HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

CuJo in crunch time

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-16-2010, 05:39 PM
  #26
arrbez
bad chi
 
arrbez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,124
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to arrbez
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Those Game #7s were a 6-0 thrashing (1993) and a 5-1 drubbing (2001). Blame the players too, but Cujo let in some weak goals in that 1993 Game 7. He failed to make the big save when needed.
Would you say that game 7 loss taints, say, Brett Hull's career as much as it does Joseph's?

There's a difference between letting your team down (ala Lalime in 2004), and being one part of a horrible all-round effort.

arrbez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2010, 05:52 PM
  #27
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,710
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Is it any coincidence that Roy and Smith literally dominated when the chips were down in overtime? During the Isles dynasty I believe Smith was 11-2 in overtime. Roy on the other hand won 10 straight in 1993 alone. Eventually it goes beyond the common denominator thing.
Yeah it becomes a good goalie on a good team thing.

Roy made 51 total overtime saves over those 10 wins in 93.

Cujo made 32 saves in his 3 overtime games in 93 where he was 2-1.

In one of those 10 overtimes Roy didn't have to make a save at all.


Quote:
Yes, 2001 was in the 1st round. I said in my other post Cujo is arguably the best 1st round goalie of all time. He egineered some nice upsets. But he was always money to burn out the next round. He never had that awe inspiring playoff year, not once. That is not going to get a goalie into the HHOF.
Yes they were upsets because Cujo's team was generally not that strong. In my opinion, it wasn't so much a collapse of Joseph in the later rounds as it was a case of that was as far as he could drag the team along on his shoulders.

Quote:
Those Game #7s were a 6-0 thrashing (1993) and a 5-1 drubbing (2001). Blame the players too, but Cujo let in some weak goals in that 1993 Game 7. He failed to make the big save when needed.
He made tons of them. His team was outplayed and outshot by a wide margin over the whole series. The only reason there was a game 7 at all was because of him. And as seventies alluded to.. Cujo didn't lose game 7 on his own.. maybe he was out of gas.. who knows.

I just find it really interesting how he gets a choker label for carrying a team to a point it had no business being at in the first place.

Quote:
Again, though.. they were
Other examples would be the 1999 Sabres. All of the sudden this otherwise popgun offense scored 21 goals in a quick 5 game series against Joseph and the Leafs. It is a classic example of how Cujo's level of play dropped the deeper he got in the postseason.
I don't know if you watched the Leafs extensively during that time but similarly to St. Louis.. a huge reason the Leafs were there in the first place was Cujo. And they were hardly a defensive minded team. So again, I find it interesting how the label gets applied to a guy who plays outstanding but loses in a team game. The Leafs stunk it up against Buffalo collectively.


Quote:
The other thing is calling his game 7 in 1993 an "average" performance. If you were a coach and your goalie allowed 6 goals on 36 shots would you be happy? I am talking about THE most important game of the season too. Cujo's performance in that game was similar to Fleury's poor performance last year vs. Montreal in Game 7. It was not a good game.
I wouldn't be happy but you can't hold a team wide failure like that on the guy who stood on his head to give you a chance in game 7 to start with. He was spectacular in that series.

Quote:
Also the thing that seperates Cujo from Fuhr and others is that Fuhr adjusted to the style of each game all the time. He might have allowed 4-5 goals in a game, but the game would be up tempo and filled with end to end rushes. The key would be to never allow the game winning goal. We saw this with Fuhr in the Oilers dynasty and most notably his spectacular performance in the 1987 Canada Cup. You might shrug a bit when you see the Soviets scoring 5 goals against him a game, but the way the style of those games were, there was going to be a lot of goals. Fuhr was always up to the task.
Mainly the thing that separates Fuhr from many goalies is that he inexplicably gets credit for letting in 5 goals but closing the door which is a pretty stupid statement when you think about it for a second.

I agree when he was on he was on but I really am starting to believe that the reputation stems more from playing behind a dynasty that could trade chances than any special ability Fuhr had to give up 3-5 goals and then turn on a switch.

And I like Grant Fuhr and remember thinking the same thing about him as everyone says. "He doesn't give up the goal that breaks the teams back". I just wonder how true our perception is..

