"Terry Sawchuk has been unanimously considered the greatest goaltender ever, but Patrick Roy has surpassed everything that he did. In the four Stanley Cups that Roy won, he was the Conn Smythe Trophy winner three times. When his team needed him, he was a difference-maker. He was a superstar in longevity, wins and championships, and that's why he'll be known as the greatest."
Darren Pang, May 28, 2003
I am continually fascinated that only career numbers and team success seem to matter to a lot of people when ranking goalies, even to former NHL goalies like Darren Pang. Notice that Pang never mentioned MVP voting, Vezina Trophies, First Team All-Stars, save percentage, GAA, or the number of times Roy led the league in various categories. The only things he focused on were career length (longevity) and team success (wins and championships).
If players were ranked according to similar criteria, Mario Lemieux and Bobby Orr would be replaced by Henri Richard and Red Kelly in the all-time rankings lists. All kinds of other weird results would follow, like Scott Stevens (1635 games, 3 Cups, 1 Conn Smythe) being better than Ray Bourque (1612 games, 1 Cup, 0 Conn Smythes), Mark Messier (1756 games, 6 Cups, 1 Conn Smythe) ranking ahead of Wayne Gretzky (1487 games, 4 Cups, 2 Conn Smythes), and Ron Francis (1798 career points, 2 Cups) coming out ahead of Bobby Hull (1170 career points, 1 Cup).
There is simply a different standard for goalies. It becomes even more frustrating when the same person who argues that Brodeur was better then Hasek because he was more durable and more reliable will turn around and take Bobby Orr over Gordie Howe and Eddie Shore over Ray Bourque.
The excess focus on goalie longevity makes career records far more prized than single-season records among goalies. Terry Sawchuk's 103 career shutouts is one of the most famous records in hockey, but I doubt many people could identify George Hainsworth as the single season record-holder, much less how many shutouts he had that one season (22). On the other hand, ask someone to name Gretzky's career goal total and then his single-season goal scoring record, and far more people will get the second one right than the first.
This has led to the perception that Martin Brodeur will be some kind of Gretzky-like record breaker (this view is illustrated by a commentor on NJ.com Sports who claims that "Marty will have shattered every goaltending record known to man"). Actually, Martin Brodeur will almost certainly never set or hold any record for either goals against average or save percentage, including career, seasonal, playoff career, playoff season, or number of times leading the league in either one. Even if you look at just results in the modern era, Brodeur would still be shut out of all of the above.
Out of the dozens of major goalie records out there Brodeur will likely end up holding 7 of them, 6 of which are for either wins or shutouts and the last one for the most regular season games played. That is still impressive, to be sure, but implying that Brodeur is completely wiping the slate clean of everyone else past or present is way overstating it.
It doesn't make any sense to take into account both peak and career when evaluating players, but then rely exclusively on longevity and team success to rank goalies. Both peak performance and longevity should be factored in and team success should be secondary to individual performance to arrive at the best possible ranking for both players and goalies.
15 comments:
Interesting post.
Both peak performance and longevity should be factored in and team success should be secondary to individual performance to arrive at the best possible ranking for both players and goalies.
I mostly agree with this. It's also important to marry the two concepts together, i.e. longevity of peak performance, which is where Brodeur's career is exemplary. Some nice high peaks like 7 shutouts in one playoff season -- oops, forgot, that's not indivdual success, that's team success (eye roll) -- but what is outstanding about his career is the breadth of its curve, and how close to peak value he delivers season over season.
The difficulty comes in any attempt to divorce team success from individual success. You could argue that Wins is "just" a team stat, when any goalie worth his salt will tell you he's playing to win. If your goalie isn't a team player, you're in trouble. Indeed most of his stats are very much a measure of his team, not just Wins and Shutouts but GAA and even Sv% ... you can't get away from team effects. The goalie's record reflects the defensive performance of the team, while he is himself the single most important contributor to that defence.
(Indeed, an argument could be made that the single metric that best represents individual performance is GP. How often did that goalie convince his coach that he was the best choice to play tonight?)
Of course the skaters are playing to win too. Just because they don't have a column for Wins doesn't mean that their team's performance shouldn't be factored in. I like to include team success as a measure of a player's career, despite the obvious pitfalls that not every player is given the same opportunity -- which is no different than for goalies. But to try to isolate on a player's indivdual stats as if they weren't influenced by his teammates is silly, no matter what position. So there will always be room for debate, as to why I might value this or that metric differently than you.
