When one talks about a goalie being "clutch" in the playoffs, they're usually referring to two situations:
1) How a goalie performs when the game is tied in the 3rd period or overtime
2) How a goalie performs with his team ahead by one goal in the 3rd period
In an effort to see compare playoff clutch play between the two goalies, I decided to go through the HSP summaries game-by-game and recorded how they did in both those situations. I used what was generally considered to be the five-year playoff peak for both goalies (Esposito '70-'74, Smith '80-'84).
I'm only using the minutes they played in that situation, and estimating the shots against by using the same proportion of minutes played in the period to shots in that period. For example, if let's say the Islanders entered the 3rd period of a game leading 2-1, then they score at the 12 minute mark of the 3rd and win 3-1, giving up 12 shots in the period: Smith would be credited with 12 minutes of play with a one-goal lead, and be assumed to have faced 7 shots in that situation (60% of 12). It's not precise, but it's probably close.
First, here's how they did with the game tied in the 3rd period or overtime:
Goalie
Min
GA
Shots
GAA
Save%
Tony Esposito
214
12
96
3.36
.875
Billy Smith
389
10
185
1.54
.946
A clear advantage for Smith. The gap would be even bigger if numbers were adjusted for era, considering that NHL GAAs were higher, and save percentages lower, in the early 80s than in the early 70s.
And here's how they did with their team ahead by a goal in the 3rd period:
Goalie
Min
GA
Shots
GAA
Save%
Tony Esposito
321
8
164
1.50
.951
Billy Smith
290
16
146
3.31
.890
The numbers are almost completely reversed here, with Esposito having the better record by a wide margin. The only thing keeping Smith's numbers even respectable is 1983. Take away that year, and for the other four playoffs he has a GAA of 4.05 and a save% of .870. Interesting to note that despite playing and winning more games, Smith surprisingly has less minutes with a one-goal lead than Esposito. It seems like whenever the Islanders scored to break a tie in the 3rd, they'd score the insurance goal very quickly afterwards.
There's that old cliched expression about Grant Fuhr that "if the Oilers were leading 6-1, he might give up the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th goal, but he'd never give up the 6th one." For Smith it might be accurate to say "he'd give up the tying goal, but he'd never give up the winner."
If this were compared to the numbers of other top goalies over the years, I highly doubt any of them would have a better record than Smith with the game tied, or a worse record than Smith when up by a goal.
When one talks about a goalie being "clutch" in the playoffs, they're usually referring to two situations:
1) How a goalie performs when the game is tied in the 3rd period or overtime
2) How a goalie performs with his team ahead by one goal in the 3rd period
In an effort to see compare playoff clutch play between the two goalies, I decided to go through the HSP summaries game-by-game and recorded how they did in both those situations. I used what was generally considered to be the five-year playoff peak for both goalies (Esposito '70-'74, Smith '80-'84).
I'm only using the minutes they played in that situation, and estimating the shots against by using the same proportion of minutes played in the period to shots in that period. For example, if let's say the Islanders entered the 3rd period of a game leading 2-1, then they score at the 12 minute mark of the 3rd and win 3-1, giving up 12 shots in the period: Smith would be credited with 12 minutes of play with a one-goal lead, and be assumed to have faced 7 shots in that situation (60% of 12). It's not precise, but it's probably close.
First, here's how they did with the game tied in the 3rd period or overtime:
Goalie
Min
GA
Shots
GAA
Save%
Tony Esposito
214
12
96
3.36
.875
Billy Smith
389
10
185
1.54
.946
A clear advantage for Smith. The gap would be even bigger if numbers were adjusted for era, considering that NHL GAAs wre higher, and save percentages lower, in the early 80s than in the early 70s.
And here's how they did with their team ahead by a goal in the 3rd period:
Goalie
Min
GA
Shots
GAA
Save%
Tony Esposito
321
8
164
1.50
.951
Billy Smith
290
16
146
3.31
.890
The numbers are almost completely reversed here, with Esposito having the better record by a wide margin. The only thing keeping Smith's numbers even respectable is 1983. Take away that year, and for the other four playoffs he has a GAA of 4.05 and a save% of .870.
There's that old cliched expression about Grant Fuhr that "if the Oilers were leading 6-1, he might give up the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th goal, but he'd never give up the 6th one." For Smith it might be accurate to say "he'd give up the tying goal, but he'd never give up the winner."
