ESPN ranks best players in the NHL

[codynw]

Originally Posted by RyZ

I still think Quick and Rinne could start on my team ahead of Lundqvist.

Lundqvist is arguably the most consistent goalie in today's NHL (I guess Brodeur, but this is probably his last season so I won't count him), and he plays just as well in the playoffs, despite the fact that the Rangers aren't a very good team. If I had the choice, I'd take Lundqvist any day of the week. Quick is obviously an elite goalie, but I'd say Lundqvist is the definite #1 right now.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

Luongo, Price, Smith, Niemi, and Miller

maybe not last years Miller; guess it depends if that was an anomaly or the start of his post-apex years

perhaps Hiller and Backstrom as well

I guess, I just don't see a clear distinction between Howard and most of these guys who are living off past performance.

My impression is that sure there's a case any of those guys are better than Howard, there's also a reverse case as well and that because of which it's unlikely Howard is overrated. If anything he may be a bit underrated.

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by strombad

Schneider is going to either prove a lot of people right or a lot of people wrong this year finally carrying the main load of an average team.

I don't even know that this is the case. They've got Marty and I suspect they're going to use him. Schneider may end up playing the bulk of games for the NJD but I doubt he sees more than 50 or so starts.

Moreover the Devils may be an average (well, probably slightly worse) team but they are quite solid defensively; they direct far more pucks at the opposition net than they have sent at their goalies:

[strombad]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

I don't even know that this is the case. They've got Marty and I suspect they're going to use him. Schneider may end up playing the bulk of games for the NJD but I doubt he sees more than 50 or so starts.

Moreover the Devils may be an average (well, probably slightly worse) team but they are quite solid defensively; they direct far more pucks at the opposition net than they have sent at their goalies:

True, I constantly forget that Marty isn't retired yet.

Great, now we'll never know if Schneider is great or average. NEVER.

[TurnedTheCorner]

My first thought on seeing that graph was "I wonder what Fenwick Close is?" My second thought was, "It's probably some bull#### that's not even worth googling." Left without googling Fenwick CLose. Feeling pretty good about my decision.

[The Swedish Flame]

So many Finns...

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

Read thread title. First thought? "Well this should be good for a laugh".

Because he's had 30something good games in his entire career, outside of which he's been mediocre? Because if he ever plays 65 in a season (as you'd think he will this year), who knows if he can be anywhere near the player he was for that extremely short period of time? Isn't this the same argument people have been making about Corey Schneider? Except Schneider has at least done the ~30 games of excellent play in multiple seasons; Bobrovsky hasn't. Craig Anderson is the same thing; no way he belongs in the top 10 just because he had <30 good games strung together. Play a whole season like that and we'll start talking, play two or three and I'll buy it.

I'd say Crawford is the most overrated on that list. Not a top 10 goalie. Arguably league average, but I'm not convinced he's even that. He's a legitimate starter with clear weaknesses playing behind the best team in the NHL last year (and arguably the best regular season performance by any team in the past, oh, decade or so). He, himself, is not particularly good. For example, if you'd put James Reimer in that spot the result would likely have been more or less the same.

As for Howard, he's overrated on that list and belongs around #10. Which is where most people tend to put him. Consequently he's overrated by ESPN but not by very many other people. Ryan Miller is brutally underrated on that list, Smith and Luongo are too low as well.

I thought Puck Daddy had it about right though I still say Bob needs a full season of top 10 numbers before I'm willing to give him even the #10 spot and Crawford is overrated, as usual. http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-pu...192914809.html

You can't really judge goaltenders on more than a year by year basis. Aside from a select few elite goalies, their skills vary so much more than any other position in the NHL. You can have a rookie come in and dominate the league (Steve Mason) only to drop off the face of the Earth next season. You can have journeymen guys who suddenly get hot in their 30's and become top goalies (Tim Thomas), and you can have goaltenders who go up and down, going from starter to backup to starter again (Carey Price)

A debate about goaltenders should be 2 separate lists, with one being the best-right-now, and the other being the most consistant

[djsFlames]

"King Henrik" is slightly overrated.

He's had decent regular season numbers, but to call him number 1? Give me a break. More like 5-6. I'd take Quick over Lundqvist any day of the week.

[codynw]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

"King Henrik" is slightly overrated.

He's had decent regular season numbers, but to call him number 1? Give me a break. More like 5-6. I'd take Quick over Lundqvist any day of the week.

