tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post601608179205261598..comments2024-03-27T06:03:35.695-04:00Comments on Brodeur is a Fraud: What to Make of Chris OsgoodThe Contrarian Goaltenderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03433370306939690205noreply@blogger.comBlogger84125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-86091156039412814372021-06-29T05:34:27.358-04:002021-06-29T05:34:27.358-04:00bape
bape
lebron shoes
supreme outlet
retro jordan...<a href="http://www.bathing-ape.us" rel="nofollow"><strong>bape</strong></a><br /><a href="http://www.bapesonline.com" rel="nofollow"><strong>bape</strong></a><br /><a href="http://www.lebron16.us" rel="nofollow"><strong>lebron shoes</strong></a><br /><a href="http://www.supreme.us.org" rel="nofollow"><strong>supreme outlet</strong></a><br /><a href="http://www.retro-jordans.us.com" rel="nofollow"><strong>retro jordans</strong></a><br /><a href="http://www.goldengoosessale.com" rel="nofollow"><strong>golden goose sale</strong></a><br /><a href="http://www.jordan4.us.com" rel="nofollow"><strong>jordan shoes</strong></a><br /><a href="http://www.nikexoffwhite.com" rel="nofollow"><strong>nike off white</strong></a><br /><a href="http://www.yeezysadidas.us" rel="nofollow"><strong>yeezy</strong></a><br /><a href="http://www.adidasyeezyboost350.us.com" rel="nofollow"><strong>yeezy boost 350 v2</strong></a><br />yanmaneeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15229165146687805497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-4071676887351742052009-06-17T21:12:53.744-04:002009-06-17T21:12:53.744-04:00"In my view, Kane's wraparound is the onl..."In my view, Kane's wraparound is the only one you can even make an argument for, and I've already stated the reasons I think that was, while stoppable, still a pretty difficult save."<br /><br />Lots of goalies, Osgood included, made saves on shots as tough or tougher than those Luongo let in in G6. Are you going to tell me the jaw-dropping side-lunge he made on Anaheim's Erik Christiansen or the Selanne breakways he stopped were easier than what Luongo faced? What about the skate save he made on Crosby late in the second period of game 2? (I don't deny that he came to earth eventually against Pittsburgh, but exactly as I predicted, he also failed to play any rotten games either).<br /><br />"It means he has been good and lucky and has great teammates in front of him."<br /><br />You still need to be pretty good to have a .926% through an entire, long 4-series playoff run. Osgood wasn't elite, but he was very good, and more consistent than anyone ever gives him credit for.<br /><br />"If you play really, really terribly, then yes your team will probably lose unless they are an offensive juggernaut."<br /><br />The '06 Wings were an offensive juggernaut.<br /><br />"Why didn't Giguere last year? Why didn't Brodeur last year? Why did Cam Ward fall apart against the Penguins?"<br /><br />I admitted that Giguere just sucked, although it should be recalled he faced a LOT more PP shots than Marty Turco. Brodeur was very mediocre against a less-than elite Rangers--that's undeniable. I do think Cam Ward deserves some slack though due to facing an offensive juggernaut.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-56118140951202065022009-06-14T00:43:14.958-04:002009-06-14T00:43:14.958-04:00The psycalogical explanation for this OSGOOD virus...The psycalogical explanation for this OSGOOD virus ..is that Osgood is in fact an average goalie..who is being 'lifted up' above his demonstrated performance by the masses BECAUSE ..well most people in the world are average like Ossy yet deeply year psycologically to <br />be recognized for being more when in fact they are just average.. they over-identify project onto Osgood and they feel SO MUCH BETTER and poof the virus spreads like magic they convince themselves that he really is great..(HA ha..)like themselves..(or rather their unconscious wish)DAN THE STAT MANhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11974915460928330447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-21145024561813419102009-06-14T00:35:35.684-04:002009-06-14T00:35:35.684-04:00Great Blog Contrarian....
The case of evaluating ...Great Blog Contrarian....<br /><br />The case of evaluating Chris Osgood<br />highlights <br /><br />1)The significant limits of save%<br />as a way to evaluate goaltending..<br />(even though it is the better than others we have).<br /><br /><br />2) The seperation between those many broadcasters and internet fans who can do "simple arithmetic"and the very few like myself and contrarian who are committed to, and can do real"statistical analysis"<br /><br /><br /><br />The facts are clear that Osgood as potential Conn Smythe and Hall of Fame is simply intellectual immature goofy talk...<br /><br /> Now for some obvious points that are being missed<br /><br />One of the first rules is to compare apples to apples<br /><br />So in order to see if Osgood is better than average goalie we need to compare him to other goalies<br /><br />the problem is Detroit is an exception an outlier team<br /><br />i)Their shot differential this playoff is +8.5 (approx) and has been around this for 7 or 8 straight years no other team comes ANYWHERE close ...this performance<br />is even more amazing when you consider Detroit leads in many games and ARE NOT neccisarly always trying to attack but protecting lead...<br />When you add in their attempted shots vs attempted against (Corsi number) the difference grows...<br />I call this possession pressure<br />a Detroit goalie has many 'mental holidays throughout the game'<br /><br />This difference becomes evident when you compare Osggod to Luongo <br />who had a kind of mental breakdown' after game 6 ..(tears etc) Luongo was overwhelmed by the constient pressure from Chicago and Vancouver's high pka/pergame <br /><br />2) obviously playing goal against power play is more difficult than even strength (teams score on average 1 in 10even strength 1 in 6? (I have to check ) PP<br /><br />yet Osggod has consistently poor PK save %<br /><br />This despite the fact Detroit had the least pkA /per game bear three <br />a game (Vancouver 5.2/game<br /><br />Now a huge part of seperating player performance from average to great is the mental side ..in other words their ability to..