Niemi.....

[Likewall32]

By the logic you are using to guage Niemi I could make the same argument that the only series that should be excluded and isn't indicitive of his ability is this years series against LA. He's had two great series (Nashville and San Jose), two mediocre (Vancouver and Philly), and one bad (LA). That would indicate that the LA series is the only one that falls outside the norm and should be excluded from the averages instead of the San Jose series.

I also wouldnt include the nashville series in a "great" series. did you watch the series last year? IMO 2 great games & 1 good game (the loss gm1) doesnt constitute a great "series". It was frustrating watching the shutout, stinker flipflop. It wasnt a comfortable feeling all playoffs, you didnt know who was going to show up in net. Just like this year...

 

[Cmon_WTF]

I'm not making an angument for or against Niemi. I simply wanted a true representation of his numbers so maybe you'd see his overall play is not as bad as you project it to be. To be perfectly honest, I don't care for him as a goalie. I see a many holes in his game, which I stated to no end on the ESPN board, but at the same time I see great improvement in those areas which for whatever reason you fail to acknowledge. You pass off a 4 month run during the regular season as just a hot streak and not really his true ability level. Right now, this year, he may not be the goalie that can get this Sharks team over the hump. I actually expect him to get lit up pretty bad by Detroit. But at the same time to ignore the strengths of his game, improvements he's made, the growth he's made, to ingore that he has shown the potential to be the goalie that can get them past that point is an injustice. It comes across as nothing more than bias hatered instead of objective observation.

 

[Likewall32]

I'm not making an angument for or against Niemi. I simply wanted a true representation of his numbers so maybe you'd see his overall play is not as bad as you project it to be. To be perfectly honest, I don't care for him as a goalie. I see a many holes in his game, which I stated to no end on the ESPN board, but at the same time I see great improvement in those areas which for whatever reason you fail to acknowledge. You pass off a 4 month run during the regular season as just a hot streak and not really his true ability level. Right now, this year, he may not be the goalie that can get this Sharks team over the hump. I actually expect him to get lit up pretty bad by Detroit. But at the same time to ignore the strengths of his game, improvements he's made, the growth he's made, to ingore that he has shown the potential to be the goalie that can get them past that point is an injustice. It comes across as nothing more than bias hatered instead of objective observation.

I didnt ignore them, I even posted before how I give props to the goalie coach staff for fixing his rebound problem. Unfortunatly it reared its head again lately... And thats just the difference between me & you I guess, Im not seeing these strengths, ive seen improvments but not strengths. When you take something not that good and make it average, its an improvement but is it really a strenght or somthing to praise just because its better? If I got F's in math and a tutor helped me get a D+, its an improvemnt, but im still a dumbass at math. To say that 4 months of solid hockey shows that he can be the goalie to get them past that point just doesnt cut it for me. The Sharks are notorious for 2nd half tears thru the league, its not something new. Also during the streak, Wellwood, Eager & White were added, players like Setoguchi catch fire. Fixing the AHL bottom lines & improving puck movement on D helped out alot. Do those players get praise on the board for the turnaround? No its all Niemi. His play was great, but there are also other contributing factors.

I dont like the "potential" statement eaither, cause what about the "potential" goalies in the system showed, just to be ignored. Would they have put up a streak of numbers like that? Doubt it, but I do feel they would probably show a little more consistancy.

Cant polish a turd, no matter how shiney and good you can get it looking at times, its still just a turd... LOL

 

[Cmon_WTF]

I didnt ignore them, I even posted before how I give props to the goalie coach staff for fixing his rebound problem. Unfortunatly it reared its head again lately... And thats just the difference between me & you I guess, Im not seeing these strengths, ive seen improvments but not strengths. When you take something not that good and make it average, its an improvement but is it really a strenght or somthing to praise just because its better? If I got F's in math and a tutor helped me get a D+, its an improvemnt, but im still a dumbass at math. To say that 4 months of solid hockey shows that he can be the goalie to get them past that point just doesnt cut it for me. The Sharks are notorious for 2nd half tears thru the league, its not something new. Also during the streak, Wellwood, Eager & White were added, players like Setoguchi catch fire. Fixing the AHL bottom lines & improving puck movement on D helped out alot. Do those players get praise on the board for the turnaround? No its all Niemi. His play was great, but there are also other contributing factors.

I dont like the "potential" statement eaither, cause what about the "potential" goalies in the system showed, just to be ignored. Would they have put up a streak of numbers like that? Doubt it, but I do feel they would probably show a little more consistancy.

Cant polish a turd, no matter how shiney and good you can get it looking at times, its still just a turd... LOL

If you believe the bolded than you haven't read much of this board. Those players received and still receive a ton of credit for the teams turn around. White and Wellwood primarily. The teams play improved greatly but the team on the ice in front of him shouldn't deminish the fact that Niemi played at an elite status for nearly 4 months. It's all cumulitive. The added players helped, improved play from those already on the roster helped, and Niemi's improved play helped. Did Niemi's play benifit from those other two factors? Yes, but the same could be said that the team in front of him benifited greatly from Niemi's play as well. That's why it's called a team game.

