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

[dash]

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!

See you after Free Agent Frenzy, Wolfie (maybe).

 

[davnlaguna]

That's honestly a great way to spot 'em. I hate those with a passion. Wearing a women's cut is obviously acceptable, but if you can't wear your team's colors, you can't care that much. I mostly hate that pink is the automatic "WOMAN!" color. I like many shades of pink, but not the light, should be a baby blanket, one they use on those jerseys.

Which is why Alyssa Milano (long time/part time kings fan) started selling women's sports clothing. She hated that all girls clothes were just pink guys shirts

 

[DragonfromTO]

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.

When it comes to NHL goalies I think that when they're "on their game" it's got a good chance of being a shutout no matter who it is.

I think that his performance since that year he "put his name on the map" has been rather mediocre. And that's about 1.6 seasons, not a huge sample but not a particularly small sample either.

 

[Cobiemonster]

When it comes to NHL goalies I think that when they're "on their game" it's got a good chance of being a shutout no matter who it is.

I think that his performance since that year he "put his name on the map" has been rather mediocre. And that's about 1.6 seasons, not a huge sample but not a particularly small sample either.

I guess it seems like you're only looking at stats and not watching each game and how he makes a difference in these games

It's hard to judge a player who has not been able to play a full season since his Cup year

 

[DragonfromTO]

I guess it seems like you're only looking at stats and not watching each game and how he makes a difference in these games

It's hard to judge a player who has not been able to play a full season since his Cup year

I'm looking at stats because I don't have the time or the patience to watch every single game that he plays, and then watch every other game that every other goalie in the league plays too so that I have the proper frame of reference. I'm impressed if you do. I watched Reimer and Bernier make plenty of key, "inspirational" saves at the "right" times for the past two seasons. The problem is that they were put in the position where they had to make a lot more of those kinds of saves than Quick did if they wanted to get a win, and so not surprisingly it didn't work out for them quite as often.

Does he stop the puck? That's what I see as the most important long-term performance question here. Not "When does he stop the puck?" or "How does it look when he does/doesn't stop the puck?". Over the past two seasons 25 goalies with 50+ games played have stopped the puck more often than Quick has. Do I think that makes him the 26th best goalie in the league? No. But it certainly makes me doubt that he belongs in the conversation as the best.

 

[Cobiemonster]

I'm looking at stats because I don't have the time or the patience to watch every single game that he plays, and then watch every other game that every other goalie in the league plays too so that I have the proper frame of reference. I'm impressed if you do. I watched Reimer and Bernier make plenty of key, "inspirational" saves at the "right" times for the past two seasons. The problem is that they were put in the position where they had to make a lot more of those kinds of saves than Quick did if they wanted to get a win, and so not surprisingly it didn't work out for them quite as often.

Does he stop the puck? That's what I see as the most important long-term performance question here. Not "When does he stop the puck?" or "How does it look when he does/doesn't stop the puck?". Over the past two seasons 25 goalies with 50+ games played have stopped the puck more often than Quick has. Do I think that makes him the 26th best goalie in the league? No. But it certainly makes me doubt that he belongs in the conversation as the best.

Well if you don't have the time or patience to watch every game then why are you so steadfast on your opinion?

It amazes me that people think after all the playoffs wins he's had and some don't think he should be among the best? Imagine if they had Martin Jones in net, trust me, the Kings would be worse off - you can't teach the qualities that Jonathan Quick has, there's a reason he's at this point, yes the team in front of him is very good, the whole team has to be very good to get to this point, but he's as good as it gets too, you don't win 37 playoff games in the last three playoffs(not counting the SCF's this year yet) without being one of the best goalies in the league

 

[DragonfromTO]

Well if you don't have the time or patience to watch every game then why are you so steadfast on your opinion?

It amazes me that people think after all the playoffs wins he's had and some don't think he should be among the best? Imagine if they had Martin Jones in net, trust me, the Kings would be worse off - you can't teach the qualities that Jonathan Quick has, there's a reason he's at this point, yes the team in front of him is very good, the whole team has to be very good to get to this point, but he's as good as it gets too, you don't win 37 playoff games in the last three playoffs(not counting the SCF's this year yet) without being one of the best goalies in the league

I think you sort of missed the point. No one has the time and/or patience to watch over 1,000 hockey games a year, which is what that all adds up to. I thought my second paragraph made it clearer... I don't think that the numbers paint an exactly perfect picture, but they're good enough for broad strokes. And the difference between best goalie and 26th best save percentage is certainly a broad one.

"Imagine if they had Martin Jones in net"? Is Martin Jones the standard to be declared the best goalie in the world now? It's not about imagining Martin Jones in net, it's about imagining the other guys that I mentioned (Bobrovsky, Rask etc.) playing behind the best defensive team in the league and facing only 25 shots a game.

