Response to: Greg Wyshynski's ESPN Article "Was Martin Brodeur Overrated?"

On November 9, 2018 sportswriter for ESPN, Greg Wyshynski, wrote an interesting article asking if soon-to-be Hall of Famer, Martin Brodeur, was overrated. The timing of the article was of course impeccable as Martin Brodeur is about to be enshrined in to the Hockey Hall of Fame this coming Monday, November 12, 2018. 

Wyshynski does a fine job articulating the many unpopular opinions that circulate in the hockey world about Martin Brodeur. The perspective on Brodeur seems to either be "GOAT" or "Lucky SOB." There is no in-between. Blogger "The Contrarian Goaltender" Phillip Myrland, YouTuber "The Hockey Guy" Shannon, and writer, Adam Laskaris of The Hockey Writers have all griped about Brodeur being regarded as the greatest of all time. Their arguments against Brodeur boil down to three points: Defense, shots against, and save percentage.

"Stevens, Niedermayer, Daneyko, and the trap defense are the reasons behind Brodeur’s success."

"Brodeur facing an average of 25.1 shots per game during his career when the average goalie during that same time-span faced an average of 29.1 shots per game is the reason behind Brodeur’s success."

"Brodeur never led the league in save percentage and only was top-ten in save percentage six times in his career."

There you have it, the arguments against Brodeur being the GOAT in a nutshell.

Now let’s do something not one writer, pundit, or even Devil’s fan has ever done; let’s delve in to these arguments and see if they hold water. I mean, they are all true statements. Brodeur did play behind a great defense, the Devils did play the trap for quite sometime in the beginning of Brodeur’s career, he faced an average of 25.1 shots per game, he never led the league in save percentage and only was top-ten in save percentage six times in his career. All are facts all are true, so what gives?

First, let’s look at the Stevens Niedermayer and Daneyko argument.

Scott Stevens before Brodeur had a plus/minus of +151 

Scott Stevens with Brodeur had a plus/minus of +244

Ken Daneyko before Brodeur had a plus/minus of –26

Ken Daneyko with Brodeur had a plus/minus of +104

Niedermayer before Brodeur had a plus/minus of +9

Niedermayer with Brodeur had a plus/minus of +163

Niedermayer after Brodeur had a plus/minus of –5

How About Brodeur as a starter with all three of the Devils' legends: 363 wins in 661 games played for a win percentage of 54.9%. Brodeur posted a .912 SV%, 2.18 GAA, won 1 Vezina trophy, was a 3-time First or Second Team All-Star Selection and 17.6% of his wins were shutouts.

Brodeur as a starter without all three of the Devils' legends: 291 wins in 526 games played for a win percentage of 55.3%. Brodeur posted a .915 SV%, 2.29 GAA, won 3 Vezina trophies, was a 4-time First or Second Team All-Star Selection, and 18.9% of his wins were shutouts.

So what did we learn?

1. Brodeur had a better win percentage without Stevens, Niedermayer, and Daneyko.

2. Brodeur had a better save percentage without Stevens, Niedermayer, and Daneyko.

3. Brodeur won 3 Vezina trophies as the best goaltender in the league without Stevens, Niedermayer, and Daneyko 

4. Brodeur posted a higher rate of shutouts without Stevens, Niedermayer, and Daneyko. and; 

5. Brodeur led the Devils to the Stanley Cup Final with his top defensemen being Bryce Salvador, Andy Greene, Marek Zidlicky, Anton Volchenkov & Mark Fayne.

Conversely, Stevens, Niedermayer, and Daneyko were more successful with Martin Brodeur than they were without him.

Let’s also not forget that Stevens, Niedermayer, and Daneyko combine for one Norris trophy and 9 all-star selections. Meanwhile legendary goaltenders like Patrick Roy and Dominik Hasek captured Lord Stanley behind defensemen such as Chris Chelios, Larry Robinson, Rob Blake, Ray Bourque, Eric Desjardins and Nicklas Lidstrom all of whom combine for 18 Norris Trophies and 50 all-star selections.

