Oh boy.  Here we go again with this whole “elite” team non-sense.

I totally disagree with your premise.  I am not offended.  At all.

Just look at the last two finals versus the last two pre-lockout finals.

Both the Red Wings and Penguins, in 07-08 and 08-09, were better teams than the Ducks and Devils in 02-03 and the Lightning and Flames in 03-04.  Not only they better teams, but they are putting a much better product out there on the ice.

Even the Puck Daddy article mentioned that he believed that the Wings teams in ‘97 and ‘98 were better than the team in ‘02, but under your definition of “elite”, neither of those teams would have been “elite” since you wouldn’t consider either Vernon or Osgood as “elite” goaltenders.

Posted by Ajax19 on 11/03/09 at 01:02 PM ET

Yeah, what a snoozefest the last two Finals have been between two mediocre teams…..

Always good for a chuckle, TPSH….

Posted by Tony from Virginia Beach, VA on 11/03/09 at 02:05 PM ET

Ajax19

Even the Puck Daddy article mentioned that he believed that the Wings teams in ‘97 and ‘98 were better than the team in ‘02, but under your definition of “elite”, neither of those teams would have been “elite” since you wouldn’t consider either Vernon or Osgood as “elite” goaltenders.

Why do people persist in making these false strawman arguments and pretending I agree with them?  It is a good rule of thumb that every elite team needs an elite goalie.  In order to make it a bit more technical than just a rule of thumb, how good the elite goalie must be must be better quantified.  That answer depends upon the quality of the team playing in front of him.  The better the team - the more elite talent it has and the better it plays together - the weaker a goalie is needed.  That said both Red Wings goalies in the late 90’s (Vernon and Osgood) were better than the 2009 playoff goalies (Fleury and a much older Osgood) and the team in front of the goalie was better than either 2009 finalist.  So I have no problem calling the 1997 or 1998 Detroit Red Wings elite teams.  They are far better teams than anybody in 2008/09.

The argument that the Stanley Cup winners just before the lockout were not as strong as those in the first three years of the decade is true - and the biggest reason for that is over-expansion.  The new expansion teams were gathering more talent.  When more talent gets spread in more directions there is less left for the top teams.  Expansion and a salary cap happened at around the same time - but it is the salary cap that is most damaging to building an elite team.  It is nearly impossible given salary cap constraints.  However, I would argue that the 2003 Devils and 2004 Lightning were better teams than you think.  The NHL chose to de-market itself to prepare for the lockout.  Instead of promoting the quality of the best teams, they argued that they were not very good and many fans bought that line and as a result were more likely to accept the lockout as they believed something was wrong (it turned out that the solution of a salary cap would make the problems worse - but many of these fans did not think hard enough to realize this).

Tony:  You can have competitive games between any two teams.  Los Angeles and Phoenix played a very good one last night (did you watch?).  Could it have been a better game?  Of course it could have.  If those teams were better teams and had more good players it would likely have been a better game, but it was a very good game.  Likewise, Detroit and Pittsburgh played a good competitive series and it could have been better if they were as good as the teams that typically made the Stanley Cup finals 8 or 10 years ago.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 11/03/09 at 02:24 PM ET

Your definition of what makes a “good team” is unclear. If we’re talking about overall - offense, defense, and goaltending - the Penguins are up there. If we want to put a stronger emphasis on offense, than the 2008 Red Wings are up there. The 2007 Ducks probably had the strongest defense in the NHL over the past decade. And the forwards on that team have a bright future ahead of them. The logic is just flawed because we haven’t seen the young kids of teams like the Penguins, Ducks and Red Wings turn into the stars.

Example - “Sakic, Peter Forsberg(notes) (back when he’d give you 73 games), Milan Hejduk(notes), Alex Tanguay(notes), Chris Drury(notes), Adam Deadmarsh, Bourque, Rob Blake(notes)” were all considered the best players on that team according to Puck Daddy. Only Sakic, Forsberg, Deadmarsh and Bourque were in their prime. Drury, Hejduk, Tanguay and even Rob Blake weren’t considered elite players until the years that followed.

Wait and see what happens with the current players on Penguins, Ducks and Wings. We’ll be looking back and think “How the hell did they have that many good players on that team at once?!” - The names on the 2007 Ducks already dumbfound me “Corey Perry(notes), Ryan Getzlaf(notes), Dustin Penner(notes), Chris Kunitz(notes), Andy McDonald(notes), Travis Moen(notes)” - How the hell did they let Andy MacDonald go when he’s turning into one of the elite centers in the entire league?!

TL;DR -
Current teams are just as good, if not better than teams from earlier in the decade.

Posted by Gary on 11/03/09 at 02:25 PM ET

Tony:  You can have competitive games between any two teams.  Los Angeles and Phoenix played a very good one last night (did you watch?).  Could it have been a better game?  Of course it could have.  If those teams were better teams and had more good players it would likely have been a better game, but it was a very good game.  Likewise, Detroit and Pittsburgh played a good competitive series and it could have been better if they were as good as the teams that typically made the Stanley Cup finals 8 or 10 years ago.

That’s NOT what you said.  You said, “You may get an exciting series played between two mediocre teams”, and that’s where I disagree.  Last year’s Wings and Penguins, and the ‘07-‘08 teams for that matter, were not “mediocre”.  Both of those teams were damn good, and their series in both years were outstanding…

Posted by Tony from Virginia Beach, VA on 11/03/09 at 02:28 PM ET

“Does that not offend you? “

What’s detrimental to the league—and ultimately offensive to fans of competition as a whole—is when wealthy franchises bankrolled by millionaires (or giant corporations, e.g.,the Rangers) can field teams with payrolls double those of teams from smaller cities without rich owners.  It stunts competition on a league-wide level and I would never want to return to that.  The ice was tilted far too much.

A recent Sports Illustrated article on Detroit talked about MIke Illitch and his “disdain for salary caps.”  I don’t blame him one bit for not liking the concept, which can help mitigate the monetary advantage his wealth brings to his teams.  But for the league as a whole, it makes sense.

What happened to the Red Wings this offseason—and the Penguins, too, for that matter—that’s how it ought to work, quite frankly.  It is painful for good teams to have to let good players go because they don’t fit under the cap.  But it benefits the rest of the league when talent is not hoarded by the wealthiest.  It also puts a premium on player scouting and development, as it should be.

The salary cap isn’t perfect, but it beats not having one.

Posted by Breakaway on 11/03/09 at 02:38 PM ET

Tony:  Mediocre is a relative term.  Last year’s cup finalists are mediocre relative to the cup finalists we would routinely see ten years ago.  They are also the best teams in the NHL last year.  So relative to the teams in the NHL last year they were good.

The problem is that the best teams in the NHL in 2009 are mediocre relative to the best teams in say 2001.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 11/03/09 at 02:38 PM ET

What’s detrimental to the league—and ultimately offensive to fans of competition as a whole—is when wealthy franchises bankrolled by millionaires (or giant corporations, e.g.,the Rangers) can field teams with payrolls double those of teams from smaller cities without rich owners.  It stunts competition on a league-wide level and I would never want to return to that.  The ice was tilted far too much.

Reality never fit this story.  In 2004 before the salary cap big markets like Tampa Bay and Calgary met in the Stanley Cup finals.  The New York Rangers who had twice the payroll of anyone else had just finishing missing the playoffs for the 7th year in a row.  The idea that a team could buy success was false.

The NHL CBA made sure that was the case.  Unrestricted free agency did not occur until age 31.  That meant that the only players available to be bought were well on the downslope of their careers.  If a team like the Rangers wanted to buy them all they could go out and do so and fail.  A team had to get young talent to win and they could hold that young talent much longer - as free agency ages have now been reduced, thus bringing up salaries of younger players.  This coupled with a salary cap make it much harder to build a winning team and keep it together.

