I joined HFBoards in January 2005. At the time, I was convinced that Brodeur was a fraud. (No - I didn't create that website, but I agreed with most of the content). I'm pretty sure I joined HFBoards specifically to argue with people on that point.
Nobody disputes that Brodeur was great during the first five years of his career (1994 to 1998). Here's the case against Brodeur from 1999 to 2004 (a span of six seasons, spanning ages 26 to 31):
- First, so I don't get flamed by Devils fans - I'm not saying I agree with all this today. But this would have been my position at the time.
- Save percentage isn't perfect, but it's the best single measurement of how effectively a goalie stops the puck. During this period, Brodeur was barely above the league average. Across those six years, Brodeur's save percentage was 91.0%, compared to the league average of 90.7%. Brodeur didn't place in the top ten in save percentage in any of those six seasons. Yet, somehow, he walked away with two Vezina trophies, six straight years in the top five, and two years as a Hart trophy finalist. There was a massive disconnect between his performance, and how he was perceived.
- This was true in the playoffs too. During these six seasons, 12 goalies played in thirty or more games. Ten of them had save percentages over 92%. The only exceptions were Brodeur, and Osgood - another goalie who wasn't as good as his numbers suggested.
- Brodeur had a big advantage by playing in New Jersey. He was playing in front of two Hall of Fame defenseman and a multiple Selke trophy winner. More importantly, it was about the "system". The Devils were (probably) the most disciplined and most defensively sound team in the NHL. The Devils took by far the least penalty minutes (per game) during this span. Only one team (the Blues) allowed fewer shots per game. It was obvious from watching them play that the Devils were a suffocating defensive team. He was much less busy than Hasek, Joseph, and many others.
- Yes, Brodeur won a lot of games, but that's largely because he played a lot of games (he was also near the top of the list in terms of losses), and also because he was behind such a strong team. During these six years, statistically, Brodeur was only slightly better than his mediocre collection of backup goalies. (At the time, I found this point particularly persuasive).
- A study was published in 2004 where save percentage was adjusted to take shot quality into account (ie was it a breakway or from the point? one-time or slap shot? PP or ES?). This was the early days of hockey analytics, but the conclusion made sense ("It came as no surprise to me that New Jersey lead the league in this metric, allowing 8.5% fewer goals than an average team because of its ability to minimize shot quality"). This was statistical evidence for the advantage of the Devils' system.
- Some people pointed to Brodeur winning the gold medal in 2002 as proof that he didn't need "the system" in New Jersey. This was never a convincing argument. No shit, Brodeur was able to win four games (two of which were against Belarus and Germany) playing with 12 HOF teammates. This is supposed to be evidence that Brodeur didn't need a stacked team to win?
- Brodeur played a lot of games, and that's beneficial to his team. But it isn't clear if a slightly above average goalie playing 70+ games is necessarily better than an excellent goalie playing 60+ games. (Goals versus average tries to summarize a goalie's impact into one number, taking into account their workload and performance. By that metric, Brodeur looked good, but he was clearly behind Hasek, Roy and Belfour, despite them all playing in fewer games. And he didn't even separate himself from the next tier of goalies, like Luongo, Joseph, Khabibulin, Nabokov, etc). A goalie who plays 70+ games on a strong team will get a lot of wins, but he hasn't necessarily contributed more than someone who places 10 fewer games per year, but at a higher level.
- A lot of people argued that Brodeur's puckhandling hurt his save percentage (because he doesn't get credit for a save if he clears the puck on his own - and once you factor that in, his save percentage would be much higher). That argument was never persuasive. First, several goalies from this era were equally good at puckhandling, and many of them had save percentages that were vastly higher - Marty Turco being the best example. Second, if you look at the number of shots that Brodeur faced per game, and compare it to his backup - there was minimal difference. From what I recall, if we attribute all of the difference in shots faced to Brodeur's puckhandling, it worked out to about one shot per game. Factor that in and his save percentage jumps a bit, but he was still far from the Hasek/Roy level.
That was my opinion at the time. I now rank Brodeur 5th all-time among goalies. What's changed? Brodeur's performance after the lockout has done a lot to prove to me that he wasn't just a product of "the system". Specifically:
- After the lockout, Brodeur (apparently) became much better at stopping the puck. Yes, he trailed off after 2010, but in the first five years after the lockout, he ranked 5th in save percentage, out of the 32 goalies who played in 150+ games. (That made me question - how likely was it that Brodeur, from ages 33 to 37, suddenly learned how to stop the puck again? Were there systematic issues that deflated his save percentage pre-lockout?)
- He had an all-time great season in 2007. (I thought Luongo was more deserving of the Vezina, but both had very strong years). The Devils still had some big names from the dynasty years, but Stevens and Niedermayer were gone. The Devils allowed 28.4 shots per game (slightly better than average, but not much). This was a strong Vezina win by historical standards.
- His playoff run in 2012 was excellent. This edition of the Devils wasn't particularly disciplined or responsible defensively. Their top defenseman was Marek Zidlicky, who was a defensive black hole. Their top forward was Ilya Kovalchuk, who got credit for being semi-responsible defensively for the first time in his life. This helped convince me that Brodeur could carry a (relatively) weak team to the Stanley Cup finals.
- The study that I mentioned before about shot quality was "recalled". Unfortuantely, the recall notice appears to be down, but the conclusion was that the shot quality that Brodeur (and other Devils goalies) faced, wasn't quite as easy as we first thought. (This is what a reasonable person should do - revisit their previously-held opinions in light of new evidence).
- The final point is probably the most important, though it's also the most philosophical. The problem with using a stat like "goals versus average", is that it treats a goalie who plays 70+ games at the league-average level as having (essentially) zero impact. Looking at how GM's award contracts - they clearly don't agree with that idea. And there's definitely value in a goalie playing a lot of games, even if it's only at the league-average level. If nothing else, it means the team is spared from having to play a backup-calibre goalie. (Simply being a top 15-20 goalie in the world is a hugely impressive accomplishment). From 1999 to 2004, Brodeur ranked 4th in "goals versus threshold" - which is still lower than his reputation suggests, but it's a much smaller disconnect.
- Building on the above point, my own research shows that Brodeur ranks 4th in NHL history (going back to the mid 1950's, based on GVT). Who am I to argue with myself?
This has turned into a much longer response than I intended. Ultimately, I think Brodeur was overrated during the period from 1998 to 2004, and there are legitimate criticisms that can be made. That clearly knocks him below Hasek, Roy and Plante on any all-time ranking. But his performance after the lockout was great, and it leads me to conclude that I was probably too harsh on him back when I first joined HFBoards.
