Ongoing NHL thread - Part deux

[Cobiemonster]

That USA team quit on him. No one showed up. That loss was not on him.

And this I agree with

That USA team was mentally fragile and there was nothing he was going to do in that situation - he was the only reason they had a remote chance against the big time teams

I made this case back during those games where I said that Jonathan Quick needed to be the guy and not Ryan Miller because those are considered "big games" and you want a guy with championship experience like Jonathan Quick - he made them look respectable in the game that knocked them out, after that, they just flat out quit

 

[KennyBanyeah]

Remember Game 2 when Henrik Lundqvist was complaining about the Dwight King goal? He was frustrated after that and it made a difference - the Rangers gave him a two goal lead and his mind started wandering once he gave up one goal - he didn't give the team a whole lot of confidence after that - people always complained that they would never score for Hank and they gave him four goals on the road and he gives up five

Those guys are really talented but being a goalie means you have to be mentally on top of your game and understand the subtleties of the position - it also gives the rest of the team confidence when you are on your game mentally - those teams lost confidence when their goalies started struggling and weren't at their best

Totally agree- like the great NFL ball tossers , the mental ability to forget and bear down on the next play is paramount.

LOL, - their are 5 top goaltenders , but their is also the top guy on that list. JQ ......last 3 years and counting ....IMHO Buddy.

These are all anecdotal reasons why Quick is better.

If he's mentally tougher than all other goalies why does he not stop more pucks than all other goalies? Is it because he isn't as talented? If he gets over letting in a goal and bears down so well, how long does this last? 1 minute? 5 minutes? Because based on numbers he doesn't bear down and stop more pucks than other goalies over the long term.

The guy's an excellent goalie but long term data suggests he's closer to the 5th best goalie in the league than the 1st.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

That USA team quit on him. No one showed up. That loss was not on him.

Agreed, but goals 1 and 3 were pretty godawful.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

These are all anecdotal reasons why Quick is better.

If he's mentally tougher than all other goalies why does he not stop more pucks than all other goalies? Is it because he isn't as talented? If he gets over letting in a goal and bears down so well, how long does this last? 1 minute? 5 minutes? Because based on numbers he doesn't bear down and stop more pucks than other goalies over the long term.

The guy's an excellent goalie but long term data suggests he's closer to the 5th best goalie in the league than the 1st.

And you can still win a Cup with the 5th best goalie. Or the 8th. Or the 3rd. Not the 13th highest paid, though. Definitely not with the 13th.

 

[Cobiemonster]

I think his 2012 performance was one of the best I've seen by a goalie in my lifetime. I don't think I'll ever see something that dominant again.

But I'm still going with Rask or Hank. If either had the team Quick has in front of him they'd both be polishing rings by now (I know Rask has one but that was during Timmy time).

Tuukka Rask has had a great team in Boston the last two seasons and in one year, they lost to a Chicago team that was infinitely better than everyone else and last season, they were dominant in the regular season and he had a chink or two in his armor in the Habs series, giving up a few soft goals here and there

Also, Tuukka Rask was the starter for them when they lost to the underdog Caps a few years back, losing a Game 7 on home ice - I don't think Tuukka has faired exceptionally well in big games to this point in his career(it could change though) and the Bruins have had some darn good teams

The Rangers have had some crappy teams in front of Hank but the one year where they had an amazing team, he flat out didn't get it done against an underdog Devils team - he had a 2-1 series lead and gave up three or more goals in each of the last three games in the series and they ended up losing the series

In the last three seasons, the only season the Kings didn't win the cup with Jonathan Quick, was because they were injured in the Chicago series and Chicago was just flat out dominant compared to everyone else - the Kings did a hell of a job in that playoffs to get as far as they did with as many guys they had that were injured - they played two tough series to start out and with all those injured guys, they were a goal away from a Game 6 at home which could have turned into a Game 7 in Chicago - the Kings lost three one-goal games in that series so with the injuries they had, they did a hell of a job that year - it wasn't a matter of a choke job, unlike some of those other teams

 

[Cobiemonster]

These are all anecdotal reasons why Quick is better.

If he's mentally tougher than all other goalies why does he not stop more pucks than all other goalies? Is it because he isn't as talented? If he gets over letting in a goal and bears down so well, how long does this last? 1 minute? 5 minutes? Because based on numbers he doesn't bear down and stop more pucks than other goalies over the long term.