Quote:
And outside of the playoffs Joseph was not good at all. He collapsed in the dying moments of the 1996 World Cup. USA scored 3 goals on him in 3 minutes. He did not have a sharp game in Game #3 of the 1996 World Cup. He faced 14 shots in the first two periods and allowed one goal, which is fine, but there wasn't a big save from him at all in that game. USA was totally outclassed by Canada that game yet Joseph was outplayed by another religiously inconsistent goalie - Mike Richter.
Cujo was very solid outside of the playoffs. He just didn't tend to play on very good teams and even the decent teams he played on (besides Detroit) relied on him heavily.

And the Mike Richter thing is something I think is hilarious you are holding against Cujo when I think everyone will agree that Richter in 96 (particularly the final) was playing out of this world good. Cujo was quite good in that tournament. Fault him for not matching Richter but it isn't like he played badly.

Quote:
Say what you want about the 2002 Olympics, but he was terrible in that game against Sweden - his only game. The whole team had a collapse as well but he also failed to make that "big" save they needed. This is why he was never let back in the net after that game and Canada won without him. Look, I'll give Joseph credit, he was always a constant selection on Team Canada. But the sad truth is teams didn't win with Joseph, they just didn't.
Yup and Roy lit it up in his chance in 98 and Brodeur did great this past year... in the short tournament you're either on or you're not. To Brodeur's credit in 2002 he seized his chance.


Last edited by BraveCanadian: 12-16-2010 at 06:14 PM.
BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2010, 10:19 PM
  #28
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 31,042
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Is it any coincidence that Roy and Smith literally dominated when the chips were down in overtime? During the Isles dynasty I believe Smith was 11-2 in overtime. Roy on the other hand won 10 straight in 1993 alone. Eventually it goes beyond the common denominator thing.
Roy was a great goalie on good teams. Smith was a good goalie on great teams. Joseph was a good goalie on teams that were otherwise average without him.

Quote:
Yes, 2001 was in the 1st round. I said in my other post Cujo is arguably the best 1st round goalie of all time. He egineered some nice upsets. But he was always money to burn out the next round. He never had that awe inspiring playoff year, not once. That is not going to get a goalie into the HHOF.
No, that was 2002 in game 2. Not 2001... we swept Ottawa in '01, remember? There was no chance of going down 2-0 in that series.

Quote:
Those Game #7s were a 6-0 thrashing (1993) and a 5-1 drubbing (2001). Blame the players too, but Cujo let in some weak goals in that 1993 Game 7. He failed to make the big save when needed.
No save is a "big" save when your team gets outplayed that badly. The game has to be close. Which leads us to Fuhr, of course...

Quote:
Other examples would be the 1999 Sabres. All of the sudden this otherwise popgun offense scored 21 goals in a quick 5 game series against Joseph and the Leafs. It is a classic example of how Cujo's level of play dropped the deeper he got in the postseason.
Yes, "classic" Cujo. Of course you have to ignore the fact that the other time he was in round 3 he allowed 10 goals in 6 games, and then the fact that 11 games is too small a sample size to draw any conclusions about a player's ability in a certain situation.

Quote:
Also the thing that seperates Cujo from Fuhr and others is that Fuhr adjusted to the style of each game all the time. He might have allowed 4-5 goals in a game, but the game would be up tempo and filled with end to end rushes. The key would be to never allow the game winning goal. We saw this with Fuhr in the Oilers dynasty and most notably his spectacular performance in the 1987 Canada Cup. You might shrug a bit when you see the Soviets scoring 5 goals against him a game, but the way the style of those games were, there was going to be a lot of goals. Fuhr was always up to the task.
At worst, subjective unsubstantiated nonsense that is so utterly below you, collapses under any form of scrutiny or analysis, and has no place in a serious discussion.

At best - folklore.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2010, 09:48 AM
  #29
ContrarianGoaltender
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 590
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
I bolded the two things that I would like to hear an explanation about. I'm wondering aloud who "most" of these people are who thought Cujo played well in the playoffs almost all the time. A major complaint about him is that he buckled under the pressure when the chips were down.
"One night after Patrick Roy showed he's still the best clutch goalie, Curtis Joseph reminded everyone he's not far behind." May 16, 2002

"[Joseph] has a reputation for being a clutch performer." Dr. No's goalie website

The people who thought Curtis Joseph played well almost all the time in the playoffs were the people who kept selecting him for Team Canada, other league general managers who kept offering him huge contracts, sportswriters, hockey fans, pretty much the majority of the hockey world, right up until the conventional wisdom changed and the collective groupthink made everyone forget what they knew and go in the opposite direction.

