"countless"? No, I'm not sure of that. Not like I am with Roy. No one has convinced me that 3-goal wins had any clutch involved with them.
Quote:
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.
Depends what you consider a "moment". that might be the only time Smith was "the" reason his team won a series. That doesn't define a career on its own.
Quote:
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.
If you had to namedrop Dennis Hull, Pit martin and Keith Magnuson to prove this was a dominant team, you should have quit before you started.
Quote:
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.
I never said he was like Osgood.
But your arguments are proof that "just winning" has an effect on people's perceptions of a player.
You're ignoring practically every other factor and saying "winning = you are clutch".
Smith stopped 90.5% of the shots that came his way in the playoffs. Espo stopped 90.3%. That's not a big difference. And both figures are based on relatively large sample sizes. If all other things were equal there would be a very small difference in their playoff win percentages. But all other things are not equal, and those who want to write history on the behalf of the winners always want to brush things like that aside.
In the regular season, Their respective career numbers are .907 and .894. That's a huge difference, and based on a significantly larger sample of games and shots. And it's not like the people paid to watch the games, report back to us and vote on the best players at every position at the end of the year disagree with those numbers, either. (5 all-star teams to one)
Quote:
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?
Smith is a "known quantity" who actually won, so I would choose him too, but:
- that is not to say that any of the other six goalies who received significant all-star recognition over that period couldn't have won with that team, and
- this is perhaps the weakest 5-year period ever for top goaltenders.
- Espo was the best goalie from 1970-1974, in a much better time for goaltenders.
You're ignoring practically every other factor and saying "winning = you are clutch".
Just as you're practically ignoring every other factor and saying "save % = goalie performance in entirety".
As I have said, I am a bit of a clutch skeptic too, but you'd have to admit that winning and clutch play (if it exists at all) kind of have to be correlated to some degree.
Quote:
Smith stopped 90.5% of the shots that came his way in the playoffs. Espo stopped 90.3%. That's not a big difference. And both figures are based on relatively large sample sizes. If all other things were equal there would be a very small difference in their playoff win percentages. But all other things are not equal, and those who want to write history on the behalf of the winners always want to brush things like that aside.
Maybe on average throughout their playoff careers they were about the same.. so what?
That doesn't tell me anything about how either made a difference in their games / series with the timing and/or difficulty of those saves.
What does tell me something is that Tony Esposito let in a shot from center ice to blow a game 7 of the Stanley Cup Final in the best chance he ever got to win.. while Smith was a big contributing factor to AT LEAST one Stanley Cup Final even by your own admission.
Quote:
In the regular season, Their respective career numbers are .907 and .894. That's a huge difference, and based on a significantly larger sample of games and shots. And it's not like the people paid to watch the games, report back to us and vote on the best players at every position at the end of the year disagree with those numbers, either. (5 all-star teams to one)
And I think that is why most people might say that Tony Esposito was, on average, the better regular season goaltender.
Even if we've been calling into question how those post season allstars for goalies are awarded lately. (ie. platooning = good luck)
Quote:
Smith is a "known quantity" who actually won, so I would choose him too
Depends what you consider a "moment". that might be the only time Smith was "the" reason his team won a series. That doesn't define a career on its own.
If you are to ask a fan who the "big 4" are on NYI during that time it would be Potvin, Trottier, Bossy and Smith in selective orders. In general Potvin is considered to be the most important cog of that dynasty by most, but there is such a small gap between the rest that it has to lead you to believe that Smith was integral to that dynasty and a big reason for shaping it.
Quote:
If you had to namedrop Dennis Hull, Pit martin and Keith Magnuson to prove this was a dominant team, you should have quit before you started.
You did leave out, Bobby Hull, White, Stapleton, and Mikita all all-stars multiple times. And Dennis Hull and Martin cracked 90 points in their careers, so..........
But why are you glossing over how good these Hawks teams were, even without Bobby?
I mean honestly, Espo didn't have a bunch of chumps in front of him.
Quote:
I never said he was like Osgood.
But your arguments are proof that "just winning" has an effect on people's perceptions of a player.
You're ignoring practically every other factor and saying "winning = you are clutch".
You are right, winning has an effect on perceptions - on the surface at least. But let's put it to the test, is Niemi among anyone's top 10 goalies in the NHL right now? Top 15? Not mine, and I haven't forgotten that he won a Cup. Good for him, but everyone can agree he was terrible and just slightly better than Michael Leighton. The Hawks won in spite of him. I think the burden is on you more than anything to find proof that the Isles won in spite of Smith rather than partly because of him. Because I will tell you, since your opinion is on the other side of the fence from any other hockey expert who has seen Smith I feel the onus is more on you.
