tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post1501604068715901109..comments2024-03-27T06:03:35.695-04:00Comments on Brodeur is a Fraud: The Unknown Who Outplayed Sawchuk in His PrimeThe Contrarian Goaltenderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03433370306939690205noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-52233385712649349852008-09-16T10:59:00.000-04:002008-09-16T10:59:00.000-04:00"Where did you get the NHL goalie save pct #&..."Where did you get the NHL goalie save pct #'s for pre-1982-83? The NHL has only released save pct stats for 1982-83 & subsequent yrs."<BR/><BR/>commissioner@whatifsports.com:<BR/><BR/>They are extrapolated from a combination of matching them up to similar goalies from post-1982, team defensive stats and points allowed.<BR/><BR/>================<BR/><BR/>There's the answer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-14358628320640613642008-09-15T15:55:00.000-04:002008-09-15T15:55:00.000-04:00Another link, although I suspect that the older st...Another link, although I suspect that the older stats are mock-ups:<BR/><BR/>http://www.whatifsports.com/nhl-l/historical_teams.asp<BR/><BR/>E.g. who knew that Howe had 307 shots in 52-53? :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-61534000013825696842008-09-15T15:16:00.000-04:002008-09-15T15:16:00.000-04:00I have Edward Yuen's stats, if anyone wants to loo...I have Edward Yuen's stats, if anyone wants to look at them just send me an email.<BR/><BR/>They only go back to 1954-55, but there is a bit of info available for the Sawchuk-Rollins comparison. In 1954-55, Terry Sawchuk had a .926 save percentage, while Al Rollins had an .893. In 1955-56, both Rollins and Sawchuk were at .913 (Sawchuk was in Boston at that point). In 1956-57, Sawchuk was at .921 while Rollins was at .901.<BR/><BR/>Remember, though, that the team effects were huge, and you can't compare those save percentage numbers directly without considering where they were coming from. In Glenn Hall's two seasons replacing Sawchuk he was at .922 and .927. In Hall's first two seasons in Chicago he was at .909 and .897.The Contrarian Goaltenderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03433370306939690205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-46615872616654787672008-09-15T15:07:00.000-04:002008-09-15T15:07:00.000-04:00Off-topic, but here are some unofficial Bernie Par...Off-topic, but here are some unofficial Bernie Parent svpct stats:<BR/><BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Parent<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>These may be from a Flyer fan who has a site up somewhere... also contributes to HAG & Hockey Summary Project, I think.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-715373242001395322008-09-15T14:34:00.000-04:002008-09-15T14:34:00.000-04:00It would be nice to see some SV% stats for these o...It would be nice to see some SV% stats for these oldsters... I'm sure the NHL could compile & release them, but I'm not holding my breath...<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, Edward Yuen has compiled some stats:<BR/><BR/>http://slapshot.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/the-boston-bruins-six-decades-of-bad-goaltending/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-46643828855402195012008-09-15T00:50:00.000-04:002008-09-15T00:50:00.000-04:00I also note your 11-year study is perfectly timed ...<I>I also note your 11-year study is perfectly timed to begin with Lumley's good years in Detroit but not his so-so ones that preceded them; and to include Hall's one tough season in Chicago before he began to turn it on.</I><BR/><BR/>Lumley's "so-so" years came in the pre-Gordie Howe era with the Red Wings' best players enlisted in the army. And I was not aware that Glenn Hall's 24-39-7, 2.86, 7 SO in 1957-58 was a "tough season" while his 28-29-13, 2.97, 1 SO was "turning it on".<BR/><BR/>I picked the seasons before I collected the numbers, but I knew I was still going to get the "you cherry-picked the seasons" argument. I picked that time period because for 11 straight years Detroit was an excellent team, Chicago was a terrible team, and Detroit finished ahead of Chicago every single season. Extend it by a season in either direction and one or more of those things stops being true.