Before the lockout, teams in Denver, East Rutherford, Dallas and Detroit dominated for most of a decade.  They were not the biggest markets in the NHL.  They were not New York, Los Angeles, Toronto.  They were well run and put up consistently winning teams.  The problem was that it looked like Tampa Bay and Ottawa were well on their way to dominating the next decade.  That couldn`t be.  The bigger markets needed a shot.  A salary cap managed to break up both of those teams before they could be dynasties.  It is now much harder to put together a consistently good team.  Those that are consistently good are not as good as those from the early part of the decade.  They do not have as long to build themselves up before the salary cap forces them to tear themselves down.  Detroit has done the best job so far of building a team that is consistently good - but it is showing considerable cracks so far this year.  Pittsburgh may take over or San Jose or somebody else, but they will have to give away talent next summer to stay under the salary cap and won`t get as good as they once did.

One of the biggest myths hockey fans keep arguing is that the salary cap was needed because the New York Rangers had an unfair advantage without it.  The Rangers used that unfair advantage to miss the playoffs 7 straight years.  That is definitely not an advantage of any sort when it leads to that kind of result.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 11/03/09 at 02:51 PM ET

Tony:  Mediocre is a relative term.  Last year’s cup finalists are mediocre relative to the cup finalists we would routinely see ten years ago.  They are also the best teams in the NHL last year.  So relative to the teams in the NHL last year they were good.

The problem is that the best teams in the NHL in 2009 are mediocre relative to the best teams in say 2001.

According to who ??  You ?? 

All you’re doing is giving your opinion, that’s great, knock yourself out.  Quit portraying your opinion as if it’s the frickin’ gospel…. Maybe you won’t get blasted everytime you post something….

Posted by Tony from Virginia Beach, VA on 11/03/09 at 03:04 PM ET

Tony. 

As the title of this post points out it is the opinion according to Puck Daddy I am quoting.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 11/03/09 at 03:12 PM ET

Uh-huh

Posted by Tony from Virginia Beach, VA on 11/03/09 at 03:15 PM ET

Wow Tony.  Settle down dude.

Posted by AvsRock from My timeshare in insanity... on 11/03/09 at 04:18 PM ET

opinions are fine….i’ve got one.
the NHL powers that be…wanted to stop repeat domination to a degree…now if you field a dominant team you have grasped a better management of the sport than your competitor. your draft choices have come to fruition for a lower price than the free agent with similar points/quality.
the balance of power is now spread out over a bunch of variables. the teams now use payroll, location, teammates, chances based on previous year, coaching staff, team history, to field their respective teams.
as a player on free agency, these are his parameters.
you could still have an “elite” team….but the time frame has significantly diminished. what the Red Wings had/have is all of the above…except with the payroll. this will hamper the wings streak of repetitive succession.
see Chicago/Pittsburgh/San Jose/Boston….all of who could have become dominant forces for the next 10 years, but the upcoming cap issues will hamper all of them to field the same level of talent for x amount of dollars.
now, its a gamble to put together a successful team based on a payroll vs. chemistry vs. injury. (no…we can’t turn off the injuries to even the playing field)
in my opinion…you can still have a dominant “elite”  team…but chemistry and injuries will play a huge role now…considering you cant buy your way out of trouble.
if this were so…the wings could buy kovalchuk kessel, sundin,and kept hossa.
i blame more damage on the parity in the NHL on the expansion factor than the CBA.
now,i am not a fan of the CBA…but i understand why its there…the good news about this for all teams is that every year there are more people playing hockey and the crop of young new players gets bigger, so the overall percentage of quality choices are climbing. the only way to reverse the increase of quality is to introduce more teams to the NHL. if there were 2 more teams in the league…would shanahan, chelios, sundin, sakic, be unemployed?
the KHL is becoming the expansion team we don’t want, and it doesn’t even assist our country’s market or fan nation.
if the last expansion never happened….the balance of power across 4 lines would be significantly better. if those players had to be distributed across the NHL right now….who would be out of a job? and what pay cuts would be affected if the cap was the same?
so…in conclusion, the dominant team can still exist, but luck, will play the largest factor as well as the parameters set above.
our definition of “dominant” will have to change.

Posted by chad delong from albuquerque NM on 11/03/09 at 04:19 PM ET

Well, the “Dynasty” title is shot.  A team might have up to three years of greatness.  Then the rookie contracts come up.  Most contracts expire and half the team is up for a raise.  The team blows up and usually goes down to the bottom of the standings. 

I’m already afraid of what will happen to the Avs in three years.  I would love for them to keep all of Anderson, Duchene, O’Reilly, Galiardi, Hendricks, Wolski, Stastny, Quincey, Liles, Cumiskey, Jones, McLeod and a couple others.  Does anyone think they will be able to under the salary cap?  Sure, if it’s set at $65 mil or more.

Of course the players will have it bad too.  Guys like Kovalchuk, that will demand a salary close to $10 mil a year, might hand-cuff their team.  Look at the situation in Chicago.  They signed Cambell and Hossa for huge contracts and next season they will most likely have to part ways with some of their young guns.  I don’t think the players union would be ok if Toews and Kane said “sure, we’ll each play for $2 mil a year for ten years.”  I remember Leech would take a home town discount every year for the Rangers and the union being angry with him about it.  People tend to forget that the parameters of a player’s salary is sometimes set for them by the union. 

Why do you ask?  Well, if a player like Malkin were to take a salary with a cap hit of $3 mil a year for ten years because he loved the town and team he played for does anyone think a player like Eric Staal could justify a salary above that? 
Malkin’s salary would set the curve that the other forwards in the league would get graded on.  Things would be different the next year, unless another superstar took a home town discount.

BTW chad.  Sakic retired by choice, not due to lack of employment.  He felt his body couldn’t handle another season.  If he wanted to play in the NHL he would still be the captain of the Avs.

Posted by AvsRock from My timeshare in insanity... on 11/03/09 at 04:59 PM ET

our definition of “dominant” will have to change

Yes in order to continue to claim that some teams are dominant, we will have to accept worse and worse teams as being dominant.  That strikes me as a very bad thing.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 11/03/09 at 05:22 PM ET

TPSH,

While I’m usually one to leap to TPSH’s defense, this is one topic upon which I must part company.

The ultimate extension of his argument—you can decide if it is the logical or illogical extension—is that hockey was better in the original six era when talent was concentrated in six “elite” teams.

From a practical standpoint, that’s a rube’s argument. If you take into account population increases in Canada during the last 40 years, increased participation in the United States, and the availability of European players, the reality is that the available talent pool is more than sufficient to stock 30 NHL teams.

Part of the problem in discussing “elite” teams is that we often try to set our norm against the abnormal, and thus are disappointed when the current reality doesn’t measure up. From 1976 through 1990—a period of 15 seasons— the Stanley Cup was essentially in the possession of three teams: Montreal, NY Islanders and Edmonton. (Calgary muscled into the mix for a Cup in 1989, downing Montreal in the Finals.) The fact that the next 20 years didn’t produce a similar result is not a reflection on over-expansion, or increasing poor quality of play, or declining standards, but rather a return to the norm.

In that same respect, it is much easier to place teams of the past in context because we know of the stories have played out, how the careers of the stars, semi-stars and support players have panned out. I grew up in Edmonton, watching the Oilers from day one of the WHA right through the glory years of the 1980s and beyond. When Edmonton won the Cup in 1984, we already knew how good Gretzky was. But Messier hadn’t become MESSIER at that point, and it took a few more seasons and some playoff heroics for Kurri, Coffey, Anderson and Fuhr to become the obvious HHOFers that they are.

Similarly, the 2008 Red Wings and the 2009 Penguins pale in comparison to older teams of the past only because they are such recent winners, particularly the Baby Penguins. Let another 10 years pass, so we see how the careers of the stars and support players on those squads ripen. I think you’ll find those clubs stack up quite well amongst the great teams we remember.

It is no accident the top teams of the naughts are from the front of the decade (2002, 2001, 2000). Like a fine wine, these clubs have had a chance to mature in our memories. We have a context in which to place them, and we can grade them on their prior and past accomplishments. Those 2009 Penguins are just too new to be afforded the same reflection.