Sometimes the difference in team success is extreme enough to make the difference in such judgements as these:
Guy Lafleur > Marcel Dionne
Glenn Anderson > Mike Gartner
Serge Savard > Brad Park
Bernie Parent > Tony Esposito
The latter is definitively a case where peak value is judged more highly than longevity, cuz at his peak Parent was great enough to be a difference-maker on a championship team. But by the same token he would come out second best in these judgements:
Patrick Roy > Bernie Parent
Martin Brodeur > Bernie Parent
.. cuz the other two Quebecois superstars not only played far longer, but retained their peak value for far longer.
There is simply a different standard for goalies.
CG: If you look at the list of Conn Smythe Trophy winners, it would seem that team success is less of a consideration for goalies than skaters:
Goalies:
10 Stanley Cup champions
4 runners-up
-------------------------
14 Smythe winners
Skaters:
28 Stanley Cup champions
1 runner-up
-------------------------
29 Smythe winners
I'll say there's a different standard! :)
Wouldn't it be 5 times as likely for a skater (3 fwds, 2 d'men) to win the Conn vs a goalie?
My comment spoke specifically to the connection to team success. Clearly the voters think that goaltending is the most important position:
14 G
13 C
9 D
5 RW
2 LW
-----
43
I'm not saying what's right or wrong, just what is.
While I categorically disagree with moronic comments like "Hockey is 75% goaltending" or "100%" or whatever silly figure, I would at least be prepared to consider a number like 1/3. It's of course simplistic to divide the team into forwards, defence and goaltending, but I don't think it's wrong that a successful team has to be solid at worst in each position, and outstanding at one if not two of the three. That's where a single great goalie can have a bigger influence on a team than a single great player at another position. (e.g. for argument's sake: Roberto Luongo, Rick Nash)
what is outstanding about his career is the breadth of its curve, and how close to peak value he delivers season over season.
I very much disagree with your assessment of Brodeur's career curve. Brodeur's play from 1994-1998 and 2006-2008 far surpasses what he achieved in those middle years. I think you are overrating his 1999-2004 stretch and underrating his play from 1994-1998 and 2006-2008 because of your perception of Brodeur's consistency, and because the team climate was similar enough to make it all look similar at face value (i.e. consistent wins and shutout totals).
If Brodeur played his entire career like he has played the last two and a half seasons, this site would most definitely have a different name. But if Brodeur played his entire career like he did between 1998-99 and 2003-04, then he could play for 25 years and get 800 wins and I probably still wouldn't rank him in the top 10 all-time because he would just be a compiler like Mike Gartner - always good, never great.
I don't think Brodeur has ever in his career put together 4 straight elite seasons. A lot of good seasons, yes, but not completely dominant ones. In my book, Roberto Luongo has already in his short career demonstrated a greater level of consistent dominance than Brodeur has. Luongo hasn't been below .914 since 1999-00. In that same period Brodeur has only been above that mark 3 times in 7 seasons.
Brodeur has longevity, and his peak seasons are pretty good, I do agree. But in terms of a consistently dominant peak, Brodeur is nowhere near the top of the heap.
I very much disagree with your assessment of Brodeur's career curve. Brodeur's play from 1994-1998 and 2006-2008 far surpasses what he achieved in those middle years
OK, I'll bite.
if Brodeur played his entire career like he did between 1998-99 and 2003-04, then he could play for 25 years and get 800 wins and I probably still wouldn't rank him in the top 10 all-time because he would just be a compiler like Mike Gartner - always good, never great.
That’s a poor comparison. While he compiled solid career numbers, Mike Gartner never led the league in a single category, cracking the top 5 in goals once (5th in 1990-91) and the top 10 in points once (10th in 1984-85). Martin Brodeur has led NHL goalies in Wins 8 times, in Pts 8 times, in shutouts 4 times, and in GAA once. Gartner never once made a post-season All-Star team; Brodeur has made 8. Gartner never won a major trophy; Brodeur has won 9. Gartner compiled the numbers at a high but not elite level; Brodeur has been elite in every counting stat for goalies year after year after year. You can explain that all away with your rationalizations as to why this or that metric doesn’t matter or is inflated by GP or is all due to team effects yada yada, but those stats are there for anybody who cares to look. 95% of hockey fans would call them great numbers, and the other 5% are just jealous.
I don't think Brodeur has ever in his career put together 4 straight elite seasons.
Wow, a fastball right down the middle. I’ll meet you on your own turf and look at what Brodeur did during those “middle years” when he supposedly didn’t achieve much. Since his seasons actually don’t change much one to the next, for ease of reference I will present his “average” season during that span:
72 GP
40 Wins
22 Losses
10 "Ties"
90 Pts.
7 SO
.621 Pts%
2.17 GAA
.910 Sv%
That’s your idea of an indifferent season?? Huh ... I know you will write off his 5 out of 6 years leading the league in Wins (came in second the other year), and the fact that only once did he even make the Top 10 in Losses (10th in 2003-04) as all team effects. Sure they were – and he is part of the team. A huge part of that team.