The guy's an excellent goalie but long term data suggests he's closer to the 5th best goalie in the league than the 1st.

He's every bit as talented as those other goalies, just because he plays a different style than Tuukka or Hank doesn't make him any worse, his athleticism is through the roof and to me, that says a lot about him as a goalie

And people who simply look at stats instead of watching the whole game need to realize that it's not about overall stats, but the time and place during the game - like the gif I posted earlier from Jonathan Quick's save on Brent Seabrook in Game 2, that might only count as one save, but that save was as big as it gets and that is what I mean when I talk about being mentally tough, in a big situation where it comes down to one save and one play for your team to win a game - you can have great stats but knowing that a lot of games in the playoffs are one goal games, if you screw up and give up a soft goal in a big spot, that can be the difference in the series and a season

My advice for people is to not look at stats to simply base a player, watch the game, understand players tendencies and how they do in big situations, because eventually, that makes as big of a difference as any individual stat - many players put up great numbers but there are more things that go into a players outlook than just stats

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

I never said he hasn't - he had the game against St. Louis where he mishandled the puck, but it's about what you do after that and how you respond - he responded greatly in situations where he had a bad game or a bad moment - other guys haven't and that's a big difference when you're in big time situations

And quite frankly, do you think he's really going to care about something that happened in the Olympics? I know players have pride for their country but it's not like he's going to care a whole lot about that going forward - it wouldn't stick in his mind as much as it would if something happened with the Kings

You mentioned the St. Louis game, and you make a decent point except for the fact that he was up against an anaemic offence (STL was 17th in goals for in 2012-13), and I would point out that he was handled pretty easily by the Hawks later those same playoffs, including getting pulled for Bernier (although he wound up winning the next game). He had a .897 sv% over that 5 game set.

But I'm not judging a goaltender on one game or one series or even one playoffs. I like Quick. I just like others more.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

Tuukka Rask has had a great team in Boston the last two seasons and in one year, they lost to a Chicago team that was infinitely better than everyone else and last season, they were dominant in the regular season and he had a chink or two in his armor in the Habs series, giving up a few soft goals here and there

Also, Tuukka Rask was the starter for them when they lost to the underdog Caps a few years back, losing a Game 7 on home ice - I don't think Tuukka has faired exceptionally well in big games to this point in his career(it could change though) and the Bruins have had some darn good teams

The Rangers have had some crappy teams in front of Hank but the one year where they had an amazing team, he flat out didn't get it done against an underdog Devils team - he had a 2-1 series lead and gave up three or more goals in each of the last three games in the series and they ended up losing the series

In the last three seasons, the only season the Kings didn't win the cup with Jonathan Quick, was because they were injured in the Chicago series and Chicago was just flat out dominant compared to everyone else - the Kings did a hell of a job in that playoffs to get as far as they did with as many guys they had that were injured - they played two tough series to start out and with all those injured guys, they were a goal away from a Game 6 at home which could have turned into a Game 7 in Chicago - the Kings lost three one-goal games in that series so with the injuries they had, they did a hell of a job that year - it wasn't a matter of a choke job, unlike some of those other teams

Everybody's hurt by the CF's. Barely an excuse anymore.

Quick was also getting knocked out in the first round of the playoffs much like Rask was at the same age. I don't pin either loss on either goalie, much like I don't pin the Habs winning last season on Rask either.

 

[Cobiemonster]

Everybody's hurt by the CF's. Barely an excuse anymore.

Quick was also getting knocked out in the first round of the playoffs much like Rask was at the same age. I don't pin either loss on either goalie, much like I don't pin the Habs winning last season on Rask either.

The Kings also had a younger team in front of him than Tuukka had - Tuukka had a team that had already won a Cup with largely the same group

The whole team in LA grew together, while in Boston, Tuukka already had a Cup winning team in front of him that had the experience already - if anything, Tuukka should have done more with that team than Jonathan Quick did at that same age, with a team that DIDN'T have the experience

Also, Terry Murray was the coach those two years when the Kings lost before winning their first cup, so the Kings needed a more veteran coach that had been in plenty of big games like Darryl Sutter, so that makes a difference too

 

[dash]

Just popped in to say that there's been a Fleury of posts in this thread...

 

[forty_three]

Just popped in to say that there's been a Fleury of posts in this thread...

yeah the post count rose Quick.