If this were compared to the numbers of other top goalies over the years, I highly doubt any of them would have a better record than Smith with the game tied, or a worse record than Smith when up by a goal.
I think this is a good attempt but I don't think that you can average shots out very accurately. Don't they often tend to come in bunches?
I think this is a good attempt but I don't think that you can average shots out very accurately. Don't they often tend to come in bunches?
As I said, it's an estimate and not precise. But I think like anything else, or the course of more and more games, things like shots coming in bunches would even out as the sample gets larger.
The shots for when the games were tied are likely more accurate, since overtime made up a lot of those minutes, and there's no need to estimate overtime shots because they would be the same as in the game summary.
As I said, it's an estimate and not precise. But I think like anything else, or the course of more and more games, things like shots coming in bunches would even out as the sample gets larger.
The shots for when the games were tied are likely more accurate, since overtime made up a lot of those minutes, and there's no need to estimate overtime shots because they would be the same as in the game summary.
I agree, and obviously you noted the issue in your OP.
However, this one is a pretty small sample to be hoping that it averaged out.
When one talks about a goalie being "clutch" in the playoffs, they're usually referring to two situations:
1) How a goalie performs when the game is tied in the 3rd period or overtime
2) How a goalie performs with his team ahead by one goal in the 3rd period
In an effort to see compare playoff clutch play between the two goalies, I decided to go through the HSP summaries game-by-game and recorded how they did in both those situations. I used what was generally considered to be the five-year playoff peak for both goalies (Esposito '70-'74, Smith '80-'84).
I'm only using the minutes they played in that situation, and estimating the shots against by using the same proportion of minutes played in the period to shots in that period. For example, if let's say the Islanders entered the 3rd period of a game leading 2-1, then they score at the 12 minute mark of the 3rd and win 3-1, giving up 12 shots in the period: Smith would be credited with 12 minutes of play with a one-goal lead, and be assumed to have faced 7 shots in that situation (60% of 12). It's not precise, but it's probably close.
First, here's how they did with the game tied in the 3rd period or overtime:
Goalie
Min
GA
Shots
GAA
Save%
Tony Esposito
214
12
96
3.36
.875
Billy Smith
389
10
185
1.54
.946
A clear advantage for Smith. The gap would be even bigger if numbers were adjusted for era, considering that NHL GAAs were higher, and save percentages lower, in the early 80s than in the early 70s.
And here's how they did with their team ahead by a goal in the 3rd period:
Goalie
Min
GA
Shots
GAA
Save%
Tony Esposito
321
8
164
1.50
.951
Billy Smith
290
16
146
3.31
.890
The numbers are almost completely reversed here, with Esposito having the better record by a wide margin. The only thing keeping Smith's numbers even respectable is 1983. Take away that year, and for the other four playoffs he has a GAA of 4.05 and a save% of .870. Interesting to note that despite playing and winning more games, Smith surprisingly has less minutes with a one-goal lead than Esposito. It seems like whenever the Islanders scored to break a tie in the 3rd, they'd score the insurance goal very quickly afterwards.
There's that old cliched expression about Grant Fuhr that "if the Oilers were leading 6-1, he might give up the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th goal, but he'd never give up the 6th one." For Smith it might be accurate to say "he'd give up the tying goal, but he'd never give up the winner."
If this were compared to the numbers of other top goalies over the years, I highly doubt any of them would have a better record than Smith with the game tied, or a worse record than Smith when up by a goal.
I realize it isn't 100% perfect (the study) but it certainly ties into how many felt about Smith as a clutch goalie and the numbers seem to show him to be unpenetrable to allow the winning goal.
Our memories as fans can be fuzzy at times if we just rely solely on our memory, but there is also a reason we got those memories in the first place. How it happened is important as well and no one ever associates losing with Billy Smith. Now with Esposito.............well, you don't associate winning with him.
When one talks about a goalie being "clutch" in the playoffs, they're usually referring to two situations:
1) How a goalie performs when the game is tied in the 3rd period or overtime
2) How a goalie performs with his team ahead by one goal in the 3rd period
In an effort to see compare playoff clutch play between the two goalies, I decided to go through the HSP summaries game-by-game and recorded how they did in both those situations. I used what was generally considered to be the five-year playoff peak for both goalies (Esposito '70-'74, Smith '80-'84).