Give them a few more years, and we’ll see how they rank.

Posted by Matthew McCallum from Redding, California on 11/03/09 at 05:46 PM ET

As population expands, the NHL can expand.  As the number of players went up, the NHL could also expand.  I am not arguing for a return to a six team league.  I am arguing that the league has over expanded now and those effects are being seen in the quality of the best teams in the league.  Those teams are not as good - although this is not the only effect causing it.

I would argue that trying to define elite teams is a case of defining the abnormal.  The teams that are truly great are the teams we want to find and not the normal ones.  It may be that one elite team rarely wins 4 or 5 cups (despite what happened in the last part of the 70`s and the 80`s) even if they can be kept together.  That is basically what we saw in the 1990s.  However, when you cannot keep a team together long enough to get such a team built in the first place, these teams go away.

The idea that we will think more highly of the 2009 Penguins when the legacy of more of their players is clear is likely false.  I think the comparison to the 1984 Edmonton Oilers clearly shows why that is.  The 1984 Oilers had four 100 point scorers in Wayne Gretzky (205), Paul Coffey (126), Jari Kurri (113), Mark Messier (101) and Glenn Anderson barely missing with 99 points.  We didn`t have to wait years to see that these guys were on track to become Hall of Famers merely by continuing play at the same level.  This placed them 1st (Gretzky), 2nd (Coffey), 7th (Kurri), 12th (Messier) and 13th (Anderson) in the league in scoring that year.  Last year the top five scoring Penguins were Malkin (1st), Crosby (3rd), Jordan Staal (89th), Petr Sykora (113th) and Ruslan Fedotenko (164th).  We don`t need to wait years into the future to see that this is definitely not the same ballpark.  The Penguins in a best case may see Sergei Gonchar join Malkin and Crosby on a hall of fame track based on what we had seen before this season.  If we imagine that their bests are yet to come we can possibly add Fleury, Goligoski, Staal, but each must take a quantum leap above his 2008/09 level.  The Oilers Hall of Fame players did not have to take that quantum leap.  They were there already.  They were well on the track to Hall of fame careers.  Of course the one point we are yet to mention is that the salary cap will prevent the Penguins from keeping this team together if we assume that all the young potential all star or hall of fame types really do mature.  They will be spread throughout the league in their primes and we will be left discussing what could have been.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 11/03/09 at 06:18 PM ET

2008 Osgood is, without question, a better goalie than 1998 Osgood.  Simply watching the games (and understanding the spot of hockey) would tell you that. 

This is a tired point that this shitshow brings up to get noticed.  He doesn’t have an argument, he doesn’t have stats, he doesn’t even have an idea of what he means, other than his statements which he wants us to take as facts. 

According to who ??  You ??

All you’re doing is giving your opinion, that’s great, knock yourself out.  Quit portraying your opinion as if it’s the frickin’ gospel…. Maybe you won’t get blasted everytime you post something….

Tony, you hit the nail on the head sir.

Posted by moore00 from Columbus, OH/Grand Rapids, MI on 11/03/09 at 06:20 PM ET

Oops, should have typed “and understanding the sport of hockey”

Posted by moore00 from Columbus, OH/Grand Rapids, MI on 11/03/09 at 06:20 PM ET

Moore. 

Here is one convincing argument that you have read and ignored that Chris Osgood was a far better player in the 1998 version than he is now.

A cursory understanding of the sport of hockey would clearly tell you that players tend to decline as they age into their 30’s and the evidence is that Chris Osgood is following that path quite predictably.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 11/03/09 at 06:49 PM ET

There are 40 comments on that page that explain why you are an idiot then and still are now.

(Plus Osgood in 08 had a better save % in 98.  Wow.)

And being a fan of the team, our feelings towards Osgood has changed 180 degrees since then.  This is for a reason.

Posted by moore00 from Columbus, OH/Grand Rapids, MI on 11/03/09 at 07:02 PM ET

You have cherrypicked your numbers to attempt to make your point.  Osgood’s saves percentage was .914 in 2008 and .913 in 1998.  At the very least we can say the two seasons are about the same - at least before trying to compare with the saves percentages in the league at the time.  If you look at the overall trend in the numbers instead of haning onto his one anomalous season, you would clearly see the trend.  The problem is you don’t want to see it, you want to try to prove I am wrong - and you don’t want to let reality enter into your argument when it shows the contrary.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 11/03/09 at 07:08 PM ET

I don’t discount his number are not as good, especially lately, but just simply watching him you would realize that he is a better goalie in 2007-2008 than in 1997.  That also doesn’t count the fact the fact played a few years in the shitholes that are NY and St. Louis.  As always, stats don’t mean everything.

But I’m done arguing the same thing over and over with your ass.

Posted by moore00 from Columbus, OH/Grand Rapids, MI on 11/03/09 at 07:31 PM ET

Wow Tony.  Settle down dude.

Posted by AvsRock from My timeshare in insanity… on 11/03/09 at 04:18 PM ET

You’re of the opinion I’m upset ??

Far from it, it’s all good…

Posted by Tony from Virginia Beach, VA on 11/03/09 at 07:33 PM ET

TPSH,

You’re engaged in a bit of revisionist history. I was in Edmonton during the glory days, and circa 1984 there was no absolute certainty that the Oilers would someday be going into the HHOF en masse.

For example, at that time the conventional wisdom was Andy Moog was a far better goaltender than Grant Fuhr. It took a couple more seasons in the playoffs and some great international hockey for that attitude to change.

Great players (and great teams) are defined by talent and opportunity meshing in accomplishment. It is the perspective granted by time that allows us to weight the value of the accomplishments.

Posted by Matthew McCallum from Redding, California on 11/03/09 at 08:14 PM ET

There was no absolute certainty - I never claimed there was - but these players were clearly on track to be hall of famers if they maintained their established career paths.  They clearly were established as a better group of players then the 2009 Pittsburgh Penguins have established themselves to be.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 11/03/09 at 08:19 PM ET

TPSH,

The issue back in the day when trying to grade the quality of 1980s Edmonton Oilers players was the question of how much Wayne Gretzky contributed to their improved performance. You have to remember that Gretzky as a rookie turned B.J. MacDonald into a near 50-goal scorer. When Gretzky’s totals improved (and his linemates’ numbers soared), was it due to better quality players around him, or was Gretzky lifting everybody up?

It wasn’t until Pocklington started selling off the team that we got an answer to that question. Coffey thrived without Gretzky, so he must be a pretty good player. Messier, Kurri and Anderson all came into their own after that 1988 sale, and the realization started to dawn on OIlers watchers that these talents weren’t being carried by Gretzky’s breeze. Indeed—dare we think it?—Gretzky benefited from a strong supporting cast. It took time for perceptions to change and for the talent to be recognized.

We’re still in the early days of those 2008 Detroit and 2009 Pittsburgh clubs.

Yes, Crosby and Malkin are already on clear HHOF paths, but it’s going to take a little time for the other talents to make their case. For example, M-A Fleury is beginning to make his statement, and I expect in the next couple of years he will eclipse Roberto Luongo in the public perception as best goalie in the league. Gonchar has many arguments in his favour, and I’d rate him as being on the cusp of a HHOFer. Other young talents will emerge.

Similarly, with Detroit 2008, we can agree that Hasek, Chelios and Lidstrom make the grade already, and Datsyuk and Zetterberg are on the path. Osgood (love him or hate him) has a compelling case, and Brian Rafalski has a Bill White argument (great career, but came to the league too late). Surely one or two more names will emerge over time.

Posted by Matthew McCallum from Redding, California on 11/04/09 at 01:56 PM ET

Your comparisons do not hold water.  Blair MacDonald at age 26 scored 94 points playing alongside Gretzky.  It was his first full season in the NHL - though he had several lower scoring years in the WHA.  It was clear he was not the player that the Oiler stars were.  He never again got more than 43 points in an NHL season.

Paul Coffey was 23 in 1984.  As a defenceman he had just scored 89,96 and 126 points in his last 3 years.

