perspective.
This is not one such case. This is a bridge too far. Way too far.
Billy Smith is one of the very best clutch goaltenders of all time.
Im over 40. Actually indecently over that "threshold". And you know, I thought Smith sucked. As a player, as a human being. I dont really give a Flying Frigg what 70's Lord or anyone else thinks about the guy as a player. It is what it is. The guy was total WWE or F or whatever letter of the alphabet youd wanna apply after de-evolution catches up to your idea of "greatness". Battlin Billy was to me always at his worst best at an elemental level in terms of the mindset of a frikin goaltender to ever come along. A Carny Act.
Clutch?.
Ya, sure.
Class?.
Not an inch
... and where most people come from?. Thats important.
NHL players don't give a crap about the regular season, Smith was gold in the post season. In 78 during the quarterfinals Smith stoned the Leafs in game 2 and game 5 or that series wasn't going seven. That's not including winning 19 series in a row. Something no other goaltender has ever done.
So regular season, sure Tony O...playoffs....Smith and it's not even close
Billy Smith is the single most money goalie I've ever seen play the game. Yes, more money than Roy, Fhur, Dryden, Belfour or Brodeur. Smith's 5 straight final appearances are the best example of playoff goaltending I've ever witnessed.
And to tell you the truth, I hated the guy with a passion. But the guy was freakin money and could play and did truly elevate his game come playoff time. The Isles don't win 4 cups in a row if the combo is Resch and Melanson. They might have more regular season points, but they don't win 4 straight.
As for Smith vs Esposito, during the years I saw both play, I'd give Smith the edge in both regular season and playoff play. That said, I didn't see Espo the first half of the 70's.
Has nothing to do with "older," posters, your ageism aside. Nor does it have anything to do with memories. In this instance, you are not arguing with posters here. You are arguing with everyone associated with the sport.
Water is wet.
Tomorrow is Tuesday.
Billy Smith is one of the very best clutch goaltenders of all time.
Except in your opinion. To which you are fully entitled.
I challenge you to find a single hockey person over the age of 40 - someone who remembers the early 1980s - who would agree with your comment that my and other's opinion of Billy Smith is based on "sensationalization" or "romanticism".
see above.
"based on" and "influenced by" are two very different things. Over time those influences can get stronger. It's been proven that our memories are never as strong as we think they are.
My position isn't that Smith wasn't necessarily clutch when the opportunity to be clutch presented itself. It's that those opportunities were few and far between. Three goal wins aren't clutch. Some will say "what if he made a big save in the first period that changed the momentum?" I personally don't buy into that. If, in the end, you prove you are three goals better than your opponent, that was almost certainly going to happen regardless. The early "big save" is what kept the gap from being two goals - not, hilariously, the difference between a win and a loss.
Just eliminating those 39 wins from the total of 60 doesn't leave very many clutch opportunities.
My other point doesn't relate to Smith directly, but it's really funny how many people think that one flubbed Lemaire long shot, and one OT save on Paul Gardner* (as important as each of those saves were) ultimately tell us more about these goalies then the other 800-900 games they each played.
*I'm just choosing those two as they probably represent the most important Esposito goal against and Smith save (that would have stopped the dynasty right there)
"based on" and "influenced by" are two very different things. Over time those influences can get stronger. It's been proven that our memories are never as strong as we think they are.
My position isn't that Smith wasn't necessarily clutch when the opportunity to be clutch presented itself. It's that those opportunities were few and far between. Three goal wins aren't clutch.
I think the flaw in your argument is the relationship between goal-differential and "clutch". Assuming that because the Islanders won by more than 1 goal means that Smith's performance, somehow, wasn't as influential in the wins. I think that's where the STATISTICAL error is.
The Oilers were 11-1 in the first three rounds of the '83 finals, having just swept CHI and outscored the 25-11. Gretzky had 34pts in 12 games going into the finals.