I'm only using the minutes they played in that situation, and estimating the shots against by using the same proportion of minutes played in the period to shots in that period. For example, if let's say the Islanders entered the 3rd period of a game leading 2-1, then they score at the 12 minute mark of the 3rd and win 3-1, giving up 12 shots in the period: Smith would be credited with 12 minutes of play with a one-goal lead, and be assumed to have faced 7 shots in that situation (60% of 12). It's not precise, but it's probably close.
First, here's how they did with the game tied in the 3rd period or overtime:
Goalie
Min
GA
Shots
GAA
Save%
Tony Esposito
214
12
96
3.36
.875
Billy Smith
389
10
185
1.54
.946
A clear advantage for Smith. The gap would be even bigger if numbers were adjusted for era, considering that NHL GAAs were higher, and save percentages lower, in the early 80s than in the early 70s.
And here's how they did with their team ahead by a goal in the 3rd period:
Goalie
Min
GA
Shots
GAA
Save%
Tony Esposito
321
8
164
1.50
.951
Billy Smith
290
16
146
3.31
.890
The numbers are almost completely reversed here, with Esposito having the better record by a wide margin. The only thing keeping Smith's numbers even respectable is 1983. Take away that year, and for the other four playoffs he has a GAA of 4.05 and a save% of .870. Interesting to note that despite playing and winning more games, Smith surprisingly has less minutes with a one-goal lead than Esposito. It seems like whenever the Islanders scored to break a tie in the 3rd, they'd score the insurance goal very quickly afterwards.
There's that old cliched expression about Grant Fuhr that "if the Oilers were leading 6-1, he might give up the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th goal, but he'd never give up the 6th one." For Smith it might be accurate to say "he'd give up the tying goal, but he'd never give up the winner."
If this were compared to the numbers of other top goalies over the years, I highly doubt any of them would have a better record than Smith with the game tied, or a worse record than Smith when up by a goal.
Can I ask, where do you get these situational statistics?
Thank you for doing the work I would never be willing to do.
When you aggregate those numbers, you end up with Espo having a .923 sv% and Smith .921. Adjust for the small era difference and you're looking at more or less the same performance level (with the caveat that these numbers may not be 100% accurate - but I agree with you that they should be very close over the sample size you're looking at)
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.
Disagree.
Pre-conceived ideas of how Niemi would perform prior to the playoffs skewed many people's opinion of him. Lots of talk about how Chicago's only weakness might be between the pipes heading into April. In reality, Niemi had a half-season no worse than Mikka Kiprusoff in 2004, but instead of winning games 2-1 and being the star of the show, he won games 5-1 and was overlooked in favour of bigger stars on the team.
When the Hawks lost their playoff opener after an awful goal in the third period, Niemi's name was mud and short of stealing a series, there was nothing he was going to do to change that. He shut out the Preds next time out, a 2-0 win in which the Hawks were badly outplayed for two periods, but nobody remembers that, or the Game 4 shutout where their backs were against the wall down 2-1 in the series.
Niemi made lots of big saves in the Vancouver series early in games that Chicago would blow open later on. Against a good system team like the Canucks, don't underestimate the importance of not falling behind early.
Niemi was great against San Jose. Stole Game 1 in San Jose to start Chicago off on the right foot, and was very solid the rest of the way, making over 40 saves in an OT win in Game 3.
Everyone remembers the Game 1 goaltending debacle in the finals, but again, Niemi proved his worth by holding down the fort in a 2-1 win in Game 2, in which he was first star. After Chicago conceded a flukey goal in the dying minutes of Game 6 to let Philly tie, Niemi made a couple of monstrous saves in the final two minutes to ensure the game made it to OT where Kane scored.
Overall, Niemi was a 1st star three times, and a 2nd or 3rd star three others. I would consider 5 of those 6 games crucial situations.
Smythe caliber performance? No. But the Hawks hardly won "in spite of him". He delivered when he needed to.
Pre-conceived ideas of how Niemi would perform prior to the playoffs skewed many people's opinion of him. Lots of talk about how Chicago's only weakness might be between the pipes heading into April. In reality, Niemi had a half-season no worse than Mikka Kiprusoff in 2004, but instead of winning games 2-1 and being the star of the show, he won games 5-1 and was overlooked in favour of bigger stars on the team.
