The Inevitable Goalie Ranking Post
April 3rd, 2008, 10:44 am
Lot’s of buzz about the Vezina race right now. Article in the Merc, article on ESPN.com, and others are putting in their two cents. Time for mine, although they are only worth 1.87 Canadian cents now.
Rob Neyer has done something similar in baseball to ranking pitchers, and a I know I read a breakdown like this before, though I can’t find the post. Either Mirtle, PuckStopsHere, or BoC. Sorry I can find the cite, but the message is this- I didn’t invent this system.
For the major categories, you just put the ranking of each contestant, not their stats, and you can use the average ranking as a way to compare. Here goes:
| Name | Wins | SV% | GAA | Average |
| Nabby | 1 | 19 | 3 | 7.67 |
| Luongo | 7 | 11 | 11 | 9.67 |
| Brodeur | 2 | 5 | 4 | 3.67 |
| Giguere | 8 | 2 | 2 | 4 |
| Lundqvist | 5 | 18 | 7 | 10 |
| Kipper | 3 | 31 | 27 | 20.33 |
| Osgood | 16 | 16 | 1 | 11 |
Now if you strictly took the top three as Vezina Finalists, you’d have Brodeur, Giguere, and Nabby. We all know that’s not going to happen. Luongo will be a finalist, no question. He’s viewed, not rightly so in my mind, as a slam-dunk finalist. It does bother me that some players get anointed as great regardless of their actual results. If Luongo was named, oh, I don’t know, “Lundqvist” or something, we wouldn’t be talking about this in the same way.
It’s really hard for me to be objective here, because I know Nabby is the MVP of the Sharks. Without his consistent play, the trials we witnessed in November through January would have been a hell of a lot worse. The unbelievable streak we are on is in no small part to Nabby’s performance.
My prediction is that Nabby will not be named a finalist, for a two reasons:
- The Sharks play on the west coast which doesn’t get as much media attention as the East Coast or Canadian teams. Nabby technically did have a shot at setting a wins record, which helps his cause. However, I think people will argue (rightly or wrongly) that his wins are more of a result of him playing so many games.
- I think this comment by puckstopshere in a comment on his blog is indicative of a sentiment: “Nabokov may be a good goalie, but any Vezina chances he has are largely a product of playing a lot of games behind a good defence, as opposed to being a Vezina worthy goalie.” Rant time. Nabby may be a good goalie? Can anyone honestly present an argument that Nabby isn’t a good goalie that won’t make me blow milk out of my nose? Also, It bugs me that this standard isn’t applied consistently. When Brodeur puts up good stats when he’s behind the #1 ranked conference defense (by GA) in the East, he’s a great goalie. When Luongo puts up good stats behind the #5 ranked defense, he’s a great goalie. When Giguere does it behind the #3 defense (only one more goal allowed than the Sharks), he’s great. When Nabby does it behind the #2 defense it’s because of the defense, not because he’s great. Give me a formula, heuristic, or methodology to explain that, and let’s discuss it on merit, instead of some voodoo feeling.
At the end of the day, it doesn’t really matter, because Brodeur is going to win it, and he should.
Loading ...
The mere fact that Giggy’s has only started under 70% of the Ducks games should eliminate him from the conversation. He has missed too many games to injury and hasn’t had to carry the load that Nabby, Luongo and Brodeur have. That should make his save percentage and GAA stats carry less weight, since he has appeared in almost 20 less games than Brodeur and Nabby.
In my opinion, if Nabby isn’t nominated, it is huge oversight by the NHL. I have faith they will do the right thing, as they did by Joe Thornton two years ago.
It’s a good point, but Lundqvist played only 53 games in 2005-06 and was a finalist. I think the lack of GP will prevent Jiggy from winning, but not the finals. He’s a decorated goalie with a reputation for being “clutch”, and I think players like that are more likely to be nominated again.
First off, I have no problem with the basic methodology, but it didn’t come from BoC. I hardly ever talk about Vezinas, because (a) I don’t know what basis they’re decided, other than name recognition, and (b) frankly, I don’t want ’em.
If a goalie is solid, that’s good enough by me. All a Vezina adds to a goalie is maybe half-a-million at contract renewal time. Frankly, I’m hoping Giguere gets snubbed; sure he’s had a good year and sure he’s signed for another three years, but even so, I’d rather have the performance without the silly accolade.
Such is the nature of the CBA, I guess. Better to have the Vezina-worthy performance than the actual Vezina Trophy itself. Other than the feel-good aspect, all it really adds is a bump to his next salary amount.
Hey Mike and grier,
Since you have started the “inevitable” posts, when can we expect to see your opinion about how the MVP and Con Smythe trophies are awarded, or maybe more to the point, how they should be awarded?
Sleek,
I suppose you could say that about any trophy (except the Byng of course. I would dock pay for any player that won that). Hopefully the way it works is the players most deserving get nominated, so you can’t have a Vezina-worthy performance without the nomination. Choosing between a goalie on the bubble getting nominated and one that’s a lock to win is no choice at all, even with the salary bump it produces.
I’m just spitballing here, but I think winning a trophy provides a bit of lock-in as well. That is, a player might have a little more loyalty to a team where he won the award. Why would you want to ditch a team where your (presumably) best memories were?
Scotlund,
I’ll do a Hart/Norris discussion next week or so. Although it might be even less interesting than this one.
Yeah, it’s true. That’s why I don’t mind east-coast bias. Let ’em have their awards and their glowing articles; they’ll have to pay for those later, and we’ll just take the Cup instead. 🙂