View Single Post
03-31-2010, 02:59 AM
JT Dutch*
Cult of Personality
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,548
vCash: 500
... Are we even considering Bernier v. Quick as an argument at this point?

Quick's #1 attribute is his win total, inflated by his sheer number of games played as well as the shootout. Take away the shootout and he has 31 wins, a nice amount, but nowhere near the level of an elite goalie who has played in 68 games. As a comparison, Mario Lessard won 35 games without benefit of the shootout and did so in just 64 games. In real hockey situations, Quick's win total just isn't that impressive -- and beyond that, wins are the most team-dependent stat any goaltender has.

Quick's GAA is tied for about 13th in the NHL if you count goalies with more than 50 games. When you consider that GAA is dependent upon shots allowed, and also consider that the Kings allow the 3rd fewest amount of shots per game -- Quick is middle of the road in GAA at BEST.

And then we get to Quick's save percentage, and I've been harping on this all season ... it's .907, well below the league average of .911. If you only count goalies who have played 50 games or more, Quick is 16th in the NHL in save percentage.

So, we're talking about a goalie in his first full season who's been average at best and mostly below average when he's playing in real hockey situations; and on top of that, he's been run out there to start 86% of the team games this season.

In his last 18 games, Quick is 8-8-1 with a .905 save percentage. In his last 18 games, Quick has had 9 games with a save percentage below 90%. That's unacceptable.

Whereas in the beginning of the season Quick was struggling to find his way and getting his W-L record propped up by the team's excellent offense during that time, it's obvious that now he's feeling the effects of mental and physical fatigue, and that offense isn't there to bail him out anymore. Where before the soft goals Quick allowed only meant the difference between winning by one goal instead of two -- now those soft goals are making the difference between taking the game to overtime and losing in regulation.

Quick had a great month of January (.919 SV%). He was about average in December (.910). He has been below average in every other month (.905 in October, .895 in November, .905 in February/March) -- there's no other way to say it.

The Kings goaltending as a team (mostly Quick) has a save percentage of .908. The team directly ahead of them in their division, Phoenix, appears to not have any more forward/defensemen talent than the Kings ... and their team save percentage is .922. The difference between the two teams cannot be stated more plainly than this, can it?

Meanwhile, the Kings have this other goaltender, their most prized prospect, who has not been tested too much at all ... but he's been nearly perfect when he HAS played, and he has nothing left to prove at any other level of hockey. Where does it hurt to play this man until he shows any signs of vulnerability? Where does it hurt to split the playoff games between the two goalies, until one of them clearly shows himself to be the superior goalie? What better way for Jonathan Bernier to gain the testing he NEEDS at the NHL level than to give him half of these late season and playoff games? And if Bernier shows himself worthy of more than that, why not give him more?

I don't even see where the argument is, here.

JT Dutch* is offline   Reply With Quote