Wings current rank

[CanadaBoy 151]

i agree with the forwards and defence being number 1 there arn't meany team's out there with as much strentgh in depth as us or have the prospects we have , Kenny has most definetly built a team for the present and the future. . but goaltending at 15 to 20th? Ozzie was unlucky not to have one the Conn Smyth , ended the Playoffs and the regular season top or near the top in goaltending stats and was Western Allstar starting goalie . the guy was awsome for us this season and is vastly underated. as for going into next season we have two reliable back ups in Conklin and Howard so between the three of them we are looking pretty damn good IMO.

Don't forget about the other two prospects

[DatsyukownzU13 1]

From October 2007 to June 2008, only Martin Brodeur was better than Chris Osgood.

Ozzie was 11th in Vezina voting playing only half a season. With "starter time" he is top five without a doubt. And then he was the top goaltender in the postseason; which has typically been make or break for elite level tenders.

Roberto Luongo, btw, has yet to prove he can be a clutch netminder or is the kind of guy who will find a way to make his team win, something Ozzie has done his entire career. Luongo is a very talented goaltender. Ozzie is a great goaltender.

EDIT:

Forwards: Detroit has three of the ten best forwards in the league. Detroit has nine forwards who could be considered 'top-six' forwards, all of whom are capable defensively and several who are top-notch defensive forwards. Best forward unit in the league.

Defensemen: Detroit has three of the top ten defensemen in the world. All three are very capable at both ends of the ice. Brad Stuart would be a top-pairing defenseman on a lot of teams, and would play on the first unit for both PP and PK in many places. He's #4 in Detroit. Best defense unit in the league, EASILY.

Goaltending: Chris Osgood is one of the five best goaltenders in the league, and plays his best in the clutch. Ty Conklin is as good a backup as you will find in the NHL; and he will have to compete with top prospect Jimmy Howard for the job. Top-three goaltending tandem.

And furthermore...the Wings have EASILY the best GM in the league, so it's not like any holes will fail to be addressed.

Personally, I think your logic is a bit flawed. Osgood has put teams in a position to win games, but he rarely (if ever) steals games. That is something that Luongo does on a consistent basis (granted it's in the regular season). The thing is, how did Osgood do when he played for a mediocre St. Louis team or New York Islanders? He barely reached a .910 (other years posting a .888 and .894) save percentage which was his best of the 4 years he played for those two teams. Also, in the seasons his team made the playoffs he lost in the first round each time putting up some less than stellar numbers.

I'm not saying Osgood isn't a solid goalie that works well in the Wing's system, but I would never hold back on a trade that included Osgood for Luongo (realistically, I don't know anyone that would). Luongo hasn't really been given a fair chance in the playoffs to prove himself. Osgood certainly had his lows early in his playoff career (i.e. San Jose, LA). Luongo did have some clutch performances in the World Championships also. I know he started a semi-final game against the Czechs in 2003 or 4 and had something near 40 saves for the win.

Also how can you claim that Conklin or Howard will be good and reliable backups/prospects (neither of which have put up consistent numbers in the Pros) while claiming that Luongo is unproven...

[Guest mindfly]

Whats with this Luongo hype... imo nabokov, lundqvist, brodeur, turco is better

[Wiser19 0]

It is unfair to compare Luongo and Osgood. They play for different teams with different styles.

Luongo had an awful season last year and couldn't save a game when he had to at the end of the year. Vancouver missed the playoffs.

Osgood clearly played better than Hasek, who was also a premier goaltender. Hasek had a hard time during all of his stays in Detroit, adapting to the amount of shots our defense allows.

Osgood won the Stanley Cup for a second time.

I have always been critical of Osgood and for good reason (5 hole).

He changed his game and last year he put all doubts to rest, he is now clearly one of the top 5 goalies in the league.

[Probert 5 For Fighting 0]

From October 2007 to June 2008, only Martin Brodeur was better than Chris Osgood.

Actually, Tomas Vokoun was truly the best goalie last season based on a variety of statistical variables, and Osgood was nowhere in the top 10. Actually, Osgood contributed less than guys like Jason LaBarbera, Manny Legace and Dwayne Roloson. For more information, and an opportunity to educate yourself properly about the value and contribution of players, visit here:

http://www.hockeyanalytics.com/Research_fi..._NHL_Review.pdf

http://www.hockeyanalytics.com/Research_files/PC_08.xls

And to suggest that Ozzie is clutch and Roberto Luongo isn't is just about the dumbest thing I've ever read around here. Considering "clutch" is an arbitrary label in the first place, you have no ground to base that on - unless you're enough of a simpleton to correlate the Redwings Cup victories with Ozzie's presence, and Luongo is somehow responsible for the shortcomings of his team - when, in fact, he's singlehandedly led his team to the playoffs before and managed to almost win the Vezina with a losing record.