Gretzky had 196 pts that year, 90 points more than Messier. Anderson and Kurri also had over 100pts. The Oilers scored almost 100 goals more than the next highest scoring team that year.
The Oilers outshot the Isles in every game, they only managed six goals in the four game sweep. None by 99. None of the games were one goal games - the Isles had two empty net goals and the pivotal game 3 was tied 1-1 going into the third period. These were close games, battles.
By looking purely at goal differential in the Smith-wins, you're penalizing him for the Isles great play.
I don't think anyone thought the Isles could beat that Oilers team, that year. They were unbelievable that season (and frankly, they proved it the following year). But that performance by Smith specifically was unreal, especially the opening night shutout.
The context of CLUTCH, I believe, has little to do with goal differential. How does a goaltender play when it's an important game? The stat for this is playoff wins more than record in one-goal games. In either case, the TEAM they play on is an important factor, no doubt, but the objective of the game is to win games, win playoff games, win championships. A goalie's ultimate value is in his contribution to those things, not solely on winning close games.
When Patrick Roy won 10 overtime games in '93 it was an incredible accomplishment for him and the team, no doubt. But the CLUTCH part was moreso because it was the playoffs, than simply the one-goal games.
Smith's ability to anchor a team on its way through the playoffs is simply unparalleled in hockey. That's clutch in its purest forms in my opinion.
And I also hated him. Arrogant, the not-shaking hands thing, not much of a "nice guy", etc....but you cannot question his ability to win.
And I also hated him. Arrogant, the not-shaking hands thing, not much of a "nice guy", etc....but you cannot question his ability to win.
I'm not so sure about this part (not that it really matters). I suspect that in non-competitive situations he was a nice enough guy. Bryan Trottier has only glowing things to say about Billy as a person, but admits that on game days you just didn't want to go near him. It's only when it comes to competition that the nice-guy stuff goes out the window and it's go time. I can respect that. I idolized Grant Fuhr and the Oilers as a kid (therefore hated Billy Smith), but as I have grown up and as a practicing goalie myself I find that I'm much more Billy Smith than Grant Fuhr in terms of my on-ice demeanor .
I think the flaw in your argument is the relationship between goal-differential and "clutch". Assuming that because the Islanders won by more than 1 goal means that Smith's performance, somehow, wasn't as influential in the wins. I think that's where the STATISTICAL error is.
The Oilers were 11-1 in the first three rounds of the '83 finals, having just swept CHI and outscored the 25-11. Gretzky had 34pts in 12 games going into the finals.
Gretzky had 196 pts that year, 90 points more than Messier. Anderson and Kurri also had over 100pts. The Oilers scored almost 100 goals more than the next highest scoring team that year.
The Oilers outshot the Isles in every game, they only managed six goals in the four game sweep. None by 99. None of the games were one goal games - the Isles had two empty net goals and the pivotal game 3 was tied 1-1 going into the third period. These were close games, battles.
By looking purely at goal differential in the Smith-wins, you're penalizing him for the Isles great play.
I don't think anyone thought the Isles could beat that Oilers team, that year. They were unbelievable that season (and frankly, they proved it the following year). But that performance by Smith specifically was unreal, especially the opening night shutout.
The context of CLUTCH, I believe, has little to do with goal differential. How does a goaltender play when it's an important game? The stat for this is playoff wins more than record in one-goal games. In either case, the TEAM they play on is an important factor, no doubt, but the objective of the game is to win games, win playoff games, win championships. A goalie's ultimate value is in his contribution to those things, not solely on winning close games.
When Patrick Roy won 10 overtime games in '93 it was an incredible accomplishment for him and the team, no doubt. But the CLUTCH part was moreso because it was the playoffs, than simply the one-goal games.
Smith's ability to anchor a team on its way through the playoffs is simply unparalleled in hockey. That's clutch in its purest forms in my opinion.
And I also hated him. Arrogant, the not-shaking hands thing, not much of a "nice guy", etc....but you cannot question his ability to win.