<br />handle abnormal pressure..<br />The problem is that playing goal for the Red wings is an experience unlike playing goal for any other team in the last years <br />He recieves less pressure even strength and pk and has a team that dominates puck possession...<br />oh yeah he also has a 7 TIME norris trophy defenceman on the ice half the game ( Another outlier stat..)<br />..the only team that is close to Detroit as an outlier over the last 9 years is ..you guessed it if you have any intution at all)..the old champion Devils...and the over-rated Brodeur...<br />when you make adjustments between teams to normalize things as <br />(apples to apples) Osgood's performance comes out around or 6th best in the playoffs ( this is being charitable..(slightly above average In fact I make the argument that Detroit LOST the cup because OF Osgood!!as he Failed to make the difference IF he played better against Anaheim a team DETROIT DOMINATED they should have one in 5 games...Detroit would not have been so beaten up for PIT ( remember Babcock whining about scedule and his tired team and allthe Detroit players SAYING ANaheim was toughest series ever..<br /><br />BYW..Pitt. should send THANKYOU CHEQUE TO ANAHEIM:) as well<br /><br />But still countless so called Reputable <br />news writers and broadcasters were calling for OSGOOD and his brilliance.????? How ignorant can you get?? Brilliance is Hiller this year ..<br /><br />One further point Osgood clearly played better last year and yet there was no outcry that he didn't win....HZ was the CLEAR choice why because Osgood's performance did not STANDOUT...even with 2 shutouts in finals..<br /><br />AS for Osgood for Hall of fame...<br /><br />this is so idiotic to even comment on but..one obvious point..<br /><br />Osgood Hss never even been CONSIDERED EVER to play for TEAM<br />CANADA which is the top three goalies of his CANADIEN peers which makes OSGOOD never at least fourth best in CANADA .(Oh yeah his highest salary i believe was never in the top 35% of goalies...and MONEY TALKS..<br />And last year detroit only went to him when Hasek was incredibly bad!!!DAN THE STAT MANhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11974915460928330447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-49948794951142979962009-06-12T04:21:37.128-04:002009-06-12T04:21:37.128-04:00"Vancouver OWNED Game 6, particularly in the ..."Vancouver OWNED Game 6, particularly in the third period where they outshot Chicago 2-1. That is why I single out Luongo so much for that one game."<br /><br />Which third period goal should he have had? Here are the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2AblOU2bv0" rel="nofollow">Youtube highlights</a>. In my view, Kane's wraparound is the only one you can even make an argument for, and I've already stated the reasons I think that was, while stoppable, still a pretty difficult save.<br /><br />"The idea that you can be a lousy goaltender and still win on great teams is a myth."<br /><br />Who said anything about lousy goalies? I was talking about Osgood being somewhat lucky and having good teammates. That doesn't mean he's lousy. It means he has been good <i>and</i> lucky <i>and</i> has great teammates in front of him.<br /><br />"If a goaltender is automatically good if he is on a great team, why didn't the Wings sweep the Oilers like they should have? "<br /><br />Nobody ever said that. The point is that playing on a great team is an advantage. If you play really, really terribly, then yes your team will probably lose unless they are an offensive juggernaut.<br /><br />"The postseason requires more steely nerves than the first 82 games. Most netminders are able to bump up their performance in the playoffs. Why didn't Luongo this year?"<br /><br />He did, for 4 games. But other than that, I don't know why. Why didn't Giguere last year? Why didn't Brodeur last year? Why did Cam Ward fall apart against the Penguins? Why didn't Chris Osgood bump up his playoff performance in 1996, 2001, 2002, 2003, or 2004? Who knows? Streaks happen, both good and bad.The Contrarian Goaltenderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03433370306939690205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-5528291605292144132009-06-12T03:05:55.730-04:002009-06-12T03:05:55.730-04:00Respect Ozzie man. At the very least he deserves r...Respect Ozzie man. At the very least he deserves respect. Sure the Wings are an amazing team but you can't expect any goalie to take them all the way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-18127001022623404092009-06-10T21:03:53.720-04:002009-06-10T21:03:53.720-04:00"and yes, Luongo did this year."
Glad t..."and yes, Luongo did this year."<br /><br />Glad to see we are making some headway.<br /><br />"only outshot the opposition twice in 10 games, outchanced and outplayed by Chicago. Vancouver also took a lot of penalties, and to my eye Chicago made some terrific shots."<br /><br />Vancouver OWNED Game 6, particularly in the third period where they outshot Chicago 2-1. That is why I single out Luongo so much for that one game.<br /><br />"This tells me a lot about the way you evaluate goalies. Dominant playoff runs trump everything."<br /><br />They don't trump everything but I think they are needed prior to declaring someone the current-best tender in the world. Giguere has had good seasons every year that he has been a starter prior to '08-09 (and prior to the lockout, he was on some crap teams comparable to the late '90s Sabres), with four of those seasons outstanding ones.<br /><br />"He's in the Cup Final, which means that of course he has good teammates. And I've seen too many posts and favourable bounces to not claim that he has had luck on his side at least to some degree."