I think Lundqvist is on pace to have a much better career than Joseph, but he isn't there yet. But I really don't think he should be ranked much behind Joseph.
Lundqvist already has a significantly better Vezina record than Cujo. Joseph has many more seasons as a "pretty good" goalie, but how far does that get him?
Hence why I said there was differences I wasn't emphasizing on.
I mean, "career track" wise, Lundqvist is much closer to a Joseph than to a Thomas.
I might add that Lundqvist is the first goalie so far who probably haven't even played half of his career.
That doesn't suggest anything out of the ordinary, does it? Seems like a pretty typical split, actually. Possible home overcounting in 2006 but possible home undercounting in 2011 and 2012 probably evens out.
Edit: I guess the slightly higher road save percentage (when higher home save percentages are the norm) does suggest a small amount of home undercounting over his career.
Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 01-09-2013 at 06:14 PM.
Or maybe it's not pretending that players who didn't accomplish anything of note did, and back it up by machinations like yelling '3rd in Vezina voting!' as if it meant anything when it was 7 out of 30 ballots, and then say that Lundqvist wasn't bad in playoffs, when his 2005-06 performance wasn't just bad but absolutely dreadful.
Or making lists of 'Top save% since lockout', then setting the cutoff at 350 GP so that just 12 goalies even make it past that criterium. And then arguing where are the crappy goalies I listed on that list, when in reality they're right there with Lundqvist.
Behold the same list with cutoff at 190 GP:
Thomas .922
Vokoun .921
Rinne .921
Lundqvist .920
Luongo .919
Backstrom .918
Hiller .918
Halak .918
Howard .917
Miller .916
Price .916
Quick .916
Bryzgalov .915
Anderson .915
An era of parity and gaudy numbers for everyone.
It's a good thing my support for him never rested on things like that, right? I'd take this much more seriously if we were judging the players with the best TWO and change season stretches of SV% out of context.
TCG just explained that the support for Lundqvist is three-fold. Awards, numbers, and eye-test.
I just gave you all of the numbers for his career, it had nothing to do with how he stacks up vs other goalies from the lockout. I cherrypicked Barraso's 7 best seasons and they were comparable to the only 7 seasons Lundqvist played in.
It's just a step back to try to pretend these figures provide any meaning.
Folks - in general (not targeting anyone in particular), let's step back from discussing other posters or their motives.
I will take actions necessary to enforce the peace here, and although you may not agree with my decisions in that regard, the buck has to stop somewhere (and, unless and until Fugu or Buffaloed stop by, that lies with me ).
Thanks. Looking forward to a lively discussion (but let's focus on the goaltenders, not the posters).
It's a good thing my support for him never rested on things like that, right? I'd take this much more seriously if we were judging the players with the best TWO season stretches of SV% out of context.
TCG just explained that the support for Lundqvist is three-fold. Awards, numbers, and eye-test.
Awards? He's on the level of Jim Carey and Ryan Miller.
Numbers? Aye, he has numbers. Which lose a lot of luster when seen in the context of everyone else posting similar numbers.
And eye test? Purely subjective. By my eye test, he's a fraud. So much for that.
Goalies tend to be in the spotlight and their mistakes tend to stand out more than other players.
IMO, this is the biggest reason why we as a group have been underrating modern goalies after Belfour (and again, I'm including my own Round 1 list in that). Once you get past the first ballot HHOFers, the flaws of modern goalies really stick in the memory the way the flaws of older goalies do not.
IMO, this is the biggest reason why we as a group have been underrating modern goalies after Belfour (and again, I'm including my own Round 1 list in that). Once you get past the first ballot HHOFers, the flaws of modern goalies really stick in the memory the way the flaws of older goalies do not.
And also their attributes. Another reason you can not look at modern goalies objectively. It works both ways.
Awards? He's on the level of Jim Carey and Ryan Miller.
Numbers? Aye, he has numbers. Which lose a lot of luster when seen in the context of everyone else posting similar numbers.
And eye test? Purely subjective. By my eye test, he's a fraud. So much for that.
Why are you only focusing on awards in this case as a binary, won it or didn't win it, when for every other goaltender for this entire project everyone has been making comparisons using awards voting finishes...taking 2nd places, 3rd places, 4th places, etc. into consideration? It seems obvious to me that looking at all voting finishes, and not just wins, gives us more information.
To be clear, this is not a personal attack, the two methods of comparison show very different results in this case, and I am trying to understand why you think one way is more valuable than the other.
If you only look at Vezina wins only, Lundqvist is on the same level as the two guys you mentioned. If you consider his finishes beyond first place he has a MUCH better resume than them, as has already been shown. You are taking the former route...Tell us why that is the method you have chosen and convince us why we should be looking at it in the same way?