In closing, you calling Osgood one of the 5 best goaltenders in the league is absolutely, positively, wrong, and his "clutchness" is something made up. I will, however, agree with you that Nabokov is a superbly overrated goalie - as is explained in the above link.

[eva unit zero 271]

Personally, I think your logic is a bit flawed. Osgood has put teams in a position to win games, but he rarely (if ever) steals games. That is something that Luongo does on a consistent basis (granted it's in the regular season). The thing is, how did Osgood do when he played for a mediocre St. Louis team or New York Islanders? He barely reached a .910 (other years posting a .888 and .894) save percentage which was his best of the 4 years he played for those two teams. Also, in the seasons his team made the playoffs he lost in the first round each time putting up some less than stellar numbers.

I'm not saying Osgood isn't a solid goalie that works well in the Wing's system, but I would never hold back on a trade that included Osgood for Luongo (realistically, I don't know anyone that would). Luongo hasn't really been given a fair chance in the playoffs to prove himself. Osgood certainly had his lows early in his playoff career (i.e. San Jose, LA). Luongo did have some clutch performances in the World Championships also. I know he started a semi-final game against the Czechs in 2003 or 4 and had something near 40 saves for the win.

Also how can you claim that Conklin or Howard will be good and reliable backups/prospects (neither of which have put up consistent numbers in the Pros) while claiming that Luongo is unproven...

Osgood had a winning record everywhere he played. The .894 and .888 you bring up? Those are separate portions of the same injury-plagued season. He finished the year with a .892, which was his worst performance of his career. He bookended it with .910s in each of his full seasons away from Detroit, earning team MVP honors both times.

Osgood has never had a losing season in the NHL. Ever. Not once. Most 'Great' goaltenders have.

But the most important thing? Those Blues and Isles teams Osgood played for? They were worse than Luongo's Vancouver team. Yet Osgood is the goaltender who didn't miss the playoffs. Luongo was widely criticized for comments towardsthe end of this season about not caring. Osgood, OTOH, was praised by his teammates towards the end of the 2004 season. Keith Tkachuk even said they should have carried him off the ice, because he carried them to the playoffs.

But just for your reference...

Since you are so hung up on save percentage as the 'only' indicator of goaltending prowess...

I clearly stated that my ranking was based on October to June. Luongo's save percentage over that period was .917 in 4233 minutes, while Osgood's was .919 in 3569 minutes. Luongo's record was 35-29-9 against Osgood's record of 41-13-4. Luongo had 6 shutouts, Osgood had 7. Luongo played 73 games, Osgood played 62. And most importantly, the best games of Osgood's season came in the playoffs, while the worst games of Luongo's season came leading up to them. Osgood won the Cup, Luongo missed the playoffs by a hair.

I am not saying Luongo can't be argued to have a higher top level. I am saying that Luongo hasn't proven the ability to play at his best when under the ultimate pressure. Osgood has been a key member of two Cup teams. He has willed lesser teams to the playoffs; teams that missed the playoffs before he got there and then again after he left. Luongo has yet to prove he can perform in the clutch. He has gone to teams that were either perennially in the playoffs or on the playoff bubble before his arrival and has made the playoffs exactly once in his career; suggesting that perhaps his presence might not be so beneficial to the team?

[eva unit zero 271]

Actually, Tomas Vokoun was truly the best goalie last season based on a variety of statistical variables, and Osgood was nowhere in the top 10. Actually, Osgood contributed less than guys like Jason LaBarbera, Manny Legace and Dwayne Roloson. For more information, and an opportunity to educate yourself properly about the value and contribution of players, visit here:

http://www.hockeyanalytics.com/Research_fi..._NHL_Review.pdf

http://www.hockeyanalytics.com/Research_files/PC_08.xls

And to suggest that Ozzie is clutch and Roberto Luongo isn't is just about the dumbest thing I've ever read around here. Considering "clutch" is an arbitrary label in the first place, you have no ground to base that on - unless you're enough of a simpleton to correlate the Redwings Cup victories with Ozzie's presence, and Luongo is somehow responsible for the shortcomings of his team - when, in fact, he's singlehandedly led his team to the playoffs before and managed to almost win the Vezina with a losing record.