<br /><br />The idea that you can be a lousy goaltender and still win on great teams is a myth. Look at Mike Vernon's performance in '95, Brodeur in '01, or, best of all, Legace in '06. If a goaltender is automatically good if he is on a great team, why didn't the Wings sweep the Oilers like they should have? <br /><br />"I see that as more fortunate than praiseworthy."<br /><br />And I see no difference between Roloson's sudden heatup and Ozzy's.<br /><br />"Patrick Roy predates modern times? Who knew?"<br /><br />I.e. past 15 years<br /><br />"Clearly you differentiate between playoff play and regular season play, or you wouldn't claim Luongo hasn't proven anything."<br /><br />The postseason requires more steely nerves than the first 82 games. Most netminders are able to bump up their performance in the playoffs. Why didn't Luongo this year?<br /><br />"There are lots of examples of established goalies dominating in their first taste of playoff action"<br /><br />Almost none of them got their first taste of playoff action their rookie year.<br /><br />"It's also worth noting that the three goalies Roloson beat, Manny Legace, Vesa Toskala, and Ilya Bryzgalov, had minimal playoff experience themselves (5 GP among the three of them before that post-season)."<br /><br />Legace had seen little or no playoff action, but as a veteran on the league's best team, he should have been better, Bruce. Toskala I don't really know well enough to judge. Bryzgalov was great, but caught some unlucky breaks in the first two games and collapsed as virtually all first-year netminders do eventually if they make the playoffs. <br /><br />If Roloson is not injured, regardless of whether or not the Oil take Game 1 of the SCFs, the blowout in Game 2 does not happen and the Oil probably takes it. They they take the Cup in 6.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-9516903606379135222009-06-10T19:25:13.905-04:002009-06-10T19:25:13.905-04:00Bruce: I figured Jussi Markkanen deserves at least...<i>Bruce: I figured Jussi Markkanen deserves at least partial credit for 6 solid efforts</i>, <br /><br />CG: Right-o. I re-read your comment in that light after I posted. Certainly the '06 Finals "featured" more than one inexperienced playoff goalie. Even Roloson had just 15 career playoff GP before that remarkable run -- mind you it's pretty hard to consider him anything but a veteran at that point.<br /><br /><i>although of course he never would have gotten off the bench if Roloson never went down</i>.<br /><br />Right, that's where I was coming from, Markkanen was not responsible for winning what Lowetide calls the "pennant", he just happened to be there when Roli fell and Conklin flubbed. Fact was that '06 Oiler club was much more solid than a typical 8th place club, but had been held back by goaltending to the point that they nearly missed the playoffs. Huey, Dewey and Louie posted subpar numbers (Markkanen .880, Conklin .880, Mike Morrison .884), before Roli arrived at the deadline and righted the ship (.905). Other mid-season and deadline acquisitions really strengthened that club as well. <br /><br />In the playoffs, here are the Oilers' Sv% by series:<br /><b><br />DET .929<br />S.J .931<br />ANA .929<br />CAR .884<br /></b><br />Not hard to pick the "three-headed monster" series, is it? <br /><br />It's also worth noting that the three goalies Roloson beat, Manny Legace, Vesa Toskala, and Ilya Bryzgalov, had minimal playoff experience themselves (5 GP among the three of them before that post-season). It was odd how the stars aligned those playoffs. <br /><br /><i>//"It's also worth noting who actually won those final series:"//<br /><br />I agree it's worth noting that. The higher seeded team won every single series</i>.<br /><br />The team with the more experienced goalie was more successful in the regular season too? Who knew? ;pBrucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01190620732067746768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-78710332737188286922009-06-10T18:43:03.537-04:002009-06-10T18:43:03.537-04:00If Osgood hadn't been so pathetic in the 1996 ...If Osgood hadn't been so pathetic in the 1996 playoffs (.898 svpct), his excellent 62-regular-season-win teammates might have won the Cup. But then, backup Vernon was even worse (.864 in playoffs). That was a downer to a great regular season for the Wings.<br /><br />In the 95-96 reg season Osgood was .911/7th among regulars (Vernon was .903).<br /><br />I note this because, in some ways, 2008-09 is turning out to be the opposite of 95-96. Osgood had a dreadful 08-09 reg season but has been much better in the playoffs.<br /><br />But please... I don't want to hear that Osgood has "learned" to "turn it on" at the "most important time of the year"... blech.Statmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11729540810567722429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-33506163377799331872009-06-10T17:11:17.368-04:002009-06-10T17:11:17.368-04:00"Uggh... once more, my expectation is that to..."Uggh... once more, my expectation is that top goalies not choose the worst possible times to crumble, not that they win Cups all alone."<br /><br />Every goalie has crumbled at the worst possible time. Every single goalie. If they haven't, it's because they haven't played long enough. Roy did several times, Brodeur did several times, Hasek did several times, Belfour did a couple times of times as previously mentioned, and yes, Luongo did this year.<br /><br />I think you're docking too many points for Luongo because you still have game 6 fresh in your mind. I suggest you read up on the way some of those other guys flopped. Goaltending performance is variable.<br /><br />"You don't think you are overrating him when you blame his performance this year mostly on his team?"<br /><br />No. I've already stated the reasons - only outshot the opposition twice in 10 games, outchanced and outplayed by Chicago. Vancouver also took a lot of penalties, and to my eye Chicago made some terrific shots. Again, Luongo should have done better in the Chicago series, but for the playoffs as a whole he was pretty average. With outstanding goaltending Vancouver very likely would have had the pleasure of getting blown out in the Conference Finals, but they didn't get that from Luongo this time. That certainly doesn't mean he isn't elite, or that he isn't one of the very best goalies in the world.