Either the quality of goaltending plummeted around 1980 and remained lower than it ever was in the 70s, or we are underrating modern goalies by at least a little bit.
And that's only after just including Barrasso and Joseph. Before those two were added last round, the top 28 had less representation from any period after 1980 than any time period since the 1926 consolidation with the exception of the notoriously weak late 30s/early 40s: http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...1&postcount=63
I don't think that goaltending of the last 30 or so years has been significantly worse than it was from 1945-1980. If anything, it should be stronger, since Europe is now producing NHL-calibre goalies. So yes, I do think we are underrating modern goalies at least a little bit.
Or maybe it's not pretending that players who didn't accomplish anything of note did, and back it up by machinations like yelling '3rd in Vezina voting!' as if it meant anything when it was 7 out of 30 ballots, and then say that Lundqvist wasn't bad in playoffs, when his 2005-06 performance wasn't just bad but absolutely dreadful.
Or making lists of 'Top save% since lockout', then setting the cutoff at 350 GP so that just 12 goalies even make it past that criterium. And then arguing where are the crappy goalies I listed on that list, when in reality they're right there with Lundqvist.
Behold the same list with cutoff at 190 GP:
Thomas .922
Vokoun .921
Rinne .921
Lundqvist .920
Luongo .919
Backstrom .918
Hiller .918
Halak .918
Howard .917
Miller .916
Price .916
Quick .916
Bryzgalov .915
Anderson .915
Awards? He's on the level of Jim Carey and Ryan Miller.
Numbers? Aye, he has numbers. Which lose a lot of luster when seen in the context of everyone else posting similar numbers.
And eye test? Purely subjective. By my eye test, he's a fraud. So much for that.
Awards, he's above the level of Jim Carey or Ryan Miller but not Eddie Giacomin (who didn't make my ballot last round)
Numbers, it seems you're missing the point. GARG allows you to look at them across eras and that's where Lundqvist impresses me. Look at them relative to the league average if you'd prefer.
I'm sympathetic to your opinion of the eye test even if we disagree with it's application towards Lundqvist.
There is clearly value in being "among the best in the league," something Lundqvist has been his entire career.
Since 2005-06:
Henrik Lundqvist: 468 GP, 0.920 save percentage
Rangers backups: 132 GP, 0.900 save percentage
Ryan Miller: 442 GP, 0.916 save percentage
Buffalo backups: 171 GP, 0.903 save percentage
You know whose career results look a lot like Ryan Miller's? Mike Richter, right down to the awesome performance in an international tournament for Team USA and being considered a good, but not great goalie for most of his career.
Excellent post. Food for thought: Kiprusoff as another guy who might draw "unintentional" comparison with Lundqvist, but might also be more comparable to Miller? Unlike Richter, he has that Vezina season where most would have avoided having to argue against him as the "true" #1 goalie in the league at that point. My eye test combined with the high level consistency angle puts Lundqvist above all of them, and the only one of those four that has any place near the current discussion, imo. Sorry for all the references to unvotables.
Or maybe it's not pretending that players who didn't accomplish anything of note did, and back it up by machinations like yelling '3rd in Vezina voting!' as if it meant anything when it was 7 out of 30 ballots, and then say that Lundqvist wasn't bad in playoffs, when his 2005-06 performance wasn't just bad but absolutely dreadful.
Or making lists of 'Top save% since lockout', then setting the cutoff at 350 GP so that just 12 goalies even make it past that criterium. And then arguing where are the crappy goalies I listed on that list, when in reality they're right there with Lundqvist.
Behold the same list with cutoff at 190 GP:
Thomas .922
Vokoun .921
Rinne .921
Lundqvist .920
Luongo .919
Backstrom .918
Hiller .918
Halak .918
Howard .917
Miller .916
Price .916
Quick .916
Bryzgalov .915
Anderson .915
An era of parity and gaudy numbers for everyone.
Would you not agree that getting .920 in 400 games is more impressive than getting .920 in 200 games? Everyone is getting similar numbers, but Lundqvist has maintained those numbers for a longer period of time. A lot of those goalies you listed only have 2-4 seasons as an NHL starter. Lundqvist has 7.
Excellent post. Food for thought: Kiprusoff as another guy who might draw "unintentional" comparison with Lundqvist, but might also be more comparable to Miller? .
Kipper is available this round, and I have him quite a bit over Miller, but that's partly because I give him "what if" credit for 2005. I think he's definitely behind Lundqvist - Kipper's been a little less consistent, and there are serious questions raised about Calgary overcounting shots and it inflating his save percentage.