In closing, you calling Osgood one of the 5 best goaltenders in the league is absolutely, positively, wrong, and his "clutchness" is something made up. I will, however, agree with you that Nabokov is a superbly overrated goalie - as is explained in the above link.

That metric seems to be more concerned with how valuable a player is to his team than how good he is. Not the same thing. The fact that it uses manufactured stats and throws out half of the data recorded that would otherwise be used because the person who wrote the paper felt the data was 'inaccurate' completely destroys the credibility of it. Sorry.

[DatsyukownzU13 1]

Osgood had a winning record everywhere he played. The .894 and .888 you bring up? Those are separate portions of the same injury-plagued season. He finished the year with a .892, which was his worst performance of his career. He bookended it with .910s in each of his full seasons away from Detroit, earning team MVP honors both times.

Osgood has never had a losing season in the NHL. Ever. Not once. Most 'Great' goaltenders have.

But the most important thing? Those Blues and Isles teams Osgood played for? They were worse than Luongo's Vancouver team. Yet Osgood is the goaltender who didn't miss the playoffs. Luongo was widely criticized for comments towardsthe end of this season about not caring. Osgood, OTOH, was praised by his teammates towards the end of the 2004 season. Keith Tkachuk even said they should have carried him off the ice, because he carried them to the playoffs.

But just for your reference...

Since you are so hung up on save percentage as the 'only' indicator of goaltending prowess...

I clearly stated that my ranking was based on October to June. Luongo's save percentage over that period was .917 in 4233 minutes, while Osgood's was .919 in 3569 minutes. Luongo's record was 35-29-9 against Osgood's record of 41-13-4. Luongo had 6 shutouts, Osgood had 7. Luongo played 73 games, Osgood played 62. And most importantly, the best games of Osgood's season came in the playoffs, while the worst games of Luongo's season came leading up to them. Osgood won the Cup, Luongo missed the playoffs by a hair.

I am not saying Luongo can't be argued to have a higher top level. I am saying that Luongo hasn't proven the ability to play at his best when under the ultimate pressure. Osgood has been a key member of two Cup teams. He has willed lesser teams to the playoffs; teams that missed the playoffs before he got there and then again after he left. Luongo has yet to prove he can perform in the clutch. He has gone to teams that were either perennially in the playoffs or on the playoff bubble before his arrival and has made the playoffs exactly once in his career; suggesting that perhaps his presence might not be so beneficial to the team?

touche.

[Probert 5 For Fighting 0]

That metric seems to be more concerned with how valuable a player is to his team than how good he is. Not the same thing. The fact that it uses manufactured stats and throws out half of the data recorded that would otherwise be used because the person who wrote the paper felt the data was 'inaccurate' completely destroys the credibility of it. Sorry.

Manufactured stats implies that they're made up. No. These are the same stats everyone has access to, and they are far better and provide far more pertinent information than the old metric of GAA and wins - the two most ridiculous measures of individual performance in hockey. Taking those numbers at face value is willingly pleading ignorance and not factoring in everything else that goes into providing numbers like your goals against average and amount of wins. No form of statistical analysis can ever decide how "good" a player is - but they can certainly provide the information necessary to conclude that someone like Ozzie was no more important to our success than LaBarbera was to the Kings. It certainly bears far more credibility than someone who suggests Osgood is one of the five best goaltenders in the league without any legitimate grounds to stand on.

Edited July 4, 2008 by Probert 5 For Fighting

[Drake_Marcus 890]

I'm heavily weighting this towards these teams' performances over the last season- FA additions are counted, but the strongest factor is in existing chemistry and proven results.

Forwards:

1. Detroit- Pavel and Zetterberg are absolutely dominant- to put up 90+ pts in Detroit's Defense 1st system is amazing. Adding Hossa puts us over the top.

2. Ottawa- their top three is fantastic and somehow their top Swede just isn't slowing down either

3. Pens- their losses this year (trade deadline and offseason) drop them behind Ottawa. Note that they only stay this high based on the strength of their top two.

4. Habs- like it or not- they have an explosive offense that is absolutely deadly on the PP and very, very well distributed all the way down to the 4th line.