<br /><br />"Since you think I have unrealistic expectations, let me just say Vokoun is a tender that I would pretty fairly rank over Lou."<br /><br />I'm a fan of Vokoun as well, and there's certainly an argument there. I'd go with Luongo, as I think his peak exceeds Vokoun's, but there's not much between them, they are both certainly on the top tier of goaltenders today.<br /><br />"If Giggy retired now, he would go down as one of the greatest tenders of all time, not much below Hasek. He has done it all, proved it all."<br /><br />This tells me a lot about the way you evaluate goalies. Dominant playoff runs trump everything.<br /><br />I like Giguere, I really do, I hate how people rag on him for his equipment and for his efficient style. Still, if he retired today he wouldn't even get close to making the Hall of Fame. Just off the top of my head, I'd guess he'd be at least 20-25 slots below Hasek on my all-time ranking. At least.<br /><br />"You made a big blog post that still implies Ozzy, despite being at least 6 goals above average after factoring everything in, has been the beneficiary of luck, good teammates, etc."<br /><br />Yes, and I still think he has been. I never said it was all luck. He's in the Cup Final, which means that of course he has good teammates. And I've seen too many posts and favourable bounces to not claim that he has had luck on his side at least to some degree. Having said that, he has had some great games. Absolutely he has.<br /><br />My overall point (and the point of the most recent post I put up) is that Osgood, more than anything, has great timing, in that he is playing well right now at the most important time after playing so poorly earlier on. I see that as more fortunate than praiseworthy.<br /><br />"With the exception of Cam Ward, no minder in modern times that was used in the playoffs their first year in the NHL has failed to come to earth in a heap."<br /><br />Patrick Roy predates modern times? Who knew?<br /><br />I agree with you in general about rookies, but that was never the point. My point was about playoff experience. Clearly you differentiate between playoff play and regular season play, or you wouldn't claim Luongo hasn't proven anything. There are lots of examples of established goalies dominating in their first taste of playoff action, which doesn't really suggest that playoff experience is necessary or all that valuable.The Contrarian Goaltenderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03433370306939690205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-30654044928544751942009-06-10T16:11:26.808-04:002009-06-10T16:11:26.808-04:00Bruce: I figured Jussi Markkanen deserves at leas...Bruce: I figured Jussi Markkanen deserves at least partial credit for 6 solid efforts, although of course he never would have gotten off the bench if Roloson never went down.<br /><br />"It's also worth noting who actually won those final series:"<br /><br />I agree it's worth noting that. The higher seeded team won every single series.The Contrarian Goaltenderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03433370306939690205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-48078264191792113842009-06-10T15:12:10.676-04:002009-06-10T15:12:10.676-04:00"It's not a defence for Luongo, it's ..."It's not a defence for Luongo, it's a criticism of your expectations and how you evaluate top goalies."<br /><br />Uggh... once more, my expectation is that top goalies not choose the worst possible times to crumble, not that they win Cups all alone.<br /><br />"If you expect Luongo to be way better than those guys, or to be singlehandedly winning games every time out, then you are overrating him."<br /><br />You don't think you are overrating him when you blame his performance this year mostly on his team?<br /><br />"Vokoun .933"<br /><br />Since you think I have unrealistic expectations, let me just say Vokoun is a tender that I would pretty fairly rank over Lou. He has had only two playoff chances, one of which was hopeless (2004) and another in which his team was just outplayed but that was not palpably his fault (07). He hasn't had any chances since, and has been stuck on two lousy Pans teams.<br /><br />"Average opponent in the playoffs:<br />Lundqvist: 103 pts<br />Luongo: 103 pts"<br /><br />Much of this is due to the fact that Dallas had a pretty high number of points in '07. They actually were a good defensive team, but struggled terribly on offense. At any given point Bobby Lou was not severely tested by them.<br /><br />"He proved he was a good playoff goalie? How much did that help him last year? Or this year, as he watched Hiller take his job?"<br /><br />If Giggy retired now, he would go down as one of the greatest tenders of all time, not much below Hasek. He has done it all, proved it all. I am not sure why he did so poorly this past year but it is not relevant here. Luongo is very good, but he has yet to prove himself the way J-S has. That's really all there is to it.<br /><br />"I already said Osgood has played well in these playoffs and that he has outperformed Luongo. That means precious little to me in the big picture, however."<br /><br />You made a big blog post that still implies Ozzy, despite being at least 6 goals above average after factoring everything in, has been the beneficiary of luck, good teammates, etc. "Luck" does not explain six solid and five excellent SCF games this year against a ferocious opponent and an entire playoff run with only one bad game in it period. Did you watch much of Game 6? Did you see how ridiculously Pittsburgh owned Detroit over the first two periods?Tell me some goaltenders that you think would have stayed in the game while being outshot almost 3-1 by a squad like the Penguins.