I'm continually amazed by how much impact two late-career playoff series in Detroit can have on goalie reputations. The whole hockey world watched Chris Osgood repeatedly stumble in the playoffs and watched Curtis Joseph repeatedly elevate his team in the playoffs, and if you talked to people back in the early '00s there simply wouldn't even be a debate about who was the better clutch goalie. Then we have two playoff series where the Red Wings forget how to score for Cujo and Osgood gets hot at the right time behind a high-scoring powerhouse and suddenly the reputations are reversed.

If you ever wanted to know why stats are important, it's because memories tend to be limited and subjective. We can't remember every game Joseph played, so we tend to either remember all his bad ones or all his good ones, depending on what we think of the guy. And if we end up deciding late in his career that Cujo was really a choker all along, then surprise, surprise, the only things that seem to stick in the memory banks are games that confirm that viewpoint.

The notion that Curtis Joseph consistently let his teams down in pressure situations in the playoffs is absolutely and demonstrably false. In 22 career playoff games with his team facing elimination, Curtis Joseph had a 2.12 GAA and a .926 save percentage. His record in those games? 10-12. And that's the story of Joseph's playoff career right there, he played well but his team didn't score. In those 12 losses Joseph's teams scored 1.2 goals per 60 minutes of play.

Joseph also had 4 shutouts in those elimination games, plus a 1-0 OT loss against Calgary. That means that with his team's back against the wall in a do-or-die scenario and the entire season hanging in the balance, nearly one-quarter of the time the other team didn't score a single goal in regulation. What a pathetic choker.

ContrarianGoaltender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2010, 10:04 AM
  #30
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,710
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ContrarianGoaltender View Post
"One night after Patrick Roy showed he's still the best clutch goalie, Curtis Joseph reminded everyone he's not far behind." May 16, 2002

"[Joseph] has a reputation for being a clutch performer." Dr. No's goalie website

The people who thought Curtis Joseph played well almost all the time in the playoffs were the people who kept selecting him for Team Canada, other league general managers who kept offering him huge contracts, sportswriters, hockey fans, pretty much the majority of the hockey world, right up until the conventional wisdom changed and the collective groupthink made everyone forget what they knew and go in the opposite direction.

I'm continually amazed by how much impact two late-career playoff series in Detroit can have on goalie reputations. The whole hockey world watched Chris Osgood repeatedly stumble in the playoffs and watched Curtis Joseph repeatedly elevate his team in the playoffs, and if you talked to people back in the early '00s there simply wouldn't even be a debate about who was the better clutch goalie. Then we have two playoff series where the Red Wings forget how to score for Cujo and Osgood gets hot at the right time behind a high-scoring powerhouse and suddenly the reputations are reversed.

If you ever wanted to know why stats are important, it's because memories tend to be limited and subjective. We can't remember every game Joseph played, so we tend to either remember all his bad ones or all his good ones, depending on what we think of the guy. And if we end up deciding late in his career that Cujo was really a choker all along, then surprise, surprise, the only things that seem to stick in the memory banks are games that confirm that viewpoint.

The notion that Curtis Joseph consistently let his teams down in pressure situations in the playoffs is absolutely and demonstrably false. In 22 career playoff games with his team facing elimination, Curtis Joseph had a 2.12 GAA and a .926 save percentage. His record in those games? 10-12. And that's the story of Joseph's playoff career right there, he played well but his team didn't score. In those 12 losses Joseph's teams scored 1.2 goals per 60 minutes of play.

Joseph also had 4 shutouts in those elimination games, plus a 1-0 OT loss against Calgary. That means that with his team's back against the wall in a do-or-die scenario and the entire season hanging in the balance, nearly one-quarter of the time the other team didn't score a single goal in regulation. What a pathetic choker.
This is really what I am trying to get at. I was only using Curtis Joseph as an example because as you point out, he's a good one!

The more I think about it the more I believe that our perception of who is "clutch" and who is not basically boils down to "who won?".

I think the Parise/Crosby example for the Olympics is also a good one.

Now that isn't to say that some key players on the winning team aren't clutch, but in a team game why isn't a player who plays just as well in a losing cause "clutch"?.

Rarely can I think of a player who played incredibly well getting credit as a clutch player and raising his game in a losing cause.