5. Washington- Alex is obvious, but Semin's due for a big upswing, Backstrom will only get better, Nylander put up 37pts in 40 games. They're only going to get better.

6. Philly- they could be real, real good at putting the puck in the net this season. I reaalllllly like Richards- he's money.

Defense:

1. Detroit- durrr 1 Selke winner, 1 Selke nom and 1 Norris this year. Raffi had a career year with Lids (shocker! ). Kronner was argueably the best d-man in the playoffs.

2. Anaheim- Pronger and Neidermayer are a deadly top 2, Schneider is pretty impressive for a 2nd pairing player. They could also blow- I dunno yet.

3. San Hose- they played real strong team D last season and added Boyle. Blake isn't the same anymore, but he's better than half their d-men last season.

4. New York Rags- Rozsival and Staal played really strong in the playoffs. Redden, while overpaid, is still a good d-man. Once again- Staal could be huge next season.

5. Toronto- two words- Jeff Finger.

Goal:

1. Sharks- The Vez was stolen from Nabby. 'nough said.

2. Vancouver- Lou had a rough season last year but can still steal games.

3. New Jersey- He can still steal games and has the resume too.

4. Dallas- Laugh all you want but Turco only got better last season and he was stunning against the Ducks and Sharks in the playoffs.

5. New York Rags- Another dominant Swede. I do think he's a tiny bit overrated, though.

6. Flames- Kipper steals games. Believe it. He was rocky at times last year but he's still clutch.

7. Columbus- Leclaire managed to post a shocking number of shut outs with a horrible defense in front of him. Laugh all you want but he's the real deal.

8. Anaheim- Giggy is an excellent goalie- laughably large pads or not. He's a monster in the playoffs. I don't think the new pad restrictions will eliminate all of his talent.

9. Buffalo- Miller managed to keep the dismal remains of bad management half-competitive.

10. Montreal- Price is utterly unproven so I can't put him higher up this list based on his enormous potential alone.

11. New York Islanders- DiPietro is really freaking good when he's healthy. When he's even a bit injured he slips down this list.

12. Detroit- Ozzy is the man and perfect for this team, but he doesn't quite have the resume or the performance in front of a shakey defense that most of the above does.

13. Philly- Biron was amazing in the playoffs. He really doesn't get enough credit for what he does.

I'm sure many of you will argue my lists, especially the goalies, but that's my honest opinion.

[Reds4Life 51]

Offense: 1st

Defense: 1st

Goaltending: 10-15th

Sharks are now hands down our biggest threat. On paper of course.

[FUUFNF 1]

Actually, Tomas Vokoun was truly the best goalie last season based on a variety of statistical variables, and Osgood was nowhere in the top 10. Actually, Osgood contributed less than guys like Jason LaBarbera, Manny Legace and Dwayne Roloson. For more information, and an opportunity to educate yourself properly about the value and contribution of players, visit here:

http://www.hockeyanalytics.com/Research_fi..._NHL_Review.pdf

http://www.hockeyanalytics.com/Research_files/PC_08.xls

And to suggest that Ozzie is clutch and Roberto Luongo isn't is just about the dumbest thing I've ever read around here. Considering "clutch" is an arbitrary label in the first place, you have no ground to base that on - unless you're enough of a simpleton to correlate the Redwings Cup victories with Ozzie's presence, and Luongo is somehow responsible for the shortcomings of his team - when, in fact, he's singlehandedly led his team to the playoffs before and managed to almost win the Vezina with a losing record.

In closing, you calling Osgood one of the 5 best goaltenders in the league is absolutely, positively, wrong, and his "clutchness" is something made up. I will, however, agree with you that Nabokov is a superbly overrated goalie - as is explained in the above link.

if osgood were to retire today, he would be a 2-time cup winner and one of, if not the, greatest netminders to ever wear the winged wheel. that just doesn't happen by chance, and in itself makes osgood uncomparable to names like labarbera, legace, and roloson.

Edited July 4, 2008 by FUUFNF

[greenrebellion 415]

...

Goal:

1. Sharks- The Vez was stolen from Nabby. 'nough said.

2. Vancouver- Lou had a rough season last year but can still steal games.

3. New Jersey- He can still steal games and has the resume too.

4. Dallas- Laugh all you want but Turco only got better last season and he was stunning against the Ducks and Sharks in the playoffs.