<br /><br />"I'm talking about playoff rookies, goalies who haven't yet had any of the oh-so-important playoff experience. Like Hiller this year, for instance. Or Giguere in '03. Or Luongo in '07."<br /><br />Every single one of those tenders had played at least one full regular season prior to their strong playoff campaigns. With the exception of Cam Ward, no minder in modern times that was used in the playoffs their first year in the NHL has failed to come to earth in a heap.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-84990449816458966152009-06-10T14:45:14.277-04:002009-06-10T14:45:14.277-04:00Off topic, but Bruce, you really aren't kiddin...Off topic, but Bruce, you really aren't kidding about Scuderi. My mouth was agape. I don't care what team you root for, that was ridiculous.Justinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00527850321812906680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-4484740709168813782009-06-10T14:39:02.801-04:002009-06-10T14:39:02.801-04:00This is the first Stanley Cup Final since 2002 tha...<i>This is the first Stanley Cup Final since 2002 that did not feature at least one starting goalie who began the playoffs with 10 games or less of playoff experience</i>. <br /><br />CG: Good catch, that's very interesting. Slight quibble: I think you overstate your case when you say "at least one" when the truth is "exactly one". <br /><br />It's also worth noting who actually won those final series:<br /><b><br />Year - Veteran / Newby = Winner<br />----------------------------------------<br />2003 - Brodeur / Giguere = Brodeur<br />2004 - Khabibulin / Kiprusoff = Khabibulin<br />2006 - Roloson* / Ward = Ward*<br />2007 = Giguere / Emery = Giguere<br />2008 = Osgood / Fleury = Osgood<br /></b><br />*The only youngster to prevail at the end of the day was Ward, who in the '06 SCF series didn't outduel Dwayne Roloson but Ty Conklin and Jussi Markkanen (combined 1 playoff GP). The pre-Roli tandem I not-so-fondly referred to as Fricklin and Frakkanen were forced into action when the veteran went down in Game One. Conklin's playoff inexperience became immediately and painfully manifest. <br /><br /><i>It's not the stat that's the problem in general, it's the sample size.<b> A few games means next to nothing</b>. A few whole seasons and you're starting to come up with trends</i>.<br /><br />Justin: I understand your point from a statistician's viewpoint, but competitively "a few games" mean pretty much everything, every year. If your goalie tanks down the stretch (for many teams) or in a playoff series (for all teams), you're pretty much done. <br /><br />This year it comes down to One game. Excellent goalie duel last night -- with deductions for rebound control (all three goals) -- and a rare turn in the limelight for the goalie's best friend, the stay-at-home defenceman. Superb performance by Scuderi, especially in the closing minutes.Brucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01190620732067746768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-66356076599986053512009-06-10T14:18:54.401-04:002009-06-10T14:18:54.401-04:00"Why is it that wins and gaa dont matter exce..."Why is it that wins and gaa dont matter except for when you want to use them for an argument."<br /><br />I agree those stats are mostly meaningless. The reason for pulling those out was that I'm arguing against someone who is basically claiming that goalies who don't go on deep playoff runs aren't elite. If Luongo's winning percentage still ranks ahead of a lot of other good goalies, then it is pretty difficult to criticize him too much because of his win/loss record.The Contrarian Goaltenderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03433370306939690205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-74694361564878974672009-06-10T14:02:26.875-04:002009-06-10T14:02:26.875-04:00It's not the stat that's the problem in ge...It's not the stat that's the problem in general, it's the sample size. A few games means next to nothing. A few <i>whole seasons</i> and you're starting to come up with trends.Justinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00527850321812906680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-25828879342760628422009-06-10T13:54:41.642-04:002009-06-10T13:54:41.642-04:00Not only that, but of those 5 guys Luongo has the ...Not only that, but of those 5 guys Luongo has the best playoff save percentage, the best playoff GAA, and the best playoff winning percentage over the last 4 seasons.<br /><br />..........<br /><br />Why is it that wins and gaa dont matter except for when you want to use them for an argument.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-50918784391552502472009-06-10T12:23:31.832-04:002009-06-10T12:23:31.832-04:00"How is appealing to general league mediocrit..."How is appealing to general league mediocrity a defense for Luongo blowing two vital games in a series?"<br /><br />It's not a defence for Luongo, it's a criticism of your expectations and how you evaluate top goalies.<br /><br />There have never been more good goalies in the league than there are today. As a result, goalies don't really make the same difference that they once did. The best goalies have not had a lot of team success lately, the ones who have won have been the ones playing on the best teams. As a result, it doesn't make a lot of sense to evaluate goalies based on team success.<br /><br />"Luongo is supposed to be better than all these guys."<br /><br />Maybe, but the margins are very narrow. If you expect Luongo to be way better than those guys, or to be singlehandedly winning games every time out, then you are overrating him.<br /><br />Here are the even-strength save percentages since the lockout for some of the leagues' top goalies:<br /><br />Vokoun .933<br />Luongo .929<br />Thomas .929<br />Giguere .928<br />Brodeur .926<br />Lundqvist .925<br />Lehtonen .925<br />Kiprusoff .924<br /><br />A save percentage difference of .003 is pretty difficult, if not impossible, to notice from watching the games.