ken

More fodder for the argument.

I'll start a new thread because I really can't figure out which of the
seventy six threads to post this in.

I'm not surprised that Hasek didn't win the Conn Smythe Trophy in 1999.
His team barely even showed up in the finals. He was good, but he didn't
win that series. He didn't win the series against Toronto by himself.
Rolloson got two of Buffalo's wins for him. I remember quite a few writers
raising eyebrows about Hasek's injury at the time, musing that he wasn't
really "that" hurt, especially after game 1. Rolloson broke Toronto's back
along with the gritty performance of that forward crew as the Leafs
percieved an opportunity missed with Hasek out. The Ottawa series was a
laugher as the Sens imploded around their own egos and let themselves get
pushed around by Buffalo's grit. The story of that series was (again) the
forwards.

Die Hasek! :-)

1999 Stanley Cup Playoffs Goalie Statistics

WINS
Goaltender Team Gpi W L T
Ed Belfour DAL 23 16 7 0
Dominik Hasek BUF 19 13 6 0
Patrick Roy COL 19 11 8 0
Curtis Joseph TOR 17 9 8 0
Byron Dafoe BOS 12 6 6 0
Grant Fuhr STL 13 6 7 0
Tom Barrasso PIT 13 6 7 0

GOALS-AGAINST AVERAGE
Goaltender Team Gpi GA AVG
Glenn Healy TOR 1 0 0.00
Jamie Mclennan STL 1 0 0.00
John Vanbiesbrouck PHI 6 9 1.46
Ed Belfour DAL 23 43 1.69
Dominik Hasek BUF 19 36 1.80
Byron Dafoe BOS 12 26 2.03

SAVE PERCENTAGE
Goaltender Team Gpi GA SA SPctg
Jamie Mclennan STL 1 0 7 1.000
Glenn Healy TOR 1 0 5 1.000
Dominik Hasek BUF 19 36 587 .939
John Vanbiesbrouck PHI 6 9 146 .938
Ed Belfour DAL 23 43 617 .930
Tommy Salo EDM 4 11 149 .926

jcaramagna

Now please, help us all out: why is this relevent to 2003?

Joey
<a href="http://www.modeloperandi.com"><font size=4>Model Operandi!</font></a>

<a href="http://martycubic.itgo.com">The Official Marty Cubic Site
(www.martycubic.itgo.com)</a>

sled monkey

I wish your fodder had never met your modder.

--
Ottawa Senators
-2004 Stanley Cup Champions (pending)
-2003 Stanley Cup Champions (within 1 goal of this)
-Dynasty in the Making (in progress)
-Canada's Team (since 2002)
-President's Trophy Winners (2003)
-Winner of a major NHL trophy more recently than the Maple Leafs

ken

Precedent, I guess. The argument was being made that the best player was
shut out of the CS voting, and a precedent was set in 1999 that somehow
sets the table for a repeat last playoff. All I'm saying is that the
precedent is not reliable, as Hasek wasn't really as good as revisionists
would have you believe.

der viceroy

I answered that in another thread...and frankly I've gotten tired jumping to your
demands to repeatedly answer the same notion while you go on blithely unaware,
with the weak yaddayadda "you wrong, me right".

jcaramagna

So your answer was that they didn't stick to the criteria in 1999, so they
should also have ignored it in 2003? That's how you think Marty is deserving of
the Conn Smythe?

Joey
<a href="http://www.modeloperandi.com"><font size=4>Model Operandi!</font></a>

<a href="http://martycubic.itgo.com">The Official Marty Cubic Site
(www.martycubic.itgo.com)</a>

der viceroy

Well if they didn't stick to the criteria in 1999, then my answer is the Conn
Smythe some arbitrary fluffy award inconsisently bestowed....and the sportswriters
opinion is about as related to some kind of truthfinding about who is most
valuable as bicycles are to ponds.

I'll put it into a logical diagram for you...as dangerously oxymoronic as thay may
be. We both agree the Conn Smythe goes to the player who was most valuable to
his team in the playoffs.

You POSIT that this value to a team becomes much greater when there's a perceived
lack of a surrounding cast who were also valuable to the team's quest. I respond
that value to a team is more about the role you played in achieving your team's
goals, being THE MAN when called upon, than the number of other potential Conn
Smythe candidates who surrounded you. While the lack of a Stanley Cup ring
doesn't disqualify you from consideration, it does raise the threshhold as at the
end of the day you didn't get what you came for, your value to your team ended for
naught. Or to use that term the NHL uses in its promo spots "There's no crying in
hockey."

Now in any debate that involves philosophical underpinnings - in this case what
exactly "valuableness" means and how we transform it into something tangible - the
Conn Smythe trophy, the way the debate proceeds is to show examples that agree
with or disagree with the argumentative points each side makes. In this case I
said, that if your definition of what the Conn Smythe stands for is the
determining factor, then why did Dominic Hasek not win it four years ago. The way
you refute this (take notes Joey) is to counter either by taking issue with my
point (i.e. that Hasek's situation four years ago was not akin to Giguere's and
therefore cannot be submitted as evidence for my argument) OR you show a
counterexample - for instance Hextall's performance 16 years ago in getting his
Conn Smythe as being similar or less remarkable (higher GAA, lower save
percentage, the take of an "expert" at the time, etc.) to Giguere's feat. Either
of these responses would

You decided to not answer the question until when pressed about twenty times you
mealymouth an "I dunno, I guess Hasek should've won it." You *don't* do any
research to back whatever after-the-whistle answer that is, and then you protest
when I GAME SET MATCH you through your lack of a counterargument with repetitive
sheer nonsense like "You're wrong." "Just Confess!" "Your limited hockey
knowledge is showing." It's like you are in some round padded room muttering to
yourself. I have a clue for you - you and I could type "You're wrong" an Eddie
Belfour billion times - it doesn't forward the debate one millimeter. Points
do. Examples do. Research and references do.