5. New York Rags- Another dominant Swede. I do think he's a tiny bit overrated, though.

6. Flames- Kipper steals games. Believe it. He was rocky at times last year but he's still clutch.

7. Columbus- Leclaire managed to post a shocking number of shut outs with a horrible defense in front of him. Laugh all you want but he's the real deal.

8. Anaheim- Giggy is an excellent goalie- laughably large pads or not. He's a monster in the playoffs. I don't think the new pad restrictions will eliminate all of his talent.

9. Buffalo- Miller managed to keep the dismal remains of bad management half-competitive.

10. Montreal- Price is utterly unproven so I can't put him higher up this list based on his enormous potential alone.

11. New York Islanders- DiPietro is really freaking good when he's healthy. When he's even a bit injured he slips down this list.

12. Detroit- Ozzy is the man and perfect for this team, but he doesn't quite have the resume or the performance in front of a shakey defense that most of the above does.

13. Philly- Biron was amazing in the playoffs. He really doesn't get enough credit for what he does.

I'm sure many of you will argue my lists, especially the goalies, but that's my honest opinion.

Must be your honest, but uninformed opinion. Nabokov plays on one of the best defensive teams in the league and yet was only able to put up a .910 save percentage. He should not be at the top of your list and he certainly did not have the vez stolen from him.

[Drake_Marcus 890]

Must be your honest, but uninformed opinion. Nabokov plays on one of the best defensive teams in the league and yet was only able to put up a .910 save percentage. He should not be at the top of your list and he certainly did not have the vez stolen from him.

Irony much? That's the exact situation with Ozzy.

Did you watch the triple overtime game between the Sharks and the Stars!!?!

Nabokov was widely considered a favourite to win the Vez. I watched every Dallas game and believe me- Nabokov was consistently their best player.

Nabby was the hottest goalie after the allstar break hands down and he was one of the best if not the best goalie durring the playoffs.

I'm not a Sharks fan by any stretch of the imagination, but I do know good goal-tending when I see it.

[Earthhuman 8]

Must be your honest, but uninformed opinion. Nabokov plays on one of the best defensive teams in the league and yet was only able to put up a .910 save percentage. He should not be at the top of your list and he certainly did not have the vez stolen from him.

Not sure how much hockey you watch, but you should have realized by now that better defense leads to lower save %. The leader every year is someone who plays on a bad team, like Tim Thomas, Vokoun, Luongo. Hasek could never make it out of "average range." Neither could Osgood. That's a reflection of the team. Nabokov is an elite goalie and probably should have won the Vezina.

I disagree that Lundqvist is over-rated. He steals the majority of the games they win. Two-time Vezina finalist. Olympic gold. Consistently good stats on a defense that, in the past, featured such studs as Ozilinsh (sp?) and "what's his name?", that kid, "what's his name," and that kid. Their best defenseman at the beginning of last year was Rosival. If you don't watch the Rangers, he's a poor man's Kronwall that shoots the puck. Over the course of the year, the best defenseman was Girardi or Stall, who are both young, learning the ropes. Lundqvist has been terrific game-in, game-out, except for a small streak early in 2007.

Other than that, you feel safe with him in net. He's the only goalie that makes me think, "Yes! Shootout!" No shot is "unstoppable." You know this if you saw him in the playoffs.

[chrisdetroit 189]

From October 2007 to June 2008, only Martin Brodeur was better than Chris Osgood.

Ozzie was 11th in Vezina voting playing only half a season. With "starter time" he is top five without a doubt. And then he was the top goaltender in the postseason; which has typically been make or break for elite level tenders.

Roberto Luongo, btw, has yet to prove he can be a clutch netminder or is the kind of guy who will find a way to make his team win, something Ozzie has done his entire career. Luongo is a very talented goaltender. Ozzie is a great goaltender.

EDIT:

Forwards: Detroit has three of the ten best forwards in the league. Detroit has nine forwards who could be considered 'top-six' forwards, all of whom are capable defensively and several who are top-notch defensive forwards. Best forward unit in the league.

Defensemen: Detroit has three of the top ten defensemen in the world. All three are very capable at both ends of the ice. Brad Stuart would be a top-pairing defenseman on a lot of teams, and would play on the first unit for both PP and PK in many places. He's #4 in Detroit. Best defense unit in the league, EASILY.

Goaltending: Chris Osgood is one of the five best goaltenders in the league, and plays his best in the clutch. Ty Conklin is as good a backup as you will find in the NHL; and he will have to compete with top prospect Jimmy Howard for the job. Top-three goaltending tandem.