<br /><br />"Lundqvist was considerably outmatched each year of the playoffs save 2006"<br /><br />Average opponent in the playoffs:<br />Lundqvist: 103 pts<br />Luongo: 103 pts<br /><br />"I don't necessarily demand a Cinderella run but I expect something more than a goalie flaming out."<br /><br />Yes you do, or you wouldn't keep referring to the same guys. You know why those runs were so impressive? Because they are so rare. They don't happen all the time, and none of the goalies who were involved in them have repeated that magic since. I would wager a lot of money that the next time Hiller is in the playoffs that his save percentage is lower than it was in 2009.<br /><br />"Giggy proved himself already by that time."<br /><br />What did he prove, exactly? He proved he was a good playoff goalie? How much did that help him last year? Or this year, as he watched Hiller take his job?<br /><br />"Likewise, in your eyes Osgood never has genuine skill because he is on such a good team, no matter how many unbelievable saves he makes."<br /><br />Nope. In my eyes Osgood doesn't have genuine skill because his save percentage track record is so overwhelming average. If he had this skill all along, where was it exactly for the last 13 years?<br /><br />I already said Osgood has played well in these playoffs and that he has outperformed Luongo. That means precious little to me in the big picture, however.<br /><br />"The majority of teams that return to the playoffs after a long layoff do not make deep runs"<br /><br />The majority of teams that make the playoffs period do not make deep runs, so you would have to adjust for that. I bet that if somebody went through and did a comprehensive study on it, that a team's cumulative playoff experience would have little impact on their results.<br /><br />"The stats do not agree with you; I cannot think of a single rookie goalie in the past several years, with the sole exception of Ward in '06, that did not flame out in the playoffs:"<br /><br />I'm not talking about rookies. They play worse because they are teenagers and haven't hit their prime yet. I'm talking about playoff rookies, goalies who haven't yet had any of the oh-so-important playoff experience. Like Hiller this year, for instance. Or Giguere in '03. Or Luongo in '07.<br /><br />This is the first Stanley Cup Final since 2002 that did not feature at least one starting goalie who began the playoffs with 10 games or less of playoff experience. Experience is definitely not a prerequisite.The Contrarian Goaltenderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03433370306939690205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-61347136062102851552009-06-09T20:37:44.603-04:002009-06-09T20:37:44.603-04:00"You're crucifying Luongo for 2 bad games..."You're crucifying Luongo for 2 bad games when quite a few of the other decent goalies in the league haven't done much of anything lately either."<br /><br />How is appealing to general league mediocrity a defense for Luongo blowing two vital games in a series?<br /><br />We have already established that Brodeur probably cannot win without an elite team (though he did better than Luongo this year in the playoffs). Kipper has lost his edge, and Nabokov really never had one to begin with outside of one year. Your own numbers show that Backstron is heavily dependent on the trap, Lundqvist was considerably outmatched each year of the playoffs save 2006, and Vokoun only made the postseason once to begin with. Luongo is supposed to be better than all these guys.<br /><br />"Not only that, but of those 5 guys Luongo has the best playoff save percentage, the best playoff GAA, and the best playoff winning percentage over the last 4 seasons."<br /><br />50% of Luongo's opposition has been subpar and this has inflated his stats compared to the other tenders you have named.<br /><br />"If you demand a once-in-a-lifetime playoff run before you call somebody elite, then you'll almost never call anybody elite."<br /><br />No. Hiller played his heart out and still lost. Save for the final minute, you can say the same of Brodeur. Or, look at Luongo against the Ducks in '07. I don't necessarily demand a Cinderella run but I expect something more than a goalie flaming out.<br /><br />"He got shelled in 2006 and 2008, he was very good in 2007, and he was legendary in 2003."<br /><br />He was injured in 2006 and should not have been started to begin with. I don't defend his 2008 performance at all, which sucked, but Giggy proved himself already by that time.<br /><br />"You seem to rely heavily on your own subjective evaluations. As a result, it's not surprising that you disagree with me and some others who comment here."<br /><br />No, I want all netminders to be judged subjectively. You correctly attribute poor contemporary performances by MB to his not being truly elite, but blame worse performances on Luongo on his teammates because you like him. Likewise, in your eyes Osgood never has genuine skill because he is on such a good team, no matter how many unbelievable saves he makes. That's the definition of subjectivity.<br /><br />"I haven't seen any convincing evidence that young teams or "soft" teams do worse in the playoffs."<br /><br />The majority of teams that return to the playoffs after a long layoff do not make deep runs (i.e. Rangers in '06, Pittsburgh in '07, St. Louis and Columbus this year). Chicago is anomalous here, and it is interesting that you say that they "outplayed" Calgary when they were outshot like 45-15 in Game 6 and won only because Kipper sucks these days.<br /><br />"In these playoffs the more experienced goalies have been more likely to lose. Experience is overrated."<br /><br />The stats do not agree with you; I cannot think of a single rookie goalie in the past several years, with the sole exception of Ward in '06, that did not flame out in the playoffs:<br /><br />--Lundqvist in '06<br />--Emery in '06<br />--Bryzgalov in '06<br />--Price in '08<br />--S. Mason in '09<br />--Varlamov in '09Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-10077840318465718152009-06-09T17:20:56.215-04:002009-06-09T17:20:56.215-04:00"How is it irrelevant and how is my standard ..."How is it irrelevant and how is my standard too stringent?"