You can pump up that 1983 final as much as you want, and you won't get any argument from me. Clearly it was an excellent performance. (at the same time, I wouldn't want one series to define a player's career that much more than I would want a single shot to define it)
If we're defining clutch moments, we have to think about how crucial the situation is. As I see it, there are three factors: How important is the game, how close is the series, and how close is the game. I don't think it's possible to just paint each situation as "crucial" or "not crucial".
Game 1 was clutch. It's the Stanley Cup Finals, the series is tied, the game is close and you definitely want to take that series lead. and he was awesome.
But there are definitely times in that series (because two of the wins were blowouts in the end) that I could say "Smith was excellent, but those were not always crucial situations". For example, the 3rd period of game 2 after the Isles were up 5-2. Or the 3rd period of game 3 when the Isles took over and the Oilers only got 8 shots (and the downside of losing would be a 2-1 series lead) In game 4, Smith stopped 7 3rd-period shots to preserve a one-goal lead until an ENG sealed the deal, which is great, but also the downside to a loss would be a 3-1 series lead.
Again - this is probably one of the most dominant series by a goaltender ever, when you consider who it was against and other factors. but much of the series was not played in "crucial" situations. I don't think that's his fault, but there just wasn't a lot of hardship involved for this excellent team in these 4 years.
You can pump up that 1983 final as much as you want, and you won't get any argument from me. Clearly it was an excellent performance. (at the same time, I wouldn't want one series to define a player's career that much more than I would want a single shot to define it)
If we're defining clutch moments, we have to think about how crucial the situation is. As I see it, there are three factors: How important is the game, how close is the series, and how close is the game. I don't think it's possible to just paint each situation as "crucial" or "not crucial".
Game 1 was clutch. It's the Stanley Cup Finals, the series is tied, the game is close and you definitely want to take that series lead. and he was awesome.
But there are definitely times in that series (because two of the wins were blowouts in the end) that I could say "Smith was excellent, but those were not always crucial situations". For example, the 3rd period of game 2 after the Isles were up 5-2. Or the 3rd period of game 3 when the Isles took over and the Oilers only got 8 shots (and the downside of losing would be a 2-1 series lead) In game 4, Smith stopped 7 3rd-period shots to preserve a one-goal lead until an ENG sealed the deal, which is great, but also the downside to a loss would be a 3-1 series lead.
Again - this is probably one of the most dominant series by a goaltender ever, when you consider who it was against and other factors. but much of the series was not played in "crucial" situations. I don't think that's his fault, but there just wasn't a lot of hardship involved for this excellent team in these 4 years.
Clutch more often than not is not allowing situations to reach crucial levels, not allowing hardships to arise or creating openings for the opposition to exploit and get back in the game or series.
Billy Smith never allowed a bad goal or an early during this stretch that allowed the opposition to get back in the game / series.
Last edited by seventieslord: 02-14-2012 at 01:38 PM.
Clutch more often than not is not allowing situations to reach crucial levels, not allowing hardships to arise or creating openings for the opposition to exploit and get back in the game or series.
Billy Smith never allowed a bad goal or an early during this stretch that allowed the opposition to get back in the game / series.
I fixed the formatting for you, in case you’re wondering why it says I edited your post.
A common thing said about Fuhr was, “he could allow a couple goals and it might get close, but there was no way he was allowing that tying goal.” I have no idea how valid that anecdote really is, but as it applies to Smith, I mentioned before that they were 10-3 in OT during the cup years, never winning a one-goal game in regulation. Out of these 13 OT games, five of them were situations in which the Isles held and surrendered a one-goal lead.
Personally I don’t want to attribute the “blame” on Smith for letting that goal in and allowing the game to get to OT, any more than I want to credit him for being “clutch” in any of the OT wins where he made zero saves, or one save. I also don’t know if any of those tying goals were “bad”. But, to play devil’s advocate, aren’t these the exact goals that “clutch” goalies typically just don’t allow, anecdotally?