And furthermore...the Wings have EASILY the best GM in the league, so it's not like any holes will fail to be addressed.

You forgot coaching. Certainly top 5 at least.

[chrisdetroit 189]

In my opinion it's like

Forwards 1st

Defensemen tied 1st with ducks

Goaltending ~15-20th

Overall 1st

That's pretty realistic don't you think?

Ducks defense is very good but only in the first pairing. After Nieds and dickhead, the drop off is pretty dramatic. Kronwall as our #3 is better than whomever their #3 is - does anybody even know who the Ducks #3 is.....That's my point

[chrisdetroit 189]

It is unfair to compare Luongo and Osgood. They play for different teams with different styles.

Luongo had an awful season last year and couldn't save a game when he had to at the end of the year. Vancouver missed the playoffs.

Osgood clearly played better than Hasek, who was also a premier goaltender. Hasek had a hard time during all of his stays in Detroit, adapting to the amount of shots our defense allows.

Osgood won the Stanley Cup for a second time.

I have always been critical of Osgood and for good reason (5 hole).

He changed his game and last year he put all doubts to rest, he is now clearly one of the top 5 goalies in the league.

Huh? What about that Stanley Cup in 2002 during which he had 6 shutouts. And Ozzie is one of the top 5 in the league? Come on, try and be a little bit objective here.

[Firehawk 305]

Every time I think about us winning the cup this past year and think about the players we have and just signed, I always remember the jeers from the crowds of other fans that said we wouldn't even make the playoffs after the new CBA was signed.

What a fantastic job the front office has done.

[eva unit zero 271]

Manufactured stats implies that they're made up. No. These are the same stats everyone has access to, and they are far better and provide far more pertinent information than the old metric of GAA and wins - the two most ridiculous measures of individual performance in hockey. Taking those numbers at face value is willingly pleading ignorance and not factoring in everything else that goes into providing numbers like your goals against average and amount of wins. No form of statistical analysis can ever decide how "good" a player is - but they can certainly provide the information necessary to conclude that someone like Ozzie was no more important to our success than LaBarbera was to the Kings. It certainly bears far more credibility than someone who suggests Osgood is one of the five best goaltenders in the league without any legitimate grounds to stand on.

It states in the 'explanation' of what the metrics are that goaltenders are rated based on their stats, but their stats are then modified by a weighted metric representing team defense based on 'shots faced' and 'shot quality' that is completely unreliable because the author states that he threw out 'home' data because of biased reporting as compared to the road data. That invalidates it further than the fact that it is already a purportedly 'statistical' measurement that uses SUBJECTIVE measurements to determine which player had better stats.

It's like trying to use Hits as an indicator of who the most physically dominant player in the league is. Every arena records them differently...so what do you do? Do you take the raw stats? No. Do you use road stats only, like the author in question? Well, that gives you a more objective approach, but it completely removes the fact that many players play differently at home and on the road. A metric that arbitrarily throws out part of the data 'just because' is completely and totally invalid. It would be like a restaurant tracking what percentage of every chef's meals were sent back, but not counting Bob's because one of the regular patrons didn't like him. It changes the statistical set arbitrarily and with no real reason.

Oh, and as far as legitimate grounds to stand on:

Edited July 5, 2008 by eva unit zero

[Z and D for the C 712]

In my honest opinion, whoever is the defending Cup Champ is automatically going to be #1.

Sometimes, but not in all cases.

[Superman54 91]

Sometimes, but not in all cases.

True enough, TBH I didn't feel that way about the Hurricanes after they won the cup in 06

[12Newf 0]

1.

[Probert 5 For Fighting 0]

It states in the 'explanation' of what the metrics are that goaltenders are rated based on their stats, but their stats are then modified by a weighted metric representing team defense based on 'shots faced' and 'shot quality' that is completely unreliable because the author states that he threw out 'home' data because of biased reporting as compared to the road data. That invalidates it further than the fact that it is already a purportedly 'statistical' measurement that uses SUBJECTIVE measurements to determine which player had better stats.

It's like trying to use Hits as an indicator of who the most physically dominant player in the league is. Every arena records them differently...so what do you do? Do you take the raw stats? No. Do you use road stats only, like the author in question? Well, that gives you a more objective approach, but it completely removes the fact that many players play differently at home and on the road. A metric that arbitrarily throws out part of the data 'just because' is completely and totally invalid. It would be like a restaurant tracking what percentage of every chef's meals were sent back, but not counting Bob's because one of the regular patrons didn't like him. It changes the statistical set arbitrarily and with no real reason.