Off the top of my head the only one I can think of is Gilmour in 93/94 but I'm pretty biased about that. Even then he gets put down by Gretzky's incredible game 7 in 93 which was "clutch" and Gilmour "came up short".


Last edited by BraveCanadian: 12-17-2010 at 10:10 AM.
BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2010, 10:47 AM
  #31
vadim sharifijanov
ugh
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 14,878
vCash: 500
i've never heard anyone argue that gilmour wasn't clutch in '93.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2010, 12:56 PM
  #32
Huddy*
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Bloomfield Hills, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,641
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to Huddy*
Where is doc no, he knows everything about goalies. just ask him!

Huddy* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2010, 02:26 PM
  #33
King Mapes
Global Moderator
The King of HF!
 
King Mapes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Regina
Posts: 26,723
vCash: 500
I watched him lots as a Leaf fan. Unreal in important games.

King Mapes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2010, 04:29 PM
  #34
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,449
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arrbez View Post
Would you say that game 7 loss taints, say, Brett Hull's career as much as it does Joseph's?

There's a difference between letting your team down (ala Lalime in 2004), and being one part of a horrible all-round effort.
Yes Lalime let his teams down. Cloutier did too. Joseph didn't let them down but he also wasn't a goalie you could win with. He is historically thought of to be a goalie who could never win the big game. I honestly think I am part of a gag on this thread because that's almost a universal thing when we think about Joseph - he didn't win the big game. I'm just wondering where the other million posters are who have said this. I know I am not the only one with this belief.

As for the Brett Hull comment, no, it does not taint his career. Why is that? Probably because he is 3rd all-time in playoff goals, and tied for 1st in playoff game winning goals. Hull won two Cups, scored a Cup winner and was the biggest thorn in the side of Canada during the 1996 World Cup. Richter played out of his mind but USA does not win without Hull either. If Joseph has a better playoff resume than that I'm all ears

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2010, 04:51 PM
  #35
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,449
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
I don't know if you watched the Leafs extensively during that time but similarly to St. Louis.. a huge reason the Leafs were there in the first place was Cujo. And they were hardly a defensive minded team. So again, I find it interesting how the label gets applied to a guy who plays outstanding but loses in a team game. The Leafs stunk it up against Buffalo collectively.
Yes, but collectively also includes a goalie as well. It isn't like Mats Sundin doesn't get the blame either. He was an okay playoff performer but it isn't the reason he'll get into the HHOF (if he does). Ask a Leaf fan back in the Pat Quinn days and they'll complain how Sundin will never carry the Leafs to a Cup. Now that you look back on it you'll see how Joseph got outclassed when the chips were down.




Quote:
Mainly the thing that separates Fuhr from many goalies is that he inexplicably gets credit for letting in 5 goals but closing the door which is a pretty stupid statement when you think about it for a second.

I agree when he was on he was on but I really am starting to believe that the reputation stems more from playing behind a dynasty that could trade chances than any special ability Fuhr had to give up 3-5 goals and then turn on a switch.

And I like Grant Fuhr and remember thinking the same thing about him as everyone says. "He doesn't give up the goal that breaks the teams back". I just wonder how true our perception is..
Fuhr was on a team that didn't pay attention to him at all. Like I said before, the style of the game dictates a lot too. In 1999 on paper you would assume John Vanbiesbrouck had a stellar postseason right? Wrong. He let in some extremely untimely soft goals. This was a low scoring series and a great goalie should adjust to the style of the game. Fuhr had games where he was going to allow goals but he was involved in so many end to end games that it was expected.

Ask yourself this. If you watched Fuhr play in the 1987 Canada Cup vs. Beezer in the 1999 playoffs who would have impressed you more? On paper you'd think Beezer, but in reality it was Fuhr. Therefore our perceptions of Fuhr are accurate.


Quote:
And the Mike Richter thing is something I think is hilarious you are holding against Cujo when I think everyone will agree that Richter in 96 (particularly the final) was playing out of this world good. Cujo was quite good in that tournament. Fault him for not matching Richter but it isn't like he played badly.
There are some Canadians to blame for the 1996 World Cup loss. Joseph is an example of someone who should shoulder some of that blame. The score was 2-1 Canada with 3:18 to go when Hull tied the game. Amonte scored the game winner 43 seconds later from a juicy rebound from Joseph. They got an empty netter and then Joseph let a so-so goal in from Deadmarsh. 5-2 final. I'd call that a collapse.