Looking at percentages, his Sv% for those 6 years was a .003 better than the league norm, a modest advantage but above average. His GAA was 0.45 below league average. If there was a more consistent goalie in the NHL through those 6 seasons, I can't think of who he was.
Let’s move on to the playoffs; again here’s an “average year” for those 6 seasons:
15 GP
9-6
2 SO
.589 Pts%
1.88 GAA
.916 Sv%
Oh yeah, then there’s the small matter of those two Stanley Cups, which nicely complement his pair of Vezina Trophies, Jennings Trophies, and First Team All-Star selections. These just during his “poor” years, he actually did get better after that.
Lest we forget, there were those two best-on-best international tournaments during that time. Let’s review those while we’re at it:
2002 Olympics: 4-0-1, .900, 1.80, .917
2004 World Cup: 5-0-0, 1.000, 1.00, .961
That's 9-0-1, .950, 1.40, .941 for those scoring at home. And let’s add two more baubles to the bulging trophy case in the form of Gold Medals. That's four MAJOR championships during those six middling, mid-career years.
Wow ... imagine what he could have done if he had played up to par during that stretch of his career.
"95% of hockey fans would call them great numbers, and the other 5% are just jealous."
Great numbers, I suppose, but what do the numbers themselves mean, & how did he get those numbers?
That's what this site is about: rationally assessing goalie performance, not fawning over counting numbers.
It is probably true that a large majority of hockey fans are too mathematically illiterate to see beyond the counting numbers, though.
Great numbers, I suppose
The first step is recognition ...
That's what this site is about: rationally assessing goalie performance, not fawning over counting numbers.
Yeah, that's why I used to like this site. Now I can't seem to get past first base with some guy whose idea of numbers are, in order of importance, Sv%.
It is probably true that a large majority of hockey fans are too mathematically illiterate to see beyond the counting numbers, though.
Nice compliment to hockey fans there, Anon. I think the first thing most fans look at, even before counting numbers, is performance. And Ranger fans aside, most hockey fans will agree that Martin Brodeur's performance has been consistently excellent for pretty much his entire career, and he has the Cup wins, gold medals, trophies, and All-Star selections to prove it.
You can explain that all away with your rationalizations as to why this or that metric doesn’t matter or is inflated by GP or is all due to team effects yada yada, but those stats are there for anybody who cares to look. 95% of hockey fans would call them great numbers, and the other 5% are just jealous.
Bruce, somebody who keeps referring to himself as a logician should know that an appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy. Yes, 95% of hockey fans would call them great numbers. I continue to completely disagree with their interpretations of the numbers, because they are failing to properly distinguish between an individual and team result. And please, the "you're just jealous" attack? Can we leave out the kindergarten arguments and debate this as adults?
Looking at percentages, his Sv% for those 6 years was a .003 better than the league norm, a modest advantage but above average. His GAA was 0.45 below league average. If there was a more consistent goalie in the NHL through those 6 seasons, I can't think of who he was.
Brodeur was pretty consistent, I agree. Consistently average. Here is the list of goalies, 1998-99 to 2003-04 combined, minimum 100 games, sorted by save percentage:
Save Percentage:
1. Dominik Hasek, .923
2. Marty Turco, .922
3. David Aebischer, .921
4. Roberto Luongo, .921
5. Roman Cechmanek, .919
6. Dwayne Roloson, .918
7. Patrick Roy, .918
8. Manny Legace, .918
9. Jose Theodore, .916
10. Sean Burke, .916
11. Nikolai Khabibulin, .916
12. J.S. Giguere, .915
13. Evgeni Nabokov, .915
14. Manny Fernandez, .913
15. Ed Belfour, .913
16. Martin Biron, .912
17. Curtis Joseph, .912
18. Tomas Vokoun, .910
19. Guy Hebert, .910
20. Olaf Kolzig, .910
21. Martin Brodeur, .910
Here are some other stats, lest you think Brodeur is leading in everything but save percentage:
5th in winning percentage
5th in GAA
6th in shutouts per 60 minutes
So where do all these impressive counting numbers come from? The same three things I keep pointing out every time:
1st in games played
2nd in fewest shots faced per game
New Jersey Devils: 6th in most goals scored
Oh, but Brodeur raised his game in the playoffs, right? Here is a list of all the goalies who played at least 30 games in the playoffs between 1999 and 2004:
1. Miikka Kiprusoff, .929
2. Nikolai Khabibulin, .926
3. Patrick Lalime, .926
4. Dominik Hasek, .926
5. Ed Belfour, .926
6. Arturs Irbe, .925
7. Patrick Roy, .922
8. Evgeni Nabokov, .921
9. Curtis Joseph, .920
10. Martin Brodeur, .916
11. Chris Osgood, .912
And those other stats again:
Playoffs:
5th in winning percentage
4th in GAA
3rd in SO/60
1st in games played
1st in fewest shots against per game
New Jersey: 2nd in most goals scored
Sure, save percentage isn't the only goalie stat, and it may not reflect everything. However, you must admit it is curious that from 1993-94 to 1997-98 Martin Brodeur was actually pretty dominant in save percentage. Regular season, 1993-1998 (min. 100 games), Brodeur comes in 2nd place to only Dominik Hasek. Playoffs, same period, min. 30 games, again Brodeur comes in 2nd to Hasek.
