HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   New York Rangers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   NHL's "Three Stars" for March (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=364672)

Sather Hater 04-02-2007 02:20 PM

NHL's "Three Stars" for March
 
NHL's "Three Stars" for March
1. Peter Budaj
2. Joe Thornton
3. Vincent Lecavalier

Stats for March 2007-
Budaj 10-0-02 2.24 GAA .910 Save%
Lundqvist 9-1-3 1.80 GAA .938 Save%

HockeyBasedNYC 04-02-2007 02:25 PM

Wow. What bull. Lundqvist has to be top 3.

Oh well. Just another thing to prove.

Balej20* 04-02-2007 02:28 PM

That is absolutely laughable. Didn't Lundqvist get #1 star 2 out of 4 weeks in the month? I would think you HAVE to get a top 3 star for the entire month if you do that.

blue2noise 04-02-2007 02:32 PM

1. Sean Avery
2. Sean Avery
3. Sean Avery

Inferno 04-02-2007 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Balej20 (Post 8739027)
That is absolutely laughable. Didn't Lundqvist get #1 star 2 out of 4 weeks in the month? I would think you HAVE to get a top 3 star for the entire month if you do that.

the force is not strong with you young padiwan

wearing a ranger jersey automatically means you get no respect.

sheesh.

:sarcasm:

in the hall 04-02-2007 02:35 PM

big deal..

nickrOck 04-02-2007 02:37 PM

i'll take playoffs over a meaningless star of the month..

budaj can comfort himself in the fact he was a star while his team is on the sidelines this spring..

HenrikO'doyle 04-02-2007 02:44 PM

How Colton Orr doesnt make this list shows how much the NHL is out to get us.

dkatzism 04-02-2007 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blue2noise (Post 8739072)
1. Sean Avery
2. Sean Avery
3. Sean Avery

Ahahahah, bravo. :thumbu: Well played. After last night, I'm ready to let Avery host his own talk show.

Fletch 04-02-2007 03:11 PM

It's hard...
 
not giving it to a goalie who was 10-0-2 over a goalie who was 9-1-3, despite going deeper into stats and analyzing it further. I mean the guy had zero regulation losses in 12 tries.

Thornton's play over the last month was pretty awesome for a forward. I think he was averaging about 2 points per game, having points it most every game.

Can't talk to Lecavalier's month as I didn't pay much attention.

Bottom line is I wouldn't say the three stars are laughable. We're all very close to the NY situation and see what Henke did over the past month and understand the Rangers would be nowhere without his stellar play. I'm sure that's recognized throughout the league, but in the end, I don't care so long as it's recognized in the standings. We all know that hockey analysis is pretty superficial. It's difficult for these analysts to dig deep into everyone's stats and to watch each's game and therefore when you take a vote you're getting guys that may've seen one guy play a lot and another play very little. It's tough to get real good analyses out there I've come to realize.

WheresBarnaby 04-02-2007 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by inferno272 (Post 8739076)

wearing a ranger jersey automatically means you get no respect.

It's getting ridiculous, and it's gone way beyond coincidental now.

nyr2k2 04-02-2007 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HenrikO'doyle (Post 8739220)
How Colton Orr doesnt make this list shows how much the NHL is out to get us.

:biglaugh:

Chimp 04-02-2007 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fletch (Post 8739556)
not giving it to a goalie who was 10-0-2 over a goalie who was 9-1-3, despite going deeper into stats and analyzing it further. I mean the guy had zero regulation losses in 12 tries.

Thornton's play over the last month was pretty awesome for a forward. I think he was averaging about 2 points per game, having points it most every game.

Can't talk to Lecavalier's month as I didn't pay much attention.

Bottom line is I wouldn't say the three stars are laughable. We're all very close to the NY situation and see what Henke did over the past month and understand the Rangers would be nowhere without his stellar play. I'm sure that's recognized throughout the league, but in the end, I don't care so long as it's recognized in the standings. We all know that hockey analysis is pretty superficial. It's difficult for these analysts to dig deep into everyone's stats and to watch each's game and therefore when you take a vote you're getting guys that may've seen one guy play a lot and another play very little. It's tough to get real good analyses out there I've come to realize.

Bottom line is, wins and losses is the stat you look at absolutely last when measuring a goalie performance. Looking at wins and losses for Lundqvist is just as relevant as looking at wins and losses for Jagr, if you ask me.

Levitate 04-02-2007 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fletch (Post 8739556)
not giving it to a goalie who was 10-0-2 over a goalie who was 9-1-3, despite going deeper into stats and analyzing it further. I mean the guy had zero regulation losses in 12 tries.

I don't quite understand how looking at GAA and Save %, the basics of what goalies are judged on, is "going deeper into stats and analyzing it further".

Budaj had more wins because his team played better, not that he performed better. He had one more win than Lundqvist, and much weaker stats. OoOoOoh, so special.

I don't buy into any of the bias crap being thrown around, but I think it was a poor selection.

Fletch 04-02-2007 05:42 PM

When you have a guy...
 
who had 10 wins no losses and two (OTLs or SOLs), that's sometimes all you need. The guy did what had to be done to lose no games in regulation in a month. I think that's about all they're looking at.

Levitate 04-02-2007 06:19 PM

and I think that's simple minded.

If the stats were anywhere close between the two guys, I'd see giving Budaj the edge because of his wins...but the stats are not close.

I'd be tempted to say that they gave it to him for "giving his team a chance at the playoffs", since Colorado did make a run. That still ignores the fact that Lundqvist pretty much did the same thing for the Rangers.

Fletch 04-02-2007 07:31 PM

The rest of my post...
 
went into how I thought hockey analyses in general were pretty superficial. I do agree that it's weak, but as it relates to Budaj, I also honestly cannot say I saw one, let along 7 or 8, of the games that were played, so I cannot comment on if the defense in front of him was bad, etc. The bottom line is the bottom line - 10-0-2 and I think that's all they looked at - not saying I agree, just saying how deep the analysis went.

The Amity Affliction 04-02-2007 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dkatzism (Post 8739321)
Ahahahah, bravo. :thumbu: Well played. After last night, I'm ready to let Avery host his own talk show.

It could be called... What Would Avery Do?

It would put Jerry Springer to shame.

:biglaugh: :biglaugh: :biglaugh:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:47 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.