Official Hockey discussion thread

I thought you meant the season, not the playoffs. Fleury? Fleury isn't clutch, and I'd never call him that. I was there in Halifax in 2003.
 
Fluery is adequate at best. He is'nt exactly a shut down goalie by anymeans. Luongo is a much better goale, but has yet to be able to turn the corner when it comes to the playoffs. I think Duane Roloson is much better than Fleury and he is 41.
 
Pittsburgh's lack of superstars is finally catching up with them. Tampa's stars are firing on all cylinders... I thought it a miracle to begin with if the Pens won so I would not be shocked if Tampa takes the series.
 
LooseCannon said:
I thought you meant the season, not the playoffs. Fleury? Fleury isn't clutch, and I'd never call him that. I was there in Halifax in 2003.
Click to expand...

Go back in time to a dark and primitive February 2010, and you'd see plenty of journalists calling for Fleury to start in the medal round because of his "clutch" performances.  It's amazing what a Stanley Cup will do for you reputation as a goalie, even if you didn't do that much to deserve it.

For the record, I'm not inclined to call a goalie "clutch" one way or another.  I think that if you give a goalie a large enough sample size, he'll play like he normally does.  The focus on individual games blinds people to the big picture.  People were ragging Dwayne Roloson a couple games ago for letting in a softie in overtime.  Milbury, naturally, did the classy thing and called him a chump.  Those people were ignoring that even down 3-1, Roloson was outplaying Fleury, and that trend has continued (there's a 0.051 disparity between sv % between the two goalies.  To put that in perspective, between the best and worst goalies in the league this season who played at least 30 games, there was a 0.046 disparity).

Senators fans like to misremember past playoff failures with their goalies as the scapegoats, particularly Lalime.  They ignore the fact that outside of one disastrous game, Lalime played much better in the playoffs than the regular season, and came as close to stealing a series as one player can possibly do.  They pin the blame on the goalie, not the offence that managed to average one goal less per game.
 
GuineaPig said:
Go back in time to a dark and primitive February 2010, and you'd see plenty of journalists calling for Fleury to start in the medal round because of his "clutch" performances.  It's amazing what a Stanley Cup will do for you reputation as a goalie, even if you didn't do that much to deserve it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, maybe they were, but I never, ever thought that. He was always the #3 guy to me in Vancouver.
 
I will say Fleury was clutch during the 09 Cup run. By clutch, I don't mean shut down type like a Halak, Roy, or McLean. I mean making a big save when he needed one like Osgood, Richter or Brodeur.

Goaltending are the most fun discussions in this thread.
 
But something like 85 % of hockey is played within two goals.  Nearly every save is a big save.  The only time that this argument comes up is when the goalie in question is sub-par.  When is it not preferable to make a save over not making a save?  Are there goaltenders who deliberately let in goals, only to make the "big saves" later?  I don't buy it.
 
There are times in a game when a goalie absolutely has to make a save. After a bad goal is given up ( not being screened, deflected shot or a back door pass) the next save is the must have, bounce back save. The big saves give your team momentum and takes away confidence from the other side. I don't mean to bring up a painful memory for my friend in Antigonish, but that save Thomas made on the 2 on 1 in the overtime game 5, it gave the Bruins the momentum and confidence knowing that their man Thomas would bail them out, and it also took it away from Montreal because it forces them to overthink scoring chances and that leads to over handling the puck and making that one pass too many.
 
Nigel Tufnel said:
There are times in a game when a goalie absolutely has to make a save. After a bad goal is given up ( not being screened, deflected shot or a back door pass) the next save is the must have, bounce back save. The big saves give your team momentum and takes away confidence from the other side. I don't mean to bring up a painful memory for my friend in Antigonish, but that save Thomas made on the 2 on 1 in the overtime game 5, it gave the Bruins the momentum and confidence knowing that their man Thomas would bail them out, and it also took it away from Montreal because it forces them to overthink scoring chances and that leads to over handling the puck and making that one pass too many.
Click to expand...

But if Thomas had made that other save, there would not have been overtime at all.  Besides, the save before that was of equal importance to continuing the game.  A better goalie will make more saves, given the same quality of shots, then a worse goalie.  I don't know why'd you choose the latter if he made arbitrarily better-timed saves.  Like I said, the majority of hockey is played with the score close.  Almost all saves are big saves.  The great goaltenders that play for terrible teams are almost exclusively making big saves, because their teams need substantially better than average goaltending to win most nights.

As I've said, the goalies these "Oh, he's just a winner!" or "Oh, he makes the big save!" arguments are made for typically have strong offenses.  Goalies who play poorly but still win because they have strong offenses are not better.  It would be utterly asinine to argue that Philadelphia's goaltending is good right now, because even though they let in a bunch of poor quality goals, they make the saves that allow their team to bail them out with 5 goals.

Great goaltenders typically have some mix of higher skill, quicker reflexes, better positioning, and better flexibility that allow them to stop more pucks.  Better goaltenders stop more pucks.  Because the majority of hockey is played with the score close, better goaltenders make more "big" saves.  It's that simple. 
 
I would think that the appropriate way to judge how "clutch" a goalie is is to measure their save % vs. scoring chances. Which isn't something that is recorded.
 
LooseCannon said:
I would think that the appropriate way to judge how "clutch" a goalie is is to measure their save % vs. scoring chances. Which isn't something that is recorded.
Click to expand...

Would be a good idea; only trouble is potential for scorer bias, but that exists everywhere as is.  Shot quality neutral save percentage essentially does the same thing, and you can find stats for recent seasons out there on the net.
 
You have to wonder how much confidence Vancouver has in Luongo going into game 7.  If the Hawks put in a quick goal, I can see the wheels falling off quikcly.  It is interesting to see when a team loses confidence in the goalie and you either start seeing them take chances on offense (thinking they need 5 goals to win) or playing to conservative on offense to play more D.  It can really throw the whole team out of synch.
 
Yeah, pumped for not one, but two game sevens!!

Vancouver has  100% confidence in Luongo. But Luongo has to have the same level of confidence in himself. Hopefully he can keep his nerves in check.  If Chicago can pull it off tonight, this would be the most Epic comeback of all time. Any sport. Period.
 
Habs beat the Bruins, Bruins kept getting themselves in penalty trouble, Habs capitalized. I'll take it.
 
Lucic got the game Misconduct. Ouch. Spacek looked like he got fucked up when he got boarded. Did he return to the game?

Luongo looks pretty good so far.....

Carcillo just keeps proving what a world class douche he is, running his mouth to the Sabres bench after he scored the 5th goal.
 
Spacek came back, but that was a huge hit from behind. 5 and a game was fair for Lucic, I expect no sup discipline. Luongo's on his game it seems, and Carcillo is a fucknut.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top