Quote:
Smith is a "known quantity" who actually won, so I would choose him too, but:
- that is not to say that any of the other six goalies who received significant all-star recognition over that period couldn't have won with that team, and
- this is perhaps the weakest 5-year period ever for top goaltenders.
- Espo was the best goalie from 1970-1974, in a much better time for goaltenders.
I'll go on a limb and suggest that Mike Liut doesn't win 19 straight series. He's probably the next best goalie in that time frame. Your post is also screaming of "coulda, shouldas" by the way. I prefer "this happened".
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.
So you have substituted good for most. Yet you have failed to quantify either.
Nor have you provided data about other goalies namely Tony Esposito with comparable impacts towards team results.
I'll go on a limb and suggest that Mike Liut doesn't win 19 straight series. He's probably the next best goalie in that time frame. Your post is also screaming of "coulda, shouldas" by the way. I prefer "this happened".
Just as you're practically ignoring every other factor and saying "save % = goalie performance in entirety".
I'm not though. Even more important is the contemporary opinions. This is supported in two ways: By the all-star voting, which I have already touched on, and by the various polls that we have access to from 1970 to 1984, based on the opinions of NHL coaches, players and correspondents:
Notice all the superlative comments even throughout the late 70s when Chicago (and some say, by extension, Esposito) was terrible in the playoffs:
Quote:
Throughout his career, Esposito was universally named as one of the league's two best goalies when players and coaches were asked. The exception was the 1979 poll.
Quote:
Originally Posted by March 13th, 1971 NHL Coaches Poll - Toronto Star
Best Goalie - Jacques Plante (Tony Esposito, Bernie Parent, Ed Giacomin, Glenn Hall)
Quote:
Originally Posted by March 23rd, 1974 NHL Coaches Poll - Toronto Star
Best Goalie - Tony Esposito, Bernie Parent tie (Dan Bouchard, Rogie Vachon)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pro Hockey Almanac 1974-75, NHL Correspondents' Poll
Best Goalie: 1) Bernie Parent, 52 pts 2) Ken Dryden, 29 pts 3) Tony Esposito, 17 pts 4) Ed Giacomin, 5 pts
Quote:
Originally Posted by February 21st, 1976 NHL Coaches Poll - Toronto Star
Best Goalie - Ken Dryden (Tony Esposito, Bernie Parent, Rogie Vachon, Dan Bouchard)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Players Poll taken before 1980-81 season
Best Goaltender 1 Tony Esposito 2 Don Edwards 3 Mike Palmateer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Complete Handbook Of Pro Hockey 1974
[B]one of the two best goaltenders in the league
Quote:
Originally Posted by Complete Handbook Of Pro Hockey 1975
Won't win any awards for his style, but he still considered one of the NHL's top three goalies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Complete Handbook Of Pro Hockey 1976
There's no question that he's one of the best goaltenders around.…
Quote:
Originally Posted by Complete Handbook Of Pro Hockey 1977
keeps on going as one of the league's top goaltenders
Quote:
Originally Posted by Complete Handbook Of Pro Hockey 1980
still one of the best
Quote:
Originally Posted by Complete Handbook Of Pro Hockey 1981
He's as good as they come…
With Smith, we know he won a Vezina. We know that he never came reasonably close again. And one poll, from April 30th, 1984, right around the time he was winning the 18th of those 19 straight series, he was voted in a tie for 1st by the NHL coaches as the league’s best goalie, with Barrasso and Peeters. 18 straight series and he wasn’t a runaway 1st place winner?
Here are the quotes regarding Smith's standing among the game's best goalies. This is everything I could find from 1973 to 1988:
1976: "emerged as solid NHL goalie..."
1980: one of league's best goalies...
1981: struggled all year, then caught fire...
1982: one of the most successful playoff goalies ever...
1983: one of the best playoff goalies in recent hockey history...
1984: one of the top money goalies in the game...
Note that they always fall short of calling him the best at anything. he's "one of the best/most successful" playoff/money goalies, not the best all-the-time goalie, like Esposito often was. Slam dunk. Next.
Quote:
Maybe on average throughout their playoff careers they were about the same.. so what?
That doesn't tell me anything about how either made a difference in their games / series with the timing and/or difficulty of those saves.
What does tell me something is that Tony Esposito let in a shot from center ice to blow a game 7 of the Stanley Cup Final in the best chance he ever got to win.. while Smith was a big contributing factor to AT LEAST one Stanley Cup Final even by your own admission.
Say hi to Phil down there. You both fell into the same trap. One play does not define a goalie. One series really shouldn’t, either. You can’t ignore what the other 800+ games are telling you.