Moving on to the vaunted neutral zone trap. The neutral zone trap essentially forces teams to dump the puck in due to a 4-man clog in the neutral zone and traditionally dispatching one forechecker. Since most team’s bread and butter is the good old dump and chase, this style of play can’t be that big a deal right? Well, that is generally correct. Numerous teams have installed the neutral zone trap or some form of it. From Jacques Lemaire’s Minnesota Wild (2000-2009) to Guy Boucher’s Tampa Bay Lightning (2010-2013)and Ottawa Senators (2016-present) to Larry Robinson’s Los Angeles Kings(1995-1999). All of these teams combine for a win percentage of .434 and a grand total of zero Stanley cups. Not one goalie playing for any of those teams won a Vezina trophy nor were they ever considered to be one of the greatest to play the game.

So now that we know the trap defense isn’t some magical formula that makes goaltenders legendary and defenses unbeatable, what was the difference in New Jersey all of those years? Answer: Martin Brodeur. When the dump would inevitably occur, Brodeur would then use his puck-handling skills and quarterback the breakout in to the opposing team's offensive zone, while simultaneously preventing the opposing team from establishing any semblance of a forecheck. Instead of Brodeur stopping shots, he was preventing scoring chances altogether by handling the puck, while also manufacturing a scoring opportunity for his team. His ability to not only be a goaltender, but also be a 3rd defensemen meant that he had more influence on the outcome of a game than your traditional goaltender.

We all know that many teams who customarily played dump and chase had to change their strategy and try skating the puck directly in to the Devils zone because Brodeur’s puck-handling would neutralize their forecheck. This would then cause the so-called "boring hockey” that many complained about during the Devils’ trapping days. And who could blame them for complaining? Of course it’s boring seeing a team, especially if it's your team, bang their heads against the wall and continue to try to skate the puck in to the Devil's zone only to see them get stood up each and every time by the Devils’ defensemen.

Stevens, Niedermayer, and Daneyko rarely had to worry about foot races to the end boards like all other defensemen around the league. Their focus could solely remain on taking the puck and/or the body. The worst-case scenario is the attacking player chips the puck in and gets by the Devils’ defensemen thereby turning it in to a race between the attacking player and Martin Brodeur. Who do you think is getting to the puck first?  

In terms of football, it was like a defense whose only worry was the run. How good do you think that defense is going to be when they know all you can do is run the ball? Here, how good do you think Stevens and company are going to be when all they have to worry about is taking the guy who is skating right towards them because he has no other alternative? Brodeur decreased his defenseman’s concern about over committing or finding himself flat-footed on the dump, which under any other circumstance would result in the forecheck establishing itself. Not the case in New Jersey.

Let’s move on to shot totals. As I illustrated above, Brodeur was greatly responsible for decreasing shots through his non-save skills such as puck-handling and reducing faceoffs in his own zone by keeping the play going. So how does one shower a goalie with praise for stopping shots but discredit Brodeur for preventing the shooting opportunity altogether? I would call that flawed logic. Additionally, the argument that facing less shots helped Brodeur would only be a valid argument if Brodeur performed poorly during games where he saw more rubber. Otherwise, how is it an advantage if Brodeur actually played better on busier nights?

Example: Brodeur had 104 playoff games in his career where he saw an average of 31.5 shots per game. To give context, Dominik Hasek played a total of 68 playoff games for Buffalo, in which he saw an average of 30.6 shots per game, (almost one shot less than Brodeur saw in his 104 career playoff games). In those 104 playoff games where Brodeur saw an average of 31.5 shots per game, he posted a .928 SV%. In those 68 games where Hasek saw an average of 30.6 shots per game, he posted a .930 SV%, hardly a significant difference. Brodeur boasted a comparable save percentage to Hasek when he saw more shots.

