I'm not picking and choosing stats. I'm picking 1, and that 1 is all that matters. A goalie's 0.920 save percentage doesn't win you a Cup. Wins matter, and Fleury has those...both in the regular season and the playoffs.
Playoffs are really what matter...any starting goalie on a good team will get wins in the regular season. We know that Fleury can heat up and get cold and therefore usually winds up with a decent save percentage in the regular saeson (certainly nothing that would indicate he is an elite goalie). With respect to the postseason,you´re basically referring to two times he has gone deep in the playoffs in 5 trips there and ignoring all the times he has lost, and you have been ignoring his awful or medicore save percentages in this entire thread.
Bottom line is he needs to get better and he needs to step up in big situations the way he did in the final seconds in Detroit to get us the Cup. He has failed in the past couple of seasons and I don't know what it is but he needs to fix that problem ASAP cause with the core we have Shero won't be very patient IMO.
The teams left in these playoffs are mostly there because of their goalies
I'm not picking and choosing stats. I'm picking 1, and that 1 is all that matters. A goalie's 0.920 save percentage doesn't win you a Cup. Wins matter, and Fleury has those...both in the regular season and the playoffs.
No, the Pittsburgh Penguins have those. It's absolutely stunning how the Fleury supporters want to take all of the Pens win and twist them into being Fleury's wins. Again, wins are a team stat. There are too many variables that go into wins and losses to just give the credit(or blame) to one player. If the Pens win 6-5 on the back of a Sidney Crosby 4 point night, is it fair to use that "win" as evidence that Fleury is a good goalie? On the flip side, if the Pens lose 0-1 because the offense didn't show up, is giving Fleury a "loss" really fair? This is why, despite their imperfections, individual stats do have a place in the discussion. Using your logic, is every guy on our team a great player because they were in the lineup for a lot of wins?
Edit - Oh and just for the sake of the discussion, here are the numbers post lockout:
And some inevitably will. I can tell you right now that I won't. I look at wins. I think that's much more indicative of how effective a goaltender is since that's all that matters.
The guy has 5 seasons over 35 wins, has backstopped the team to 2 Cup finals, and won 1. That's all I need to see. He's capable.
So goalie stats are team stats and then you quote team accomplishments to back Fleury? Again, total bull****.
Bottom line is he needs to get better and he needs to step up in big situations the way he did in the final seconds in Detroit to get us the Cup. He has failed in the past couple of seasons and I don't know what it is but he needs to fix that problem ASAP cause with the core we have Shero won't be very patient IMO.
The teams left in these playoffs are mostly there because of their goalies
THIS . . . maybe New Jersey is sort of an exception. Marty has been good, but he hasn't had to be unreal like Quick or Smith.
THIS . . . maybe New Jersey is sort of an exception. Marty has been good, but he hasn't had to be unreal like Quick or Smith.
Smith's been ridiculous, that's why I can't swallow this thread anymore.
I knew I was fighting a losing battle when I made my montage of Smith saves from one half of one game, where he's stopping breakaways and 2 on 1's and gimmes in the slot, only to be met by: "Well, his defense is giving him confidence"
Smith's been ridiculous, that's why I can't swallow this thread anymore.
I knew I was fighting a losing battle when I made my montage of Smith saves from one half of one game, where he's stopping breakaways and 2 on 1's and gimmes in the slot, only to be met by: "Well, his defense is giving him confidence"
Smith's been ridiculous, that's why I can't swallow this thread anymore.
I knew I was fighting a losing battle when I made my montage of Smith saves from one half of one game, where he's stopping breakaways and 2 on 1's and gimmes in the slot, only to be met by: "Well, his defense is giving him confidence"
Yeah I mean we can chalk up SOME of Smith's play to the team defense, but really the dude is playing unbelievable. The thing with guys like him (currently), Rinne, Quick, is that they are always square to the shooter in the right position. Some of their saves look routine because they are in the right spot all the time. Some that is due to sheer size, other part is technique, awareness, etc. With Fleury, there aren't many routine saves.
Playoffs are really what matter...any starting goalie on a good team will get wins in the regular season. We know that Fleury can heat up and get cold and therefore usually winds up with a decent save percentage in the regular saeson (certainly nothing that would indicate he is an elite goalie). With respect to the postseason,you´re basically referring to two times he has gone deep in the playoffs in 5 trips there and ignoring all the times he has lost, and you have been ignoring his awful or medicore save percentages in this entire thread.
The Montreal series was on him. No doubt about that. The Tampa series, we were without 20 million dollars of talent. We could score goals to save our lives, but we somehow took a team who went to the conference finals to 7 games. Fleury had something to do with that. This series, special teams dominated the entire series. Fleury had one horrendous game, and one spectacular game this past series. The other 4 he was average. He could have been better, but he could have been worse. The team playing in front of him, specifically the defense was just pathetic.