When the Hawks lost their playoff opener after an awful goal in the third period, Niemi's name was mud and short of stealing a series, there was nothing he was going to do to change that. He shut out the Preds next time out, a 2-0 win in which the Hawks were badly outplayed for two periods, but nobody remembers that, or the Game 4 shutout where their backs were against the wall down 2-1 in the series.
Niemi made lots of big saves in the Vancouver series early in games that Chicago would blow open later on. Against a good system team like the Canucks, don't underestimate the importance of not falling behind early.
Niemi was great against San Jose. Stole Game 1 in San Jose to start Chicago off on the right foot, and was very solid the rest of the way, making over 40 saves in an OT win in Game 3.
Everyone remembers the Game 1 goaltending debacle in the finals, but again, Niemi proved his worth by holding down the fort in a 2-1 win in Game 2, in which he was first star. After Chicago conceded a flukey goal in the dying minutes of Game 6 to let Philly tie, Niemi made a couple of monstrous saves in the final two minutes to ensure the game made it to OT where Kane scored.
Overall, Niemi was a 1st star three times, and a 2nd or 3rd star three others. I would consider 5 of those 6 games crucial situations.
Smythe caliber performance? No. But the Hawks hardly won "in spite of him". He delivered when he needed to.
You watched the 2010 final didn't you? It wasn't pretty at all. The Hawks didn't have a lot of interest keeping him either though did they? But just to compare, is there a goalie in the last 50, 60 years to have played as poorly as Niemi did for a Cup winning team?
Thank you for doing the work I would never be willing to do.
When you aggregate those numbers, you end up with Espo having a .923 sv% and Smith .921. Adjust for the small era difference and you're looking at more or less the same performance level (with the caveat that these numbers may not be 100% accurate - but I agree with you that they should be very close over the sample size you're looking at)
But it still shows that Smith rarely let a winner go past him while Esposito did on a regular basis (postseason we are talking about).
I realize it isn't 100% perfect (the study) but it certainly ties into how many felt about Smith as a clutch goalie and the numbers seem to show him to be unpenetrable to allow the winning goal.
Our memories as fans can be fuzzy at times if we just rely solely on our memory, but there is also a reason we got those memories in the first place. How it happened is important as well and no one ever associates losing with Billy Smith. Now with Esposito.............well, you don't associate winning with him.
first, I both applaud and express concern over the stamina you and seventieslord have for this thread - unbelievable!
on the bolded part, brilliant point.
overall, there's still a huge disconnect in much of the logic in this thread that implies that all games are of equal value/importance. That a body of work over hundreds of regular season games and playoff games are to be evaluated the same way.
Why not count pre-season games?
pre-season < regular season < playoffs < finals
(international play, canada cup, olympics, world cup, are there with finals in terms of pressure and importance (arguably)
People seem adamant that a goalie's W-L record shouldn't matter as much as save % and GAA - but isn't WHEN YOU MAKE SAVES and WHEN YOU WIN so much more important?
I argue that a save in the playoffs is more difficult to make. The pressure is different, it's your play under pressure, against the BEST, that defines greatness.
You might argue that Smith's performance in those 19 straight playoff wins is the best goaltending performance, over the longest period, of all time. To cap it off against the best offesive team in NHL history is fitting.
The stats are so secondary to the results of those few, disproportionately important games, that those stats (wins, losses, save%) should count for MORE than 20-25 regular season games. No?
This transcends Smith-Espo, applies just as well to Dionne-Lafleur, many others.
The stats are so secondary to the results of those few, disproportionately important games, that those stats (wins, losses, save%) should count for MORE than 20-25 regular season games. No?
This transcends Smith-Espo, applies just as well to Dionne-Lafleur, many others.
One concept I've never seen any of the online hockey statistic gurus attempt to do is find a way to blend together a players regular season and playoff stats into one. The main problem being that playoff games should obviously have more weight, but the question of how much more doesn't have a clear answer.
Bill James talks about this briefly in the Historical Baseball Abstract, saying that while Ted Williams played poorly in his only World Series, you don't evaluate a 20 year career on the basis of one series. Then again, a shutout in Game 7 of a playoff series should count for more than a shutout in a nothing game on the last day of the regular season when the standings have already been set.
