Game Thread: STANLEY CUP FINAL: Los Angles Kings vs. New York Rangers

[DragonfromTO]

That's where the "it" factor comes into play - he knows when it's time to step up and make the big save, not all goalies have that

Also, as I've said before, when Martin Jones and Ben Scrivens were playing the bulk of the games, they had easier opponents - from the time Jonathan Quick got hurt to the time he returned, the Kings played these teams:

@ NYI, @ NJ, @ NYR, TB, NJ, COL, @ VAN, @ SJ, CGY, STL @ ANA, NYI, @ MTL, @ TOR, @ OTT, @ CHI, EDM, SJ, COL, DAL, @ NSH, @ CHI, @ DAL, @ STL

Out of those 24 games, 10 of those teams came against non-playoff opponents

When Jonathan Quick came back, here's the opponents the Kings had from that point to the last game before the break:

VAN, MIN, BOS, DET, VAN, @ STL, @ DET, @ BOS, @ CBJ, @ ANA, ANA, @ SJ, @ PHX, PIT, PHI, CHI, CBJ

In those 17 games, only THREE of those teams were non-playoff opponents - Jonathan Quick jumped back into the fold after missing two months and played a hellacious schedule, he didn't get powder puff teams when he came back, that's why his numbers weren't dominant - also at that point in the season the Kings were having trouble scoring again and in some games they were choosing not to play defense

I don't want to sit here and diminish what Martin Jones and Ben Scrivens did, they did great in keeping the Kings in it until Quickie got back, but let's be honest, Jonathan Quick's best play has come in the playoffs, even this year when his numbers haven't been great, numerous games where he makes a big save that ends up being the difference in the game and helps the Kings come back and win(he made 2 or 3 of those type of saves in the Chicago series) - you can't teach the "it" factor, he's one of the very few goalies in the league that has it and you have to respect that

14 out of 29 potential Kings opponents didn't make the playoffs though. 10 out of 24 doesn't seem like a lot, it seems like less than you'd expect by just selecting randomly and probably a lower percentage than the other 58 games of the season

What were the Kings' shots allowed totals in those 17 "tough" games?

I sort of hate having this type of discussion because it starts to feel like I'm "bashing" a guy that I don't think is a bad player at all. I just wonder why if he's still an "elite" goaltender does there seem to be very little data that suggests/supports this?

 

[pixburgher66]

Thomas won the Vezina that year didn't he? And Luongo was 3rd? And both of them have significantly higher career SV% than Quick does.

I considered mentioning that one. That's probably the next closest thing to this matchup. Still think this one is bigger. These are probably the two best goalies in the league, overall. Not talking specifically in the postseason, just talking over the course of the year, or probably more accurately, the last 3 years. What other goalie would you put ahead of them, in the lens of the past 3 seasons?

 

[DragonfromTO]

Well considering your rant of other goalies who have higher playoff save %s than quick (who also must have significantly higher playoff save percentages than Luongo), I am now unsure what your point is.

I'm not sure that you ever understood what it was.

My point was simply that if Lundqvist/Quick is a matchup of "great" goalies, a matchup (Luongo/Thomas) where both goalies have better career numbers than Quick (and finished 1st and 3rd in Vezina voting in that particular season) shouldn't be considered chopped liver.

It then sort of rolled into generally discussing the characterization of Quick as an "elite" goaltender rather than a pretty good goaltender who happens to play on the best defensive team in the league and faces very few shots as a result.

 

[postmaster]

Thomas won the Vezina that year didn't he? And Luongo was 3rd? And both of them have significantly higher career SV% than Quick does.

Well considering your rant of other goalies who have higher playoff save %s than quick (who also must have significantly higher playoff save percentages than Luongo), I am now unsure what your point is.

I'm not sure that you ever understood what it was.

My point was simply that if Lundqvist/Quick is a matchup of "great" goalies, a matchup (Luongo/Thomas) where both goalies have better career numbers than Quick (and finished 1st and 3rd in Vezina voting in that particular season) shouldn't be considered chopped liver.

It then sort of rolled into generally discussing the characterization of Quick as an "elite" goaltender rather than a pretty good goaltender who happens to play on the best defensive team in the league and faces very few shots as a result.

I guess I will have to wait 10 posts from your original one from now on before I even try to figure out what you are really trying to say.