I fixed the formatting for you, in case you’re wondering why it says I edited your post.
A common thing said about Fuhr was, “he could allow a couple goals and it might get close, but there was no way he was allowing that tying goal.” I have no idea how valid that anecdote really is, but as it applies to Smith, I mentioned before that they were 10-3 in OT during the cup years, never winning a one-goal game in regulation. Out of these 13 OT games, five of them were situations in which the Isles held and surrendered a one-goal lead.
Personally I don’t want to attribute the “blame” on Smith for letting that goal in and allowing the game to get to OT, any more than I want to credit him for being “clutch” in any of the OT wins where he made zero saves, or one save. I also don’t know if any of those tying goals were “bad”. But, to play devil’s advocate, aren’t these the exact goals that “clutch” goalies typically just don’t allow, anecdotally?
He won 19 straight playoff series. NINETEEN... that is CLUTCH or a Killer Instinct... whatever it was. In the playoffs EVERY game is important. If you are up 5-2 on those Oilers it can still become a game if you let in one more goal.. they had the best offence ever. Every save matters.
I don't buy diminishing Smith for anything to do with the 4 Cups and 5 finals. You can bring up other playoffs and his regular seasons for criticism maybe but those 5 consecutive playoffs it is really hard to say anything negative about Smith. It is the definition of clutch. It is like saying Bossy's 3 consecutive 17 goal playoffs were just because he played with Trottier and Potvin... he did play with those guys... BUT HE SCORED 17 GOALS - 3 times! 111 points in the 4 Cup years! He DID THAT... you can form an argument diminishing the accomplishment. You can say Kurri was just a product of Gretzky too... you can argue all kinds of things but when you do you miss the point. Smith won 19 straight series... 4 straight Cups... That is Clutch by any possible definition.
They won 19 straight playoff series. NINETEEN... that is CLUTCH or a Killer Instinct... whatever it was. In the playoffs EVERY game is important. If you are up 5-2 on those Oilers it can still become a game if you let in one more goal.. they had the best offence ever. Every save matters.
I don't buy diminishing Smith for anything to do with the 4 Cups and 5 finals. You can bring up other playoffs and his regular seasons for criticism maybe but those 5 consecutive playoffs it is really hard to say anything negative about Smith. It is the definition of clutch. It is like saying Bossy's 3 consecutive 17 goal playoffs were just because he played with Trottier and Potvin... he did play with those guys... BUT HE SCORED 17 GOALS - 3 times! 111 points in the 4 Cup years! He DID THAT... you can form an argument diminishing the accomplishment. You can say Kurri was just a product of Gretzky too... you can argue all kinds of things but when you do you miss the point. Smith won 19 straight series... 4 straight Cups... That is Clutch by any possible definition.
I corrected the bold for you.
Let me ask, if they won 60 straight 7-1 games over those 4 years would you say Smith was clutch?
Let me ask, if they won 60 straight 7-1 games over those 4 years would you say Smith was clutch?
That would never happen... it is a strawman argument. It is a pointless silly thing to bring up. They beat lots of very good teams. It isn't a theoretical thing... he actually won all those series... so did the team... but a goalie is the unique guy that W and L as part of his stat line. For a reason.
That would never happen... it is a strawman argument. It is a pointless silly thing to bring up. They beat lots of very good teams. It isn't a theoretical thing... he actually won all those series... so did the team... but a goalie is the unique guy that W and L as part of his stat line. For a reason.
W/L shouldn't really be a part of any serious discussion about how good a goalie was individually, at least no more than it is in the conversation for defensemen and forwards, but that is another story altogether.
You know the answer to the question is no. Yes, it's an extreme example, but the point you inadvertently conceded, is that yes, there are easier games and series, and yes, a team can make it easier on a goalie, particularly by scoring a lot of goals.
So there's a line somewhere, and we must just draw ours at different places. When I see 8-3, I say about 0% of the credit for that win goes to the goalie. You are free to disagree there.