Quote:
Yup and Roy lit it up in his chance in 98 and Brodeur did great this past year... in the short tournament you're either on or you're not. To Brodeur's credit in 2002 he seized his chance.
I think Brodeur's three Stanley Cups, one Olympic Gold and one World Cup win can let us forgive him for his sub standard play in the 2010 Olympics since he is well past his prime now. The thing is those goalies had their moment where they won. When did Joseph ever win? To get into the HHOF if you don't win you'd better have a shelf full of Vezinas. Joseph has neither.

By the way I do NOT think Osgood is "clutch" all of the sudden either. Some people have all of the sudden, I do not. Watching the games he was in there was little reason to believe he was a monstrous part of his teams winning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Yes, "classic" Cujo. Of course you have to ignore the fact that the other time he was in round 3 he allowed 10 goals in 6 games, and then the fact that 11 games is too small a sample size to draw any conclusions about a player's ability in a certain situation.
Can you think of a goalie who is "clutch" that never won a championship and never once carried his team to the final? Eventually even the borderline HHOF goalies do it once or twice. Say what you want about the "feast or famine" reputation Vernon had, but he came through at the top at least some of the time. Joseph never did and the Leafs of those days had a Cup contending caliber team, they weren't the modern day New York Islanders either. I honestly can't think of a goalie who is clutch that never took his team - even once - to the final.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2010, 05:04 PM
  #36
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,449
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
This is really what I am trying to get at. I was only using Curtis Joseph as an example because as you point out, he's a good one!

The more I think about it the more I believe that our perception of who is "clutch" and who is not basically boils down to "who won?".

I think the Parise/Crosby example for the Olympics is also a good one.

Now that isn't to say that some key players on the winning team aren't clutch, but in a team game why isn't a player who plays just as well in a losing cause "clutch"?.

Rarely can I think of a player who played incredibly well getting credit as a clutch player and raising his game in a losing cause.

Off the top of my head the only one I can think of is Gilmour in 93/94 but I'm pretty biased about that. Even then he gets put down by Gretzky's incredible game 7 in 93 which was "clutch" and Gilmour "came up short".
Well for starters I think winning is the ultimate decision factor being considered "clutch". After all this is the point of the game we play every time the skates are laced. Parise is a guy who is a thorn in the side of the opposition team and in the 5 years I've watched him he DOES have the reputation was being that
"guy". The Olympics just added to that. But you were wondering about times when a player still has a reputation as being clutch without winning? I still think these guys get their due around here despite losing:

Jordan Eberle 2010 WJC - Did everything possible for his team to win. Scored two goals in the final two minutes, it doesn't get any better than this. Canada lost in OT

Trevor Linden - Great, great playoff in 1994. Played very well in Game 7 of the final scoring two goals. I am not sure if there is a player who scored twice in Game 7 of the final and lost but we know he did

Gilmour 1993 and 1994 - Nothing more the man could do to help his team win. I think we all appreciate this about him

Hasek 1998 and 1999 - Especially those years. He did everything humanly possible to win. He made the semis the first year and the final the next year. All the while having Mike Peca as his best player

Zetterberg 2009 - Would have captured his 2nd Smythe in a row had the Wings won. He shadowed Crosby and still outscored him in the final.

Alfredsson 2007 - Played well all playoffs even in the final. Too bad Heatley and Spezza (two players who have yet to step it up in the postseason) didn't show up. Alfie also had two goals in the deciding game of the final in a losing cause.

Pronger in 2006
Iginla in 2004
Bure in 1994


Not to mention all the Smythe winners on losing causes got their due that year, and still do around here I think.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2010, 02:06 PM
  #37
connellc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 238
vCash: 500
From my expirience as a Wings fan, I can tell you that Cujo was not at fault for both of Detroit's losses. Poor coaching and lack of scoring were the main culprits. I honesltly think that he was treated pretty poorly in hockeytown by sending him down to the minors when Hasek came back from retirement. He took it very professional.

connellc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2010, 12:50 AM
  #38
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 31,042
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil
I honestly can't think of a goalie who is clutch that never took his team - even once - to the final.
That is nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophecy.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2010, 10:40 AM
  #39
arrbez
bad chi
 
arrbez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,124
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to arrbez
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
As for the Brett Hull comment, no, it does not taint his career. Why is that? Probably because he is 3rd all-time in playoff goals, and tied for 1st in playoff game winning goals. Hull won two Cups, scored a Cup winner and was the biggest thorn in the side of Canada during the 1996 World Cup. Richter played out of his mind but USA does not win without Hull either. If Joseph has a better playoff resume than that I'm all ears
So the importance of a single performance hinges on how good a player's other performances have been? I know Brett Hull was a great player when the chips were down, that's why I made the comparison. I just think it's revisionist to decide one player was more at fault than any other based on what they would do in the future.