Quote:
Even if we've been calling into question how those post season allstars for goalies are awarded lately. (ie. platooning = good luck)
Smith had three seasons where he posted personal numbers that approached all-star worthiness. One was 1982, when he won. 1983 was the 2nd, when he played 41 games. (he finished 4th in voting, #2 and #3 were Melanson, better numbers in 3 more games on the same team, and Bannerman, 41 GP. – so platooning didn’t hurt those guys) The 3rd was 1977, but with 36 GP he didn’t have a chance, nor should he have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil
You did leave out, Bobby Hull, White, Stapleton, and Mikita all all-stars multiple times.
Right, because those were actually great players, not desperate reaches. (and Hull was gone after ’72)
Quote:
But why are you glossing over how good these Hawks teams were, even without Bobby?
I mean honestly, Espo didn't have a bunch of chumps in front of him.
No, he didn’t, but he was the MVP of that team that whole time. He had more to do with them placing 1st-4th overall than any other player. (by the way, 4th in 1972 and 1973 isn’t particularly dominant, that’s like being 8th nowadays)
Smith didn’t have a heck of a lot to do with the team’s regular season ranking so when I trot those numbers out to you, it’s much more valid.
Quote:
You are right, winning has an effect on perceptions - on the surface at least. But let's put it to the test, is Niemi among anyone's top 10 goalies in the NHL right now? Top 15? Not mine, and I haven't forgotten that he won a Cup. Good for him, but everyone can agree he was terrible and just slightly better than Michael Leighton. The Hawks won in spite of him. I think the burden is on you more than anything to find proof that the Isles won in spite of Smith rather than partly because of him. Because I will tell you, since your opinion is on the other side of the fence from any other hockey expert who has seen Smith I feel the onus is more on you.
The formula for success after the lockout changed drastically. I wouldn’t even begin to compare. The parity between the rosters thanks to the salary cap has meant that skimping on goaltending is a legitimate road to success where it wasn’t before. No one can stockpile great players like dynasties did. The talent is so spread out that you have Dennis Seidenberg as the #2 on a cup winner or Commodore as a #3.
To put the opposite to the test with a pre-lockout example, you think Vernon is awesome thanks to a couple of playoffs when for the majority of his career he played at a below average level. In your mind he is just a winner.
No one ever said the Isles won “in spite of” Smith.
Quote:
I'll go on a limb and suggest that Mike Liut doesn't win 19 straight series. He's probably the next best goalie in that time frame. Your post is also screaming of "coulda, shouldas" by the way. I prefer "this happened".
Forget Liut, we could talk about an average goalie. Put him in Smith’s place. Smith was great, but he wasn’t three goals better than an average goalie. All those 3-goal wins are still wins. And the two-goal wins too, at least the ones that didn’t feature an ENG. Let’s say all the losses are still losses because an average goalie wouldn’t change that result if Smith couldn’t.
Out of all the playoff That leaves the 13 one-goal victories during that five-year period. Probably a good 5 more that were one-goal games plus an ENG. The question is, how many of those 18 games turn into losses with an average goalie in net? If Smith stops more shots than an average goalie and is considered clutch, definitely some of them. Perhaps 9 in those 5 years? (that’s being generous, no one reasonable would conclude that the difference between a one-goal win and a one-goal loss – a two-goal swing - is equal to the difference between Smith and an average goalie)
Now, we’re deep into speculation already, plus we have no way of knowing which of those one-goal games in particular would turn into losses and in which ones the average goalie would hold the fort like Smith did.
But if you go through all those series and look at the close games and just randomly pick win or loss and look at the impact on the series, it’s still rare that this average goalie even puts the series in danger considering they only ever faced elimination once.
As an example, let’s say the dice roll says an average goalie costs them game 3 against the Nordiques in the 1982 semis. Now the series is 2-1. Considering the Isles proved in the first two games they were significantly stronger than the Nords, this game doesn’t change the end result – that the Isles take the series. Let’s also say the average goalie flubs a shot in game 1 OT versus the Canucks. Do the Isles lose this series? No, they probably win it in 5.
You can definitely pick out a spot where an average goalie blowing the game means they’re done (1982, game 5, Pittsburgh) and another four spots where it puts them in a possible game 7 situation (which they would still be heavily favoured to win) – 1982 vs. Rangers, 1981 vs. Oilers, 1980 vs. Flyers & Sabres – but all these things wouldn’t happen because an average goalie would still win some of these games, they wouldn’t blow every single one.
Back to Liut, obviously the difference between him and Smith was much less than what I said above, so how many of those 18 games does he blow? And then what are the chances that the dynasty gets stopped? We’re looking at marginal numbers here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958
So you have substituted good for most. Yet you have failed to quantify either.
Nor have you provided data about other goalies namely Tony Esposito with comparable impacts towards team results.
I’m sorry, but I have no idea what you are looking for.
Last edited by seventieslord: 02-28-2012 at 10:02 PM.