I tried to be nice, but you've given me no choice. I'm going to have to assess
you a major and ten minute misconduct for the poor manner in which you've carried
this debate. Oh yeah, and a two minute unsportsmanlike for incessant yapping on
this "Confess" nonsense. Feel some shame and get back to me about what you
learned when you get out.

jcaramagna

So... you're saying that Brodeur should have won it because the award is
arbitrary and fluffy...this is supposed to make your case?


At least *I* do. You've been busy comingup with regular season stats, record
books, and the 1999 Conn Smythe Trophy. If we agreed on the criteria of the
award, then why did you go through the song and dance of irrelevence?

Not exactly, but when you are the sole reason for a team's success through
three rounds as opposed to being part of 3 or 4 reasons, yes, I'd say you have
more value to your team.


So Niedermayer wasn't THE MAN when called upon? Jeff Friesen wasn't THE MAN
when called upon? How many Devils fans demanded a Conn Smythe for Brodeur after
the crazy goal in Game 3? Why is it that one Devils fan who is in such strong
support of the "Brodeur-for- Smythe" cause turned to me after Game 6 of the
Final and said "He's pissing away another Cup the way he did to Colorado!"

I understand you want one of us to win it over them, that's natural. But to say
he deserved it when he clearly didn't doesn't make much sense. Argue the
criteria of the award then. I want it to be changed too. But I realize that
this does not change the fact that Giguere deserved it in 2003.


Irrelevent. Lack of Stanley Cup ring doesn't diqualify you as much as raising
the Stanley Cup doesn't qualify you. It just doesn't matter. Nowhere in the
award criteria does it say Stanley Cup aside from describing the type of
playoffs.

When you don't win, your value for your team does not end in naught. Value is
clearly not determined by final result when it comes to the Conn Smythe trophy.
You admit this, don't you? If it's your opinion that value is determined by the
result of the final game of the playoffs only, then try to have the trophy
changed. It doesn't mean Giguere didn't deserve it according to the criteria.


It's not MY definition, it is the trophy's definition. You can read all about
it word-for-word on NHL.com and the Hockey Hall fo Fame's site (hhof.com).


*anxiously awaiting with a pen*

Uh...how many times did I say this?


Because Hextall in 1987 has nothing to do with Giguere in 2003. Even if you
compare their stats, it's a different time, place, opponent, league, etc. One
has nothing to do with the other. The only similarity is that the goaltender
from the losing team wn the trophy.


Actually, according to what you wrote above, I answered the question
immediately when I said that it was irrelevent. But you demanded an answer
either :"yes, he deserved it," or "no, he didn't."

Because i told you that it is irrelevent. WHy would I research? Irrelevent.


Actually, I said all of this *before* you even brought up Dominik Hasek. I
guess this counts as another lie.

And you are wrong, that has been made clear. 1999 does not make a case for you
and that is what you seem to hang your hat on, when I've told you many times
that it's irrelevent. And when I said "your limited hockey knowledge is
showing," it wa sin reference to you calling Giguere a "flash in the pan" based
on 1/3 of a season when he had been a good goaltender for two full seasons
before his playoff run. It was not made in reference to his worthiness or
unworthiness of the Smythe. I won't call this a lie, because it's probably a
mistake since this is in so many threads at so many times.

No, repetition is all I need when my answer is correct and you're finding ways
to make yourself correct.

No because you'll never ackowledge that you're wrong even though you are.

I simplified it as much as possible. I asked you a question. THE answer to the
question is "no". the question is: Is the value of Brodeur to the Devils over
Niedermayer greater than Giguere's value over any other Duck?

It is the trophy for *most* valuable player to his team. Not "best goalie" not
"most valuable to the winning team" not "most shutouts in a Final series" not
"guy who desrves it because people may have gotten the vote wrong in 1999".
It's "Most Valuable Player to his team in the Playoffs".


That's fair. I won't argue the call.

I'll take that call too. I wasn't being very nice at all, I'll admit that.


Oh, I won't feel shame. And do you know what I learned from this post? I'm
right, and you're wrong. But then again, I already knew that.

Joey
<a href="http://www.modeloperandi.com"><font size=4>Model Operandi!</font></a>

<a href="http://martycubic.itgo.com">The Official Marty Cubic Site
(www.martycubic.itgo.com)</a>

roger sherman

I thought you said being right was enough for you.

--

peace,

Rog

http://www.slammingrooves.com

argument winning viceroy

--

+-------------+
| PLEASE |
| DO NOT |
| FEED THE |
| TROLLS |
+-------------+
| |
| |
....|.||/...

<snipped>