Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Don

MVP of Rounds 1 & 2

77 posts in this topic

I'm not denying pretty much anything you say besides the statement that Marty was equally as impressive - he wasn't and he didn't need to be. I know he set records but you know better than most that doesn't tell the whole story. The point is - as I said - Giggy was the most valuable to his team in the playoffs. You argued that they should've given it to Marty and I agree but Giguere deserved it; what he did in those playoffs was amazing - it was so fun to watch. Marty was the more skilled goaltender and if tested might have been even more amazing but Giguere had angels rubbing his shoulders (damn it, Disney reference again) and was unbeatable for long stretches that got his team deep into the playoffs.

Okay, I can't believe I am doing this, but here goes: i think you need to go further in assessing this situation. If you are going to argue over who deserved the Conn Smythe between Marty and Giggy then you have to take their mistakes into account as well as their positives. The moment you do that Bordeur is screwed. Do you all forget the "I dropped my stick, oops it redirected the puck, I will try to sit on it, oh no it went in!" moment? To my knowledge Giggy had nothing like that throughout the playoffs and certainly not in the damn cup. Now I love Marty, but that was a MASSIVE mistake. What's more, this happened in game three. Now look back on that series. We had the ducks throttled and that goal gave them a game and got them back in the series. Given that we came close to losing that series and given that it largely pivoted on a mistake committed by Brodeur I just don't see how he gets the Conn Smythe. Sorry, but IMHO that irrevocably tiles the balance of this argument.

Edited by AEWHistory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Giguere

He was the MVP of three rounds. I didn't like the award going to a guy who wasn't particularly valuable in the tournament's most important round.

That said, Niedermayer and Marty split the vote on the Devils side. I remember Gulliti once posting that his vote went to Nieds, and as D731 said Marty was outstanding as well. In the end, the definition of "player most valuable to his team" must've come into play. I mean, when multiple players are most valuable (as Nieds, Marty, and to a lesser extent guys like Langs and Friesen that year) on one team, and there's one guy head and shoulders above the rest on the other team ... well ... dems da breaks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't Marty have like 7 shutouts that year? 3 against the ducks when it mattered the most? Gigglypuff played great... for three rounds, but not when it counted. He had a mediocre finals while Marty played fantastic throughout. It's still a shame they gave him the award, the idea that Devils split the voting results (while probably true) is also BS imo, Gigure shouldn't have even been a consideration once it was clear his team was going to lose the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my mvp is the coaching staff...i just cant believe how well the team is playing as a whole and i credit them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

life aint fair:

Scott Stevens never won the Norris trophy, but he won a Con Smythe

Marty never won a Con Smythe, but he's won the Vezina

we all know Marty should have won a Conny and Scott shouldve won a Norris

Edited by hargsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I have done a little research since I think we are all going from memory here. First of all, another point, one I had forgotten, is that while Marty posted three shutouts, he also laid a bit of an egg in game six and got pulled for Schwab. then again, to be fair, Giggy also laid an egg in game five.... He just wasn't pulled. As for stats, here goes:

Brodeur faced 160 shots and made 148 saves. This works out to a save pct. Of .925 if my math skills haven't completely deserted me here.

Giguere, otoh, faced 201 shots (notice the massive shot discrepancy here) and made 183 saves. This works out to just about .910. About where a good goalie should be. Furthermore, I still stand by the argument that Brodeur's gaffe in game 3 hurts his position for the Conn Smythe.

Honestly, this doesnt really change my opinion much from before. Yes, Giguere had a lower save percentage, but he was facing 25% more shots and had already stood on his head for three rounds. It is close, but I can understand why Giguere won.

As a side note, I would love to know the statistics of goalies who have played AGAINST the Devils over the years. It really seems that we regularly outshoot teams and this surely leads to the sensation that even damn goaltender turns into Roy facing us. If so, this might show up in the statistics. Anyone know if these sort of stats are readily available?

Edited by AEWHistory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I have done a little research since I think we are all going from memory here. First of all, another point, one I had forgotten, is that while Marty posted three shutouts, he also laid a bit of an egg in game six and got pulled for Schwab. then again, to be fair, Giggy also laid an egg in game five.... He just wasn't pulled. As for stats, here goes:

Brodeur faced 160 shots and made 148 saves. This works out to a save pct. Of .925 if my math skills haven't completely deserted me here.

Giguere, otoh, faced 201 shots (notice the massive shot discrepancy here) and made 183 saves. This works out to just about .910. About where a good goalie should be. Furthermore, I still stand by the argument that Brodeur's gaffe in game 3 hurts his position for the Conn Smythe.

Honestly, this doesnt really change my opinion much from before. Yes, Giguere had a lower save percentage, but he was facing 25% more shots and had already stood on his head for three rounds. It is close, but I can understand why Giguere won.