Jari Kurri was 24 and had 86, 104 and 113 points in his last three years.

Mark Messier was 23 and had 88,106 and 101 points and had a physical dimension in his game none of the others did.

Glenn Anderson was 24 and his last three years were 105, 104 and 99 points.

All four of them project to be much better players than MacDonald even looking at his peak season.

It is true that we could not have perfectly projected any of them.  At that point, I might have expected more from Glenn Anderson than we actually got, less from Messier and come close on Coffey and Kurri.

It is possible that Marc-Andre Fleury would establish himself as a top goalie in the future - but that projection is doubtful.  Last season he won the Stanley Cup with the worst saves percentage of a Stanley Cup winning goalie in a long time.  He received zero Vezina Trophy votes.  It isnt the kind of season you might expect from a future hall of Famer.  He turns 25 this year and was a highly regarded junior so it is likely his best is yet to come - but how good is that likely.  I expect that he never wins a Vezina Trophy in his career.  If he makes a Hall of Fame case, it will likely be similar to that of Chris Osgood meaning he lasted a long time and was on some teams that had playoff success with him in goal - but he was never a serious player in the argument for best goalie in the league at any time.  The uncertainty in that comes from the lack of a clear number one goalie in the league if Luongo keeps getting hurt and Brodeur declines with age.  Nevertheless, I would think better candidates exist to take over as the NHLs top goalie (ie Henrik Lundqvist) and the possibility exists that people not really on the radar screen join the race like Tim Thomas has or possibly Craig Anderson will.

Trying to put the events of today into historical context is a tough thing to do, but I think a lot of conclusions can be drawn.  It can be shown that the teams of today are not on the level of the teams of yesterday in terms of how many top players they can have.  It can be seen that they fail using the same indicators one would have used to pick those teams of the past as elite teams (and to pick the teams of today as not measuring up).

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 11/04/09 at 02:31 PM ET

So guys like Tim Thomas and Craig Anderson are more likely to emerge as the truly great goalies in the league as 30-year-olds than a 25 year old Fleury in his fifth full season where he’s gotten progressively better each year, backstopping his team to a Stanley Cup, and thus won’t likely make the Hall of Fame? The amount of conjecture in your statements and your condescending tone is outstanding. You acknowledge that he’s 25 with his best yet to come, but because he hasn’t won a Vezina already, he won’t? Your logic makes no sense. Roberto Luongo is five years older and hasn’t won a Vezina; in fact, his accomplishments to date (awards, playoff performance, all-star selections) aren’t necessarily Hall of Fame worthy. Yet no one is judging him or his future; so why be so quick to judge the next possible 15 years of Fleury’s career?

Anyway, that’s just a minor point about this whole mess of an idea that you’re presenting. I’m as big a hockey fan as you are, and have been for two decades. I’ve seen some great teams, and I’m most excited for the hockey that’s being played today. I have not felt cheated watching any of the post-lockout Stanley Cup Finals. They’ve been fast, exciting and played at a top level, regardless how many “hall of fame track” players the teams playing had. Luckily, now, any team able to develop and nurture good young talent and make key strategic trades and signings can win the Stanley Cup, as opposed to it being mostly monopolized by teams spending the most money.

Posted by nw on 11/04/09 at 05:17 PM ET

If you find goalies with similar numbers at a similar age to Marc-Andre Fleury, they do not become superstar hall of fame type goalies.  I think a good comparable might be Don Beaupre.  He played 44 games as a 19 year old with the Minnesota North Stars and played pretty well.  He had a solid career and never was a serious Vezina candidate.  The prediction that Fleury and Beaupre have similar careers is a reasonable one.

The prediction that somebody that we never expected comes out and has some really strong years in the future is also a good one.  I have no idea who the person is, but it is quite common in hockey history for a goalie who has been around the game for 5 or 10 years and never really made it as an NHL starter to suddenly emerge as one.  I have no idea who that somebody is - it is somebody like Tim Thomas circa 2004 or Craig Anderson of 2007.  Your guess is as good as mine as to who he might be, but he is liekly out there somewhere.

Luckily, now, any team able to develop and nurture good young talent and make key strategic trades and signings can win the Stanley Cup, as opposed to it being mostly monopolized by teams spending the most money.

This is the way things always have been.  Who would have predicted that Colorado or New Jersey or Dallas or or Detroit or Tampa Bay would be the Stanley Cup winners?  None of them are the biggest cities in the NHL and all won cups in the run up to the lockout.  They are not your New York, Los Angeles, Toronto big markets.

You seem to have cause and effect reversed.  The teams that won the Stanley Cup drafted well.  They obtained a good young core that developed together.  Once they had that core, they won games.  This raised their revenues.  This allowed them to spend the money to keep their core together as it grew in age and became more expensive.  They probably also added another part or two as free agents as every team does.  The good young core came first and then the payroll second.  Without the good core, there would be no success from spending a lot (the Rangers and Toronto went down this path).  It seemed any market could do this.  Dallas could do this.  Now they have financial troubles.  Colorado could do it and now have troubles (though not as big as Dallas).  New Jersey did it and never had a top attendance in the league.  Tampa Bay even did it.  We have no idea if they could have kept their core together and continued to compete or not because that was the point when the NHL changed the rules, but clearly anybody could do it.  The proof is anybody did.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 11/04/09 at 05:32 PM ET

I’m curious to how old you are, TPSH.  not because I think that you necessarily use childish arguments, but I want to know which teams you grew up admiring that gave you your idea of what a truly “elite” team is.

I’ve stated before that I disagree that expansion has somehow cheated all of us fans out of the opportunity to enjoy watching juggernauts do battle.  The last two years worth of cup finals have been incredibly entertaining.  Moreso than any cup finals I had watched in my own hockey lifetime, which includes all of those teams you say are considerably better than the clubs of the last two years.

Besides, from looking at those finals, were the 02 and 03 SCF each played between two “elite” teams?  I’m not arguing that the 01 tilt between the Devils and Avs wasn’t a matchup of elites, but were the 02 Hurricanes and the 03 Ducks elite? 

Does having a cup final between one elite team and one mediocre team (relatively speaking, of course) make it better to watch or worse?

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/04/09 at 05:46 PM ET

You’re comparing Fleury with Don Beaupre because it’s a “reasonable” projection? Why Beaupre and not a Mike Vernon? Why not a Curtis Joseph? Why not a Roberto Luongo? Why not a Martin Brodeur? No one expects that Fleury IS the next Brodeur (i.e. one of the greatest of all time), but he sure isn’t Don Beaupre, either.

Fleury, at 24, has 31 career playoff wins compared to Beaupre’s total 33. Beaupre never won 30 games in a season; at 24, Fleury has done it twice and, barring injury, will top 40 this year. At 24, Fleury has a Stanley Cup ring and another Finals appearance. Beaupre never made it past the second round.

I expect you’ll be eating crow in fifteen years (and this coming from a Red Wings fan who thinks that Osgood is a Hall of Famer but that Fleury will be even better in the end…)

You’re a joke.

Posted by nw on 11/04/09 at 09:48 PM ET

The question comes to creating classes of comparable players.  If I have a player in group X I expect he will perform about as well as the players who came through group X before him. 

Who is in the class of players comparable to Fleury?  How do we find them?  I am looking of players who hit the NHL at a similar young age and had roughly the same ranking leaguewide in GAA and saves percentage (though those absolute numbers have changed over time) while given a chance to be number one goalies (baring in mind that number one goalies of today play significantly more games than they did 25 years ago).  Wins and playoff wins are red herrings.  Good teams win games.  Goalies on those teams win games but we might have a comparable goalie on a weaker team with less wins.  Playoff wins are an even bigger red herring because players on weak teams do not get a chance to play in the playoffs.  I think Beaupre is one example of a good comparable by those standards - he is not the only one and I don’t have these putt groups of players available for comparison at my fingertips.  It would take time to find a good group - and for some unique players comparables are hard to come by.

