We can ignore Cechmaneks international resume because he doesnt really have one. Atleast Cheveldae climbed a few levels come playoff time, Detorit didnt lose because of Cheveldae play, Phildelphia lost because of Cechmaneks.
Philly lost as a
team, just like Detroit did, and the goalies deserved their share of the blame. Of course, when you score 2 goals in 5 games, as Philly did in 2002, there is no blaming your goalie. Cechmanek posted a .936 and won just one game!
How Cechmanek got hart votes Ill never understand. His accolades in the czech league is the only reason I can see him favourable to Cheveldae.
because there was a lot of hype surrounding him, and because he was seen as changing things around in philly, finally giving them the goalie they needed. They had inconsistent .911 goaltending the year before he arrived, and he was .921 that year with practically the same roster.
Edit: btw Cheveldaes backup was quality to the garbage Cechmanek played with. Which would explain your obscure stat that Cheveldae was only 4% better. Cheveldae competed with Essensa, Riendeau, Khabilbulin and Millen. Cechmanek had Boucher and rookies Eshe and Huet. Huet was better than Cechmanek in Kings imo tho never understand why they traded him and Bonk for Garon.
You can't be serious, man.
I'm not talking about Cheveldae's time in Winnipeg, why would you want to do that anyway? he was awful and even Khabibulin, who was a rookie and not considered anything special (i recall vividly) was badly outperforming him. If we're talking about Cheveldae we're talking about the 1991-1993 seasons, because aside from that he is a 47-63-16 goalie with a .882 sv%.
Cechmanek and Huet were basically even in LA, but again, that's not a season in which Cechmanek built his resume. His were the Philly years. The problem I have with what you're saying, is that Cheveldae's teammates in goal were so much better than Cechmanek's, and it makes up for the fact that he grossly outperformed his teammates compared to Cheveldae.
Esche and Boucher played almost all the non-Cechmanek games. On their careers they each averaged 6 sv% points below the league average. In Detroit, it was Riendeau, Hanlon and Millen. They averaged -5, -4 and +5 over their careers. This was a backup collection very marginally better than what Cechmanek had - certainly not enough to come close to explaining the 14-point gap that exists when they are compared to their understudies, and irrelevant to the 17-point gap that exists between their spreads vs the league average.
When did Marchment ever take an entire team off their game in the playoffs with his antics?
And you know, the fact that St. Louis' GM basically traded their entire second line for Butcher. Marchment was never that highly thought of.
To assume they are close to as valuable, you really have to milk their ice time numbers.
OK, I'll gladly do that then. I'm pretty comfortable with that considering it is reflective of their career long performances, and not little "snapshots".
As for the "two drafts" thing, it's not like all that many similar defensemen were actually drafted between them.
I agree. Because there aren't many guys with resumes that resemble these two so closely. Come on, they are incredibly similar!
I took a couple pics of two scouting reports. One of them is Butcher's from 1991, the other from Marchment in 1997, both when they were at what I think was the height of their skills. You read these over, and try to tell me that one was considered significantly better or more valuable, or even just different in any significant way.
The Engineers draft their coaching staff, a tandem of very successful coaches.
Karel Gut,
In case you are wondering, his IIHF record is 54-17-5.
Defenseman Marc Bergevin:
Bergevin was known for being a defense first guy during his NHL career, I look for him to do that coming off the bench with Garnish. He ranks 96th all-time in NHL history in Defensive Point Shares with 51.9.
More on Bergevin can be found here:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/b/bergema01.html
Point shares are useless, and Bergevin earned his really through longevity. he was not a high icetime player.
Anyway, I think with his longevity as a mediocre player he is really comparable to Albelin, so I thought I'd compare the two.
Bergevin: 16.96 minutes per game in approximately 733 GP for playoff teams. 18.58 minutes per game in approximately 458 GP for non-playoff teams.
Strange that he played less than Albelin did when on bad teams, and more than Albelin did for good teams, hey? I say, not really. Sometimes when Bergevin was on a good team he still got pretty decent minutes, like when he was on the Pens, and stocking up the defense corps was not a priority. Or when the Blues had just Pronger and MacInnis, and he was the best of "everyone else".
For his career he averaged 17.58 per game, for teams with a weighted GF/GA ratio of 0.97. Albelin averaged 18.72 for teams with a weighted ratio of 1.04.
Bergevin played until he was 38, but got into more games than Albelin, who played until he was 40. Longevity and the effect of GP past prime is probably a wash when talking about these two. Looks like Albelin did a lot more in his 80+ playoff games too, most notably scoring over double the points and winning two cups.
Bergevin was one of hockey's true "good guys" though, and I think his locker room presence kept him around more than his skill. I would have considered him to be a #7 for my A team because of that and, as you know, I do respect longevity.