Say hi to Phil down there. You both fell into the same trap. One play does not define a goalie. One series really shouldn’t, either. You can’t ignore what the other 800+ games are telling you.
If you're going into a seven game series or a one game finals, who would you put in net? Smith or Esposito?
It sounds like you're arguing that Espo was a better goalie, statistically, over a career, which I don't think anyone disputes. The suggestion of a CLUTCH goalie, someone whom you could rely on when the pressure/stakes are highest, who do you go with? That's a different answer than who's got the best numbers over a period of time.
Those "defining moments" matter more in that context.
Patrick Roy has THREE Conn Smythe trophies. Clutch.
Between Billy Smith and Tony Esposito though, I don't believe you'd get many people choosing Espo over Smith for a series.
Just like you wouldn't get Marcel Dionne picked ahead of Bobby Clarke, Bryan Trottier, maybe even Malkin, Sid.
Defining moments DO MATTER, disproportionately in a player's career. Not all goals are equal and not all minutes are equal.
Billy Smith publicly said he didn't care much for the regular season. If a player paces himself and coasts through February and March, but elevates his play and his team's play in April-May - that's clutch.
Do it ONCE and maybe it's Fernando Pisani, Chris Kontos.
Do it four years, 19 series, 4 cups - maybe it's Clutch.
If you're going into a seven game series or a one game finals, who would you put in net? Smith or Esposito?
It sounds like you're arguing that Espo was a better goalie, statistically, over a career, which I don't think anyone disputes. The suggestion of a CLUTCH goalie, someone whom you could rely on when the pressure/stakes are highest, who do you go with? That's a different answer than who's got the best numbers over a period of time.
I would choose Esposito to get me through the regular season to earn the most favourable matchups possible, and as far as day-to-day-performance throughout the playoffs it could go either way. As for the seven game series or one game final, it’s a loaded question, because any fan would have to choose the player who was actually there and actually did it. But if I am the Islanders heading into these situations, Smith doesn’t lose me the game/series and neither does Esposito, and if I’m the Hawks, we probably don’t get to that point if we play Smith for 70 games and through the playoffs, so in either case the point is moot.
Quote:
Those "defining moments" matter more in that context.
No, they don’t, necessarily, unless it can be proven that they are repeatable and not random/unlucky events.
Quote:
Between Billy Smith and Tony Esposito though, I don't believe you'd get many people choosing Espo over Smith for a series.
Just like you wouldn't get Marcel Dionne picked ahead of Bobby Clarke, Bryan Trottier, maybe even Malkin, Sid.
Dionne is not considered a better player than Clarke and Trottier; he is typically about twice as far down all-time lists than they are.
Quote:
Defining moments DO MATTER, disproportionately in a player's career. Not all goals are equal and not all minutes are equal.
I’m ok with certain moments counting disproportionately for a player. It makes sense. What doesn’t make sense, is the extreme degree of disproportionality one would have to employ to these moments for these respective goalies, to conclude Smith is the better goalie.
Quote:
Billy Smith publicly said he didn't care much for the regular season. If a player paces himself and coasts through February and March, but elevates his play and his team's play in April-May - that's clutch.
If you're going into a seven game series or a one game finals, who would you put in net? Smith or Esposito?
Do it ONCE and maybe it's Fernando Pisani, Chris Kontos.
Do it four years, 19 series, 4 cups - maybe it's Clutch.
Correct, and that's the thing. There is no way even the most ardent Esposito supporter should say that they thought Esposito was the better goalie "and its not even close". You can't say that when I am pretty sure 95% of the posters on here would take Smith in a playoff series over Esposito. If that is true, then the big question is why, and then exploring the reasons. If everyone and their mother would take Smith it begs the question of who really had the better career.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord
With Smith, we know he won a Vezina. We know that he never came reasonably close again. And one poll, from April 30th, 1984, right around the time he was winning the 18th of those 19 straight series, he was voted in a tie for 1st by the NHL coaches as the league’s best goalie, with Barrasso and Peeters. 18 straight series and he wasn’t a runaway 1st place winner?
It isn't all that crazy. Peeters won the Vezina in 1983 with a wonderful season - 8 shutouts. He starred for Canada in the 1984 Canada Cup in the fall. Barrasso was the new kid on the block, and was about to win a Vezina. Think about when Steve Mason had that big year in 2009. He was a 2nd team all-star and there would be people in the NHL who would have picked him very high as a top goalie, maybe even over Brodeur. Mason was the flavour of the month, like Barrasso. Although Barrasso went on to a borderline HHOF career. The coaches might have been jaded with all of Smith's success. But it does tell you something, he didn't even win the Vezina and he was still considered the best goalie in the NHL by the coaches.
