Goalies Revisited (and not just to take shots at shupe!)

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Goalies Revisited (and not just to take shots at shupe!)

    Been thinking about this a bit lately when looking at goalie stats.  Have you looked at goalie stats lately?  They're wild, and I don't mean because of Josh Harding.

    You know who the top goalie is statistically?  Ben Scrivens.  Okay, technically Alex Stalock (4 games) and Petr Mrazek (1 game) have better numbers.  But Scrivens has played in 9 games, started 6, pitched 3 shutouts.  His numbers are 1.35 and .949.  That's a full goal per game better than Quick and an extra save for every 20 shots.  Dude was traded for Bernier, who is giving Toronto everything they wanted (except the crack) at 2.05 and .939.  Last year, Bernier was 1.88 and .922 - both sets of numbers better than Quick.

    All of this to say, first - is Quick a product of LA as a team?  The year they won the Cup he was incredible, but his record as an NHLer does not match what he did that year.  Most years, he's closer to 2.50 and .910 than he is 1.95 and .929.  He was excellent in the playoffs last year, too, though, so you have to give him that.  But I wonder if he's a better example for shupe's argument about not paying goalies than Rask will be.

    Second, what about Niemi for that matter?  If Stalock looks better than Niemi by a fair margin in front of the same team, how much of that is picking your spots and how much is that the team makes the goalie?

    Last, just for shupe, anyone ready to start questioning if Corey Crawford is Michael Leighton?  His GAA is 2.55 and his s% is .905.  Very similar to his 2011-12 numbers that had the Hawks questioning in their goaltending, and not his playoff performance last year.  Knock on wood, but I'd rather have the goalie Boston has at what they're paying him than Crawford at what Chicago's paying him starting next year.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from goodnewsbears. Show goodnewsbears's posts

    Re: Goalies Revisited (and not just to take shots at shupe!)

    Crawford has personal issues. He broke up with his wife or gf (not sure if they ever got married).  They had been together about ten years.  They were supposed to get married this summer and now they're no longer together.  Even though they are professionals, this stuff affects them the same way as "normal people"

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: Goalies Revisited (and not just to take shots at shupe!)

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

    Been thinking about this a bit lately when looking at goalie stats.  Have you looked at goalie stats lately?  They're wild, and I don't mean because of Josh Harding.

    You know who the top goalie is statistically?  Ben Scrivens.  Okay, technically Alex Stalock (4 games) and Petr Mrazek (1 game) have better numbers.  But Scrivens has played in 9 games, started 6, pitched 3 shutouts.  His numbers are 1.35 and .949.  That's a full goal per game better than Quick and an extra save for every 20 shots.  Dude was traded for Bernier, who is giving Toronto everything they wanted (except the crack) at 2.05 and .939.  Last year, Bernier was 1.88 and .922 - both sets of numbers better than Quick.

    All of this to say, first - is Quick a product of LA as a team?  The year they won the Cup he was incredible, but his record as an NHLer does not match what he did that year.  Most years, he's closer to 2.50 and .910 than he is 1.95 and .929.  He was excellent in the playoffs last year, too, though, so you have to give him that.  But I wonder if he's a better example for shupe's argument about not paying goalies than Rask will be.

    Second, what about Niemi for that matter?  If Stalock looks better than Niemi by a fair margin in front of the same team, how much of that is picking your spots and how much is that the team makes the goalie?

    Last, just for shupe, anyone ready to start questioning if Corey Crawford is Michael Leighton?  His GAA is 2.55 and his s% is .905.  Very similar to his 2011-12 numbers that had the Hawks questioning in their goaltending, and not his playoff performance last year.  Knock on wood, but I'd rather have the goalie Boston has at what they're paying him than Crawford at what Chicago's paying him starting next year.



    B's should have signed Tuukka to a 10 yr deal while they had the chance. Better goalie than Crawdaddy by a country mile and thats alot!

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Goalies Revisited (and not just to take shots at shupe!)

    Two goalies I've been waiting for in the NHL are Stalock and Lehner.  I watched Stalock a lot in the AHL and saw Lehner a few times.  Both were "oh man, that guy might have a lot of it" good.

    The LA situation with Quick is comical.

    They're paying $60M for a guy with bad stats on the IR.

    They're paying $625K for a guy with a 1.35GAA (or something close).

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: Goalies Revisited (and not just to take shots at shupe!)

    Crawford is leading the league in wins.  He also has a nice cup ring.  He out played our guy when it mattered most, they believe in him.  Its not always pretty but he gets wins.   I dont wanna get into that long drawn out debate. i promised  my good buddy NAS I would leave it alone and i have.  

    The sheer fact that goalies are not predictable has to be strengthened by all the starters going to backups this year.  And the fact so many backups are starters.  Show me a great system and you have a great goalie.  I am more then convinced that there are 20 goalies in the league that could play for the Bruins and have off the charts stats.  Stats are really nice.  But winning stanley cups is what impresses me as a goalie.  

    look at every starter on every team.  Guys like Price, Fleury who were getting drubbed in here are doing very well this year, look at the season halak is having in his ufa year.  Playing in front of a team very similar to Boston.  Is he gonna get 7m?   How about Mason?  Heck lets give dipietro huge money as well.  How about Bob?  

    the goalie flip flop is in full force this year.   Its comical.  