 

[KennyBanyeah]

He's every bit as talented as those other goalies, just because he plays a different style than Tuukka or Hank doesn't make him any worse, his athleticism is through the roof and to me, that says a lot about him as a goalie

And people who simply look at stats instead of watching the whole game need to realize that it's not about overall stats, but the time and place during the game - like the gif I posted earlier from Jonathan Quick's save on Brent Seabrook in Game 2, that might only count as one save, but that save was as big as it gets and that is what I mean when I talk about being mentally tough, in a big situation where it comes down to one save and one play for your team to win a game - you can have great stats but knowing that a lot of games in the playoffs are one goal games, if you screw up and give up a soft goal in a big spot, that can be the difference in the series and a season

My advice for people is to not look at stats to simply base a player, watch the game, understand players tendencies and how they do in big situations, because eventually, that makes as big of a difference as any individual stat - many players put up great numbers but there are more things that go into a players outlook than just stats

Thanks for the advice sport. I've never watched or played a game of hockey in my life. Maybe I'll take it up; I've been looking for a hobby.

I watch a tonne of hockey (roughly 8-10 games a week). And I have been watching a tonne of games for the last 30 years. I've seen lots of goalies make "big saves". I also know that the best goalies make more saves than anyone else. Period. Sooner or later if you're making all the big saves the numbers start to add up.

Did Carey Price not make huge saves in the Olympics? He outplayed Quick in the semis. Barely but I think that qualifies as being "clutch". Best ever?

You cite the Kings as losing 3 one goal games in the 2013 Hawks-Kings series as "not choking". One could perhaps argue that if Quick had stopped another puck or two that the series would have turned the Kings way.

One could point to the pivotal game 2 where the Kings really needed to NOT go down 2-0. Quick let in 4 goals in the first 30 minutes and the Kings could never bounce back in the game or the series. Fails in the clutch I say!! Do you see why particular anecdotes can say just about whatever you want them to say?

He had a robust .888 save percentage in the 4 losses in that series; .897 for the entire series. Perhaps if he'd made a few more saves his team would have done better. He choked!! Aren't isolated examples great?

One can't just cherry pick instances that suit an argument. A much safer bet would be to look at a body of work quantitatively and use cold hard facts to assess a players performance.

Quick is a tremendous athlete and an excellent goalie without a doubt. To say he is categorically THE best is absurd though.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

The Kings also had a younger team in front of him than Tuukka had - Tuukka had a team that had already won a Cup with largely the same group

The whole team in LA grew together, while in Boston, Tuukka already had a Cup winning team in front of him that had the experience already - if anything, Tuukka should have done more with that team than Jonathan Quick did at that same age, with a team that DIDN'T have the experience

Also, Terry Murray was the coach those two years when the Kings lost before winning their first cup, so the Kings needed a more veteran coach that had been in plenty of big games like Darryl Sutter, so that makes a difference too

All true, but in Rask's defence he could've used more than 2.28 goals per game from his teammates. Holtby went tit for tat with him that round.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

yeah the post count rose Quick.

I thought it would've Tuukka much longer time to get where it did, but people are arguing no matter what the Price.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

The only tolerable Bruins fan:

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

I thought it would've Tuukka much longer time to get where it did, but people are arguing no matter what the Price.

People are always Hankering for a good argument around here.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

Carter Ashton suspended 20 games for PED usage.

http://www.tsn.ca/leafs-ashton-suspended-20-games-for-violating-ped-policy-1.127003

 

[dash]

People are always Hankering for a good argument around here.

Gotta keep up with the Joneses - Guys are Fasth around here though.

 

[dash]

Carter Ashton suspended 20 games for PED usage.

Leafs' Ashton suspended 20 games for violating PED policy - Article - TSN

From the comments section:

I think its nice to see that the NHL as opposed to other major leagues take everything seriously when it comes to cheating. May have been an honest mistake, but he still would've been stripped of his medal if it were the olympics. Good on the NHL.

Great googly moogly.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

From the comments section:

I think its nice to see that the NHL as opposed to other major leagues take everything seriously when it comes to cheating. May have been an honest mistake, but he still would've been stripped of his medal if it were the olympics. Good on the NHL.

Great googly moogly.

I look at the TSN comments sometimes when I'm down and need a laugh.