What's your point? Those are one-goal games. I already told you how few of them the Isles had.
But the Isles were 13-2 in overtime during their 5 year run to the final. There were some early goals by the Isles in those overtimes but if we are going to discount Smith then why not discount Roy in 1993? There were certainly overtime games where he didn't do a whole lot of work. But 10-1 in overtime in the postseason is pretty remarkable. And there were moments where he made the big save (the "wink" against the Kings) just like Smith. At the end of the day, has there ever been a goalie that we don't historically consider to be clutch to have that type of run? The only example I can think of was Giguere in 2003.
Also, the 1980 Islanders had tons of pressure against them. You can argue that the 1980 Islanders had the hardest route to the Stanley Cup when you look at their opponents, than any other Cup winning team. Eventually that has to fall on the goalie in some way shape or form.
Quote:
6 goals against in 4 games? Clearly that is excellent. Clutch? Not games 2 and 3. Not when your team wins by 3-4 goals.
Take yourself back to 1983. The hockey world was expecting the Oilers to roll over the Isles. Now, hindsight has shown us that the Isles still had that savvy verteran experience and the Oilers were more similar to the 2008 Penguins where they looked green, but shutting down a team that scored 424 goals in the regular season to 6 goals is incredible. No one ever did that to the Oilers. Even in the playoff series that they lost no goalie ever shut them down the way Smith did. In fact, there isn't a series that is even close to it. So this is a guy who won the Conn Smythe and no one argued about it. 17 goals notwithstanding by Bossy to boot. The voters picked Smith. Clutch? Yeah, I guess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord
My other point doesn't relate to Smith directly, but it's really funny how many people think that one flubbed Lemaire long shot, and one OT save on Paul Gardner* (as important as each of those saves were) ultimately tell us more about these goalies then the other 800-900 games they each played.
*I'm just choosing those two as they probably represent the most important Esposito goal against and Smith save (that would have stopped the dynasty right there)
I think you can use those saves (or non saves) as an example of how different these goalies often performed when the chips were down. Esposito had a lot of chances to put his team at the top. It wouldn't have surprised anyone if Chicago won a Cup or two in those years. But there is a big enough body of work to see that too often Esposito didn't show up. 1971, the 1972 Summit Series (yeah, yeah NO goalie really played well, but still....), 1973. These were ridiculous teams he had as well. Then a long spell to end his career where he didn't get out of the first round. A career 45-53 playoff record isn't all that impressive. Smith was 88-36 in the postseason. And let's not forget, Esposito had some very good teams he played on. That's too large of a discrepancy to ignore.
Plus, Smith didn't do things that other goalies did. It's hard to imagine Smith allowing a long goal the way Esposito did at such a critical time. Or how Osgood did in the 1998 playoffs - in overtime. Or even go on a terrible run like Vernon did with very, very good teams in the Flames during the early 1990s.
Not to mention there are times when things line up perfectly. In 1978 Arbour went with Resch for the playoffs and they lost. In 1979 he split duties and Smith went 4-1 while Resch went 2-3. In 1980 he went with Smith and they win. Ditto for the next three years with Melanson as his back up. The proof is in the pudding there. What was the big change for the Isles? They got Goring at the trade deadline in 1980 and while he has always been credited with being a building block to the Isles Cup wins he still wasn't the difference maker that Smith was. In 1978 and 1979 they lost to teams they had no business losing to. Four years in a row afterwards, they didn't. Smith was the difference.
But the Isles were 13-2 in overtime during their 5 year run to the final.
I think you have this wrong. I counted 10-3 in the first four years.
Quote:
There were some early goals by the Isles in those overtimes but if we are going to discount Smith then why not discount Roy in 1993? There were certainly overtime games where he didn't do a whole lot of work. But 10-1 in overtime in the postseason is pretty remarkable. And there were moments where he made the big save (the "wink" against the Kings) just like Smith.
