Video Nasty
Registered User
- Mar 12, 2017
- 5,478
- 9,641
Where'd I use the word fluke? My point was very clear, Brodeur benefited a lot from playing on a very strong and trap-centric NJ team where he was able to rack up a lot of wins due to team quality and workhorse minutes. That very obviously played a role in his Vezina voting if you look at his 03 and 04 seasons (as I said, would take a lot of Lundqvist's non-vezina seasons over those two). 2003 in particular is a very serious head-scratcher unless team success is the most valuable metric when evaluating goaltenders. Statistically, there's nothing that implies his body of work was superior to Lundqvist's during this time period. How many of Brodeur's seasons would you actually take over Lundqvist's best years? And do you think Brodeur would fare any better on NY than Lundqvist did?
You're getting hung up on the system Brodeur played in and I think you're missing a key point. Yeah, the trap limited shots, but the shots that came through were often high-quality. He wasn’t just racking up easy saves like others…fewer shots but tougher ones naturally affect save percentage.
And man, don’t overlook his puck-handling. Don’t do it. Brodeur was like a third defenseman, cutting off plays and clearing pucks before shots could even be taken. He prevented shots from ever reaching him, which simply isn’t reflected in something like save percentage.
I think voters actually understood this back in the day, thank god. That’s why he was a 7 time Vezina finalist and 5 time top 5 Hart nominee, from 2000 onwards.