So, he goes from 2nd and 2nd from 1993-1998 to 21st and 10th from 1999-2004, and you call that consistent? Really? Or did he in 1999 stop worrying about the minor business of making saves, preferring instead to focus his energies only on activities that lead to winning? If so, I'd really like to know what those things were so I can incorporate them into my own game.
Sure they were – and he is part of the team. A huge part of that team.
I have a question for you, Bruce. What was the weakest part of the 2000-01 New Jersey Devils? Was it their offence, defence, special teams, or goaltending? Because I watched that team play, and I have looked at their stats, and quite frankly I think goaltending was the weakest part of that team. They had an outstanding first line, excellent second line, excellent checking line, great top-end defencemen, good defensive depth, great team defensive play, and led the league in scoring while allowing the 4th fewest shots against. Even if you think their goaltending was a bit above average, that still makes it the worst part of that team. Goaltending was probably the reason New Jersey didn't finish first overall, and it was the reason they lost in the playoffs. Brodeur has had years when he has been a huge part of his team, no rational person would deny that. And yes he has had a few great international performances as well. But Brodeur's NHL results from 1999-2004 are impressive only in their quantity, because the quality is nothing special at all.
Brodeur's performance has been "consistently excellent"?
Huh? No, he's had some excellent yrs, & some rather mediocre ones.
That's not consistently excellent.
If Brodeur had cracked the top 5 in svpct during those middle yrs, he probably would've averaged 45-50 wins instead of 40... so his mediocrity cost the Devils 5-10 wins per year compared to if they had an elite goalie then. (This is probably a simple calculation to estimate... CG?)
On the other hand, their backups usually have sucked so what choice did they have, other than making a trade?
If Brodeur had cracked the top 5 in svpct during those middle yrs, he probably would've averaged 45-50 wins instead of 40... so his mediocrity cost the Devils 5-10 wins per year compared to if they had an elite goalie then. (This is probably a simple calculation to estimate... CG?)
Yeah, CG, I'm keen to see a calculation that would have an elite goalie win 50 games... something which has never been accomplished in the history of the league, I might add. (The record of 48 is held by, need I say, Martin Brodeur.)
If "mediocrity" is winning 42+ games, I'll take it on my team every year.
On the other hand, their backups usually have sucked so what choice did they have, other than making a trade?
Why in the hell would they want to make a trade when they already had a topnotch iron man goalie? That's just silly.
You're showing your bias, Anon. You really don't like this guy, do you? Or is just the Devils period you have no use for?
Bruce, I have no bias towards/against the Devils or Brodeur. I recognize the excellent seasons he's had, as well as the mediocre ones.... medicore years where, if he was on a weaker team, he might've only had 25 wins instead of 40.
You are simply unable to make even a reasonable estimation of goalie effects & team effects & the differentiation between them. You make unverifiable assumptions & assertions, & then just throw up your hands & rely on the "counting numbers".
A 60 goalie-win season is possible... e.g. an extraordinary goalie (very high svpct compared to avg) combined with excellent team defense (low shots allowed, low shot quality) & excellent offense (outscoring the opposition). It's just math, that's all.
"Or did he in 1999 stop worrying about the minor business of making saves, preferring instead to focus his energies only on activities that lead to winning? If so, I'd really like to know what those things were so I can incorporate them into my own game."
Yes, what DOES Brodeur (or any goalie on an otherwise strong team, whose svpct is not outstanding) do to create those wins??
He must be able to make some sort of superhuman motivational speeches in the dressing room, I guess. Because it sure isn't the ability to provide above-avg shot save capability during those yrs of mediocre svpct.
(((wins÷games)*1000) ÷ goals against average)*save percentage
((W÷GP) *1000) ÷ G.AA) *SV%
Post a Comment