People do and should discount Roy for that. And multiple times on this board I have seen it written, “yes, he ‘won’ those OT games, but he didn’t have to make a save in a few of them” and that is a valid point.
Of course with Roy, there are countless examples of clutch saves and clutch games won.
Quote:
Also, the 1980 Islanders had tons of pressure against them. You can argue that the 1980 Islanders had the hardest route to the Stanley Cup when you look at their opponents, than any other Cup winning team. Eventually that has to fall on the goalie in some way shape or form.
Yes, they beat the 1st, 2nd, and 4th overall teams. Good for them. The goalie deserves his share of the credit. Let’s not pretend that 88 goals in 21 games didn’t help. A lot.
Quote:
Take yourself back to 1983. The hockey world was expecting the Oilers to roll over the Isles. Now, hindsight has shown us that the Isles still had that savvy verteran experience and the Oilers were more similar to the 2008 Penguins where they looked green, but shutting down a team that scored 424 goals in the regular season to 6 goals is incredible. No one ever did that to the Oilers. Even in the playoff series that they lost no goalie ever shut them down the way Smith did. In fact, there isn't a series that is even close to it. So this is a guy who won the Conn Smythe and no one argued about it. 17 goals notwithstanding by Bossy to boot. The voters picked Smith. Clutch? Yeah, I guess.
Like I’ve been saying, that is an excellent series. And there is little doubt that Smith was the MVP. Not every series went like this. And if every goalie who steals a series is forever “clutch” then most goalies to play a decade in the NHL are clutch. You are again falling into the trap of letting a very small sample size define an entire career while ignoring what the rest of the games they played are telling you.
Quote:
I think you can use those saves (or non saves) as an example of how different these goalies often performed when the chips were down. Esposito had a lot of chances to put his team at the top. It wouldn't have surprised anyone if Chicago won a Cup or two in those years. But there is a big enough body of work to see that too often Esposito didn't show up. 1971, the 1972 Summit Series (yeah, yeah NO goalie really played well, but still....), 1973. These were ridiculous teams he had as well.
- Those weren’t “ridiculous” teams, they were as good as they were mostly because of Esposito.
- Esposito was almost certainly the Smythe winner until the lemaire shot. You don’t find it a little unsettling that one shot makes the difference between an eternally clutch goalie and a supposed choker?
- In the top defensemen round 12 thread I actually showed a lot more mitigating factors for Esposito’s 1970-1975 teams failing to win. He did his part in faltering too, but it was a total team effort. They had to kill more penalties, they allowed more shots, and they faced the best or 2nd-best offense every playoff.
- Esposito’s numbers are the strongest of any goalie in the Summit series so what is your point there?
Quote:
Then a long spell to end his career where he didn't get out of the first round. A career 45-53 playoff record isn't all that impressive. Smith was 88-36 in the postseason. And let's not forget, Esposito had some very good teams he played on. That's too large of a discrepancy to ignore.
Tell that to someone gullible enough to believe that W/L is an intelligent way to judge goaltenders.
Quote:
Plus, Smith didn't do things that other goalies did. It's hard to imagine Smith allowing a long goal the way Esposito did at such a critical time. Or how Osgood did in the 1998 playoffs - in overtime. Or even go on a terrible run like Vernon did with very, very good teams in the Flames during the early 1990s.
But you don’t remember every single goal he allowed in the playoffs, do you? It’s almost certain that there were some groaners in there (it happens to everyone), but if the Isles are up 7-2 at the time, who gave a crap? When the Hawks were not even scoring 2 goals most games in the late 70s, of course every goal against was HUGE, and even the good ones “felt” bad.