    All this being said, Rask has been everything and then some this year.   Do i think hes worth the money.  Nope.  Do i think this deal haunts us at some point.  Most definitely.  Am i happy hes a Bruin?  Yes.  

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Goalies Revisited (and not just to take shots at shupe!)

    Bobrovsky and the way Columbus treated him with his first contract, is a good argument of how too treat a goalie before looking at him long term. Don't make a commitment until you've seen the weirdo in a few playoff runs.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Goalies Revisited (and not just to take shots at shupe!)

    In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:

    Bobrovsky and the way Columbus treated him with his first contract, is a good argument of how too treat a goalie before looking at him long term. Don't make a commitment until you've seen the weirdo in a few playoff runs.



    That actually is a great criteria!

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: Goalies Revisited (and not just to take shots at shupe!)

    Goalies are as stable as blackberry.  Its the same thing every year and the exact reason i will never be in favor of long term deals.  This short portion of this year has strenthened everything i have said on the subject.  

    no one can tell me if price played in boston, la or st louis he wouldnt have off the chart good numbers.  The fact shrivens is playing out of this world is proof.  Philly will give him 10m annually over 15 yrs.  

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Goalies Revisited (and not just to take shots at shupe!)

    In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:

    Bobrovsky and the way Columbus treated him with his first contract, is a good argument of how too treat a goalie before looking at him long term. Don't make a commitment until you've seen the weirdo in a few playoff runs.




    Great point.

    The guy plays well out of nowhere.  Another team may have locked him up long term.  Instead, Jarmo gives him two years to prove his worth.

    Looks like Jarmo is pretty smart.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Goalies Revisited (and not just to take shots at shupe!)

    NAS's formula from a different thread makes sense: good goalie + great defensive team = great goalie; great goalie + average defensive team = good goalie.  There's an exception to that rule that we used to see more often: good goalie on a terrible team looks like a great goalie because he keeps them in it, and he has to be the difference maker every night.

    I don't think it's a totally random as you do, shupe.  I think, over time, you see a goalie's baseline.  Crawford was out of his head last year.  Quick two years ago.  Both guys, though, have a set a baseline that's not nearly as eye-popping.  Whattabout Bobrovsky fits that category, too - his previous two years were below average let alone below Vezina standards. 

    Rask's exactly the opposite.  The Cup year, his numbers spiked.  Lots of factors involved, including a hip problem if I remember correctly.  Both before and since that year, his numbers have been consistently excellent.  And Rask, in the last couple of years when his partner hasn't been a Vezina winner, has not suffered from backup goalie syndrome - Khudobin's numbers were good, but 1/3 of a goal higher and .009 lower in s%.  Johnson 2.30 and .917, which is well off.  I would submit that Scrivens is no better than either of those guys. Well...okay, he's probably better than Johnson.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from bogie6. Show bogie6's posts

    Re: Goalies Revisited (and not just to take shots at shupe!)

    What a good discussion on goalies and hockey. No trolls noted. Let's have more

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Goalies Revisited (and not just to take shots at shupe!)

    Bobrovsky is like Fluery - some nights out of this world, some nights "what the holy heck ?". Rask is consistent at being consistent. Tuukka answered that question "Yah but he got tired during the Philly series". Now he has the right contract after facing a great offensive team like Chicago. It's not a goalies fault that the team in front of him can't clear the puck to end the game or make a line change.

    Niemi is another goalie that is puzzling, everything tightens up in the playoffs but plays really well in the regular season. Halak looks like it's going to be his "good year" but I would not give him more than two years because he is inconsistent.

    Rinne, Rask, Lundvist, Price, to name a few, are good long term investments.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Goalies Revisited (and not just to take shots at shupe!)

    The only thing I wonder is why are we judging goalies soley on numbers? I look back at some of the goalies who did not have the best numbers, like Cujo in his prime. He didnt have a bunch of vezinas yet he was a real good one. His best save pct. was .911. Mike Richters best G.A.A was 2.57. He was an outstanding goalie. Grant Fuhr, made some of the best saves you'll ever see. He didnt crack a .900 save pct until 92-93.

    Too many factors in play to be judging goalies on just numbers. Growing up I had shutouts, won games 2-1 etc..Til this day, my father says the best game I ever played we lost 6-2, had 47 shots on me, many of them of them of the very difficult variety. Lost our 2 best defenseman on the first 3 shifts of the game.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Goalies Revisited (and not just to take shots at shupe!)

    Kel I think it's easier for us non-keepers to look at the stats for goalies because we aren't as aware of the intracacies of the position. It's sort of like when non-knowledgable hockey fans use only stats for forwards and d to examine their worth. We can understand what they overlook, just as you can probably do the same with keepers. I'm not saying we're clueless about goalies, but it's not our area of expertise - that's the wheelhouse of the weirdos.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share