 

[DragonfromTO]

I considered mentioning that one. That's probably the next closest thing to this matchup. Still think this one is bigger. These are probably the two best goalies in the league, overall. Not talking specifically in the postseason, just talking over the course of the year, or probably more accurately, the last 3 years. What other goalie would you put ahead of them, in the lens of the past 3 seasons?

Sort of fortunate for Quick that we're using 3 seasons.

I think Lundqvist is probably the best in the world right now.

I think Rask is better than Quick. Bobrovsky. Price. Bishop. Probably Miller. Schneider. I'd still probably take Luongo over him (we'll see how much longer that lasts since he's obviously not a spring chicken). I'd have to look at more data, I'm trying to only name "clear" choices so that we don't end up digressing into detailed "goalie X is/isn't better than Quick" discussions.

 

[DragonfromTO]

I guess I will have to wait 10 posts from your original one from now on before I even try to figure out what you are really trying to say.

pixburgher seemed to understand what I was trying to say just fine. And of course she was the person I was responding to in the first place.

 

[The Derski]

Go rangers

 

[RaiderZar]

pixburgher seemed to understand what I was trying to say just fine. And of course she was the person I was responding to in the first place.

Pixburgher is a WOMAN?!?!

 

[forty_three]

if only either city and fan base deserved it....

Here is a comprehensive list of fanbases that "deserve" cups per Blue Wolf. Also, it is a list of fanbases that are super smart, beguilingly handsome and whose mothers really love them and whose fathers respect them.

*ahem* Here goes.

1) Edmonton


Thanks for stopping by!

 

[SLY]

The "Best Goalie" discussions are pretty fucking retarded most of the time.

 

[mattola]

The "Best Goalie" discussions are pretty fucking retarded most of the time.

LUONG....wait...SCHNEI.......fuck......LACK.........

 

[Johnnydollaz89]

Is it Wednesday yet?!?!?!?!?!

 

[Cobiemonster]

That means he would be eligible to come back in Game 4

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

That means he would be eligible to come back in Game 4

Ugh...only the NHL. One of the only specifically described supplemental discipline penalties in the rule book and they override it. I'm sure the officials association is thrilled with this development too.

I'm interested in the ruling too, because the way I understand the rule is that the commish can only overrule if they believe rule 40 (abuse of officials) was misapplied. I.e., the ref threw him out for rule 40 violation but the commish disagrees it was actually rule 40.

But if it wasn't rule 40, what basis would there be for any suspension at all?

 

[dash]

That means he would be eligible to come back in Game 4

Just in time for the hand shake at the end of game 4

 

[Cobiemonster]

Ugh...only the NHL. One of the only specifically described supplemental discipline penalties in the rule book and they override it. I'm sure the officials association is thrilled with this development too.

I'm interested in the ruling too, because the way I understand the rule is that the commish can only overrule if they believe rule 40 (abuse of officials) was misapplied. I.e., the ref threw him out for rule 40 violation but the commish disagrees it was actually rule 40.

But if it wasn't rule 40, what basis would there be for any suspension at all?

The sad part is that the suspension should have been concrete, the rule states that it's automatically 10 games so it shouldn't change either way

The league continues to make up rules on the fly

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

The sad part is that the suspension should have been concrete, the rule states that it's automatically 10 games so it shouldn't change either way

The league continues to make up rules on the fly

Right. 10 or nothing. If rule 40 was appropriately applied, 10, if not, nothing more than time served.

 

[Johnnydollaz89]

Just in time for the hand shake at the end of game 4

Yupppp, when we sweep

 

[pixburgher66]

Pixburgher is a WOMAN?!?!

*sticks out hand* Nice to meet ya!

 

[pixburgher66]

Sort of fortunate for Quick that we're using 3 seasons.

I think Lundqvist is probably the best in the world right now.

I think Rask is better than Quick. Bobrovsky. Price. Bishop. Probably Miller. Schneider. I'd still probably take Luongo over him (we'll see how much longer that lasts since he's obviously not a spring chicken). I'd have to look at more data, I'm trying to only name "clear" choices so that we don't end up digressing into detailed "goalie X is/isn't better than Quick" discussions.

Of that list I think Price is the only guy I'd take before Quick, maybe Rask. And I chose 3 seasons because that's when he put his name on the map, which was only his second full year I believe. You're allowed to not think as much of the guy as I do, but when he's on his game (which he hasn't been much of this postseason), he's the best in the game.