Quote:
Right, because those were actually great players, not desperate reaches. (and Hull was gone after ’72)
So you are denying the Hawks had great teams then or not?
Quote:
No, he didn’t, but he was the MVP of that team that whole time. He had more to do with them placing 1st-4th overall than any other player. (by the way, 4th in 1972 and 1973 isn’t particularly dominant, that’s like being 8th nowadays)
Sure it was, because they were great for a sustained length of time. If you asked which teams were the best in the first half the 1970s the answers almost unanimously would be Boston, Montreal, Chicago, Rangers. Maybe even in that order and add Philly by 1974. Slice it anyway you want, the Hawks were an elite team then.
Quote:
Forget Liut, we could talk about an average goalie. Put him in Smith’s place. Smith was great, but he wasn’t three goals better than an average goalie. All those 3-goal wins are still wins. And the two-goal wins too, at least the ones that didn’t feature an ENG. Let’s say all the losses are still losses because an average goalie wouldn’t change that result if Smith couldn’t.
Out of all the playoff That leaves the 13 one-goal victories during that five-year period. Probably a good 5 more that were one-goal games plus an ENG. The question is, how many of those 18 games turn into losses with an average goalie in net? If Smith stops more shots than an average goalie and is considered clutch, definitely some of them. Perhaps 9 in those 5 years? (that’s being generous, no one reasonable would conclude that the difference between a one-goal win and a one-goal loss – a two-goal swing - is equal to the difference between Smith and an average goalie)
Now, we’re deep into speculation already, plus we have no way of knowing which of those one-goal games in particular would turn into losses and in which ones the average goalie would hold the fort like Smith did.
But if you go through all those series and look at the close games and just randomly pick win or loss and look at the impact on the series, it’s still rare that this average goalie even puts the series in danger considering they only ever faced elimination once.
As an example, let’s say the dice roll says an average goalie costs them game 3 against the Nordiques in the 1982 semis. Now the series is 2-1. Considering the Isles proved in the first two games they were significantly stronger than the Nords, this game doesn’t change the end result – that the Isles take the series. Let’s also say the average goalie flubs a shot in game 1 OT versus the Canucks. Do the Isles lose this series? No, they probably win it in 5.
You can definitely pick out a spot where an average goalie blowing the game means they’re done (1982, game 5, Pittsburgh) and another four spots where it puts them in a possible game 7 situation (which they would still be heavily favoured to win) – 1982 vs. Rangers, 1981 vs. Oilers, 1980 vs. Flyers & Sabres – but all these things wouldn’t happen because an average goalie would still win some of these games, they wouldn’t blow every single one.
Back to Liut, obviously the difference between him and Smith was much less than what I said above, so how many of those 18 games does he blow? And then what are the chances that the dynasty gets stopped? We’re looking at marginal numbers here.
I think you're really fishing for things now. Should we discount Plante as well because Glenn Hall or Gump Worsley or Terry Sawchuk "might - just "might" - have won 5 Cups in a row too? Or should we judge him by what he actually accomplished? Not to mention Plante likely wins a retro-Conn Smythe in 1960 as well. With Smith, much like with Fuhr, the eye test is integral. We have seen countless goalies - good goalies - wilt under the pressure when it came to crunch time. Esposito in comparison to his regular season stats, falls into that category. Giacomin does as well. Both had great teams in front of them. No one would have complained had the Rangers won a Cup or two back then either. But Smith is commonly considered a goalie who raised his game come playoff time. This is repeated from everyone who ever saw him play. You can complain about times the Isles won by three goals, but whoopeee, so did the Habs with Dryden and I would still say he was pretty crucial. Also, if you don't believe me or anyone else in this thread, can you believe the people who eyewitnessed him and singled him out in 1983 against his stacked Hall of Famer teammates as the most important cog of that championship?
So look, we'll go on the flip side here. We've mentioned times Smith saved the bacon of the Isles and came up big. Can you name a time when he choked?
Esposito was good in the postseason despite his losing record. How many times did he have to face the Habs or the Bruins in the 70s? And he still got the team to the semi-finals or better every year from 69/70 to 73/74. Plus he beat the Bruins in the 1975 first round. Later, past his prime, he took some bad Hawks teams to 2 more semi-finals in 82 and 83, when he was pushing 40!
I'm not though. Even more important is the contemporary opinions. This is supported in two ways: By the all-star voting, which I have already touched on, and by the various polls that we have access to from 1970 to 1984, based on the opinions of NHL coaches, players and correspondents:
Notice all the superlative comments even throughout the late 70s when Chicago (and some say, by extension, Esposito) was terrible in the playoffs:
With Smith, we know he won a Vezina. We know that he never came reasonably close again. And one poll, from April 30th, 1984, right around the time he was winning the 18th of those 19 straight series, he was voted in a tie for 1st by the NHL coaches as the league’s best goalie, with Barrasso and Peeters. 18 straight series and he wasn’t a runaway 1st place winner?