Not to mention there are times when things line up perfectly. In 1978 Arbour went with Resch for the playoffs and they lost. In 1979 he split duties and Smith went 4-1 while Resch went 2-3. In 1980 he went with Smith and they win. Ditto for the next three years with Melanson as his back up. The proof is in the pudding there. What was the big change for the Isles? They got Goring at the trade deadline in 1980 and while he has always been credited with being a building block to the Isles Cup wins he still wasn't the difference maker that Smith was. In 1978 and 1979 they lost to teams they had no business losing to. Four years in a row afterwards, they didn't. Smith was the difference.[/QUOTE]
*sigh*… look at the records. Goaltending was not the problem in 1978. Resch stopped 91.6% of his shots, which was excellent in that era. The Isles scored 13 goals in 7 games, not even 2 per game. Of course they’re going to lose! Smith’s average was 2.65 (and a .899 sv%) in the four cup years; he’d have most likely lost that series too, don’t kid yourself.
In 1979 the W/L records fail to do justice to how the goalies performed. Smith appears to have been better, .932 to .923, but that’s not a huge gap in a small sample size. Both goalies were strong, one didn’t get the bounces.
Then in 1980 the whole team gets another year older and more mature (the top-7 scorers on the team in 1979 were all 21-25) but that has nothing to do with it? No, it’s all because this time they didn’t play Resch and they went with Smith exclusively.
I fixed the formatting for you, in case you’re wondering why it says I edited your post.
A common thing said about Fuhr was, “he could allow a couple goals and it might get close, but there was no way he was allowing that tying goal.” I have no idea how valid that anecdote really is, but as it applies to Smith, I mentioned before that they were 10-3 in OT during the cup years, never winning a one-goal game in regulation. Out of these 13 OT games, five of them were situations in which the Isles held and surrendered a one-goal lead.
Personally I don’t want to attribute the “blame” on Smith for letting that goal in and allowing the game to get to OT, any more than I want to credit him for being “clutch” in any of the OT wins where he made zero saves, or one save. I also don’t know if any of those tying goals were “bad”. But, to play devil’s advocate, aren’t these the exact goals that “clutch” goalies typically just don’t allow, anecdotally?
Thank you for the formatting adjustment.
The bolded part is very interesting. Effectively during the time frame in question the Islanders played 13 overtime games. 5 were the result of the opposition scoring the tying goal, while 8 were the result of the Islanders scoring the tying goal to send the game into overtime. No regulation scoreless games were played featuring the Islanders during this stretch.
While Billy Smith may have allowed 5 tying goals he also kept the Islanders within one goal in 8 of the games so they could score the tying goal.
In overtime the Islanders were 10W and 3L for the 13 games in question. If the tying goal was not scored in regulation by the opposition or the Islanders, the Islanders were on track for a 5W, 8L record for the 13 games in question, yet they finished 10W and 3L.
Would say that a swing of 5 games - wins over a 13 game sampling illustrates excellent and clutch goaltending.
Last edited by Canadiens1958: 02-15-2012 at 12:15 PM.
Reason: spacing
The bolded part is very interesting. Effectively during the time frame in question the Islanders played 13 overtime games. 5 were the result of the opposition scoring the tying goal, while 8 were the result of the Islanders scoring the tying goal to send the game into overtime. No regulation scoreless games were played featuring the Islanders during this stretch.
While Billy Smith may have allowed 5 tying goals he also kept the Islanders within one goal in 8 of the games so they could score the tying goal.
In overtime the Islanders were 10W and 3L for the 13 games in question. If the tying goal was not scored in regulation by the opposition or the Islanders, the Islanders were on track for a 5W, 8L record for the 13 games in question, yet they finished 10W and 3L.
Would say that a swing of 5 games - wins over a 13 game sampling illustrates excellent and clutch goaltending.
Statistically speaking though, that's not any different from his/their record in "not close" games.
Most close games went their way, most blowouts went their way. Most games, in general, went their way.
you are attributing 5 wins to one player, essentially. If it was anyone else I would question if you were serious.
During the four seasons that the Islanders won the SC. they had winning percentages as follows: .569/.688/.738/.600
Billy Smith was not considered a "regular season" goalie. He was considered a "playoff goalie".