 

[DragonfromTO]

Well if you don't have the time or patience to watch every game then why are you so steadfast on your opinion?

It amazes me that people think after all the playoffs wins he's had and some don't think he should be among the best? Imagine if they had Martin Jones in net, trust me, the Kings would be worse off - you can't teach the qualities that Jonathan Quick has, there's a reason he's at this point, yes the team in front of him is very good, the whole team has to be very good to get to this point, but he's as good as it gets too, you don't win 37 playoff games in the last three playoffs(not counting the SCF's this year yet) without being one of the best goalies in the league

Marc-Andre Fleury won 37 playoff games from 2008-2010

 

[Johnnydollaz89]

And people call me the homer. :rollseyes:

 

[Cobiemonster]

Marc-Andre Fleury won 37 playoff games from 2008-2010

In three seasons in which the two won 37 playoff games:

Jonathan Quick(2012-2014):

2012: 16-4, 3 SO's, .946%, 1.41 GAA
2013: 9-9, 3 SO's, .934%, 1.86 GAA
2014: 12-9, 1 SO, .906%, 2.86 GAA

Marc Andre Fleury(2008-2010):
2008: 14-6, 3 SO's, .933%, 1.97 GAA
2009: 16-8, 0 SO's, .908%, 2.61 GAA
2010: 7-6, 1 SO, .891%, 2.78 GAA

In Jonathan Quick's .500 playoffs last year, his save percentage was 26 points better than Fleury's in his championship year, and he gave 3/4ths of a goal less per game than Fleury did in his championship season

Fleury's best playoff run out of those three years, stats wise, would only be the third best overall if you rank all six of those years combined - and his championship year stats wise would only be the 4th best out of the six

Remember, the year the Penguins won the cup, they faced a Flyers team that had Martin Biron in net and no Chris Pronger yet, and then a Caps team that choked year after year, a Hurricanes team that was an after thought and a Red Wings team that had injuries and were getting older - the Penguins didn't have the hardest of opponents

In Jonathan Quick's worst year playoff wise he's gone against San Jose, Anaheim and Chicago so far - three hard places to play in and won Game 7's in each building - and with the worst goals against average of any of the six playoff years between the two goalies, his save percentage is only two points lower than Fleury's in his championship year - The fact that Quickie still has a .906 save percentage even with a 2.86 GAA tells me that the Kings are giving up more shots than normal(part of it is that they've played ridiculously tough opponents, nothing like what Fleury had to face in his playoff runs), and Jonathan Quick is still playing well enough to win

Anyone who would even begin to compare Jonathan Quick to Marc-Andre Fleury is insane in the brain

EDIT: Also, if people are going to say the Kings have a great defense in front of Jonathan Quick(which they do and have shown), then you should also say that Fleury had Crosby and Malkin, arguably the two biggest talents in the game, and wasted some of their great seasons because he's played like garbage in the playoffs

 

[forty_three]

I think you sort of missed the point. No one has the time and/or patience to watch over 1,000 hockey games a year, which is what that all adds up to. I thought my second paragraph made it clearer... I don't think that the numbers paint an exactly perfect picture, but they're good enough for broad strokes. And the difference between best goalie and 26th best save percentage is certainly a broad one.

"Imagine if they had Martin Jones in net"? Is Martin Jones the standard to be declared the best goalie in the world now? It's not about imagining Martin Jones in net, it's about imagining the other guys that I mentioned (Bobrovsky, Rask etc.) playing behind the best defensive team in the league and facing only 25 shots a game.

Stop it. That makes me smile uncontrollably.

 

[Johnnydollaz89]

This argument has gone on wayyyyyyy too long.

 

[DragonfromTO]

In three seasons in which the two won 37 playoff games:

Jonathan Quick(2012-2014):

2012: 16-4, 3 SO's, .946%, 1.41 GAA
2013: 9-9, 3 SO's, .934%, 1.86 GAA
2014: 12-9, 1 SO, .906%, 2.86 GAA

Marc Andre Fleury(2008-2010):
2008: 14-6, 3 SO's, .933%, 1.97 GAA
2009: 16-8, 0 SO's, .908%, 2.61 GAA
2010: 7-6, 1 SO, .891%, 2.78 GAA

In Jonathan Quick's .500 playoffs last year, his save percentage was 26 points better than Fleury's in his championship year, and he gave 3/4ths of a goal less per game than Fleury did in his championship season

Fleury's best playoff run out of those three years, stats wise, would only be the third best overall if you rank all six of those years combined - and his championship year stats wise would only be the 4th best out of the six