Brett Hull was an annual 50+ goal scorer who had been scoring nearly a goal-per-game in those playoffs. He was a team-worst -4 in that game, and obviously recorded 0 points. I'm not sure why his legacy should be any less tainted than Joseph's is from that loss.

As of 1993, Brett Hull had accomplished none of the things you've mentioned above. At that point in time, on May 15th 1993, he failed to make the big play when needed, just like Cujo, Janney, Shanahan, and every other player on the roster. I'm not sure how some great performances later on in his career somehow reduce the importance of that one game.


Last edited by arrbez: 12-20-2010 at 10:49 AM.
arrbez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2010, 04:20 PM
  #40
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,449
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
That is nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophecy.
So you can name a goalie in NHL history that the general hockey population would label as "clutch" who never managed to take his team to the final? I was hoping for an answer from you, but...........

Quote:
Originally Posted by arrbez View Post
So the importance of a single performance hinges on how good a player's other performances have been? I know Brett Hull was a great player when the chips were down, that's why I made the comparison. I just think it's revisionist to decide one player was more at fault than any other based on what they would do in the future.

Brett Hull was an annual 50+ goal scorer who had been scoring nearly a goal-per-game in those playoffs. He was a team-worst -4 in that game, and obviously recorded 0 points. I'm not sure why his legacy should be any less tainted than Joseph's is from that loss.

As of 1993, Brett Hull had accomplished none of the things you've mentioned above. At that point in time, on May 15th 1993, he failed to make the big play when needed, just like Cujo, Janney, Shanahan, and every other player on the roster. I'm not sure how some great performances later on in his career somehow reduce the importance of that one game.
Well you kind of answered your own question in a way. Yes, Hull had yet to win the "big" games in 1993. But it did happen eventually. That being said despite the Game 7 loss (and yes I did know he was also bad that game) he had scored very well into the playoffs even at that time.

As time went by, Hull was quickly becoming one of the best players of all time to never win the Cup. Don't think it was never brought up because it was, it was an albatross on him as well.

But post 1993 things happened to Hull. He was the best player in the 1996 World Cup as much as that pains me to say. Being a thorn in the side of Canada (and Joseph) would best describe him that autumn. Then he's part of a Cup win in 1999 (we all know his big play that year), then is right there the next year as arguably his teams best forward marching to the final in 2000. Then he won the Cup in 2002.

Hull, just like any superstar had his down year or his lacklustre game or series. Let's face it here, Crosby didn't play particularly well against Montreal in 2010. But the difference is Crosby has done spectacular prior and most likely in the future when the chips are down. In a way Crosby's Montreal series last year looked more like an isolated incident.

With Joseph these things happened all the time. There wasn't that time deep in the playoffs where he impressed you. In the first round he was always money in the bank, usually. Not so much afterwards. It's just the little things with Joseph though. In 2002 they played Carolina, a team with a mediocre offense. It isn't that Joseph allowed a ton of goals, but he lost three overtime games that series. The best chance for him to make the final and it didn't happen.

Bottom line, with Hull good things eventually happened, with Joseph they never did. This is why Hull gets forgiven easier than Joseph for 1993

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2010, 04:38 PM
  #41
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 31,042
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
So you can name a goalie in NHL history that the general hockey population would label as "clutch" who never managed to take his team to the final? I was hoping for an answer from you, but...........
You're missing the point. I don't care what the "general public" thinks about who is clutch because their way of groupthink often makes mob assessments of players that aren't always correct. Is a goalie clutch because he won a cup or two? Or did he win a cup or two because he's clutch? Is there even a such thing?

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2010, 06:31 PM
  #42
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,710
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post

Bottom line, with Hull good things eventually happened, with Joseph they never did. This is why Hull gets forgiven easier than Joseph for 1993
Frankly, this makes no sense whatsoever unless it was Joseph individually who cost the '93 series. In fact it was Joseph who made it a series in the first place.