Never attributed 5 wins to Billy Smith, just stating that the numbers clearly indicate that his goaltending was a key part of the difference between winning and losing in the games in question. Someone had to score the OT goals for the Islanders and others had to set the table offensively and defensively but Billy Smith certainly made a difference.
During the four seasons that the Islanders won the SC. they had winning percentages as follows: .569/.688/.738/.600
Billy Smith was not considered a "regular season" goalie. He was considered a "playoff goalie".
Never attributed 5 wins to Billy Smith, just stating that the numbers clearly indicate that his goaltending was a key part of the difference between winning and losing in the games in question. Someone had to score the OT goals for the Islanders and others had to set the table offensively and defensively but Billy Smith certainly made a difference.
I agree, every good goalie will make a difference in the form of a positive contribution towards winning. Their teammates need to make up the rest or they won't win.
I think you have this wrong. I counted 10-3 in the first four years.
If you include 1984 (which I think we should because it was a trip to the final and part of 19 consecutive playoff wins) the Isles were 13-2 in overtime.
Quote:
People do and should discount Roy for that. And multiple times on this board I have seen it written, “yes, he ‘won’ those OT games, but he didn’t have to make a save in a few of them” and that is a valid point.
Of course with Roy, there are countless examples of clutch saves and clutch games won.
But not Smith?
Quote:
Like I’ve been saying, that is an excellent series. And there is little doubt that Smith was the MVP. Not every series went like this. And if every goalie who steals a series is forever “clutch” then most goalies to play a decade in the NHL are clutch. You are again falling into the trap of letting a very small sample size define an entire career while ignoring what the rest of the games they played are telling you.
The 1983 postseason is not a small sample size. Then there are 4 other examples of him reaching the final. 1983 is just his shining moment, not his ONLY moment.
Quote:
QUOTE]Those weren’t “ridiculous” teams, they were as good as they were mostly because of Esposito
Esposito’s numbers are the strongest of any goalie in the Summit series so what is your point there?
1971 was a pretty darn good Hawks team. This was the best one I think. Hull, D. Hull, Mikita, Martin, then on defense there was White, Stapleton, Magnuson. More than capable of a Cup win. They weren't chumps. And I would bet Bobby Hull wins the Conn Smythe with a win, just saying. The point of the Summit Series was that Paul Henderson really saved the bacon of both Dryden and Esposito. Espo was part of a huge collapse in Game #5. To say he played slightly better than Dryden wasn't meant as a compliment on my part.
Quote:
*sigh*… look at the records. Goaltending was not the problem in 1978. Resch stopped 91.6% of his shots, which was excellent in that era. The Isles scored 13 goals in 7 games, not even 2 per game. Of course they’re going to lose! Smith’s average was 2.65 (and a .899 sv%) in the four cup years; he’d have most likely lost that series too, don’t kid yourself.
In 1979 the W/L records fail to do justice to how the goalies performed. Smith appears to have been better, .932 to .923, but that’s not a huge gap in a small sample size. Both goalies were strong, one didn’t get the bounces.
Then in 1980 the whole team gets another year older and more mature (the top-7 scorers on the team in 1979 were all 21-25) but that has nothing to do with it? No, it’s all because this time they didn’t play Resch and they went with Smith exclusively.
I like Esposito, but this conversation is sort of forcing me to bash him a bit which is too bad, because he had some good moments, and heck, he's a HHOFer. But so is Smith. Both goalies got in there right away. The only thing is that Smith had a body of work that showed he was more reliable in the postseason. The discrepancy between Smith and Espo in playoff numbers is too hard to ignore. You sort of have Smith painted as an Osgood-type who wasn't very central to the Isles success. This isn't true, and no one has ever accused Smith of being just another goalie in the mix.
Honestly, there is a five year run 1980-'85 where he was the best goalie in the game. Who else in the NHL would you have wanted as your goalie during that time?
.
