GDT: New Jersey Devils @ Boston Bruins 3/22/09

[Devils731]

Ah, looks like winning is more important than sv% and Gaa to me

You didn't even pick an award only for goaltenders to try and compare goaltending skill.

[Neutral Zone Trap]

not at all. check strictly the FINALS gaa/sv% and you will see Marty was better.. its like dr33 said above, he was insane the first 3 rounds and then fell back to earth for the finals.

and of course they were gonna give him the conn smythe he was the reason they even go to the finals in the first place.. what were they, the 8th seed that year?

I thought the teams he faced were pretty weak offensively, IMO Giggy is a shot blocker, not a goalie that is agile (Marty) to make saves.

When a goalie faces 50 shots, that can be misleading as only 15 of those shots may have been what you'd call quality chances, hence the reason why Brodeur faces less shots because teams won't waste a low % shot on him.

Brodeur may only face 25 shots in a game, but 20 of those shots would be quality chances.

They were the 7th seed IIRC.

[devilsrule33]

I thought the teams he faced were pretty weak offensively, IMO Giggy is a shot blocker, not a goalie that is agile (Marty) to make saves.

When a goalie faces 50 shots, that can be misleading as only 15 of those shots may have been what you'd call quality chances, hence the reason why Brodeur faces less shots because teams won't waste a low % shot on him.

Brodeur may only face 25 shots in a game, but 20 of those shots would be quality chances.

They were the 7th seed IIRC.

I was always under the impression that the book on Marty to just shoot from any spot or angle because those are the shots he usually lets in. He usually makes the saves on the really good chances.

And the Wings had scored the most goals in the league that year, while the Stars were in the top 5.

[NJDevs4978]

I have no idea how Giguere suddenly fell back to earth in the finals, but the Devils are lucky he did. He let in some awful goals.

The Devils crowd intimidated him, or at least that's what I go with since he was still very good in Anaheim but stunk in NJ.

Getting back to the 'debate', NZT still hasn't shown me how Osgood can be considered to be having a better season than Chris Mason when he's pretty much singlehandedly kept a terrible team on the fringe of the playoffs while Osgood can have a 1980's version GAA and save percentage (and it's not his defense that sucks, look at Conklin's numbers) and is in the NZT book having a better season just because his W/L record is much better due to his offense scoring four goals a game. All he's done is give hypotheticals that have never happened.

Edited March 23, 2009 by Hasan4978

[nmigliore]

I thought the teams he faced were pretty weak offensively, IMO Giggy is a shot blocker, not a goalie that is agile (Marty) to make saves.

When a goalie faces 50 shots, that can be misleading as only 15 of those shots may have been what you'd call quality chances, hence the reason why Brodeur faces less shots because teams won't waste a low % shot on him.

Brodeur may only face 25 shots in a game, but 20 of those shots would be quality chances.

They were the 7th seed IIRC.

Detroit and Dallas were offensively weak? lol... Detroit was #1 in scoring in 2003, Dallas was 6th.

[Neutral Zone Trap]

Detroit and Dallas were offensively weak? lol... Detroit was #1 in scoring in 2003, Dallas was 6th.

And how many times has Detroit won the Presidents trophy (been the best team in the NHL) and got bounced in the first round ?

The playoffs are a completely different animal, and Detroit being dumped in the first round several times proves it.

[95Crash]

Giguere was on another planet for the first 3 rounds. His team was constantly outplayed but he put on one of the greatest goalie performances of all time. The Ducks only lost 2 games through 3 rounds. He let in 1 single goal in the conference finals. He had a sub .930 save percentage 5 times in the entire playoffs.

The fact that he finished with such incredible numbers after such an awful finals, shows how incredible his first 3 rounds were. Giguere also faced close to 32 shots per game while Brodeur only faced 25 a game. He had two games with over 60 saves. He didn't lose once in overtime while Brodeur did 4 times.

I have no idea how Giguere suddenly fell back to earth in the finals, but the Devils are lucky he did. He let in some awful goals.

Personally, I think that Schwab could have been in nets in the first to rounds, and we probably had a good shot of winning.

The Ducks were arguably the weakest Stanley Cup teams ever if you look at that roster, yet they steamrolled the competition in terms of the series' length because of him.

The GAA and save percentage stats can be quite misleading though. Brodeur had similar stats to Giguere during that run, yet he wasn't close to his level. This is similar to Hasek and Brodeur's stats being close in 1997 and 1998, even though they weren't on the same level.

Wait a minute. You use the save percentage to try and prove your point about Giggy, but then you turn around and say when it comes to Marty's '97 stats, GAA and save percentage are misleading.

As for NZT, I'm with him. I place a higher value on wins -- particularly when it counts, like in the playoffs. ... Although I do think that GAA and save percentage should be No. 2 and No. 3 in order of significance.

[devilsrule33]

Wait a minute. You use the save percentage to try and prove your point about Giggy, but then you turn around and say when it comes to Marty's '97 stats, GAA and save percentage are misleading.

As for NZT, I'm with him. I place a higher value on wins -- particularly when it counts, like in the playoffs. ... Although I do think that GAA and save percentage should be No. 2 and No. 3 in order of significance.