I'll even take it one step further. Brodeur has 26 playoff games in his career where he saw an average of 39.9 shots per game and he posted a spectacular .938 SV% in those playoff games.

So seeing less shots clearly didn't "help" or "pad" Brodeur's stats, because he performed better when he saw more shots. Even when we look at his time as a starting goaltender without having Stevens, Niedermayer, and Daneyko we see that he faced an average of 26.4 shots per game, posted a .915 SV% and won 55.3% of his games. Conversely, when Brodeur played behind Stevens Niedermayer, and Daneyko, he faced an average of just 24.1 shots per game, posted a .912 SV% and won 54.9% of his games. So was seeing less shots an advantage or was it actually a detriment to his statistics? The evidence clearly indicates the latter.

This brings us to the final point of contention with Martin Brodeur; save percentage. This analysis will go hand-in-hand with shots faced as save percentage is of course, determined by the number of saves divided by the number of shots faced.

Dominik Hasek faced an average of just 23.5 shots per game during his time with the Detroit Red Wings and posted a .911 SV%. When Hasek was with Buffalo, he faced an average of 29.3 shots per game and posted a sparkling .926 SV%

Did seeing less shots hurt his save percentage? You might argue Hasek was past his prime when he went to Detroit.  Well let’s look at his time with Ottawa, which was after his first stint with Detroit.

In Ottawa, Hasek faced an average of 28 shots per game and lo and behold he posted a dazzling .925 SV%. This clearly indicates that Hasek posted a better save percentage when he faced more shots. Ironically, this phenomenon happened with Brodeur as we discovered above.

Maybe this is just an anomaly? Less shots should inflate save percentage right?

Let's take a look at Ryan Miller. He was hung out to dry in Buffalo but then was traded to the defensive-minded St. Louis Blues. Perhaps Miller’s save percentage was higher with the Blues because they were a superior defensive team and allowed less shots on goal than Buffalo. Let's have a look:

Ryan Miller faced an average of 30 shots per game during his time with Buffalo and posted a respectable .916 SV%.  However, in St. Louis, Miller faced an average of just 24.9 shots per game and posted a dreadful .903 SV%. How about when Miller was traded to the Canucks? Well, in Vancouver, Miller faced an average of 30.5 shots per game and voila! His SV% came right back up to a .914 SV%.

How about Henrik Lundqvist? Lundqvist has had 28 Playoff games where he has seen less than 25 shots per game and in those 28 playoff games Lundqvist posted a terrible .899 SV%. Seeing as Lundqvist has a Career Post-Season SV% of .922 that must mean that when he is seeing more than 25 shots per game he's posting a significantly better save percentage.

I'm not the only one who has observed that there is a relationship between shots against and save percentage. Hockey statistician, Matt Cane, of puckplusplus.com discusses in further detail that "we do see that save percentage tends to increase as shots against goes up..." 

Hey, let’s face it, goaltenders play better when they can get in a rhythm and feel more rubber. Heck, that’s the whole point of warm-ups before the start of each and every game. The goaltender takes a ton of shots from all over the ice and relishes that signature thud when the puck collides with his equipment. The analytics just prove what we already know. 

  

In the end, when you’re the greatest, there will always be detractors. As a matter of fact, detractors are probably one of the best indicators of greatness because it means you have made it in to “the conversation.” When it comes to Martin Brodeur, no one will ever replicate what he accomplished and not because he was “lucky”, but because Brodeur brought more dimensions to the position of goaltending and proved that a goaltender can have a greater impact on the outcome of a game by more than just stopping the puck. 

Since it was Wyshynski that started all of this, I’ll leave off with a sentiment from his article. “Brodeur’s ability to be effective without a high shot volume and his unmatched puck-handling skills helped turn the Devil’s defensive systems into the smothering championship-caliber machines they were just as much as Stevens, Niedermayer, or Daneyko did. I’m not sure how you rate immortality, but I’m pretty sure when your league invents a rule to stop you from being so damn good, that’s a good indication of it.”

By The Hockey Lawyer