<br /><br />Here's why it's too stringent: You're crucifying Luongo for 2 bad games when quite a few of the other decent goalies in the league haven't done much of anything lately either. Since going far in the playoffs seems to be your measuring stick of "elite", take a look at this:<br /><br />Roberto Luongo won 6 games in these playoffs.<br /><br />Evgeni Nabokov and Miikka Kiprusoff haven't gone farther than that since 2004.<br /><br />Martin Brodeur hasn't gone farther than that since 2003.<br /><br />Henrik Lunqvist, Tomas Vokoun, and Niklas Backstrom have never gone farther than that.<br /><br />I did a ranking of the best goalies since the lockout, and as I recall I came up with Luongo, Brodeur, Vokoun, Lundqvist and Kiprusoff. Of those 5 guys, Luongo's season this year was the deepest any of them have gone in the playoffs over that span, equalling Lundqvist in 2007. Not only that, but of those 5 guys Luongo has the best playoff save percentage, the best playoff GAA, and the best playoff winning percentage over the last 4 seasons.<br /><br />So if Luongo's not elite, then who is, exactly? Things have to line up right for goalies to make the Conference Finals - only 4 out of 30 teams make it there. If you demand a once-in-a-lifetime playoff run before you call somebody elite, then you'll almost never call anybody elite.<br /><br />"Lou did not have to carry his team to the extent of Kolzig, Hasek, Giggy, Roloson, etc. during their Cinderella runs."<br /><br />Again with the unusual comparisons. You are aware that Kolzig and Roloson had losing records in the playoffs other than their one shining playoff season, right? The Caps never beat a higher-seeded team in 1998, and Kolzig lost in the first round every other time he was in the playoffs.<br /><br />Giguere's a great example of the variance of playoff performance. He got shelled in 2006 and 2008, he was very good in 2007, and he was legendary in 2003. You keep pulling out 2003 as a comparison, but that was one year of his playoff career that he has never even approached again and almost certainly never will. Why is it fair to take Giguere at his absolute peak and compare it to a random sample for Luongo?<br /><br />"There are stats and there are stats."<br /><br />This says it all right there. You seem to rely heavily on your own subjective evaluations. As a result, it's not surprising that you disagree with me and some others who comment here.<br /><br />By the way, I don't care whether Chicago is a neophyte team or not. They outplayed Calgary and they outplayed Vancouver. I haven't seen any convincing evidence that young teams or "soft" teams do worse in the playoffs. In these playoffs the more experienced goalies have been more likely to lose. Experience is overrated.The Contrarian Goaltenderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03433370306939690205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-32423292348120054302009-06-09T16:33:20.447-04:002009-06-09T16:33:20.447-04:00"Why did something have to be wrong with the ..."Why did something have to be wrong with the Canucks? They lost to a better team. The Hawks had 4 more points in the regular season, and a goal difference of +48 to Vancouver's +26."<br /><br />There are stats and there are stats. The Northwest is a very tough division also. Minnesota is a very difficult team to score against, Calgary is always a force (even if Kip sucks now), and Edmonton made a serious run at the postseason. Do not forget too the span where Luongo was injured. If he were healthy all year, there is a good chance that Vancouver would have been really third in the conference instead of by seeding only.<br /><br />But I have said it before and have said it again--Chicago is a neophyte playoff team, with suspect goaltending and relatively soft D. Even if they put together a standout regular season, they were not a battle-hardened contender in the post and should not have been insurmountable to deal with. The best comparison to this year's Hawks is the '07 Penguins.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-23694608492309994412009-06-09T15:18:53.110-04:002009-06-09T15:18:53.110-04:00Can you name one thing that was really wrong with ...<i>Can you name one thing that was really wrong with this year's Canucks? The only objective thing I can think of is Sundin was not as good as hoped, and that's about it. Lou did not have to carry his team to the extent of Kolzig, Hasek, Giggy, Roloson, etc. during their Cinderella runs. He could and should have done more with what he had.</i><br /><br />Why did something have to be wrong with the Canucks? They lost to a better team. The Hawks had 4 more points in the regular season, and a goal difference of +48 to Vancouver's +26. If the Canucks had won, that would have been to Luongo's credit, but you can't say they should have been expected to win. Even the best goaltenders seldom lead their teams to victories over superior opponents in the playoffs. Hasek's 1999 and Giguere's 2003 are the exception, not the rule.<br /><br />Regarding the Hawks-Penguins offensive comparison, remember that it's more difficult to score in the West. The average Western team scored 7 fewer goals and allowed 10 fewer than the average Eastern team. The Hawks also played in the toughest division in hockey. They were a legitimate offensive force.overpasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05106889069832791092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-29512710300705649772009-06-09T14:37:04.567-04:002009-06-09T14:37:04.567-04:00"I think it's reasonable to assume that i..."I think it's reasonable to assume that if Dan Bylsma had been the coach all season long, there would have been a bigger number in the GF column for Pittsburgh (and maybe a bigger one in the GA column, too)."<br /><br />Don't forget also that the Pens suffered more from injury than the Hawks. Crosby and Sykora lost, between them, 11 games to injury. If both are healthy, the Pens would have likely scored at least 5 more goals for hte year.