Why is Vernon a poor comparable?  He was 23 in his rookie season.  Fleury had played well over 100 games by that age.  Curtis Joseph was also 23 as a rookie.  Perhaps he and Vernon are comparables at that age - depending on what characteristics you are looking for.

Roberto Luongo is a poor comparable to answer questions about the hall of fame - because we havent seen enough of Luongo’s career to know for sure if he is going to get there or not.  His age of entry into the NHL is similar to Fleury, but his saves percentage relative to the league is significantly better than Fleury’s at equivalent ages.  The logical conclusion is that Fleury is not as good as Luongo and likely will never be.  But that doesn’t answer the question of just how good will he be.  For that we need players more similar to Fleury.

Two off the top of my head are Don Beaupre and Felix Potvin.  I am having trouble finding other goalies who hit the NHL at a young age (that limits us to post 1979 drafts or original six days as draft age in the 70s was older and original six days are probably too different to compare with accurately), played a lot of games as a young player but never took a serious run at the statistical leaders in GAA or saves percentage, but were clear number one goalies who had stats that were respectable with respect to league averages.  The point is that Fleury is most likely similar to the people who at his age are most similar to him.  The main difference between Fleury and Beaupre or Potvin is that Fleury plays on a better team.  that doesn’t make Fleury any better a goalie - but it may change our perceptions of his play.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 11/05/09 at 11:33 AM ET

TPSH

You missed my point, so let’s make it again: the Oilers “comparison” was that Gretzky as a rookie took an ordinary player like BJ MacDonald and turned him into a point machine. You’re correct that BJ MacDonald never came close to those numbers again. He also wasn’t playing on Gretzky’s wing. THAT was the central element.

The question that faced Edmontonians in the early 1980s was thus: How much was a maturing, entering his prime Gretzky lifting up all the other “ordinary” players named Coffey, Kurri, Messier and Anderson? How much was the production of those players inflated by being linemates or sharing powerplay time with Gretzky?

Remember, Glen Sather famously opined that a fire hydrant could score 40 goals on Gretzky’s wing. At the time there was considerable debate whether Kurri was a player, or whether he was just a better-than-average fire hydrant.

The thought that Gretzky’s numbers were being inflated by having such quality teammates around him didn’t emerge until much later, after those players had matured and established themselves, particularly in the post-Gretzky era when they played out of his shadow and still produced.

This is the central thesis: if you looked at the 1984 Oilers in 1984, and compared them against the Islanders of 1980-83 or the Canadiens of 1976-79, the Oilers would obviously have come up short. Now, make the same comparison a decade later, and you would likely have a different opinion. Same teams, same results, but the perspective of time offers greater insight. We can look at those players, see what they became and better judge them against the rivals.

I think it’s too hasty to say the better teams were pre-salary cap, given the post-salary cap teams are too fresh in our experience and the players on those clubs for the most part still have to establish themselves.

Moreover, I’d argue the quality of the hockey played between Detroit and Pittsburgh in the last two Finals was superior to Detroit/Carolina series of 2002. It’s a matter of subjective judgment, but from an entertainment level it made for much better viewing.

Posted by Matthew McCallum from Redding, California on 11/05/09 at 02:41 PM ET

This is the central thesis: if you looked at the 1984 Oilers in 1984, and compared them against the Islanders of 1980-83 or the Canadiens of 1976-79, the Oilers would obviously have come up short. Now, make the same comparison a decade later, and you would likely have a different opinion. Same teams, same results, but the perspective of time offers greater insight. We can look at those players, see what they became and better judge them against the rivals.

I strongly disagree with this thesis.  I never believed that at the time and I do not now.

I think it is quite clear to show this is false by comparing the stars (taking into account age and production so far) on the various teams on the 1980 Islanders, 1976 Canadians and 1984 Oilers.  They compared quite well.  The Oilers probably come out better than either of the other two - for a large part because neither of the other teams had a Wayne Gretzky.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 11/05/09 at 03:56 PM ET

TPSH,

I’d like to weight into the Luongo / Fleury discussion as to which man is the better goaltender. I’m not a fan of either player, nor a partisan of the teams they play for, so I come to the discussion without bias.

Using data from Hockey-Reference.com we see the following:

Luongo is in his 10th NHL season, with 556 games under his belt and a 236-238-64 record. (Yes, he’s a sub-0.500 goaltender.) His career GGA is 2.57 and save percentage is 0.919. Luongo has appeared in the playoffs twice, going a total of four rounds, with an 11-11 record, a 2.09 GAA and a 0.930 save percentage.

Fleury is in his 6th NHL season, with 247 games under his belt and a 121-87-26 record. His career GGA is 2.84 and his save percentage is 0.907. Fleury has appeared in the playoffs three times, going a total of nine rounds (which includes to Finals appearances and one Cup victory), with a 31-18 record, a 2.45 GAA and a .916 save percentage.

Luongo has lead the league in only one regular season category (Games Played 2005-06, his sxith NHL season). Fleury has never yet lead the league in a regular season category, although his is currently the Games Won leader so far this year. Neither have picked up any NHL silverware, although Luongo has been a Vezina finalist.

Let’s do an age-to-age comparison to see what both players had achieved by the end of their fifth NHL season at age 24.

After five NHL seasons (age 24) Luongo had appeared in 266 regular season games, earned an 80-138-33 record with a 2.64 GGA and a 0.920 save percentage.  Conversely, after five NHL seasons (age 24) Fleury had appeared in 235 regular season games, earned a 111-85-26 record with a 2.87 GGA and a 0.907 save percentage.

On the surface, taking the win/loss record out of the mix, Luongo earned better individual performance measures in a lower GGA and a higher save percentage. But let’s dig a little deeper into these statistics to see what they really mean.

Luongo faced an average of 0.553 shots per minute played for an average of 33.18 shots faced per game. Fleury faced an average of 0.514 shots per minute played for an average of 30.84 shots faced per game. The differential is an average of 2.34 shots per game (Luongo more, Fleury less). Keep this number in mind.

Luongo made an average of 0.509 saves per minute played, for an average of 30.54 saves made per game. Fleury made an average of 0.466 saves per minute played, for an average of 27.98 saves made per game. The differential is an average of 2.56 saves per game (again, Luongo more, Fleury less).

When you abstract the variance in shots faced by the two players, the fractional differential is an advantage of 0.22 saves per game for Luongo, or roughly one more save made every four to five games played

Notice the GGA differential (Luongo 2.64, Fleury 2,87) of 0.23 is virtually identical to the fractional differential in the save percentage, working out to roughly one more goal allowed by Fleury every four to five games.

Performance-wise over their first five seasons, that is the difference between these two players—one save made versus one goal allowed every four to five games played. Luongo was not able to parlay his advantage into more victories.

Such margins do not make Luongo a much better goaltender than Fleury. Indeed, Fleury acquits himself quite well. Given Luongo’s performance in his sixth season (2.97 GAA, 0.914 save percent), Fleury is on pace to better those numbers and thus narrow the differential between Luongo and himself even more.

Posted by Matthew McCallum from Redding, California on 11/05/09 at 04:03 PM ET

TPSH wrote “I strongly disagree with this thesis [that the perspective of time allowed for opinions on the quality of the Edmonton Oilers teams of the early 1980s to evolve]. I never believed that at the time and I do not now.”

I must tip my had to you, then, sir, and wish we had an internet back in 1984 so your ahead-of-the-curve opinion could have been more widely known. Having followed the hockey press at the time, you could have searched far and wide for a commentator willing to rank the 1984 Oilers anywhere alongside those NY Islanders or Montreal Canadiens dynasty teams, let alone pencil in a third of the roster for eventual induction into the Hockey Hall of Fame.

You must remember 1984 was only five years removed from the prevailing conventional wisdom that Wayne Gretzky was far too small and fragile for the rigours of the NHL, and while he might do well in the WHA, the REAL hockey league would chew him up and spit him out. (That was likely an assessment made by the same experts who a decade later were certain that Eric Lindros would turn the NHL on its ear.) In short, TPSH, there was a conventional wisdom that only the unfolding of time could prove or disprove.