Say hi to Phil down there. You both fell into the same trap. One play does not define a goalie. One series really shouldn’t, either. You can’t ignore what the other 800+ games are telling you.
Smith had three seasons where he posted personal numbers that approached all-star worthiness. One was 1982, when he won. 1983 was the 2nd, when he played 41 games. (he finished 4th in voting, #2 and #3 were Melanson, better numbers in 3 more games on the same team, and Bannerman, 41 GP. – so platooning didn’t hurt those guys) The 3rd was 1977, but with 36 GP he didn’t have a chance, nor should he have.
Right, because those were actually great players, not desperate reaches. (and Hull was gone after ’72)
No, he didn’t, but he was the MVP of that team that whole time. He had more to do with them placing 1st-4th overall than any other player. (by the way, 4th in 1972 and 1973 isn’t particularly dominant, that’s like being 8th nowadays)
Smith didn’t have a heck of a lot to do with the team’s regular season ranking so when I trot those numbers out to you, it’s much more valid.
The formula for success after the lockout changed drastically. I wouldn’t even begin to compare. The parity between the rosters thanks to the salary cap has meant that skimping on goaltending is a legitimate road to success where it wasn’t before. No one can stockpile great players like dynasties did. The talent is so spread out that you have Dennis Seidenberg as the #2 on a cup winner or Commodore as a #3.
To put the opposite to the test with a pre-lockout example, you think Vernon is awesome thanks to a couple of playoffs when for the majority of his career he played at a below average level. In your mind he is just a winner.
No one ever said the Isles won “in spite of” Smith.
Forget Liut, we could talk about an average goalie. Put him in Smith’s place. Smith was great, but he wasn’t three goals better than an average goalie. All those 3-goal wins are still wins. And the two-goal wins too, at least the ones that didn’t feature an ENG. Let’s say all the losses are still losses because an average goalie wouldn’t change that result if Smith couldn’t.
Out of all the playoff That leaves the 13 one-goal victories during that five-year period. Probably a good 5 more that were one-goal games plus an ENG. The question is, how many of those 18 games turn into losses with an average goalie in net? If Smith stops more shots than an average goalie and is considered clutch, definitely some of them. Perhaps 9 in those 5 years? (that’s being generous, no one reasonable would conclude that the difference between a one-goal win and a one-goal loss – a two-goal swing - is equal to the difference between Smith and an average goalie)
Now, we’re deep into speculation already, plus we have no way of knowing which of those one-goal games in particular would turn into losses and in which ones the average goalie would hold the fort like Smith did.
But if you go through all those series and look at the close games and just randomly pick win or loss and look at the impact on the series, it’s still rare that this average goalie even puts the series in danger considering they only ever faced elimination once.
As an example, let’s say the dice roll says an average goalie costs them game 3 against the Nordiques in the 1982 semis. Now the series is 2-1. Considering the Isles proved in the first two games they were significantly stronger than the Nords, this game doesn’t change the end result – that the Isles take the series. Let’s also say the average goalie flubs a shot in game 1 OT versus the Canucks. Do the Isles lose this series? No, they probably win it in 5.
You can definitely pick out a spot where an average goalie blowing the game means they’re done (1982, game 5, Pittsburgh) and another four spots where it puts them in a possible game 7 situation (which they would still be heavily favoured to win) – 1982 vs. Rangers, 1981 vs. Oilers, 1980 vs. Flyers & Sabres – but all these things wouldn’t happen because an average goalie would still win some of these games, they wouldn’t blow every single one.
Back to Liut, obviously the difference between him and Smith was much less than what I said above, so how many of those 18 games does he blow? And then what are the chances that the dynasty gets stopped? We’re looking at marginal numbers here.
I’m sorry, but I have no idea what you are looking for.
Comparing what matters come playoff time. Example GA by period - 1st/2nd/3rd going to SV% per period.
Same home games vs away games.
Liut is a straw man that is handy but does nothing to tell us how Smith or Esposito played by period, home vs away during the playoffs.
Comparing career records, ignoring ties, Esposito regular season 423 W/ 306 L playoffs 45 W / 53 L. Smith regular season 305 W / 233L, playoffs 88 W / 36 L.
The gap is much greater between Bill Smith and Tony Esposito than your blended career SV% differential of .002 suggests. Esposito had longevity and durability during the regular season but that is about it.
Correct, and that's the thing. There is no way even the most ardent Esposito supporter should say that they thought Esposito was the better goalie "and its not even close". You can't say that when I am pretty sure 95% of the posters on here would take Smith in a playoff series over Esposito. If that is true, then the big question is why, and then exploring the reasons. If everyone and their mother would take Smith it begs the question of who really had the better career.