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-37138119757996420162009-06-09T14:32:37.191-04:002009-06-09T14:32:37.191-04:00"In my view he has gotten it done in 3 out of..."In my view he has gotten it done in 3 out of the 4 series he's been in"<br /><br />Two of those were weak offensive teams (the only reason the Dallas series went as long as it did is Turco also stood on his head). Only one of those four series presented a wholly hopeless situation (Ducks in '07).<br /><br />"Even Dominik Hasek took five years to advance past the first round of the playoffs as a starting goalie."<br /><br />Hasek was stuck on terrible Sabres teams that he had to carry. Both times Bobby Lou made the playoffs, he was on a higher-seeded team that initially faced an offensively-challenged rival.<br /><br />"If Luongo has a deep run or two over the next few seasons, then the Chicago series will start to fade in the memories. Just like it did for Belfour."<br /><br />Granted.<br /><br />"although the Bruins did play unusually poorly in some of those games as well."<br /><br />That would be an understatement; when you are getting outshot almost 2-1 against a fairly marginal playoff team like Carolina, something is wrong.<br /><br />"Irrelevant. My point is that your standard is far too stringent."<br /><br />How is it irrelevant and how is my standard too stringent? Can you name one thing that was really wrong with this year's Canucks? The only objective thing I can think of is Sundin was not as good as hoped, and that's about it. Lou did not have to carry his team to the extent of Kolzig, Hasek, Giggy, Roloson, etc. during their Cinderella runs. He could and should have done more with what he had.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-8940159763695114842009-06-09T11:57:00.184-04:002009-06-09T11:57:00.184-04:00"OK, fine, he is a very good goalie who so fa..."OK, fine, he is a very good goalie who so far hasn't gotten it done in the postseason."<br /><br />In my view he has gotten it done in 3 out of the 4 series he's been in, but I can understand the mindset that doesn't believe something is going to happen until it actually does. Being cautious will avoid making mistakes on a few guys who flame out early. On the other hand, it will cause you to look bad when that guy eventually experiences playoff success, and the majority of superstar goalies eventually get there, especially ones that have been mostly very good in the playoffs like Luongo has been.<br /><br />Every good goalie has playoff years where they just didn't have it, and if you break it down to the series level there are even more of them. People probably doubted Bernie Parent after he started his playoff career 5-11. Gump Worsley, who was similar to Luongo in that he was stuck on weak teams early in his career, probably didn't look like he was ever going to have playoff success after he went 5-15 over his first 4 playoff series. Ed Belfour had two major flops early on his playoff career, going 3.13/.866 and 4.07/.891 in first round flameouts against much weaker teams, and yet he still ended up with a terrific playoff record. Even Dominik Hasek took five years to advance past the first round of the playoffs as a starting goalie.<br /><br />Place your bets where you want. I'm still backing Luongo. If the sample size is small, then people obsess about a couple of games. Once the sample size increases, I'm fairly confident that I'm going to be on the right side of the ledger. I'm not guaranteeing he wins the Cup or anything, a championship is a team effort and in a 30 team league the odds are against you even if you are a terrific player, but the "playoff choker" label that is starting to form is, to my mind, completely unfounded.<br /><br />If Luongo has a deep run or two over the next few seasons, then the Chicago series will start to fade in the memories. Just like it did for Belfour.<br /><br />"Hopefully you aren't gonna take this out on Timmy Thomas as everybody does"<br /><br />Absolutely not, I'm a fan of Tim Thomas. I'm going to take it out on the rest of the team. It looks to me like the Bruins rode terrific goaltending and had a bunch of their depth guys shoot out the lights percentage-wise this year. The problem is that both of those things are less sustainable than a team that just tilts the ice against the other team, like the Red Wings do. You're vulnerable to a series where you don't get the bounces, and to some degree that's what happened against Carolina, although the Bruins did play unusually poorly in some of those games as well.<br /><br />"The Canucks this year were a better all-around team than the '99 Sabes or '03 Ducks."<br /><br />Irrelevant. My point is that your standard is far too stringent. You claim Luongo isn't elite because he's never beaten one of the top teams in the playoffs. Dominik Hasek never beat a top team in the playoffs until 1999. If you use the exact same criteria on the Dominator that you're using right now to beat up Luongo, you would have to claim Hasek was not elite in 1998, despite having won 4 Vezinas and a Hart Trophy. That clearly doesn't make sense.<br /><br />If you set standards, then you have to apply them fairly to everybody. When you have a case where applying your standards gets crazy results, then to me that suggests you need to re-evaluate your standards.<br /><br />"Luongo plays on a team that is at least as good as the Devils and that is used to playing in a tougher conference, and he has more skill than Brodeur (that was not doubted). It is not unrealistic to expect more of him."<br /><br />I don't disagree. But since the lockout, Luongo has a better playoff winning percentage, a better playoff GAA, a better playoff save percentage, and has gone deeper in the playoffs than Brodeur has (albeit by one game).<br /><br />Brodeur: 14-18, 2.49, .917<br />Luongo: 11-11, 2.09, .930<br /><br />Exactly how much more do you expect?The Contrarian Goaltenderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03433370306939690205noreply@blogger.com