Rather than belabor the point—since this whole business was originally Puck Daddy’s ranking and not yours, and I don’t think it fair to take you to task, let alone you return the favour to me—I suggest we reserve judgement on the best teams of the Aughts for a half-dozen seasons, and then when we reflect on those best teams we can see if the post-lockout, post-salary cap teams fare better in the assessment.

Posted by Matthew McCallum from Redding, California on 11/05/09 at 04:23 PM ET

After five NHL seasons (age 24) Luongo had appeared in 266 regular season games, earned an 80-138-33 record with a 2.64 GGA and a 0.920 save percentage.  Conversely, after five NHL seasons (age 24) Fleury had appeared in 235 regular season games, earned a 111-85-26 record with a 2.87 GGA and a 0.907 save percentage.

I would argue this is a significant difference.  We need to look beyond raw numbers to see where the goalies fit relative to their peers.  Luongo has career numbers significantly above the league averages in saves percentage at this time.  Few goalies in the league in that era could match those numbers.  Fleury’s career numbers look far more average.  His career totals are not significantly above the league average (though his best season clearly was).  This makes Luongo look significantly better than Fleury at this point.  I would project Luongo to have a better career than Fleury.

Given Luongo’s performance in his sixth season (2.97 GAA, 0.914 save percent), Fleury is on pace to better those numbers and thus narrow the differential between Luongo and himself even more.

The highest scoring season in about a decade was the 2005/06 season - Luongo’s sixth season.  Hence comparing raw numbers without looking at their standing relative to average in the league is going to make those numbers look worse than they actually are.

Fleury current has a 2.14 GAA and a .916 saves percentage.  If he can maintain those numbers through the whole season, that would be an improvement on his last season by a small margin - but not catching his 2007/08 year.  The three years taken as a whole show these numbers Fleury has so far this year are approximately what one might expect through the rest of the year - barring any surprise.

However, relative to the average marks in the league at the time he is still falling behind Luongo - but he is no longer falling behind him at as big a rate as he had been in the past.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 11/05/09 at 04:32 PM ET

You must remember 1984 was only five years removed from the prevailing conventional wisdom that Wayne Gretzky was far too small and fragile for the rigours of the NHL, and while he might do well in the WHA, the REAL hockey league would chew him up and spit him out.

Five years is a long time.  By 1984, Gretzky held the NHL records for goals, assists and points in a single season and in many cases had broken his own record to get that record.  He had won the Hart Trophy annually each of those five years.  It was obvious that Gretzky was dominating in the NHL.

That opinion you are stating is a 1979 opinion that was being laughed at by 1984.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 11/05/09 at 04:36 PM ET

Not to be a wet blanket, or anything, but if you consider as fact that the salary cap paralyzes the ability of a team to stock it’s roster with better talent, then by definition, pre-lockout teams would have a much greater tendency to be termed “elite”. 

I don’t sense much debate about this, apparently straight-forward idea.

Just ask George Steinbrenner (who cares not about the expense of his roster), or Mike Illitch (pre-cap era).

It was widely thought, at the time, that the 02-03 Wings might have 10 HHOF on their roster:
Federov
Hull
Shanahan
Lidstrom
Larionov
Chelios
Robitaille
Yzerman
Schneider
Joseph

If Datsyuk and/or Zetterberg maintain their level of play, one or both might also make the Hall.

And yes, being a Red Wing fan, the salary cap offends me greatly.

Posted by Jeff OKWingnut from Quest for 12 on 11/05/09 at 04:59 PM ET

I totally agree with this article. The league today is mediocre because of all the parity and the salary cap. Im sure the 2001 Avalanche or 2002 Red Wings could easily beat the Pens in a 7 game series. There are no more powerhouses/dynasties anymore. I wouldnt call the Pens or Canes wins fluky, but it seemed that everything went right for them during the run. I sure most people didnt think Dan Bylsma was going to come in and in 30 something games win the Cup. It one of those rare ocurrences in sports like when the Giants won the Superbowl 2 years ago.

Posted by EpicFail88 on 11/05/09 at 05:41 PM ET

TPSH

Forgive me, I am going to belabor one last point. I went back and looked at the Top 10 scoring leaders for the period from 1980-1984. Five seasons, covering the entry of the Oilers into the NHL through to the first Cup. Now, a Top 10 finish in scoring is not a ticket to the HHOF, but given your contention that it was “obvious” the young Oilers were headed to the HHOF base on their production, the results are revealing:

In 1979-80 two Oilers made the Top 10: Gretzky (1) and BJ MacDonald (10). Eventual HHOFers included Dionne (1), Lafleur (3), Perreault (4), Trottier (6), Sittler (9) and Federko (10).

In 1980-81 the only Oiler making the Top 10 was Gretzky (1), Eventual HHOFers on the list included Dionne (2), Bossy (4), P. Stastny (6), Federko (9) and Trottier (10).

In 1981-82, again only one Oiler in the Top 10: Gretzky (1). Eventual HHOFers on the list included Bossy (2), P. Stastny (3), Trottier (5), D. Savard (6), and Dionne (7).

In 1982-83 an embarrassment of riches: Four Oilers in the Top 10: Gretzky (1), Messier (7), Anderson (9) and Kurri (10). Eventual HHOFers on the list included P. Stastny (2), D. Savard (3), Bossy (4), Dionne (5), and Goulet (6).

In 1983-84 there were only three Oilers: Gretzky (1), Coffey (2) and Kurri (7). Eventual HHOFers on the list included Goulet (3), Stastny (4), Bossy (5), Trottier (8) and Federko (9).

So if you’re keeping score at home, in those five seasons you have Wayne Gretzky (5 times), Jari Kurri (2 times), Glenn Anderson, Mark Messier, Paul Coffey and BJ MacDonald (all 1 time) all making the Top 10 on behalf of the Edmonton Oilers.

That’s versus eventual HHOFers during the same period: Mike Bossy, Marcel Dionne, Peter Stastny and Bryan Trottier (all 4 times), Bernie Federko (3 times), Denis Savard and Michel Goulet (both 2 times), Guy Lafleur, Gilbert Perreault and Darryl Sittler (once each, all in 1979-80, near the end of their careers).

Now, just for comparson, who were the other players who made the Top 10 in those five years who HAVEN’T made the HHOF (beyond BJ MacDonald)? They would be Kent Nilsson, Barry Pederson, Mike Rogers, Charlie Simmer, and Dave Taylor (all twice), Dino Ciccarelli, Denis Maruk, Rick Middleton, Bobby Smith and Blaine Stoughton (all once).

Now, honestly, back in 1984, based on the information available at that time:

Would you have wagered serious money that Gretzky, Messier, Kurri, Coffey and Anderson would ALL be in the HHOF BEFORE any one of, say, Kent Nilsson, Dave Taylor or Charlie Simmer?

Would you have predicted in 1984 that Mark Messier would eventually become the penultimate all-time points leader (behind only Wayne Gretzky) and second in games played only to Gordie Howe?

If you answered “yes” to either of those questions, TPSH, you are a far better man than me (the born and bred Edmonton boy who loved his Oilers).

Posted by Matthew McCallum from Redding, California on 11/05/09 at 05:42 PM ET

TPSH wrote: “Five years is a long time.”

EXACTLY!

So let’s give the Aughts five years to settle and then we can judge which teams were the best.

TPSH wrote: “That opinion you are stating….”

ARE YOU MISSING THE POINT ON PURPOSE?! Please, don’t skim my posts. Read them and digest them, and you’ll see the items you response to out of context are rather part of a larger argument.

If you absorb the whole post, you’ll see the point *IS* that opinion held about Wayne Gretzky, the conventional wisdom of the time (circa 1979), had been proven false just FIVE YEARS LATER. Similarly I allude to the conventional wisdom about Eric Lindros circa 1991 being taken to task with the passage of time. The observation in your response was the subtext of my post, the opinions charge, and conventional wisdom evolves.