Remember, the year the Penguins won the cup, they faced a Flyers team that had Martin Biron in net and no Chris Pronger yet, and then a Caps team that choked year after year, a Hurricanes team that was an after thought and a Red Wings team that had injuries and were getting older - the Penguins didn't have the hardest of opponents

In Jonathan Quick's worst year playoff wise he's gone against San Jose, Anaheim and Chicago so far - three hard places to play in and won Game 7's in each building - and with the worst goals against average of any of the six playoff years between the two goalies, his save percentage is only two points lower than Fleury's in his championship year - The fact that Quickie still has a .906 save percentage even with a 2.86 GAA tells me that the Kings are giving up more shots than normal(part of it is that they've played ridiculously tough opponents, nothing like what Fleury had to face in his playoff runs), and Jonathan Quick is still playing well enough to win

Anyone who would even begin to compare Jonathan Quick to Marc-Andre Fleury is insane in the brain

EDIT: Also, if people are going to say the Kings have a great defense in front of Jonathan Quick(which they do and have shown), then you should also say that Fleury had Crosby and Malkin, arguably the two biggest talents in the game, and wasted some of their great seasons because he's played like garbage in the playoffs

Wait, so now the stats actually matter? What happened to "you don't win 37 playoff games in the last three playoffs(not counting the SCF's this year yet) without being one of the best goalies in the league"? How come 37 playoff wins in 3 years was enough "proof" when talking about Quick, but when we start talking about Fleury suddenly the other data becomes important?

 

[esls79]

Looking at the stats this year, Quick has taken way less shots. Quick seems to be a lightweight when it comes to holding his liquor, therefore, I will say Lundqvist is by far a better goalie.


/oh, not that kind of shots

 

[DragonfromTO]

In three seasons in which the two won 37 playoff games:

Jonathan Quick(2012-2014):

2012: 16-4, 3 SO's, .946%, 1.41 GAA
2013: 9-9, 3 SO's, .934%, 1.86 GAA
2014: 12-9, 1 SO, .906%, 2.86 GAA

Marc Andre Fleury(2008-2010):
2008: 14-6, 3 SO's, .933%, 1.97 GAA
2009: 16-8, 0 SO's, .908%, 2.61 GAA
2010: 7-6, 1 SO, .891%, 2.78 GAA

In Jonathan Quick's .500 playoffs last year, his save percentage was 26 points better than Fleury's in his championship year, and he gave 3/4ths of a goal less per game than Fleury did in his championship season

Fleury's best playoff run out of those three years, stats wise, would only be the third best overall if you rank all six of those years combined - and his championship year stats wise would only be the 4th best out of the six

Remember, the year the Penguins won the cup, they faced a Flyers team that had Martin Biron in net and no Chris Pronger yet, and then a Caps team that choked year after year, a Hurricanes team that was an after thought and a Red Wings team that had injuries and were getting older - the Penguins didn't have the hardest of opponents

In Jonathan Quick's worst year playoff wise he's gone against San Jose, Anaheim and Chicago so far - three hard places to play in and won Game 7's in each building - and with the worst goals against average of any of the six playoff years between the two goalies, his save percentage is only two points lower than Fleury's in his championship year - The fact that Quickie still has a .906 save percentage even with a 2.86 GAA tells me that the Kings are giving up more shots than normal(part of it is that they've played ridiculously tough opponents, nothing like what Fleury had to face in his playoff runs), and Jonathan Quick is still playing well enough to win

Anyone who would even begin to compare Jonathan Quick to Marc-Andre Fleury is insane in the brain

EDIT: Also, if people are going to say the Kings have a great defense in front of Jonathan Quick(which they do and have shown), then you should also say that Fleury had Crosby and Malkin, arguably the two biggest talents in the game, and wasted some of their great seasons because he's played like garbage in the playoffs

He's faced 30.4 shots per game in the playoffs this year. That's within a hair of the league average. If I'm supposed to be impressed by a 2.86 GAA in this day and age the goalie is going to have to have faced a lot more shots than that.

 

[dash]

Looking at the stats this year, Quick has taken way less shots. Quick seems to be a lightweight when it comes to holding his liquor, therefore, I will say Lundqvist is by far a better goalie.


/oh, not that kind of shots

Quick is just trying to keep up with the Joneses...

 

[DragonfromTO]

Quick is just trying to keep up with the Joneses...

He loves the way it Berniers going down his throat

 

[dash]

He loves the way it Berniers going down his throat

Obviously, I foresee many more puns in Storr for us to Wade Dubielewicz through.

 

[DragonfromTO]

Obviously, I foresee many more puns in Storr for us to Wade Dubielewicz through.

At this point I think it would be Hrudey not to

 

[forty_three]

Obviously, I foresee many more puns in Storr for us to Wade Dubielewicz through.

That landed so flat, it registered on the Richter scale.