People seem adamant that a goalie's W-L record shouldn't matter as much as save % and GAA - but isn't WHEN YOU MAKE SAVES and WHEN YOU WIN so much more important?
Agreed completely. However, W/L record is not a pure measurement of that - it includes a lot of confounding variables, most notably the strength of your teammates and the strength of your opponents.
How much of (for instance) Curtis Joseph's lack of Stanley Cup rings in his ears due to his own inadequacies, and how much was because he didn't have the help? Certainly some of each. How much of each?
Bill James talks about this briefly in the Historical Baseball Abstract, saying that while Ted Williams played poorly in his only World Series, you don't evaluate a 20 year career on the basis of one series.
Exactly. And until 2003, Barry Bonds was considered a playoff choker on the basis of a small sample size. (Now he's considered many other things, of course, but probably not a playoff choker).
You watched the 2010 final didn't you? It wasn't pretty at all.
Yes, I watched the 2010 final. And yes, Niemi crapped the bed in Game 1. But what was wrong with his performace the rest of the series? Being 1st star of a 2-1 win in Game 2 makes up for the Game 1 meltdown (which Chicago won anyway) I would say. He was nothing special in Games 3, 4, and 5, but didn't cost the team either. Game 6, as I mentioned, he came up with two enormous saves in the dying minutes. Those saves may have very well saved the Cup for Chicago. If Philly wins Game 6, who knows what happens in Game 7.
Quote:
The Hawks didn't have a lot of interest keeping him either though did they?
Well if we're going to play that game, I suppose they didn't have a lot of interest in keeping Byfuglien or Versteeg either.
Quote:
But just to compare, is there a goalie in the last 50, 60 years to have played as poorly as Niemi did for a Cup winning team?
Well, I'd hesitate to say that any Cup winning goalie has played poorly. You simply do not win the Cup without at least decent play by your netminder, especially in the cap era where teams can't monopolize enough talent to cover for bad goaltending. Was Niemi any less significant than Osgood in 2008 or Giguere in 2007, who were both great when they had to be, but generally overshaddowed by other players on their team?
Keep in mind too, Chicago was probably the most offensive-minded champion of the last 15 years. There's no way Niemi was going to be posting a whole bunch of shutouts and one GAA games on a team that usually decided to go for goals until it was time to lock things down in the third period. It is possible to get a great goaltending performance in a 4-3 win.
Yes, I watched the 2010 final. And yes, Niemi crapped the bed in Game 1. But what was wrong with his performace the rest of the series? Being 1st star of a 2-1 win in Game 2 makes up for the Game 1 meltdown (which Chicago won anyway) I would say. He was nothing special in Games 3, 4, and 5, but didn't cost the team either. Game 6, as I mentioned, he came up with two enormous saves in the dying minutes. Those saves may have very well saved the Cup for Chicago. If Philly wins Game 6, who knows what happens in Game 7.
Well, I'd hesitate to say that any Cup winning goalie has played poorly. You simply do not win the Cup without at least decent play by your netminder, especially in the cap era where teams can't monopolize enough talent to cover for bad goaltending. Was Niemi any less significant than Osgood in 2008 or Giguere in 2007, who were both great when they had to be, but generally overshaddowed by other players on their team?
Well I can do it for you. There isn't a goaltending performance (I'm not even sure Osgood in 1998 qualifies) where a goalie had the least to do with a team winning the Cup than Niemi in 2010 than I have ever seen. Watching those playoffs showed me that Niemi was - at best - good enough not to screw it up against a poor goalie on the other side (Leighton). I'm not sure that's much of a compliment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco MacArthur
Exactly. And until 2003, Barry Bonds was considered a playoff choker on the basis of a small sample size. (Now he's considered many other things, of course, but probably not a playoff choker).
He did very well in 2002, but it is commonly agreed that especially in his Pirates days he did not perform well. Up until 2002, think A-Rod and the playoff reputation he had until playing very well in 2009.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco MacArthur
How much of (for instance) Curtis Joseph's lack of Stanley Cup rings in his ears due to his own inadequacies, and how much was because he didn't have the help? Certainly some of each. How much of each?