Similarly, the opinion held TODAY that the best teams were pre-salary cap may very well be proven false after a similar passage of time. We are too close to 2009 to place it in its proper context.

Posted by Matthew McCallum on 11/05/09 at 06:02 PM ET

Would you have wagered serious money that Gretzky, Messier, Kurri, Coffey and Anderson would ALL be in the HHOF BEFORE any one of, say, Kent Nilsson, Dave Taylor or Charlie Simmer?

Would you have predicted in 1984 that Mark Messier would eventually become the penultimate all-time points leader (behind only Wayne Gretzky) and second in games played only to Gordie Howe?

I don`t have to have guessed that the Oilers stars would be in the Hall before Nilsson, Taylor and Simmer (though I definitely would have guessed it in the case of Charlie Simmer given that he was older than the others before he suddenly started scoring and thus was less likely to continue scoring at a high rate for as long a period of time).  I don`t have to guess Messier would wind up with as many career points as he did either. 

What I did guess (and all I need to guess) was that the Oilers had a large group of young players who appeared to be on Hall of Fame tracks (even if I assume that 1 or maybe 2 were to fall short - which they didn`t) that would still give them an elite core.  Their results on the ice coupled with the clear talent level of the team clearly spelled out that they were an elite team.  And that conclusion was clear in 1984.

If you absorb the whole post, you’ll see the point *IS* that opinion held about Wayne Gretzky, the conventional wisdom of the time (circa 1979), had been proven false just FIVE YEARS LATER. Similarly I allude to the conventional wisdom about Eric Lindros circa 1991 being taken to task with the passage of time. The observation in your response was the subtext of my post, the opinions charge, and conventional wisdom evolves.

It is true that things change over time, but we can attempt to project them.  By 1984, the Oilers had changed from the 1979 team.  By 1984, they were a powerhouse.  There were Islanders players on record saying that they knew that once the Oilers won the cup they would hold onto it for a long time.  Obviously nobody would say that in 1984.

It is possible to compare Stanley Cup winning teams at the point where they win the cup.  The comparison may not be perfect, but it is clear that all indicators show that the 2009 Pittsburgh Penguins are not as strong a team as the cup winners in the early part of the decade.  Were the young players on the Penguins to mature beyond our best expectations and amazingly keep the team together, it is possible that the 2012 Penguins could be a clear elite team.  That doesn`t make the 2009 Penguins any better.  It also isn`t particularly likely because it is next to impossible to keep their talent together in the salary capped NHL.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 11/06/09 at 10:16 AM ET

TPSH wrote: Were the young players on the Penguins to mature beyond our best expectations and amazingly [management could] keep the team together, it is possible that the 2012 Penguins could be a clear elite team.  That doesn`t make the 2009 Penguins any better.  It also isn`t particularly likely because it is next to impossible to keep their talent together in the salary capped NHL.

We could argue about the constitution of an “elite team”, but that’s really secondary to the point that over time our PERCEPTION of whether or not a team is elite changes. Our view of the 1984 Oilers benefits from the success of the 1985-1990 Oilers squads, and thus we put that 1984 club in the context of the start of a magnificent era and a roster staffed with numerous HHOFers. If the 1984 Oilers had been a one-and-done Cup winner, they wouldn’t be held in anywhere near the same regard, and likely there would be a few more vacancies in the HHOF. Yet the accomplishment and the team roster of that 1984 squad remain would the same. It is our subjective perception based on the additional data gathered over time and context of the times which influences our assessment.

Similarly, the accomplishments of the 2009 Penguins are fixed in amber, but our assessment of the quality of that accomplishment and the players who achieved it will be colored by the Penguins of 2010 onward.

For example, assume that Marc-Andre Fleury enters into his peak years and reaches “elite status” (however we wish to assess that). In turn, our newfound appreciation of Fleury’s talents would then reflect positively on quality the 2009 Penguins squad.

To wit: Rookie Patrick Roy was not yet an “elite” goaltender in 1986, but we never fail to note the Montreal Canadiens of that season won the Stanley Cup with HHOFer Patrick Roy between the pipes. Similarly, many people looked at the Los Angeles Kings’ trip to the Stanley Cup in 1993 as an accident, but when one looks back at a roster that featured HHOFers Wayne Gretzky, Jari Kurri, Luc Robitaille and probable inductee Rob Blake, perhaps it was not such an accident after all.

Getting back to Marc-Andre Fleury, you noted earlier when I was comparing Fleury and Luongo that 2005-06, season six of Luongo’s career, was “The highest scoring season in about a decade” and thus “comparing raw numbers without looking at their standing relative to average in the league is going to make those numbers look worse than they actually are.” You artfully neglect to note that 2005-06 happens to be season two of M-A Fleury’s career and was already included in the comparison between the two players. Also left unsaid was that Luongo played the previous portion of his career in a “dead puck era” where goaltender performances were abnormally elevated, while Fleury has played his hockey in a more wide-open game. And frankly, if we really want to minimize the variables, a quality of competition filter should be added to the mix given that in his early years Luongo played the majority of his schedule facing non-playoff teams of dubious quality in the Southeast Division.

Now, we can do a more precise comparison of these two goaltenders using adjusted statistics and taking into account all these various elements, but I really don’t think our findings would be dramatically altered from this simple statement of fact gleened from my earlier study: that the performance difference between Luongo and Fleury in the first five seasons of their respective careers is one save made versus one goal allowed every four to five games.

That’s a rather slim margin for the cut line between elite and non-elite, particularly when Luongo was not able to translate that extra save into a better win/loss record.

Posted by Matthew McCallum from Redding, California on 11/06/09 at 02:10 PM ET

The performance difference between Luongo and Fleury in the first five seasons of their respective careers is one save made versus one goal allowed every four to five games.

That’s a rather slim margin for the cut line between elite and non-elite

That is often how things work in pro sports.

Here is a famous quote from the movie Bull Durham that says the same thing:

You know what’s the difference between a .250 hitter and a .300 hitter? About 24 extra hits a season. 6 month season 24 weeks, that’s 1 extra hit a week. You get one extra gork, one more dying quail, one more ground ball with eyes a week, and your playing in Yankee Stadium.

Even though the difference when discussed that way does not seem like much, it is.  Only a few elite players manage to make it up.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 11/06/09 at 02:18 PM ET

JeffOKWingnut wrote: And yes, being a Red Wing fan, the salary cap offends me greatly.

Jeff, I think you need to take the long view of this issue.

Prior to the introduction of a salary cap imposed on all thirty NHL teams, there was an unofficial “salary cap” that affected about 75 percent of the league. You had roughly 7 or 8 teams with the resources to plunder the lineups of the rest of the teams. Endless summer if you were a fan of one of those deep pocket clubs. A long winter if you were a fan of one of the have-nots.

As a long-time Edmonton Oilers fan, it offended me that the insolvency of that team’s ownership forced the break-up of one of the finest hockey teams ever assembled. It offended me all the more that throughout the 1990s the deep-pocket teams kept raising the salary bar so that the Oilers were constantly recycling their talent, fetching players on the cusp of becoming good, because once they became good (or great) they were priced out of the Edmonton market and bound elsewhere.

Personally, I find the level playing field of the salary cap—with all its faults—much fairer than the feast or famine landscape we endured.

That said, I’m not averse to looking at ways to improve the salary cap so it becomes less punitive. For example, perhaps we could allow teams to exceed the salary cap when it comes to re-signing their own players, a home-grown talent exemption. That way you don’t have to needlessly break-up a good team for cap reasons, while at the same time protecting other clubs from being pillaged by teams with deep pockets.

