Re: As predicted, Rask chokes. I hope they don't resign the worlds greatest choker.
posted at 6/26/2013 2:54 PM EDT
In response to shuperman's comment:
Stanley cup finals. Here are some stats
gm 1. 1-0 loss. No goal support. Scored with 18 seconds left. 33 saves
gm 2. 3-2 otl. 31 saves
gm 3. 8-1 win. 40 saves
gm 4. 4-0 win 38 saves
gm 5. 1-0 37 saves
gm 6. 5-2 win 38 saves.
gm 7. 4-0 s/o. Outshot 37-21
Game 1 loss, with winning goal with 18 seconds left. How come the losing goal at this point isn't a "choke" as being evidenced by the Rask bashing? How is it different than 2013 Game 6?
(I don't believe it was a choke, but the comments about Rask are as incorrect)
Game 2 loss... statistics will not reveal the absolutely ridiculously bad OT game losing goal that was given up. To the point where at the press conference he was asked questions about whether he should "adjust his style." Is that a "choke?"
(no, its not, but the misuse of the C word, conveniently, is wrong, isnt it?)
Game 5 loss. Losing goal from behind the goal line. Not seeing that in the box score or stat sheet.
I would argue questionable goals at crunch time after every bit as important as "game 7 stats" to determine a goalie in clutch situations.
Wins: 8-1, 4-0, 5-2, 4-0. Some people could look at those scores impassively and not really say the goalie was stealing any games.
This doesnt even consider the very shaky play against Montreal in the first round, and if a Hab scored before Horton in Game 7, history would be very very different today.
Vs Chicago, Rask loses Game 1 after a ridiculously lucky shot wide banks in off Ference, then he stops 60 shots over 6 periods and finally loses after the B's had at least 7 mind boggling chances to win. Rask is a choke because "he didnt win?" Really?
In Game 6, the B's completely dominate play for a period, yet cant score a second goal. They get 4 consecutive power plays, yet cant score a second goal. The defense fails miserably on 2 late goals (and why CJ didnt call a TO after the first is beyond me), but again, Rask is a choke?
The other 2 games were easily winnable 1 goal losses with a bounce or a goal scored.
My point is, dez and Fletcher are absolutely correct. TT was a stud in 2011 and deserves all the glory he's getting, but he did not contribute more to the Bs winning in 2011 than Rask did in 2013. I still think Rask was better, but that argument is fuzzy enough to argue. And Im completely leaving liking one guy better than the other out of the above argument.
But trying to prove the point that TT was somehow better because "he won" is too simplistic, as are stats that do not prove anything in this comparison. Goalie stats are notoriously misleading, especially looking at "shots" that dont measure any sort of rebound control or quality. Still in this case, Rasks were every bit as stellar as TTs, and do not prove any clear superiority by either.