Some of it is his fault. He laid an egg in some Game 7s. Got outperformed by some mediocre goalies at times that he should have beaten. I've often said his performance in the playoffs peaked in the first round. So yeah, he shoulders SOME of the blame for sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reckoning
Bill James talks about this briefly in the Historical Baseball Abstract, saying that while Ted Williams played poorly in his only World Series, you don't evaluate a 20 year career on the basis of one series. Then again, a shutout in Game 7 of a playoff series should count for more than a shutout in a nothing game on the last day of the regular season when the standings have already been set.
You are forgiven more in Baseball than hockey for poor playoff showings. For example it is 162 games compared to 82. Plus fewer teams make the postseason. In Williams' day only two a year did and they competed for the World Series. A good example is asking how many players in hockey got into the Hall based on their postseason success? A number of them. But in Baseball? Not sure how many, if any, got in there because a World Series win put them over the top. Bill Mazeroski hitting that home run in 1960 probably is the only case I can think of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redbull
People seem adamant that a goalie's W-L record shouldn't matter as much as save % and GAA - but isn't WHEN YOU MAKE SAVES and WHEN YOU WIN so much more important?
I argue that a save in the playoffs is more difficult to make. The pressure is different, it's your play under pressure, against the BEST, that defines greatness.
You might argue that Smith's performance in those 19 straight playoff wins is the best goaltending performance, over the longest period, of all time. To cap it off against the best offesive team in NHL history is fitting.
The stats are so secondary to the results of those few, disproportionately important games, that those stats (wins, losses, save%) should count for MORE than 20-25 regular season games. No?
This transcends Smith-Espo, applies just as well to Dionne-Lafleur, many others.
I agree here. This is where the eye test - or eyewitness accounts - come in. Stats are important, they are half the battle, but they are only HALF the battle as well. Grant Fuhr's stats aren't overly good in the 1987 Canada Cup, but he put on a performance for the ages in Game #2 which was an end to end offensive game that cannot be appreciated unless it is watched. When a goalie saves a team's bacon - as Fuhr did - I think it counts for a lot more than a shutout in a 4-0 game. That goalie is the central focus on the team winning, which I think counts more. Dryden made a huge, huge save in overtime in 1979 in Game 7 against Boston. No, overall he didn't play his best in the 1979 playoffs, but he also came up big at a time when his seemingly infallible team let (O'Reilly) get a point blank chance. Luongo in the 2004 World Cup semi final made some huge saves too despite allowing a weak goal in the game. Goalies that redeem themselves even after a bad goal often seperate themselves from the losers.
This is where I believe the term "money goalie" evolves from. A short list would definitely have the likes of Roy, Smith, Fuhr, Parent, even Broda on there, among others of course.
Fair or not, a goalie has the most pressure in the postseason. They can allow the backbreaking goal or game changing save. I too, think that it holds more weight than regular season success which is why the Esposito/Smith comparison is intriguing. You have one who has much better regular season success than the other and the other having much better playoff success, probably the same margin on each side. It's why I'd lose sleep if I didn't pick Smith.
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?
Silly argument. The only stat that matters is wins. Any Player would gladly sacrifice stats of the personal nature for Stanley cup victories. Smith was $$$$$$ in the playoffs
A record number of consecutive playoff victories and 4 cups
Enough said. Who cares about the ref season smith is the better player
Silly argument. The only stat that matters is wins. Any Player would gladly sacrifice stats of the personal nature for Stanley cup victories. Smith was $$$$$$ in the playoffs
A record number of consecutive playoff victories and 4 cups
Enough said. Who cares about the ref season smith is the better player
Gee, you think?
The thread isn't about who had a more desirable career, it's about who was better at stopping pucks, and it's been a good debate on both sides so far.
By your logic we may as well put Henri Richard ahead of Wayne Gretzky. Look how many more Cups he won!
The thread isn't about who had a more desirable career, it's about who was better at stopping pucks, and it's been a good debate on both sides so far.
By your logic we may as well put Henri Richard ahead of Wayne Gretzky. Look how many more Cups he won!
Smith stats in the playoffs blew away espositos as well
You didn't read what what i said at all
Better gaa and better save percentage along with. 4 cups in a row and almost 5.
18 consecutive playoff series wins
He had better team and individual stats when it counted the most. Look his dominance in the cup finals
Smith stats in the playoffs blew away espositos as well
You didn't read what what i said at all
Better gaa and better save percentage along with. 4 cups in a row and almost 5.
18 consecutive playoff series wins
He had better team and individual stats when it counted the most. Look his dominance in the cup finals