As a side note, I would love to know the statistics of goalies who have played AGAINST the Devils over the years. It really seems that we regularly outshoot teams and this surely leads to the sensation that even damn goaltender turns into Roy facing us. If so, this might show up in the statistics. Anyone know if these sort of stats are readily available?

On hockey-reference, each goalie has 'splits' - how they did in the first half of the year, how they did against every team. go to Splits -> Career to see how every goalie did against New Jersey.

New Jersey not only outshoots teams, they have tended to employ players who shoot a lot but are often among the worst shooting percentage forwards in the league (Holik, Gomez, Langenbrunner, Rolston). So that doesn't help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brodeur faced 160 shots and made 148 saves. This works out to a save pct. Of .925 if my math skills haven't completely deserted me here.

Giguere, otoh, faced 201 shots (notice the massive shot discrepancy here) and made 183 saves. This works out to just about .910. About where a good goalie should be. Furthermore, I still stand by the argument that Brodeur's gaffe in game 3 hurts his position for the Conn Smythe.

Honestly, this doesnt really change my opinion much from before. Yes, Giguere had a lower save percentage, but he was facing 25% more shots and had already stood on his head for three rounds. It is close, but I can understand why Giguere won.

This "Marty faces fewer shots, so he isn't as good" argument has always bothered me. Goalies are supposed to prevent goals. The standard metric for measuring success at this is save percentage. But what about a goalie like Brodeur whose greatest asset is preventing shots from happening in the first place? His save percentage will always suffer for it, even though he's still plenty active and successful at preventing goals.

At no time in his career was Brodeur ever the best pure puck-stopper in the game. But he was always among the best at preventing goals.

/rant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't have an issue with Giguere winning it. It be easier if there was a clear winner for the Devils, but there wasn't. Each round someone else led the charge. In round 1, Madden, Langs and Pando were great. In round 2, Elias and Gomez stepped up. Round 3, Friesen and Langs, and round 4, Friesen again. Throughout, Brodeur and Nieds were very good.

I have made this argument before, but Marty's seven shutouts, while a record, were not that impressive individually, but rather as a team unit. Three of the seven shutouts, he stopped 16 or less shots including game 1 and 2 of the Cup finals where the Ducks were held to 16 shots both games. And even the final game 7, though he made 24 shots, it was an extremely easy night of work for him. The Devils were simply ridiculous in front of him.

Giguere on the other hand, he had a bad finals. No question. But I think people are forgetting how insane he was for three rounds and how sh!tty the rest of the team was. Look at that roster past Paul Kariya, who didn't even have a good playoffs. When a 40-year-old Adam Oates is your best player... Even with an a bad finals he had better stats than Brodeur with a 1.62 GAA and .945 save percentage. Here are some highlights of his playoffs:

- Swept away the defending Stanley Cup Champions and an absolutely loaded Red Wings team

- Set an NHL record with 63 saves in a playoff debut.

- Set an NHL record OT shutout streak of 168 minutes and 27 seconds or almost 8 and a half periods. It kept going as he didn't let in a single overtime goal all playoffs.

- Held the Wild to 1 goal in the entire Conference Finals, an NHL record. 1 freaking goal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This "Marty faces fewer shots, so he isn't as good" argument has always bothered me. Goalies are supposed to prevent goals. The standard metric for measuring success at this is save percentage. But what about a goalie like Brodeur whose greatest asset is preventing shots from happening in the first place? His save percentage will always suffer for it, even though he's still plenty active and successful at preventing goals.

At no time in his career was Brodeur ever the best pure puck-stopper in the game. But he was always among the best at preventing goals.

/rant

This. And it's incredibly tough to keep your focus and reflexes when you're not facing many shots. I think everybody would agree it's easier to play in front of an elite defense that doesn't allow many shots, but how many times have we watched a goalie (not Marty) look like sh!t trying to make the first save after a long stretch of inaction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had no problem with Giguere winning Conn Smythe at the time and don't today. If anything it's helped make 2003 more memorable for other fans since something unusual happened that postseason, which is a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Round 1 we have to say Zajac

Round 2: Kovalchuk without a doubt, he was injured came back score clutch goals and have a clutch assist..

and i really dont give a damn about connsmythe i want lord stanley.... Ask giguere if he prefer 03 than 07

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't have an issue with Giguere winning it. It be easier if there was a clear winner for the Devils, but there wasn't. Each round someone else led the charge. In round 1, Madden, Langs and Pando were great. In round 2, Elias and Gomez stepped up. Round 3, Friesen and Langs, and round 4, Friesen again. Throughout, Brodeur and Nieds were very good.

