Now This Is A Very Bold Statement To Make

[IPostedWhat]

Now I know that Rask had a very good year in the limited number of games that he played, and he played well enough to get past the Sabres in the first round of the PO's, but I think that this guy has a man crush going on.

Before I post what he said, let me just say that Miller had a .939 SV% and a GAA around 1.81 for a period of around 30-35 games I would say? Rask only played 45 all year. Who knows what Rask's numbers would of looked like if he started around 65 games the whole season?


The Sabres, like the Devils, basically were a .500 team from late January on. And Tuukka Rask posted better numbers than Ryan Miller all season, including in the last two weeks. It's not Rask's fault he didn't play more during the first half of the season. If he had, he'd be winning the Vezina and Calder on June 23 in Las Vegas. But people have to realize that he may be the best goalie still standing, and on a very well-coached team, this Bruins run may be a long ways from being done.

First-round upsets? Look again - NHL Network

 

[loki604]

I love the assumption that more games would equal the same numbers.

 

[beantownmaniac]

I agree with the OP in that we don't know what Rask's numbers would be like had he played the whole season, but I personally think he would have been in the discussion for both awards.

 

[IPostedWhat]

Now don't get me wrong here. If Rask played 65 games and won around 40 of them with a 1.97 GAA and a .931 SV% still, then sure, put him up there for Vezina and Calder.

I just don't think he could of held on to those number being a starter for the whole season is all.

Miller played 24 more games and was just behind Rask in both categories, but this guy makes it sound like he blew Miller out of the water or something?

 

[dash]

Are you suggesting that Brian Duff should maybe switch to Fudd? Or get off the Duff all together?!?

 

[quoipourquoi]

While I do think Rask would have (and still should have) won the Calder, he didn't post better numbers than Miller "all season." It was his last month or so (and Miller's) that put him above Miller. Prior to that, Miller was the league leader for pretty much all of this season.

 

[GagneFire12]

Is that the girl from the Daily Line, Q?

 

[quoipourquoi]

Is that the girl from the Daily Line, Q?

Yes. :p

 

[GagneFire12]

Yes. :p

Velly Lice.

 

[IPostedWhat]

Velly Lice.

Uh-oh!

 

[GagneFire12]

Uh-oh!

I like a Feisty Miley...

 

[dare2be]

Uh-oh!

I tried to get that picture to move but I almost dropped my monitor...

 

[Mintyp69]

While I do think Rask would have (and still should have) won the Calder, he didn't post better numbers than Miller "all season." It was his last month or so (and Miller's) that put him above Miller. Prior to that, Miller was the league leader for pretty much all of this season.

Damn straight he was...I agree w/ IPW that had he played more games and had close to the #'s that miller had then yes, rask would certainly need to be nominated and I would totally support that, but his playing less games and only getting on fire in the last 1/2 of the season doesn't warrant the blatent homerism that rant of a poster is going on about.

 

[oldschoolhockeyfan]

I agree that Rask shouldn't be considered for the Vezina based to the number of games played, but those are still very good numbers for 45 games. In addition you have to give Rask credit for being every bit of Millers equal in their playoff series.