Posted by Matthew McCallum from Redding, California on 11/06/09 at 03:00 PM ET

TPSH:

I’m well aware of the narrow differences between great and near great, such as the 0.250 hitter versus 0.300 hitter example you quote above. But the key was the second part of the sentence. I’ll restate it and emphasise the meat:

“That’s a rather slim margin for the cut line between elite and non-elite, particularly when Luongo was not able to translate that extra save into a better win/loss record. “

To extend the baseball allusion, Luongo may be our 0.300 hitter, but as shown in that comparison with Fleury, those extra hits have not translated into any more runs scored or runs batted in. (To quote Harry Sinden in relation to Joe Thornton, but it is appropriate for Roberto Luongo, “He gets his hits, but he doesn’t get his runs, if you know what I mean?”)

Posted by Matthew McCallum from Redding, California on 11/06/09 at 03:21 PM ET

To extend the baseball allusion, Luongo may be our 0.300 hitter, but as shown in that comparison with Fleury, those extra hits have not translated into any more runs scored or runs batted in. (To quote Harry Sinden in relation to Joe Thornton, but it is appropriate for Roberto Luongo, “He gets his hits, but he doesn’t get his runs, if you know what I mean?”)

How fair is it to hold Luongo responsible for the fact that he spent many years in Florida where there wasn`t a good enough team to make the playoffs?  Olli Jokinen was leading the team with 50 or 60 something points much of that time.  Even in Vancouver his top offensive teammates have been the Sedins and they are no Sidney Crosby or Evgeni Malkin.

Fleury plays in a situation where it is easier to get wins than Luongo does.  Here is a nice post from the Brodeur is a fraud blog that shows how much easier Fleury has had things at playoff time when compared to Luongo.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 11/06/09 at 03:32 PM ET

TPSH wrote How fair is it to hold Luongo responsible for the fact that he spent many years in Florida where there wasn`t a good enough team to make the playoffs?... Fleury plays in a situation where it is easier to get wins than Luongo does.

This is the heart of the issue, and I think it is completely fair to include win/loss as an aspect of our assessment, in as much as EVERY element of a goaltender’s performance is impacted in some fashion by the team in front of him. (The win/loss record should not be the sole element, nor the overriding element, but an element of consideration nevertheless.)

It should be a given that a team’s style and system contributes significantly to a goaltender’s individual performance. For example, in the data that we reported earlier, in the first five years of his career Luongo faced more shots per game than Fleury, which in theory offers Luongo the opportunity for a better save percentage if one assumes the general quality of all the shots against faced by the two goaltenders to be relatively equal. But of course, that’s not a very sustainable assumption and begs further review.

The data we do not have is the quality of the shots faced by either goaltender, and the degree of difficulty per save, which is really the x-factor when trying to compare save percentage.

I can draw a hypothosis that due to limited offensive talent the Florida Panthers adopted a passive, defensive system, a trap or torpedo. I might extend the thesis, suggesting the Panthers may have allowed more shots per game on average, but overall the shots they allowed were of a lesser quality, thus giving their goaltender a better-than-average opportunity to make the save. Of course, such a conservative system did not allow for much goal support, resulting in a number of close losses.

Similarly, I can conjecture that the offensively-gifted Pittsburgh Penguins team might play a more wide-open style compared to Florida. Due to greater puck control, such a style could result in fewer shots against per game than the average, but the run-and-gun style might result in those shots against being of a higher quality, resulting on average in a greater degree of difficulty per save and giving that goaltender a lower-than-average opportunity to make the save. Nevertheless, the aggressive system provides sufficient goal support so those occasional lapses aren’t always turned into losses.

So, given this hypothosis, who’s the better goaltender? Just how much is the STATISTICAL advantage a reflection of team situation rather than the individual goaltender’s skill and talent?

You raised the subject of quality of teammates, which is a valid issue. I would presume the better the quality of the supporting talent, the greater the opportunity for our goaltender to exhibit superior performance.

But that covers only half the rink. Let me counter with quality of opposition.

In Florida, Luongo could expect to play a significant portion of his schedule against Atlanta, Carolina, Tampa Bay and Washington. For the period 2000-01 through 2003-04 (years 2 through 5 of Luongo’s career), these division rivals placed in the top half of the overall standings just four times. The other 12 times these teams placed in the bottom half, twice finishing in last place, and another two times finishing 29th overall.

Conversely, in Pittsburgh, for the period 2005-06 to 2008-09 (years 2 through 5 of Fleury’s career) their opposition of New Jersey, NY Islanders, NY Rangers and Philadelphia placed in the top half of the overall standings 11 times. The other 5 times these division rivals placed in the bottom half of the overall standings, twice in last place.

So, Luongo had a better goals against average and better save percentage, but much of his schedule was against inferior competition. Conversely, Fleury produced not as good a GAA nor as good a save percentage as Luongo, but much of his schedule was against superior competition compared to what Luongo faced.

So, NOW who’s the better goalie? How much of Luongo’s statistics are padded against lesser quality teams which his Florida club STILL weren’t able to beat? Would Fleury have picked up that one more save every four to five games had he been playing against those inferior Southeast Division clubs? Would Luongo have let in that extra goal every four to five games playing against those tougher Atlantic Division teams?

Frankly, you cannot look at just GAA and save percentage (or wins and losses, for that matter) in isolation and draw meaningful conclusions about the superiority of any individual player, particularly when the margins are so close. There is much more interpretation necessary to find the truth in the raw numbers.

Brodeur Is A Fraud is at times an interesting website, but it often reads like the conclusion has been adopted first and then the data gathered to support the position. I much prefer the analysis provided by <i>BehindTheNet.ca<> as there is less of an agenda behind the research.

Posted by Matthew McCallum from Redding, California on 11/06/09 at 05:55 PM ET

Shot quality is not entirelty clear when comparing saves percentages, but your “hypothesis” here does not fit the facts.  If Florida plays some kind of defensive scheme that allows a lot of poor quality shots - hence increasing Roberto Luongo’s numbers - this should also be seen in Luongo’s backups.  It clearly isn’t.  In fact in Luongo’s best saves percentage season (2003/04), Sheve Shields was his backup.  In 16 games Shields put up a .879 saves percentage (agianist weak opposition) and nearly played himself out of the NHL (he did play 5 more games after this season).  Meanwhile Luongo was puttung up a .931 saves percentage leading the league.

The statistical record is clear that Roberto Luongo has been a betetr goalie than Marc-Andre Fleury at the same age.  Your attempt to muddy the issue is beginning to show how clear it is as your ad hoc explanation has become pretty weak in this case.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 11/07/09 at 01:28 PM ET

TPSH,

Not to quibble, but… Okay, I’m going to quibble: Miikka Kiprusoff and Dwayne Roloson led the league in save percentage in 2003-04. Luongo was in the Top Three, and I’ll certainly grant you that was much closer to the top of the food chain than Steve Shields.

However, your counter -thesis that Shields’ performance should be equally enhanced by Florida’s defensive style of play (assuming they used one) and evidently isn’t (thus, showing Florida did not deploy a goaltender-friendly system), is not proven by Shields’ resulting 0.879 save percentage.

Shields had a weak save percent in Boston where he played the previous season, and the year after his short stay in Florida, he washed out of the league entirely after a five-game stint in Atlanta. Clearly Shields was not the same goaltender after his facial injury in 2002, and his skills declined rapidly. Thus, it is quite possible 0.879 WAS an inflated performance for Steve Shields from what would have then been his expected “norm”.

You state my hypothesis doesn’t fit the facts, but how can that be when we lack the very facts necessary to TEST that hypothesis: quality of shots faced by Roberto Luongo vs. M-A Fleury. Without that data, the “fact” that you state—Luongo’s save percentage—is merely a statistical result without a proper context. Any conclusions then drawn from such a narrow “fact” are more akin to subjective opinion than to any form of science.

You are definitely entitled to an opinion on who may be a better goaltender, but let’s not cloak an opinion within a statistical objectivity that we do not presently have available. Given the narrow margins in performance between Roberto Luongo and Marc-Andre Fleury—essentially one goal versus one save every four to five games—and the open question on how much their respective teams contribute to that performance, it’s premature to declare which of the pair is obviously the better player. We don’t have the data at this point to make a clear call.

Posted by Matthew McCallum from Redding, California on 11/08/09 at 04:57 PM ET