I have made this argument before, but Marty's seven shutouts, while a record, were not that impressive individually, but rather as a team unit. Three of the seven shutouts, he stopped 16 or less shots including game 1 and 2 of the Cup finals where the Ducks were held to 16 shots both games. And even the final game 7, though he made 24 shots, it was an extremely easy night of work for him. The Devils were simply ridiculous in front of him.

Giguere on the other hand, he had a bad finals. No question. But I think people are forgetting how insane he was for three rounds and how sh!tty the rest of the team was. Look at that roster past Paul Kariya, who didn't even have a good playoffs. When a 40-year-old Adam Oates is your best player... Even with an a bad finals he had better stats than Brodeur with a 1.62 GAA and .945 save percentage. Here are some highlights of his playoffs:

- Swept away the defending Stanley Cup Champions and an absolutely loaded Red Wings team

- Set an NHL record with 63 saves in a playoff debut.

- Set an NHL record OT shutout streak of 168 minutes and 27 seconds or almost 8 and a half periods. It kept going as he didn't let in a single overtime goal all playoffs.

- Held the Wild to 1 goal in the entire Conference Finals, an NHL record. 1 freaking goal.

No one is denying or forgetting that Giguire played a great first three rounds. The point is, he didn't lead his team to a cup and quite frankly all he earned the team was the 29th overall draft pick. This was Marty who was great in all 4 rounds vs a guy who was spectacular in the first 3, and then moderate in the 4th, when it counted the most. I don't understand how a player on the losing team can win this award, it does not go to the most impressive or best player in the playoffs; it goes to the player most valuable to their team which to me suggests it has to be someone on the winning side by default.

and i really dont give a damn about connsmythe i want lord stanley.... Ask giguere if he prefer 03 than 07

No one here would ever argue that the CS is more important then the cup. But at the end of the day we are fans who discuss things that happen in the hockey world so I think it's still a fair issue for us to discuss, albeit maybe outdated by this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Giguere

He was the MVP of three rounds. I didn't like the award going to a guy who wasn't particularly valuable in the tournament's most important round.

That said, Niedermayer and Marty split the vote on the Devils side. I remember Gulliti once posting that his vote went to Nieds, and as D731 said Marty was outstanding as well. In the end, the definition of "player most valuable to his team" must've come into play. I mean, when multiple players are most valuable (as Nieds, Marty, and to a lesser extent guys like Langs and Friesen that year) on one team, and there's one guy head and shoulders above the rest on the other team ... well ... dems da breaks.

Again - this IS why Giguere wins it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again - this IS why Giguere wins it.

So valuable that his team didn't win the cup :rolleyes:

I have to admit though I think it's funny that the "pro/anti giggy deserves the CS" boils down to the different way people interpret "Most valuable to his team".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So valuable that his team didn't win the cup :rolleyes:

Well, that's the point of it really. See by your logic NO player that doesn't win the Cup can win the Conn Smythe. It's the "most valuable player to his team in the entire playoffs." Giggy was the reason the Ducks got to game 7 of the SCF. They might not have won either but he sure as hell got them within 60 minutes of it. It proves the point that Nieds was close to Marty in the voting. There were many players that carried the Devils - no one really that much more valuable than another - kind of the Devs philosophy. On the Ducks it was Giguere who carried them. He wins the award.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that's the point of it really. See by your logic NO player that doesn't win the Cup can win the Conn Smythe. It's the "most valuable player to his team in the entire playoffs." Giggy was the reason the Ducks got to game 7 of the SCF. They might not have won either but he sure as hell got them within 60 minutes of it. It proves the point that Nieds was close to Marty in the voting. There were many players that carried the Devils - no one really that much more valuable than another - kind of the Devs philosophy. On the Ducks it was Giguere who carried them. He wins the award.

By that logic, losing teams should feature a Conn Smythe winner pretty frequently, since the winning team is probably going to feature more players that are good. Instead, it's only happened twice since the 70's and both times for a goalie, and in this case it went to a goalie who may not even played as well as the other goalie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they are to win, get ready, it will happen again. Two teams with dominant goalies against a team where 4-5-6 players will get votes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By that logic, losing teams should feature a Conn Smythe winner pretty frequently, since the winning team is probably going to feature more players that are good. Instead, it's only happened twice since the 70's and both times for a goalie, and in this case it went to a goalie who may not even played as well as the other goalie.

I didn't imply that at all - your logic is faulty. I clearly stated many times in this thread that Anaheim specifically had a player who was extra spectacular throughout the playoffs in my mind. Giguere, I believe had a playoffs for the ages IMO and took the Ducks to game 7 and if he shouldn't win the Conn Smythe because he didn't win the Cup then no one could.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't imply that at all - your logic is faulty. I clearly stated many times in this thread that Anaheim specifically had a player who was extra spectacular throughout the playoffs in my mind. Giguere, I believe had a playoffs for the ages IMO and took the Ducks to game 7 and if he shouldn't win the Conn Smythe because he didn't win the Cup then no one could.