No...save percentage is usually a good measure, but you need to sometimes look beyond the actual number. For example in 1996-1997, Hasek and Brodeur both appeared in 67 games. Hasek had a .932 save percentage while Brodeur had one at .927. But Hasek's number is a lot more impressive besides the small difference because Brodeur faced an average of 24 shots a game compared to Hasek's 33. The Devils were also a trapping team that didn't allow many chances.

We don't have these crazy sophisticated stats like there are in baseball, so this is the best we got.

Edited March 24, 2009 by devilsrule33

[Devils731]

No...save percentage is usually a good measure, but you need to sometimes look beyond the actual number. For example in 1996-1997, Hasek and Brodeur both appeared in 67 games. Hasek had a .932 save percentage while Brodeur had one at .927. But Hasek's number is a lot more impressive besides the small difference because Brodeur faced an average of 24 shots a game compared to Hasek's 33. The Devils were also a trapping team that didn't allow many chances.

We don't have these crazy sophisticated stats like there are in baseball, so this is the best we got.

But to keep expanding, Marty has crazy stick handling skills which limits the number of shots an opponent gets as well. Not 9 shots per game worth but he was probably good for 4 or 5 before the trapezoid, I'd guess.

Also, a slightly lower save percentage on a large amount less shots may be more impressive, we don't know, if we're going to start imagining the quality of chances over those shots. If they both faced the same number of quality shots then the lower shots goalie will be at a disadvantage. Also, how many of the quality chances were created by a goalie inability to direct rebounds? There are so many layers to the onion to peel when it comes to goalie stats in the NHL.

I do know that wins is the very outer peel which tells us much less than the inner layers will about the goalies skill.

[overtime98]

Devils @ Boston 3/22:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/9703683@N05/s...57615735631569/

Lowell Devils in Lowell 3/21:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/9703683@N05/s...57615735705215/

new videos added from Boston trip:

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=overti...amp;view=videos

[95Crash]

But to keep expanding, Marty has crazy stick handling skills which limits the number of shots an opponent gets as well. Not 9 shots per game worth but he was probably good for 4 or 5 before the trapezoid, I'd guess.

Also, a slightly lower save percentage on a large amount less shots may be more impressive, we don't know, if we're going to start imagining the quality of chances over those shots. If they both faced the same number of quality shots then the lower shots goalie will be at a disadvantage. Also, how many of the quality chances were created by a goalie inability to direct rebounds? There are so many layers to the onion to peel when it comes to goalie stats in the NHL.

I do know that wins is the very outer peel which tells us much less than the inner layers will about the goalies skill.

Right, I was going to make a similar argument. I think traditionally Marty gets penalized, almost unfairly at times, because of his steady, almost boring style. He doesn't do the butterfly like many goalies, which is exciting to watch; and he isn't nearly as unorthodox as Hasek is/was, which in turn made some saves look harder than they needed to be. When Marty is on, he is so positionally sound that he eliminates bad rebounds and immediately shoots the puck out of his own zone. Don't announcers say he is like a third defender back there?

Don't get me wrong. Obviously Hasek deserves most of the accolades he has gotten. He was one of the best in his time. But if we're gonna go by numbers, in '96-'97 Marty was just as good as Hasek. In some eyes, like mine, maybe better.

What happened in the 2003 playoffs was a tough one. I understand why Giggy won it, but I still don't like it. Maybe I just don't like the award. It can rob a guy who had the most oustanding finals from being properly recognized.

Edited March 24, 2009 by 95Crash

[Triumph]

But to keep expanding, Marty has crazy stick handling skills which limits the number of shots an opponent gets as well. Not 9 shots per game worth but he was probably good for 4 or 5 before the trapezoid, I'd guess.

Also, a slightly lower save percentage on a large amount less shots may be more impressive, we don't know, if we're going to start imagining the quality of chances over those shots. If they both faced the same number of quality shots then the lower shots goalie will be at a disadvantage. Also, how many of the quality chances were created by a goalie inability to direct rebounds? There are so many layers to the onion to peel when it comes to goalie stats in the NHL.

I do know that wins is the very outer peel which tells us much less than the inner layers will about the goalies skill.

contrarian goaltender suggests 1 shot on goal per game over the course of brodeur's career. 4 or 5 seems incredibly excessive.

[Devils731]

contrarian goaltender suggests 1 shot on goal per game over the course of brodeur's career. 4 or 5 seems incredibly excessive.

1 seems excessively low to me. That would mean all the dump ins that Marty stifled each game and every time a team didn't dump when they should have because of Marty's stickhandling and then turned it over trying to skate it in would amount to 1 shot a game. 1 comes off as way too little.

[Triumph]

1 seems excessively low to me. That would mean all the dump ins that Marty stifled each game and every time a team didn't dump when they should have because of Marty's stickhandling and then turned it over trying to skate it in would amount to 1 shot a game. 1 comes off as way too little.

yeah but you have to put that in the context of other goalies too, i don't think brodeur is that much more skilled at stickhandling than most of them. it's a very hard thing to measure of course - but 4 or 5 seems absurd.