Basically you're saying Hull became a clutch player when he played on a team good enough to win the cup (and where he was never the top player).

This is the exact sort of fallacy of memory or perception (or what have you) that I am interested in regarding who gets this elusive label "clutch".

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2010, 07:26 PM
  #43
ContrarianGoaltender
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 590
vCash: 500
For those who want further proof that Curtis Joseph does actually have a strong playoff record, regardless of how many playoff series he and his teammates won, I looked up the all-time playoff rankings for goalies in Goals Versus Threshold (see here for a detailed explanation of the stat if you are not familiar with it):

1. Patrick Roy, 117.8
2. Ed Belfour, 70.0
3. Billy Smith, 61.7
4. Ken Dryden, 57.5
5. Martin Brodeur, 56.5
6. Dominik Hasek, 55.3
7. Jacques Plante, 46.9
8. Curtis Joseph, 42.2
9. Bernie Parent, 34.4
10. Grant Fuhr, 33.9

Now keep in mind this doesn't go all the way back to the start of the NHL because of lack of data, and older goalies are slighted because they played fewer series every year. Having said that, all the goalies on the list other than Joseph are in the Hall of Fame or are going in on the first ballot, and all of the goalies on the list other than Joseph have reputations as strong playoff performers.

It is even more impressive that Joseph is on this list considering that most of the others were significantly better regular season goalies. If you re-rank those 10 goalies based on the difference between their regular season and playoff goals against averages, which is one possible way to measure improvement in the playoffs, Curtis Joseph ends up very close to the top of the list:

1. Grant Fuhr: -0.46
2. Curtis Joseph: -0.37
3. Billy Smith: -0.34
4. Ed Belfour: -0.33
5. Patrick Roy: -0.24
5. Jacques Plante: -0.24
7. Martin Brodeur: -0.21
8. Dominik Hasek: -0.18
9. Bernie Parent: -0.12
10. Ken Dryden: +0.16

That's a bit flattering to Joseph since he had some non-playoff teams that dragged his regular season numbers down, but still there's little to suggest his level of play dropped in the postseason.

ContrarianGoaltender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2010, 10:04 PM
  #44
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 31,042
vCash: 500
Brodeur and Joseph both have a GVT of 0.31 per game in the playoffs in their careers. That matches what I have seen over the years.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2010, 10:22 PM
  #45
arrbez
bad chi
 
arrbez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,124
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to arrbez
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Bottom line, with Hull good things eventually happened, with Joseph they never did. This is why Hull gets forgiven easier than Joseph for 1993
That really doesn't make any sense. You're literally (and admittedly) re-writing history based on future events that had nothing to do with the game in question.

arrbez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2010, 12:18 AM
  #46
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,337
vCash: 500
S
Quote:
o you can name a goalie in NHL history that the general hockey population would label as "clutch" who never managed to take his team to the final? I was hoping for an answer from you, but...........
Vanbiesbrouck was considered clutch before the '96 finals and would Kölzig count? He led his team to the finals sure but got swept. Byron Dafoe. Hell, I would say Lundqvist is considered clutch but has never even got passed the second round.

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2010, 04:30 AM
  #47
reckoning
Registered User
 
reckoning's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,036
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
How do these numbers compare to the best of his generation (Hasek, Roy, Brodeur, Belfour) and the next tier (any of Barrasso, Moog, Osgood, Richter, Vernon, etc)?

I'd expect most goalies, aside from the very best, would have worse stats the deeper they go into the playoffs - tougher competition.
Since TCG already posted Brodeur's numbers, here's the numbers for the other three big names from the 90s:

Patrick Roy:
1st Round: 62-30, .913
2nd Round: 40-31, .918
3rd Round: 31-24, .920
4th Round: 18-9, .931

Roy seemed to get better the longer the playoffs went.

Dominik Hasek:
1st Round: 29-23, .925
2nd Round: 19-9, .924
3rd Round: 11-11, .922
4th Round: 6-6, .933

Fairly consistent through each round.

Ed Belfour:
1st Round: 40-29, .916
2nd Round: 27-15, .926
3rd Round: 15-15, .917
4th Round: 6-9, .923

Looks like Eddie hit his peak in the second round.