Kipper vs Thomas is interesting maybe? Kipper was the best goalie in the league in the second half of 2004, but he didn't play enough games (38) to win the Vezina. Then he was the best goalie in the league in 2006. Then Kipper seemed to decline every year after 2006. Thomas does have the Smythe over Kipper though, which is pretty big
Edit: Full disclosure - if it weren't for recent revelations of Calgary overcounting shots, I'd probably have Kipper in my 5-8 range this round. But there's pretty convincing evidence that his stats have been helped by the home scorekeeper.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meteor
Would you not agree that getting .920 in 400 games is more impressive than getting .920 in 200 games? Everyone is getting similar numbers, but Lundqvist has maintained those numbers for a longer period of time. A lot of those goalies you listed only have 2-4 seasons as an NHL starter. Lundqvist has 7.
It's basically like a forward maintaining a point-per-game average over 7 straight seasons against doing it for 2-4 seasons. It isn't even close to the same accomplishment.
Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 01-09-2013 at 06:59 PM.
Either the quality of goaltending plummeted around 1980 and remained lower than it ever was in the 70s, or we are underrating modern goalies by at least a little bit.
And that's only after just including Barrasso and Joseph. Before those two were added last round, the top 28 had less representation from any period after 1980 than any time period since the 1926 consolidation with the exception of the notoriously weak late 30s/early 40s: http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...1&postcount=63
I don't think that goaltending of the last 30 or so years has been significantly worse than it was from 1945-1980. If anything, it should be stronger, since Europe is now producing NHL-calibre goalies. So yes, I do think we are underrating modern goalies at least a little bit.
Well. You didn't answer my point. Do you agree that with modern goalies we not only remember their flaws but also remember their attributes.
My other point which nobody replies to probably because it conflicts with their view of the world. It is hard to be objective about modern goalies. We need to assess their careers after they have retired for a few years to be objective about them. As in my Messier example for skaters. Do you agree or not?
I think this list will be subject to a lot of ridicule if we start slapping a lot of modern goaltenders on at the end especially when one looks at the demographics of the voters..
Would you not agree that getting .920 in 400 games is more impressive than getting .920 in 200 games? Everyone is getting similar numbers, but Lundqvist has maintained those numbers for a longer period of time. A lot of those goalies you listed only have 2-4 seasons as an NHL starter. Lundqvist has 7.
The games played point is an important one, but just wanted to clarify that everyone is not actually getting similar numbers. The last few seasons were much lower scoring than the first couple of seasons right after the lockout while the new rules were being applied and heavily enforced, which makes it look like guys who played all the way through do not separate themselves from the rest of the pack as much as they actually did.
League average save percentage:
2005-06: .901
2006-07: .905
2007-08: .909
2008-09: .908
2009-10: .911
2010-11: .913
2011-12: .914
That's a huge improvement in six seasons, so much so that the difference in average save percentage between 2011-12 and 2005-06 is the same as the difference between 2005-06 and 1991-92.
That's how guys like Jimmy Howard who became starters in 2009-10 can show up not far below much better goalies in the post-lockout list. If you adjust the save percentages relative to league average, the cream rises to the top. Take, for example, the top goalies since 2009-10 (a period of relatively consistent average save percentage) with 100 or more GP. It's Thomas at #1 with .926, Lundqvist #2 with .924, Rinne and Vokoun at .922 (two guys with probably slightly inflated stats), Miller in 5th at .921 and everyone else at .920 or lower.
Here are Lundqvist's annual save percentages adjusted to the 2011-12 league average of .914:
Lot of power plays in 2006, CG, no? That must have some effect on those numbers I feel, no? Though, it's not very relevant to your point in general, it just caught my eye...
Well. You didn't answer my point. Do you agree that with modern goalies we not only remember their flaws but also remember their attributes.
My other point which nobody replies to probably because it conflicts with their view of the world. It is hard to be objective about modern goalies. We need to assess their careers after they have retired for a few years to be objective about them. As in my Messier example for skaters. Do you agree or not?
I think this list will be subject to a lot of ridicule if we start slapping a lot of modern goaltenders on at the end.
I definitely agree that you get a clearer picture and can more accurately rank a player after letting some time pass after his retirement. However, that is something that should've been brought up during the infant stages of the project where we could have made a rule that required candidates to be retired for x number of years. That didn't happen, so people are doing their best when looking at active players to pretend their careers suddenly ended at the end of last season. It's not perfect, but it's the best you can do if you are going to make a list that includes active players. Hopefully, when people read this list they will take the date it was created into consideration when looking at active players. I know I do whenever I look at lists like this.
Lot of power plays in 2006, CG, no? That must have some effect on those numbers I feel, no? Though, it's not very relevant to your point in general, it just caught my eye...