You see F to a D+. I see a C- to a B with a number of A outing to get him to that B grade. It's just a matter of being more consistant with the A outings and he's not there yet but he's shown the abiltiy on several occasions to string many of those outing together.

 

[filosofy29]

I don't know Filo, I just don't see it. The only time I see where Niemi was given a string of consecutive starts after a poor outing was Dec 9th aginst Buffalo. The only time I see where Niitty should probably have kept playing and wasn't allowed to was a string from Dec 16th - 21st. Nitty did a 3-in-5, Niemi made the typical relief appearance then got a 2nd start before Niitty was put back in. Everything else I see is the typical relief by one goalie on the 2nd of a back-to-back or playing the 4th game after the other goalie had played three games in five nights.

I'll check the data whenever I get a chance. I still think I'm right unless my memory is going (which could be the case, lol). I'll grab the game logs soon and give you my research. Your numbers seem incorrect, but they may be spot on. It'll be tough though without actually watching the games because I've seen "good numbers" on a goalie who played horrid and "bad numbers" on a goalie who played excellent. I watch goalies really closely because it was my first position ever. I moved to Center pretty quickly, but my first love is still goalie.

Cmon, its ok to be wrong sometimes haha and no matter which way you twist & turn it or whatever side you look from the constant remains the same. Niemi is just not as good as fans, dwil & todd make him out to be and there is a double standard for his mishaps vs other goalies.
Another example of this is what I again just posted. His total career numbers, his average career numbers in comparison to Nabakovs, whos numbers when I originally posted in whatever topic it was were deemed as Nabby was not good in the playoffs nor were his numbers. The important questions keep getting ignored. If Nabbys numbers were not good, how is it justified, lets say by the fans on this board that Niemi is a better goaltender then anything Nabby could/would have done for the team when Niemis numbers are a lot worse then Nabbys?

Likewall, (assuming you're talking about what I said about Nabby) you're conflating Nabby being a "bad playoff goalie" with Nabby's "superior numbers to Niemi" in the playoffs.....and then wondering how the hell could that be? The reason I never thought Nabby was a good playoff goalie is because he let in deflating goals time after time on weak ass shots. That Andrew Ladd goal from just inside the blueline in a scoreless game and then that Corey Perry slow ass 5-hole goal that was going maybe 5 mph that slid through the wickets were backbreakers. The guy just didn't have the stones when the game was on the line. Was he the only person to blame? Hell no, Jumbo and Patty (along with a laundry list of other Sharks) deserve equal if not more than Nabbers. That said, he just wasn't a "money" goalie imho. It had NOTHING to do with his overall numbers. As a lifelong goalie (and a much better one than I ever was, lol) you should know how deceiving numbers can be for a goalie. Eddie Belfour was a much better goalie than Nabby ever was, but when Dallas was a defensive dynamo, if he gave up 2 goals on 16 shots he had a horrible save percentage whereas Luongo would let in 3 goals, but have a .932 S% with Florida. When I had more time on my hands (read: unmarried, lol), I used to keep a game log of Potvin vs. opposing goalie and actually had QS% (Quality Shot percentage) stat and would compare that with the actual stats in the game overall. With goalies, I always use the "eye test" first and then see what the numbers say second. Long story short, with Nabby, correlation doesn't mean causation.

 

[Likewall32]

Filo I agree with what you saying, but its so hard to argue things our eyes see vs someone elses eyes on a forum, so thats why I just went the numbers route. Its a hard position to post about, cause me saying I can just tell he's not better isnt a valid argument. Numbers have a basis to an extent. Its also hard for me to explain things like how you can have major holes in your game and still be great, but have major strengths and be bad.
Like say for example a Hasek, there are holes everywhere fundamentally in that game, but he was great at what he'd do. In my game, I am terrible at slow far shots because I have quick reactions and easily read where the puck is going, but if its slow its like I reacted to fast and I fumble the puck bad.. And im not really coachable eaither, aspects that were tried to get improved on that a coach would think is fundmentally wrong, I just couldnt change once you get into a game. Its like Irbe & Hasek had a baby with Hextalls temper. I dont know how the heck I get it done, but I get it done flopping around like a jackass...
Some people see good things in a goalies game that others dont. I dont see anything that stands out in Niemis game. I often get nervous when the puck is down low in the corners or behind the net on him, he looks completely lost and confused on how he should be standing and playin it. I dont see quickness in 2nd & 3rd chances as i stated before when he makes the first save its like he freezzes there instead of flowing into the movement of the 2nd save. I wouldnt make a good goalie coach cause I dont know how to point out what im seeing in my head while watching, I just see it (as dumb as that sounds haha)

 

[filosofy29]

