the “Nabokov for Vezina” campaign last year was a joke, as even the most mediocre of NHL goalies would rack up impressive numbers behind that San Jose lineup!

I guess you didn’t see the first quarter of the season last year when the Sharks were playing terribly and Nabokov kept them in the race.

Posted by NHLJeff from Pens fan in Chicago, IL on 01/22/09 at 10:49 AM ET

When I wrote this last week on the same subject I got attacked by a few Calgary/ Kiprusoff fans who missed the point.  I was arguing wins are a bad stat to judge goalies - and hence Kiprusoff is not playing nearly as well as his wins total might suggest.  They took it as an attack on Kiprusoff.

Let’s see if that repeats itself.  Judging from the first comment, its being taken as an attack on Nabokov instead.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 01/22/09 at 11:02 AM ET

It’s an unfortunate result of the NHL’s constant fiddling with the rule book that historical comparisons get muddled like this…

I agree, to an extent. Pitchers in baseball make fewer starts per season now than they did even 30 years ago, so wins and losses can’t really be compared there, either. In basketball, innovations like the shot clock and 3-point line muddy the waters for all kinds of historical comparisons. And let’s not even get into expansion, which has diluted the talent pool in every major team sport.

I’m no fan of the two-points-for-some-games-three-points-for-others system we’re in now, but… sports evolve. There aren’t many sports where historical comparisons of this sort are really straightforward.

Posted by Josh from Montreal on 01/22/09 at 11:31 AM ET

I definitely see your point and I agree that goalie wins is a pretty ridiculous statistic, but you really picked the wrong example.  Nabokov was by far the team MVP in SJ last year.  The star-studded lineup of which you speak was forced into an ill-fitting defensive system by former coach Ron Wilson.  They went from one of the highest scoring teams in the league in 2006-2007 to below average in 2007-2008, scoring less than teams like Nashville and Minnesota.  I take it you didn’t watch many SJ games last year because anybody who did knows that Nabokov stole a lot of those wins.  They would have been a borderline playoff team with a lesser goalie - no ‘joke’.  Not nominating him for the Vezina would have been a crime. 

This year on the other hand he has similar statistics (when healthy) but he has not been anywhere near as important to the team.  So if he gets another Vezina nod this year he would make a good example for your argument.

Posted by Smokey from CA on 01/22/09 at 11:36 AM ET

PuckStopsHere - Kipper is not the same goalie that was lights out during the 2004 run to the Finals or during his Vezina year.  I don’t think anyone disputed that on your blog.  What I think people took issue with is you claiming that he’s just taking advantage of being in the right place at the right time on a good team.

The fact is that throughout October and most of November, the Flames were very mediocre and Kipper’s numbers suffered.  He has certainly rebounded from that shaky start, but as mentioned previously, it’s difficult for his GAA and SV% to reflect that when they were beaten up early.

Is Kipper an elite goalie?  No, I don’t think he currently is.  Brodeur and Luongo are the only goalies I would put in the elite category (Tim Thomas is having a great year for Boston, but the jury is still out, in my opinion).  However, I would still place Kipper in the next tier of goalies.

He won’t win the Vezina award this year anyway, and as Forechecker says, who really cares if he gets the wins record.  As a Flames fan, I just want a healthy and focused Kipper for the playoffs.

Posted by dash_pinched from Rumour Mill Bay on 01/22/09 at 12:04 PM ET

I’d have to agree that using Nabokov last year was a terrible comparison.  I think the only stat that he wasn’t ahead in was save%.  And a 0.910 save% isn’t exactly terrible.

He had 5 less goals against, 6 less losses.  With your argument, Brodeur should never have win the Vezina before either because he was playing with an amazing team.  I think your logic is flawed because Big Red did deserve those trophies.

Kipper wouldnt get it now anyways.  A 2.82 GAA is really bad for a “top of the class” goaltender.  If you have a lot of wins AND great stats like Nabokov did last year, you deserve to win it.  Mason’s on my list right now

Posted by Matt Fry from Winnipeg on 01/22/09 at 12:29 PM ET

Oh and FYI, if you are wondering why people might ‘miss the point’ and take this column as some sort of attack on Nabokov, re-read this sentence you wrote: “the “Nabokov for Vezina” campaign last year was a joke, as even the most mediocre of NHL goalies would rack up impressive numbers behind that San Jose lineup!”.  This is dead wrong and clearly discredits his performance last year.

But like I said I agree with your argument, you just picked a really bad example.

Posted by Smokey from CA on 01/22/09 at 01:52 PM ET

The knock on Nabokov’s performance last year is that he played a ton (77 games) behind the best defensive team in the league.  I’ll give him kudos for endurance, but the quality of his work was mediocre by NHL standards.

Nabokov’s Save Percentage was .910, tied for 20th best in the NHL. If you dig into some of the details behind that work (start around page 8 of Alan Ryder’s 2008 review piece), you’ll see that San Jose put the least burden on their goaltending in terms of both the quantity and quality of shots given up.  The goaltending section of that article (starts on page 11) talks about this issue further.

Separating the performance of a team’s defensive skaters from the goaltending is an enlightening exercise.  Heck, there’s even a whole blog dedicated to this line of enquiry:

http://brodeurisafraud.blogspot.com/

Posted by Forechecker from Nolensville, TN on 01/22/09 at 02:08 PM ET

How many San Jose games did you watch last year? ANYBODY who watched a lot will tell you that he was the MVP of the team - by far in the early going - and they finished 2nd in the league overall.  Sounds like a good Vezina candidate to me.

Best defensive team in the league?  Please.  Just look at what players were actually on the team.  More like a great offensive team forced to play a defensive style and they never looked fully comfortable doing it.

You call his Vezina nomination last year a ‘joke’, but the joke is on you.  Until they can come up with a stat that measures ‘games stolen by great goaltending’ no amount of links, new-fangled stats and number crunching trump what really happened on the ice.  We are talking about hockey, not math class.

Posted by Smokey from CA on 01/22/09 at 03:35 PM ET

The fact is that without Kipper the Flames would not be where they are. He plays well, the team wins. He gives them a chance to win every night and that’s the most important fact. He plays well, the team wins games.

Posted by carly from toronto on 02/01/09 at 11:30 PM ET