Oh, and as far as legitimate grounds to stand on:

How is using "road" data invalid? The author simply doesn't trust home statisticians, so he uses a neutral or outside source for the stats of each teams home games. It's for the exact same reasons the official NFL websites never recognize the Tackle totals added up by home statisticians. He's not throwing home stats or anything silly like that.

For you to be suggesting that using outside sources to compute hit totals(or something similar) somehow ignores the fact that players play differently on the road and at home is utterly ridiculous. What, are the outside statisticians deliberately ignoring action on the ice? If you perform better at home than on the road, it doesn't matter who's recording the statistics, it's going to be pretty damn evident no matter who is tallying it up. Saying that a players performance is somehow being ignored without the resources of home statisticians is cork-on-fork retarded. Data is not being included? I don't think you're getting it at all. All the data is accounted for - the author just preferred to use neutral or outside sources, as opposed to somebody who works at Joe Louis Arena. The numbers are all there, but the home-fudging is taking out of it. That's all it is.

But I thank you for conceding defeat on the Osgood argument. Maybe I'll post a picture of Cam Ward or Bill Ranford with a Cup and call it a night.

[eva unit zero 271]

How is using "road" data invalid? The author simply doesn't trust home statisticians, so he uses a neutral or outside source for the stats of each teams home games. It's for the exact same reasons the official NFL websites never recognize the Tackle totals added up by home statisticians. He's not throwing home stats or anything silly like that.

For you to be suggesting that using outside sources to compute hit totals(or something similar) somehow ignores the fact that players play differently on the road and at home is utterly ridiculous. What, are the outside statisticians deliberately ignoring action on the ice? If you perform better at home than on the road, it doesn't matter who's recording the statistics, it's going to be pretty damn evident no matter who is tallying it up. Saying that a players performance is somehow being ignored without the resources of home statisticians is cork-on-fork retarded. Data is not being included? I don't think you're getting it at all. All the data is accounted for - the author just preferred to use neutral or outside sources, as opposed to somebody who works at Joe Louis Arena. The numbers are all there, but the home-fudging is taking out of it. That's all it is.

But I thank you for conceding defeat on the Osgood argument. Maybe I'll post a picture of Cam Ward or Bill Ranford with a Cup and call it a night.

The way it read was as if the data from home games was ignored. If different data sources are used, that is better, BUT:

It still is basing a purportedly objective, statistic-based ranking on a completely subjective data set.

And you know the major difference between Chris Osgood and Cam Ward or Bill Ranford? Cam Ward and Bill Ranford have never been elite-level goaltenders in their career outside of one stellar cup run that happened because their team's starter was unable to perform. They are guys who weren't even the best goalie on their team in the year they won the Cup, they just happened to be the guy in net and playing well. Osgood has for the most part of his career been one of the better starters in the league.

And ultimately, it comes down to this:

Most people feel you can't win the Cup without great goaltending. Your "statistical analysis" gives the best numbers to goaltenders who perform decently on bad teams, and do not give good numbers to goaltenders who perform very well on very good teams.

That list is much more about a player's value to his current team than about a player's ability, and cannot be used to provide a list of who the best goaltenders are. Why? Because every team's players are rated based on what the author calls 'marginal goals' referring to the margin of victory. In other words: In a game between Detroit and Columbus, if Henrik Zetterberg scores one even strength goal one two shots in 19:05, and Rick Nash scores one even strength goal on two shots in 19:05, and the final score is 1-1, Rick Nash has made more of a statistical contribution than Henrik Zetterberg.

The list you posted is an attempt to quantify how valuable a player is to his team in relation to how valuable another player is to his team. It does not say anything about which player is better, and except in the case of teammates does not say anything about who is more valuable to a given team.

As Osgood only played half the season, his number is artificially low because he can't have been as valuable as someone who played 70 games and performed similarly. Had Osgood put up those kinds of numbers over 65 or 70 games instead of 43, he'd have definitely, without a doubt, been in the top ten goaltenders in VALUE.

Of course, my ranking wasn't about value; it was about ability...so your list is pretty meaningless in that regard.

I'd like to see what puckloo thinks of your list claiming Hasek would have only been good enough to be a minor league backup had he been a Penguin last season.