While wins/losses will obviously go down as the playoffs go from round-to-round, I'm surprised that save percentages don't despite tougher opposition. Granted, you're dealing with smaller samples in the later rounds. Plus, you're not playing in each round every year, so it's not a true comparison. Belfour's 2nd round numbers were even better before the '04 loss to Philly brought them down a bit, but his 3rd and 4th numbers stay the same because he didn't play in those rounds.


Last edited by reckoning: 12-21-2010 at 02:56 PM.
reckoning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2010, 10:37 AM
  #48
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 31,042
vCash: 500
Interesting stuff, reckoning. I wonder if it tells us anything other than results can vary thanks to small sample sizes. If I combine Roy, Hasek, Brodeur, Belfour and Joseph (to make a larger sample), this is what I get. It may not be 100% perfect because I just used a simple weighting of the numbers provided in this thread:

1st round: 365 games, .919
2nd round: 232 games, .919
3rd round: 150 games, .918
4th round: 78 games, .924

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2010, 09:32 PM
  #49
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,449
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
You're missing the point. I don't care what the "general public" thinks about who is clutch because their way of groupthink often makes mob assessments of players that aren't always correct. Is a goalie clutch because he won a cup or two? Or did he win a cup or two because he's clutch? Is there even a such thing?
Well this is the history of hockey board. Cup counters usually get exposed. This is not what I am doing. To answer your questions:

Is a goalie clutch because he won a Cup or two? Not neccesarily. Example of this would be Niemi, Osgood (another debate for another day). In general when a goalie is consistently a central part of his team's success eventually the common denominator comes through and he starts to get the deserved credit of being "clutch"

Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
Frankly, this makes no sense whatsoever unless it was Joseph individually who cost the '93 series. In fact it was Joseph who made it a series in the first place.

Basically you're saying Hull became a clutch player when he played on a team good enough to win the cup (and where he was never the top player).

This is the exact sort of fallacy of memory or perception (or what have you) that I am interested in regarding who gets this elusive label "clutch".
No, Hull was still a pretty good playoff performer prior to his Cup wins. In 1990 he had 13 goals in 12 playoff games. In 1991 he had 11 goals in 13 playoff games. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize Hull contributed at a high level in the postseason even before his Cup wins.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arrbez View Post
That really doesn't make any sense. You're literally (and admittedly) re-writing history based on future events that had nothing to do with the game in question.
I'll put it in different terms. Up until 1993 Hull was better in the postseason than Joseph. He had accomplished more. Hull AND Joseph were in that Game 7 in 1993 and neither played well. We agree? Okay, but after that Hull had some big, big moments in some big games and shone through. Joseph didn't. I am simply stating that the 1993 Game 7 was more a blip on Hull's career rather than Joseph who did nothing much else great to offset it.

Not to mention, did you see some of the goals in that game let in? They aren't pretty. Does Joseph share some blame? Absolutely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrx View Post
S

Vanbiesbrouck was considered clutch before the '96 finals and would Kölzig count? He led his team to the finals sure but got swept. Byron Dafoe. Hell, I would say Lundqvist is considered clutch but has never even got passed the second round.
Actually Beezer had that knock agaisnt him prior to 1996. Even with leading the Panthers to the final that year his career in general in the playoffs is not anything I would resemble as a "money" goalie. In Rock Em Sock Em #8 Don Cherry was showing highlights of Beezer's run to the final. His exact quote word for word is: "They always said the Beezer was not a playoff goalie, but I guess he proved them wrong last year." I happen to agree with that theory.

Dafoe? Come on now, isn't that stretching it a bit? Kolzig is at least a better example yet he led his team to the final once. Lundqvist is better than Dafoe as well, but he's yet to prove it in the playoffs instead its the Olympics in 2006 which is kind of like the Cup don't you think?

I'm looking for goalies that never won the "big one". Not only that but a goalie that never took his team to the final. Funny how no one can mention a clutch goalie in that situation. In my opinion, it isn't a coincidence.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2010, 10:43 PM
  #50
blueandgoldguy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Greg's River Heights
Posts: 2,777
vCash: 500
Myown personal memories of Joseph involve him playing terribly for Canada at the 2002 Olympic Games opener against Sweden. Brodeur came in and played the rest of the tournament brilliantly and the rest in history.

Cujo < clutch player

blueandgoldguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:21 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. @2017 All Rights Reserved.