Better career and better player can mean vastly different things. Claude Lemieux had a better career than Paul Kariya.
Quote:
It isn't all that crazy. Peeters won the Vezina in 1983 with a wonderful season - 8 shutouts. He starred for Canada in the 1984 Canada Cup in the fall. Barrasso was the new kid on the block, and was about to win a Vezina. Think about when Steve Mason had that big year in 2009. He was a 2nd team all-star and there would be people in the NHL who would have picked him very high as a top goalie, maybe even over Brodeur. Mason was the flavour of the month, like Barrasso. Although Barrasso went on to a borderline HHOF career. The coaches might have been jaded with all of Smith's success. But it does tell you something, he didn't even win the Vezina and he was still considered the best goalie in the NHL by the coaches.
No, it is crazy. You trot out the "19 straight series" thing every chance you get, but even at the time that wasn't enough to make him definitively the best goalie in the eyes of the coaches. It also didn't seem to get him any Vezina recognition outside of 1982. This is revisionism. We have the evidence of how both goalies were regarded in their times and it is being completely disregarded. History being written by and on behalf of the winners.
Quote:
So you are denying the Hawks had great teams then or not?
They had very good teams, and he was the largest reason why. The Isles had legendary teams and Smith was at best the 4th-largest reason why.
Quote:
I think you're really fishing for things now. Should we discount Plante as well because Glenn Hall or Gump Worsley or Terry Sawchuk "might - just "might" - have won 5 Cups in a row too? Or should we judge him by what he actually accomplished? Not to mention Plante likely wins a retro-Conn Smythe in 1960 as well. With Smith, much like with Fuhr, the eye test is integral. We have seen countless goalies - good goalies - wilt under the pressure when it came to crunch time. Esposito in comparison to his regular season stats, falls into that category. Giacomin does as well. Both had great teams in front of them. No one would have complained had the Rangers won a Cup or two back then either. But Smith is commonly considered a goalie who raised his game come playoff time. This is repeated from everyone who ever saw him play. You can complain about times the Isles won by three goals, but whoopeee, so did the Habs with Dryden and I would still say he was pretty crucial. Also, if you don't believe me or anyone else in this thread, can you believe the people who eyewitnessed him and singled him out in 1983 against his stacked Hall of Famer teammates as the most important cog of that championship?
This doesn't change everything I said. An average goalie doesn't turn their losses into wins or any 2+ goal games into losses. They may turn some one-goal wins into losses but even when they do, they rarely endanger a series.
Quote:
So look, we'll go on the flip side here. We've mentioned times Smith saved the bacon of the Isles and came up big. Can you name a time when he choked?
Saying someone choked is completely subjective. Everyone has their own definition. Some would say 19 goals against in 3 games in the 1984 finals is a choke. Didn't Luongo just do something similar?
But I'm really just being facetious. I don't place that much credit or blame at any player's feet for things like this. The Isles only scored 6 goals in those three losses. The Canucks scored just three in their four losses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958
Comparing what matters come playoff time. Example GA by period - 1st/2nd/3rd going to SV% per period.
Same home games vs away games.
.
Be my guest!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho Papa Joe
Actually in the five previous years to the first Isles cup win, Smith had better numbers than Esposito.
Probably looks like a big gap when you look at GAA. The sv% difference was .907 to .905 over that 5-year period and Esposito played 335 games to Smith's 210. I know what I would take!
Better career and better player can mean vastly different things. Claude Lemieux had a better career than Paul Kariya.
I don't think Lemieux's career value eclipses Kariya's. Lemieux was not the player Kariya was, that is evident. Lemieux is also vastly overrated when it comes to his playoff portfolio. He has a surprisingly mediocre playoff PPG.
Quote:
No, it is crazy. You trot out the "19 straight series" thing every chance you get, but even at the time that wasn't enough to make him definitively the best goalie in the eyes of the coaches. It also didn't seem to get him any Vezina recognition outside of 1982. This is revisionism. We have the evidence of how both goalies were regarded in their times and it is being completely disregarded. History being written by and on behalf of the winners.
Outside of 1982 he didn't really threaten for the Vezina. But his bread and butter was in the postseason. I will agree with you on one thing, Esposito was a better regular season goalie. But the playoff goalie thing is not even close in this regards. This is Smith's forte. It is what got him in the HHOF. And yet he still won 305 games.
Quote:
They had very good teams, and he was the largest reason why. The Isles had legendary teams and Smith was at best the 4th-largest reason why.