<BR/><BR/>It is possible that tweaking the numbers a bit evens the gap or even puts Sawchuk slightly ahead. Whatever, I'm not standing too strongly by my claim that Rollins was better than Sawchuk. Evidence suggests that he may have been, but we don't have as much data as we would have liked and I never saw them play. My more general point and the reason for the post is to show that it is quite possible for a goalie with an 81-171-56 record to have just as big of a contribution to his team as one who goes 224-107-77.<BR/><BR/><I>He did record 5 shutouts, and on that dreadful club (133 GF, 242 GA) he probably earned them. He probably earned a lot of sympathy and some consideration for a Purple Heart. MVP? Not so much.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm not sure Rollins deserved the MVP that season either over Gordie Howe or Rocket Richard. However, the award was likely at least in part a make-up decision for Rollins' spectacular season in 1952-53. Rollins finished 2nd in MVP voting in 1952-53, he just had the misfortune of going up against Howe's record-breaking 95 point season.<BR/><BR/>Even if my goalie comparisons are misleading and the seasons are cherry-picked and Sawchuk was actually better than Rollins in the early 1950s, there is simply no way that Sawchuk was better in 1952-53. Just look at Chicago's results before and after Rollins showed up that season, and his effect is obvious.The Contrarian Goaltenderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03433370306939690205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-39575496383751763932008-09-14T23:55:00.000-04:002008-09-14T23:55:00.000-04:00As a point of clarification, I assume you mean tha...<I>As a point of clarification, I assume you mean that Rollins outplayed Sawchuk in Sawchuk's prime and not Rollins outplayed Sawchuk in Rollins' prime (although if the first is true I'd imagine the second is too). Just want to make sure that's where you're coming from.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, sorry about that, I meant Rollins outplayed Sawchuk in Sawchuk's prime, I struggled a bit with the syntax and obviously left it unclear. Rollins' prime was basically his entire NHL career.The Contrarian Goaltenderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03433370306939690205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-88545030523919910952008-09-14T11:16:00.000-04:002008-09-14T11:16:00.000-04:00As a point of clarification, I assume you mean tha...As a point of clarification, I assume you mean that Rollins outplayed Sawchuk in Sawchuk's prime and not Rollins outplayed Sawchuk in Rollins' prime (although if the first is true I'd imagine the second is too). Just want to make sure that's where you're coming from.Scott Reynoldshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05735545121522530577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-45417705877185959842008-09-13T02:52:00.000-04:002008-09-13T02:52:00.000-04:00Oops, make that his 1953-54 season. 66 GP, 12-47-7...Oops, make that his 1953-54 season. <BR/><BR/>66 GP, 12-47-7, 3.23<BR/><BR/>He did record 5 shutouts, and on that dreadful club (133 GF, 242 GA) he probably earned them. He probably earned a lot of sympathy and some consideration for a Purple Heart. MVP? Not so much.Brucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01190620732067746768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-74981306828294102008-09-13T02:45:00.000-04:002008-09-13T02:45:00.000-04:00CG: Funny you should mention that. I was this |<...CG: Funny you should mention that. I was this |<-->| far from invoking the name of Al Rollins earlier today on one of these other threads, in particular his 1954-55 season where he led the league in losses and GA by a wide margin and won the league MVP. <BR/><BR/>Even I am not old enough to have seen Rollins, though I saw quite a bit of Sawchuk's late career. Any suggestion Rollins was actually better than Sawchuk in his peak years seems a little rich. I agree Sawchuk was somewhat overrated, he had those 5 great seasons to start his career and his reputation was sealed after that even though his performance suffered. My own feeling is that Detroit of the early '50s was a lot better than Chicago from the net right on out. <BR/><BR/>I also note your 11-year study is perfectly timed to begin with Lumley's good years in Detroit but not his so-so ones that preceded them; and to include Hall's one tough season in Chicago before he began to turn it on. I would have picked the exact same seasons myself if I wanted to make that particular case.Brucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01190620732067746768noreply@blogger.com