Absolutely, 5.85 power play opportunities per team per game in 2005-06 compared to 3.31 last season. Big part of why goalie numbers were lower that year.
I definitely agree that you get a clearer picture and can more accurately rank a player after letting some time pass after his retirement. However, that is something that should've been brought up during the infant stages of the project where we could have made a rule that required candidates to be retired for x number of years. That didn't happen, so people are doing their best when looking at active players to pretend their careers suddenly ended at the end of last season. It's not perfect, but it's the best you can do if you are going to make a list that includes active players. Hopefully, when people read this list they will take the date it was created into consideration when looking at active players. I know I do whenever I look at lists like this.
I think the demographics of the voters is important also and the ages at least should be divulged.
Well. You didn't answer my point. Do you agree that with modern goalies we not only remember their flaws but also remember their attributes
I thought I answered. I said that in theory, yes, we do remember the attributes of modern goalies as well as the flaws. But I think it's crystal clear from the final composition of our list, that we (as a group) are remembering the flaws more. Perhaps it goes both ways. Maybe we are overrating Hasek and Roy because we remember their dominance more (it does seem kind of strange that the top 2 of all time were born in the same calendar year). But for lesser, more flawed goalies (the Barrassos, Cujos, Lundqvists, Luongos of the world), I think it's pretty obvious that we are hanging on the flaws too hard.
Quote:
My other point which nobody replies to probably because it conflicts with their view of the world. It is hard to be objective about modern goalies. We need to assess their careers after they have retired for a few years to be objective about them. As in my Messier example for skaters. Do you agree or not?
I think it can be hard to assess someone like Tim Thomas who has such a dominant 2-3 seasons, but such a thin career otherwise, but hard to assess doesn't mean we should just throw him in the rubbish. But, I don't think it's that hard to assess someone like Lundqvist who has been borderline elite for 8 straight seasons. I think 8 years is enough of a sample to know how good he is.
Quote:
I think this list will be subject to a lot of ridicule if we start slapping a lot of modern goaltenders on at the end especially when one looks at the demographics of the voters..
I think the stereotype of the history board is "a bunch of old men sitting around talking about how hockey was better in the old days," and I think we were really close to that idea having merit when we didn't have a single goalie who did anything after 1990 (and only Fuhr who did something after 1985) between 16th and 28th place. Last round definitely helped "even things out" though, at least a little.
I agree with you that we shouldn't just slap modern goalies on at the end. But at this point, IMO, we are still making up for the complete lack of modern goalies in the 16-28 range.
Well. You didn't answer my point. Do you agree that with modern goalies we not only remember their flaws but also remember their attributes.
My other point which nobody replies to probably because it conflicts with their view of the world. It is hard to be objective about modern goalies. We need to assess their careers after they have retired for a few years to be objective about them. As in my Messier example for skaters. Do you agree or not?
I think this list will be subject to a lot of ridicule if we start slapping a lot of modern goaltenders on at the end especially when one looks at the demographics of the voters..
I agree that it is hard to be objective about modern goalies, and I agree that it is risky to rank modern goalies. But, just like you correctly argue it works both ways in that we know both the strengths and flaws of modern guys, it also works both ways in that we might just be horribly underrating some modern guys in the guise of conservatism. We might be subject to ridicule for ranking some modern goalies too high, but it's also very possible that we would be subject to ridicule for not including or underrating guys who might go down as eventual top 15 or 20 guys for doing more or less the same thing they are already doing for a bunch more seasons.
For example, I have the book Without Fear by Kevin Allen and Bob Duff, written in 2002, which includes their ranking of the top 50 goalies of all time. They have Hasek at #5 after his first retirement (which I think is underrating him), they have Brodeur at #21 and Belfour at #27 (which is probably underrating both of them, especially Belfour), they have Mike Vernon at #31 (way too high), Mike Richter at #37 (way too high), Curtis Joseph at #45 (way too low), Chris Osgood at #48 (way too high) and John Vanbiesbrouck at #50 (way too low).
A lot of those errors come from Cup counting, but looking beyond that factor I think they were generally putting modern guys lower than they deserved. It's fair to be somewhat conservative in terms of the rankings, but if you go overboard on it you can end up looking just as bad as if you overrated them.
).
Excellent post. Food for thought: Kiprusoff as another guy who might draw "unintentional" comparison with Lundqvist, but might also be more comparable to Miller? Unlike Richter, he has that Vezina season where most would have avoided having to argue against him as the "true" #1 goalie in the league at that point. My eye test combined with the high level consistency angle puts Lundqvist above all of them, and the only one of those four that has any place near the current discussion, imo. Sorry for all the references to unvotables.
