View Single Post
02-02-2013, 02:44 AM
Can you like, shutup
Malkin4Top6Wingerz's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 5,029
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by TravisUlrich View Post
It's not a perfect measure but there's a very positive correlation between goalies collect a lot of wins and goalies who are considered "good". So such a claim is about as far from stupidity as one could get. If you want to say that Fleury is the exception to the rule, then okay but let's keep bad logic out of the conversation.
Goalies who get a lot of wins are generally considered good because, well, wins are good. It's one of the more obvious forms of circular logic in sports.

Like a lot of others, I believe MAF is a fairly average NHL starter. He'll go through hot and cold stretches like any other goalie, the difference being that when he goes through a period of excellent hockey, his supporters cite this as evidence that he is an upper echelon goalie who simply has consistency issues, yet consistency is what seperates average from good and good from great. Goalies should not be judged on the alleged quality of their peaks and valleys, rather the frequency that they occur. Any goalie can get hot or go on a slump. It doesn't mean that when they occur there has to be a narrative attached. Being a #1 pick doesn't mean that every hot streak is evidence of that goalie's immense talent, nor does every poor stretch have to be a result of his fragile psyche and personal insecurity issues. They are just convenient explanations we form to suit our own preconceptions.

As TheSniper26 noted previously, Fleury's status as a #1 pick superstar in the making has kind of put this halo around his head, which has now been cemented after winning the Cup in 09'. For these people Fleury will never be the problem, it will always be the team around him - never mind that Fleury has had the aid of the league's highest scoring team since the Penguins have been relevant again. It's a mindset that's difficult to understand. Goalies are there to bail your team out when they make mistakes and teams generate quality scoring chances, which will happen with great frequency with any team. If you're only counting on your goalie to make casual saves and absolve him of any responsibility otherwise then what is the point of investing that much money into a goalie? Much less one that can't be counted on to play well under difficult circumstances?

What I find interesting is that when Fleury has put together strong regular seasons, like in 2010-2011 and 2007-2008, he's statistically been outplayed by his backups. If this is, as many people claim, to be a result of a better defensive environment, why not invest into our defense and make that a priority instead of investing valuable cap space into a goalie who can only thrive under optimal conditions? It certainly begs the question, does it not? And let's not forget that in other seasons where Fleury has shared time with an established NHL goalie he hasn't done much of anything to distance himself performance wise. Hard to blame the team in front of him when both goalies are playing behind the same group of players with the same system in place.

If Fleury were to ever be replaced by a less established but similarly effective goalie I'm betting that he would be vilified by a good portion of the fanbase on account of being mediocre without the hype to justify their blind faith. Though with Vokoun, there's a large body of excellent work that should ease their minds if the reigns were handed to him. And to nobody's surprise, I would have made Vokoun the starter from day one. This isn't a slight on Fleury, TV is simply an all-world goaltender who has been criminally undervalued because he couldn't perform miracles with the Florida Panthers.

Malkin4Top6Wingerz is offline   Reply With Quote