Definitely no worse than 4th, maybe some would put him higher, I don't know. But even if he's 4th that means Potvin, Bossy and Trottier were ahead of him. Three players who are among the best ever at their position were probably more important in their dynasty and this is supposed to be a bad thing?
Quote:
Saying someone choked is completely subjective. Everyone has their own definition. Some would say 19 goals against in 3 games in the 1984 finals is a choke. Didn't Luongo just do something similar?
But I'm really just being facetious. I don't place that much credit or blame at any player's feet for things like this. The Isles only scored 6 goals in those three losses. The Canucks scored just three in their four losses.
No, Smith did not have a very good final in 1984. The last three games were blowouts. I should congratulate you. You found a series where Billy Smith did not play well in that 5 year period. This is at the tail end of the dynasty. Often forgotten is that he was the Isles most valuable player up until the final. It can be argued that he was the Conn Smythe front runner as late as Game #3 of the final. Then Messier scored that signature goal on him and the floodgates opened. So the guy was the most important player on his team in back to back trips to the final.
Off topic, but as for Luongo, he did not play well in the 2011 final. A very bi polar series for him, he was all over the place. He did not look very good at all.
Outside of 1982 he didn't really threaten for the Vezina. But his bread and butter was in the postseason. I will agree with you on one thing, Esposito was a better regular season goalie. But the playoff goalie thing is not even close in this regards. This is Smith's forte. It is what got him in the HHOF. And yet he still won 305 games.
Reputation votes exist (I.e. who is the best goalie, not just who had the best season) and it didn't appear that he was getting any.
Quote:
Definitely no worse than 4th, maybe some would put him higher, I don't know. But even if he's 4th that means Potvin, Bossy and Trottier were ahead of him. Three players who are among the best ever at their position were probably more important in their dynasty and this is supposed to be a bad thing?
You are getting lost here. The discussion was team strength. You tried to argue esposito may have had a comparable team. Point has always been that point totals/ rankings don't tell the whole story because goalie contributions are included in that, and Espo's were significantly higher than Smith's.
Quote:
Off topic, but as for Luongo, he did not play well in the 2011 final. A very bi polar series for him, he was all over the place. He did not look very good at all.
I agree. He didn't singlehandedly lose any game though.
Reputation votes exist (I.e. who is the best goalie, not just who had the best season) and it didn't appear that he was getting any.
Okay, but in all honesty when SHOULD Smith have won another Vezina? Maybe the early 1980s were a bit weaker, but the Vezina winner usually had a spectacular season. The 1970s belong to Parent and Dryden. No chance there. Esposito was a 1st team all-star in 1980. Liut with his big year in 1981. Smith in 1982. Peeters with that spike year in 1983, hard to beat that. 1984 was Barrasso's. Maybe the weakest of the bunch. By 1985 Smith was clearly on the downswing of his career.
A lot of it has to do with the split games with Melanson or Resch. Smith played 58 games in 1975. Other than that, never more than 46. He was a perennial 40 start goalie. Hard to get the Vezina votes that way. Heck, Melanson was a 2nd team all-star in 1983. Guess who everyone and their mother would want on their team between him and Smith though? A couple months later Smith wins the Conn Smythe.
So yeah, it is a factor. Now, I will give Esposito the credit he deserves. He had better regular seasons. I have had a debate before with someone who claimed Roy was better than Fuhr in 1988. I disagreed. His reasoning was that if Roy had played more games he'd have won the Vezina, and the only reason Fuhr won it was because he played 70 games. I don't like judging a player on "woulda, shouldas" so I won't with Smith either. But I will say that it almost seemed like Arbour wanted him rested so that he could be fresher for the playoffs. And that WILL effect your Vezina voting over your career. In return, Smith has 4 rings. Good trade off. And whether that is fair or not, a goalie more than any position is judged on winning. Smith did this better than Esposito.
Quote:
You are getting lost here. The discussion was team strength. You tried to argue esposito may have had a comparable team. Point has always been that point totals/ rankings don't tell the whole story because goalie contributions are included in that, and Espo's were significantly higher than Smith's.
The best Islander team is better than the best Blackhawk team of the early 1970s. So what? My point still stands, the Hawks were still pretty good and very capable of winning.
No, haha, obviously smith being the best goalie of that period is completely hindsight-based, as suspected. You can have the last word here, I am quite satisfied with this exchange regardless.
No, haha, obviously smith being the best goalie of that period is completely hindsight-based, as suspected. You can have the last word here, I am quite satisfied with this exchange regardless.
Who would be the best goalie in the world from 1980-'85? If it isn't Smith, then who? You'd really have to be a homer to pick anyone but him. And it is hardly hindsight that he was considered the best at the time. No GM would have wanted any other goalie on their team at that time. He was proven, he was a winner, he was a dynasty goalie and he was a Vezina winner. Who else was near him at the time?