You said Marty didn't win because he split votes with Nieds and I think that's a silly reason to lose. The winning team will almost always have a better complement of players than the losing team. By how you want to judge it the best player on the losing team should often win the award, we know that they don't.

A player should have to dominate everyone in the whole playoffs to win on the losing team. Marty was just as dominant as Giguere was in the playoffs, so no reason for it to passed to the losing team.

Edited by Devils731

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You said Marty didn't win because he split votes with Nieds and I think that's a silly reason to lose. The winning team will almost always have a better complement of players than the losing team. By how you want to judge it the best player on the losing team should often win the award, we know that they don't.

A player should have to dominate everyone in the whole playoffs to win on the losing team. Marty was just as dominant as Giguere was in the playoffs, so no reason for it to passed to the losing team.

i.e. when it comes down to it that's what gave it to Giguere in the end. Pointing out that "we know they don't" doesn't contradict what I've said. I clearly stated that they should have given it to Marty even though Giguere deserved it. I said that I even booed at the game but in retrospect I have no problem with them giving it to GIggy.

Marty may have been dominant statistically but Giguere was more valuable to his team and in this case carried his team in a way that is extremely rare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that's the point of it really. See by your logic NO player that doesn't win the Cup can win the Conn Smythe. It's the "most valuable player to his team in the entire playoffs." Giggy was the reason the Ducks got to game 7 of the SCF. They might not have won either but he sure as hell got them within 60 minutes of it. It proves the point that Nieds was close to Marty in the voting. There were many players that carried the Devils - no one really that much more valuable than another - kind of the Devs philosophy. On the Ducks it was Giguere who carried them. He wins the award.

The word is "most" not "any" value to his team. Yes I do think there is an argument to be made that even a 3rd liner who contributes maybe 6 points over a playoff run would have been more deserving the Giggy because at the end of the day his contribution helped the team win the cup, Giggy didn't. Now I am not suggesting the 3rd liner was "most" valuable to his team, there are most likely a host of other more valuable players to the cup winner, but compared to anyone on the losing side I would say yes.

Just because lots of Devils could have deserved the award doesn't mean the the standout from the losing team should win it, it just means they should have picked from the Devils who deserved it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't imply that at all - your logic is faulty. I clearly stated many times in this thread that Anaheim specifically had a player who was extra spectacular throughout the playoffs in my mind. Giguere, I believe had a playoffs for the ages IMO and took the Ducks to game 7 and if he shouldn't win the Conn Smythe because he didn't win the Cup then no one could.

But you are sperating "playoffs for the ages" (which I think is an overstatement) with "value".

I would much rather have 1 stanley cup victory in 100 years then 100 consecutive conference finals appearances with an amazing goalie (and no cup wins). Sure there is something to be said for making the conference finals, and Giggy had a great playoffs overall, but that pales in comparisson to winning the cup, the cup is everything.

If you want to argue that Giggy was very valuable in ensuring his team finished 29th in the draft order fine, but no one will ever convince me that he was the most valuable player to a team, there are plenty of people who won the cup who were much more valuable.

Edited by squishyx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The word is "most" not "any" value to his team. Yes I do think there is an argument to be made that even a 3rd liner who contributes maybe 6 points over a playoff run would have been more deserving the Giggy because at the end of the day his contribution helped the team win the cup, Giggy didn't. Now I am not suggesting the 3rd liner was "most" valuable to his team, there are most likely a host of other more valuable players to the cup winner, but compared to anyone on the losing side I would say yes.

Just because lots of Devils could have deserved the award doesn't mean the the standout from the losing team should win it, it just means they should have picked from the Devils who deserved it.

As I said in a previous post to 731 I am not suggesting that the best standout form the loser should win. I said quite clearly that Giguere was most valuable to his team AND had a playoffs for the ages IMO. And having seen every Ducks game that year - I can honestly say thats probably a pretty common feeling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would much rather have 1 stanley cup victory in 100 years then 100 consecutive conference finals appearances with an amazing goalie (and no cup wins). Sure there is something to be said for making the conference finals, and Giggy had a great playoffs overall, but that pales in comparisson to winning the cup, the cup is everything.

If you want to argue that Giggy was very valuable in ensuring his team finished 29th in the draft order fine, but no one will ever convince me that he was the most valuable player to a team, there are plenty of people who won the cup who were much more valuable.

Again - I agree with your statement about the Cup but it has nothing to do with the Conn Smythe unless you are saying that the winning team should always have the Conn Smythe winner - which is a fair argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0