Filo I agree with what you saying, but its so hard to argue things our eyes see vs someone elses eyes on a forum, so thats why I just went the numbers route. Its a hard position to post about, cause me saying I can just tell he's not better isnt a valid argument. Numbers have a basis to an extent. Its also hard for me to explain things like how you can have major holes in your game and still be great, but have major strengths and be bad.
Like say for example a Hasek, there are holes everywhere fundamentally in that game, but he was great at what he'd do. In my game, I am terrible at slow far shots because I have quick reactions and easily read where the puck is going, but if its slow its like I reacted to fast and I fumble the puck bad.. And im not really coachable eaither, aspects that were tried to get improved on that a coach would think is fundmentally wrong, I just couldnt change once you get into a game. Its like Irbe & Hasek had a baby with Hextalls temper. I dont know how the heck I get it done, but I get it done flopping around like a jackass...
Some people see good things in a goalies game that others dont. I dont see anything that stands out in Niemis game. I often get nervous when the puck is down low in the corners or behind the net on him, he looks completely lost and confused on how he should be standing and playin it. I dont see quickness in 2nd & 3rd chances as i stated before when he makes the first save its like he freezzes there instead of flowing into the movement of the 2nd save. I wouldnt make a good goalie coach cause I dont know how to point out what im seeing in my head while watching, I just see it (as dumb as that sounds haha)

I agree with that and I know what you're saying. Sometimes I can see something and I really feel it's right (or wrong for that matter), but I can't explain it to somebody else for the life of me.

It's kind of weird, I think Potvin was an average goalie during the regular season and Nabby >>>>>>> Potvin then. However, during the Postseason, I think Felix is >>> Nabby.

The one goalie who was perplexing to me was Cujo. The guy could steal a series like no other against a vastly superior team and then be absolutely pedestrian the next series.

 

[Cbrower91]

lol lies about hasek and holes, almost every pro goalie coach has stated how good his fundamentals and bfly were. his save selection was unorthodox thats about it

 

[Likewall32]

Now that was a game I liked to see out of Niemi. The goal wasnt great by any stretch but if thats the only one let in on a night where your not really tested thats perfect. Im glad he didnt face any real quiality shots... Sharks didnt have any really eaither cept for that good pressure the first 10 mins, that kinda got deflated after the goal tho...

 

[Cbrower91]

I agree with that and I know what you're saying. Sometimes I can see something and I really feel it's right (or wrong for that matter), but I can't explain it to somebody else for the life of me.

It's kind of weird, I think Potvin was an average goalie during the regular season and Nabby >>>>>>> Potvin then. However, during the Postseason, I think Felix is >>> Nabby.

The one goalie who was perplexing to me was Cujo. The guy could steal a series like no other against a vastly superior team and then be absolutely pedestrian the next series.

Talk about a guy who had absoloutley no fundamentals and somehow still manage to stop the puck.

I mean his stance was garbage is angles were garbage stick positioning, glove positioning, skating ability. You wont ever see that again, Niemi is as close as your going to get for a sub par skater still being able to play in the league

 

[Likewall32]

Talk about a guy who had absoloutley no fundamentals and somehow still manage to stop the puck.

I mean his stance was garbage is angles were garbage stick positioning, glove positioning, skating ability. You wont ever see that again, Niemi is as close as your going to get for a sub par skater still being able to play in the league

Yea but he had a damn cool mask and was half human/half hell spawn dog. It all evens out in the end! haha Man he used to own the blackhawks in the St.Lous days...

 

[Cbrower91]

Yea but he had a damn cool mask and was half human/half hell spawn dog. It all evens out in the end! haha Man he used to own the blackhawks in the St.Lous days...

Yeah his mask was bad ass, his style was ugly but exciting to watch. from a technical stand point looking back at it, i couldnt watch him, but at the time i knew little to nothing about goalietending so it looked awesome.

 

[filosofy29]

Sorry Cmon, I've been super busy with work. I'll try and get my research done sometime this week.

 

[Cmon_WTF]

Sorry Cmon, I've been super busy with work. I'll try and get my research done sometime this week.

No worries Filo. It's not that big of a deal.

 

[Cbrower91]

haha homework assignment

 

[naes666]

Niemi > Lord Jesus Schaefer > Toskala > Boucher > Greiss > Nabby

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSqV3rWM4iQ

 

[Cmon_WTF]

Niemi > Lord Jesus Schaefer > Toskala > Boucher > Greiss > Nabby

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSqV3rWM4iQ

Toskala shouldn't even be on that list. Or at best be listed behind 8 or 9 fromer and current Sharks goalie prospects.

 

[naes666]

Toskala shouldn't even be on that list. Or at best be listed behind 8 or 9 fromer and current Sharks goalie prospects.

haha. i know but i got a bromance for Toskala.

and whatever happened to Jesus Schaefer?!?!?!?

 

[Cmon_WTF]

haha. i know but i got a bromance for Toskala.

and whatever happened to Jesus Schaefer?!?!?!?

He's an AHL journeyman now. He spent time with both the Bruins and Capitals AHL franchises this year.

 

[Destroydacre]

I remember when the Sharks sent Schaefer down a few years back and he had to clear waivers.

DRAMA!!