This is my second time defending Lundqvist in this thread, but whatever.

He consistently puts up better stats than Quick on a worse team, plus he's put up really good numbers 8 seasons in a row while Quick has had two incredible playoff runs and two pretty good regular seasons. When Quick gets nominated for the Vezina trophy 5 times, I'll consider him for the #1.

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by TurnedTheCorner

My first thought on seeing that graph was "I wonder what Fenwick Close is?" My second thought was, "It's probably some bull#### that's not even worth googling." Left without googling Fenwick CLose. Feeling pretty good about my decision.

It's only the best way to predict future team success. Including the team's past record.

I know you're probably happily ignorant and go around quoting plus minus as a useful stat, but if you actually care, all it is is the percentage of shots attempted by a team vs shots attempted by the other team (Fenwick) when the score is within a goal (Close). So Boston's about 55% there, that means they direct about 55% of shots at the other team's net when the score is close, as opposed to 45% by the other team. If there were 40 shots taken in a game while the score was within a goal, on average, Boston would take 22 of them, and the other team would take 18.

Maybe someone can explain to me why people have intentionally thickheaded views on shot-based stats. Is it just contrarianism for no particular reason, is it because they're too stupid to figure out the stat (hard to believe; "shots attempted" isn't a tough concept to understand), or are they just really emotionally attached to the stats they grew up with like +/-, hits, etc?

[Spinach]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

. Price has had exactly ONE good season and is consistently inconsistent. He's not a top 10 guy, he's 10-15 range.

That also describes Mike Smith almost to a tee, and Smith has a larger body of work to analyze. Yet how often do you hear him called ovverrated?

Incidentally, Price was also pretty good in 07-08 in addition to 10-11. Regardless of whether Price is wrongly assessed, I'd fail to see how Mike Smith is that much of a better goalie.

[SuperMatt18]

I have a hard time ranking the goalies that play for Dave Tippett. His system really can make good/average goalies look great.

Marty Turco, Iyla Bryzgalov, Mike Smith, all looked much better with Dave Tippet as their head coach than they did in any other system.

[Owen15]

Wow, hard to believe Halak is #25. But then, there may only be a couple ahead of him that I think are questionably better.

[Username: Flames]

Sorry, guys.

IMOHO, all goalies are overrated. I think Chicago proved that, last season.

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by Username: Flames

Sorry, guys.

IMOHO, all goalies are overrated. I think Chicago proved that, last season.

Whereas the two years prior, Quick and Thomas proved that having an elite, Vezina quality netminder was essential to a successful playoff run?

[Username: Flames]

You're not wrong; those two goalies were great in their respective SCFs. However, I think, save for some miraculous saves that we all (myself included) have come to love, goaltenders are a dime a dozen. Remember when Leighton (SP?) was the starting goaltender for the Flyers in the SCF in '10?

Where is he now?

I think there is more luck than skill, when it comes to goalies.

[TurnedTheCorner]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

It's only the best way to predict future team success. Including the team's past record.

I know you're probably happily ignorant and go around quoting plus minus as a useful stat, but if you actually care, all it is is the percentage of shots attempted by a team vs shots attempted by the other team (Fenwick) when the score is within a goal (Close). So Boston's about 55% there, that means they direct about 55% of shots at the other team's net when the score is close, as opposed to 45% by the other team. If there were 40 shots taken in a game while the score was within a goal, on average, Boston would take 22 of them, and the other team would take 18.

Maybe someone can explain to me why people have intentionally thickheaded views on shot-based stats. Is it just contrarianism for no particular reason, is it because they're too stupid to figure out the stat (hard to believe; "shots attempted" isn't a tough concept to understand), or are they just really emotionally attached to the stats they grew up with like +/-, hits, etc?

I appreciate the explanation. It seems like a simple concept to grasp, as you say. Dumb name though.

Plus minus is pretty meaningless, too.

[TKB]

Originally Posted by Husky

How is Holtby that high....

Agreed, I was asking that question myself when I looked at the list.

[Ashasx]

http://espn.go.com/nhl/notebook/_/pa...lrank_coaches/

Hartley ranked 2nd worst coach.

He apparently has also never won a Stanley Cup.

[TurnedTheCorner]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

http://espn.go.com/nhl/notebook/_/pa...lrank_coaches/

Hartley ranked 2nd worst coach.

He apparently has also never won a Stanley Cup.

Take that, Ron Rolston!