View Single Post
Old
12-30-2012, 04:31 PM
  #53
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,769
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
2009 vs. Chicago, .879 series, .767 final game

2010 vs. Chicago, .897 series, .857 final game

2011 vs. Boston, .891 series, .850 final game

2012 he was a backup, but still posted glorious .891 in a losing effort

Vancouver lost five series during his tenure, and he personally caused three of the losses. I rest my case.
Pretty much meaningless to show save percentages in such a short sample of time.

Basically it just means he won some and lost some.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
They lose against Boston regardless of Luongo because they fail to score a goal in the final game. Furthermore, Luongo had two shutouts AND the Nucks averaged one goal a game.

As for 2009, well, Luongo had sub-par performances in two games, but his team didn't score in the other losses.
Agreed - I'm not much of a Luongo fan myself - but no way his team was winning the Stanley Cup.

They turned tail and ran against Boston.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Engine View Post
Save percentages from tiny samples like that basically say that he lost those games. Considering that his Sv% from the 3 games he won were 1.000, .933, and 1.000, you should see how much these things can fluctuate. It would be interesting to see how many 7 game series you can find where a goalie's average Sv% in games they lost looks anything short of awful.

As far as "actively losing series", that reads like the worst kind of narrative-building. What my own eyes told me was that that Luongo often reminds me of the annoying AI goalies in EA NHL games - if they get down by 2 or three goals, they pretty much all but put a gun in their mouths and just stop trying to stop pucks. Whether he holds together and loses 4-1 or buckles and lets in 8, his teams still loses and does so as a team. But that's what I saw. What we should be looking at, is how does his playoff performance, in both winning and losing causes, stack up against say, Giacomin? If nobody looks at this before I get home, I'll take a look.
Agreed. Luongo didn't actively lose anything.

In fact I'd make the case he was the only reason they were in a 7 game series at all.

He had a Cujo level of scoring support from his team.

And similarly to Cujo being labelled a first round goaltender, a narrative is being built to make Luongo take much more than his share of the blame for those losses imo.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
IF Luongo had a .987 SV%, his team would have lost regardless (game 7, Boston).

A goalie cannot lose a game by himself if his team doesn't score.
Quote:
Originally Posted by intylerwetrust View Post
two 1-0 shutouts in the 2011 finals, Canucks score 8 goals in 7 games, get shutout in game 7, and Luongo is to blame? really?
Yeah.. at least his team scoring didn't dry up until he made the finals or he'd be getting the Cujo first rounder treatment.


Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Wow, how on earth is Luongo getting so dismissed when Giacomin is a virtual shoo-in?
Again, I don't particularly like Luongo to be honest, but I don't get it either.

I get the impression he is a bit mentally fragile but he didn't collapse nearly as bad as some of the other stars on his team.

I'll never forget Sedin getting decked by Thomas and almost doing a back flip embellishing it or Marchand punching one of them in the face 100 times while he (and the rest of the team) stood there and watched.

Luongo played plenty well enough to win a Stanley Cup - despite his weaker performances - if the team didn't seemingly have their will broken.

BraveCanadian is online now   Reply With Quote