Obviously, wins are a dumb stat. Against Brodeur you can point out (Roy has) that with the advent of overtime and the shootout, his win totals are a little inflated -- he's still thirty-odd regulation wins behind Patrick. On the other hand, he lost a season (near-peak) to the lockout; he'd probably have those thirty-odd regulation wins by now (plus those four more shutouts to pass Sawchuk) if it wasn't for that. As it is, there's no reason to believe he won't get them next year, and maybe fifty more wins and a dozen more shutouts in the two years after that.

So then you get the argument of how best to judge an athlete -- by peak years (in which case Hasek and maybe Ken Dryden stand out, post expansion) or by career total (in which case it's Brodeur, sawchuk and Roy).

Amusingly, there's a whole stathead blog dedicated to proving that Brodeur is overrated -- <link>.

A more balanced discussion here: <link>

In Marty's favour (apart from his amazing consistency and durability) is, irrationally and unacceptably, his likability. Roy and Hasek are pricks and were prima donnas; Hasek in particular sullied his career a bit (in my eyes at least) with his final flake-out stints in Ottawa and Detroit. Ken Dryden is a politician; Terry Sawchuk was a depressive alcoholic from Winnipeg (redundant?). Brodeur, on the other hand, is decent, articulate and universally liked. And he looks awful cute smoking those victory cigars.

<link>

Sawchuk played most of his career without a mask.

Bacon -

Rock solid post, thank you. It would be my pleasure to argue these points, but I agree with each of yours. PatRoy was brilliant, but a hole. Dom was even more brilliant for a time, but a nutcase. Recurring groin injury, my backside, he stole from the Wings for at least two years.

Props to Marty. Not the greatest at any time, but damn fine for the longest time.

One of Sawchuk's arms was shorter than the other because he broke it when he was a kid and didn't tell anyone. No one said he was very bright, just that he was a Winnipegger.

Tony Esposito in 1969-70.

15 shutouts in 63 starts.

2.1 GAA.

38-17-8.

That's a peak year.

Thanks.

I forgot to add that after the lockout, the NHL introduced rules about goalie puck-handling that were practically specifically designed to penalize Brodeur. That's some kind of tribute.

Nice, and you're right. That's a Sandy Koufax kind of motherfucking year.

Wasn't that his rookie year. I know he was with Montreal for part of the previous season, but he was third string (behind...ummm...Plante and Dryden?) and never played more than a few minutes.

Yeah. Calder trophy in 69-70 (the 13 games he played with the Habs in 68 were few enough to make him ROY eligible in 69)

I think Dave Dryden was the guy he replaced, and Glenn Hall was in there too ....

Glad now that I was too young in 67 to be totally interested, or the Phil Espo, Ken Hodge, Stanfield to Boston for Pit Martin, Marotte, and some other bag of pucks deal might have pissed me off enough to make me a Redwings fan.

Comparisons may be odious, but they are fun. I see your link declines to include pre-1967 players, and probably rightfully so, but omitting Plante, Bower and even the great Gumper from consideration seems...criminal, or something.

Check this list and see how many times those three names alone appear.

And I think Gump Worsley deserves special consideration for "Midget Stops Mental Midget" (I swear I saw that headline somewhere as a kid), a headline referencing a Gump/Clear da track, here comes Shack) one on one.

deserves special consideration for being named Gump Worsley. I should have name-checked Jacques Plante, too, for obvious reasons -- like, five consecutive Stanley Cups, for one. The problem with stats in team sports apart from baseball is that they all boil down to "I'm making this shit up as I go along."

Some of the best games I ever saw were 3-2 and 2-1 affairs between the early 70s Hawks and Bruins.

Tony O and Gerry Scarmask Cheevers. Man that was some goaltending there.

Of course, like hockey, but never followed it with enough attention and consistency to be a good judge. I've watched very little in the last five years. My criteria for a great goaltender over a year is how much you fear facing him in the playoffs. I really feared when the Rangers faced Brodeur. Over a career, how many years did you fear him? Well, several.

As you probably know, Graves' number was retired this year by the Rangers. Only one outstanding year, but many years of value, and an even greater guy in real life. Anyway, mostly just saying hi.

Always makes me happy when you say "hi."

What strikes me about Brodeur is that lots of goalies have a great year or two and then fall back into the pack (or below the pack -- looking at you, Jose Theodore) but very few have been money in the bank, year after year after year. And Brodeur has been -- for fifteen years and counting. Steady like a rock. A Roy-like quit-the-team hissy-fit? Never. A Hasek-like flame-out in his final years? Inconceivable (and not in a Vizzini sense). Oversized equipment? Not even when everyone else was doing it.

At his best -- thinking the couple years around and including the 02 Olympics -- he seemed (to me) the best player in hockey, period. I guess that's a long time ago in its own way.

What you're saying about goalies reminds me of relief pitchers. [Jose Theodore--that's a blast from the past.] Brodeur sounds like Rivera (with maybe a Cal Ripken personality). I never cared for Roy, I did like Hasek a lot, despite aesthetically liking stand-up goaltenders more...maybe he faced so many shots in a game, maybe as someone who doesn't know the game, impressed too much by flash. Like with baseball, the guy who doesn't have to dive because he's already in position...

I'm usually trying to separate myself from the place, and a bit shy, but always wishing you well.