That's what I am mainly getting at. People who solely point the finger at Fleury for this series are dead wrong. I could give you about 20 other points as to why we lost, and it mainly comes back to team discipline, stupid hockey players, special teams, and piss poor defensive zone coverages.
It's the yinzer mentality. I remember watching a game at Consol where Fleury made 2 fantastic saves, and they finally scored on the 3rd shot in the same play, and people around me were saying, "OH C'MON FLEURY!!!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shady Machine
So goalie stats are team stats and then you quote team accomplishments to back Fleury? Again, total bull****.
I'm not giving Fleury full credit for wins, nor what some are calling mediocre stats. What I'm saying is that if Fleury plays, the team is more than likely winning. He's a key cog in helping this team get 35-40 wins a season. He sure was the past 2 seasons with mix-and-match rosters we've been putting together.
As I said before, a goaltenders stats are indicative of the team that plays in front of him. Those stats have zero context whatsoever. A goaltender can play perfectly and have mediocre stats. As I've said, Quick is a prime example.
This past series, special teams dominated it. Philly capitalized on their powerplays and we didn't with as much frequency, nor could we help ourselves in putting them on the powerplay over and over again. That was the x-factor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Magnifique 66
Bottom line is he needs to get better and he needs to step up in big situations the way he did in the final seconds in Detroit to get us the Cup. He has failed in the past couple of seasons and I don't know what it is but he needs to fix that problem ASAP cause with the core we have Shero won't be very patient IMO.
The teams left in these playoffs are mostly there because of their goalies
You don't win in the playoffs because of 1 player. Being a fan of a team who went to 2 Stanley Cup finals, you of all people should know that.
The thing that pisses me off, is of the teams left, all of them play a game we played when DB first took over. We don't play that way anymore.
I'm not giving Fleury full credit for wins, nor what some are calling mediocre stats. What I'm saying is that if Fleury plays, the team is more than likely winning. He's a key cog in helping this team get 35-40 wins a season. He sure was the past 2 seasons with mix-and-match rosters we've been putting together.
This team is more than likely winning period. I posted the numbers post-lockout. Fleury's win percentage is exactly the same as the collective win percentage of all of our backups(we're talking a sample size of hundreds of games). That's indicative of a talented team that is going to win lots of games regardless of who is in net. Now, don't take this as me saying our backups are as good as Fleury. They're not. But let's not act like Fleury has been the deciding factor in the team's successes. History shows otherwise.
Quote:
As I said before, a goaltenders stats are indicative of the team that plays in front of him. Those stats have zero context whatsoever. A goaltender can play perfectly and have mediocre stats. As I've said, Quick is a prime example.
So a goalie's individual stats show no context, but win totals do show context? You said it yourself: "Teams don't win because of one player". So why would win totals be indicative of anything when it comes to evaluating one player?
I'm not giving Fleury full credit for wins, nor what some are calling mediocre stats. What I'm saying is that if Fleury plays, the team is more than likely winning. He's a key cog in helping this team get 35-40 wins a season. He sure was the past 2 seasons with mix-and-match rosters we've been putting together.
As I said before, a goaltenders stats are indicative of the team that plays in front of him. Those stats have zero context whatsoever. A goaltender can play perfectly and have mediocre stats. As I've said, Quick is a prime example.
This past series, special teams dominated it. Philly capitalized on their powerplays and we didn't with as much frequency, nor could we help ourselves in putting them on the powerplay over and over again. That was the x-factor.
I'm cool with that for the most part. I just think you are on the one hand saying goalie stats are team stats when trying to defend his generally mediocre stats, and then on the other hand saying how good he is and using the one biggest team stat of all. It seems a little self serving to your argument.
How is Quick a prime example? His stats were awesome this season and he's played awesome. Confused.
The Montreal series was on him. No doubt about that. The Tampa series, we were without 20 million dollars of talent. We could score goals to save our lives, but we somehow took a team who went to the conference finals to 7 games. Fleury had something to do with that. This series, special teams dominated the entire series. Fleury had one horrendous game, and one spectacular game this past series. The other 4 he was average. He could have been better, but he could have been worse. The team playing in front of him, specifically the defense was just pathetic.
That's what I am mainly getting at. People who solely point the finger at Fleury for this series are dead wrong. I could give you about 20 other points as to why we lost, and it mainly comes back to team discipline, stupid hockey players, special teams, and piss poor defensive zone coverages.
It's the yinzer mentality. I remember watching a game at Consol where Fleury made 2 fantastic saves, and they finally scored on the 3rd shot in the same play, and people around me were saying, "OH C'MON FLEURY!!!"
I'm not giving Fleury full credit for wins, nor what some are calling mediocre stats. What I'm saying is that if Fleury plays, the team is more than likely winning. He's a key cog in helping this team get 35-40 wins a season. He sure was the past 2 seasons with mix-and-match rosters we've been putting together.
As I said before, a goaltenders stats are indicative of the team that plays in front of him. Those stats have zero context whatsoever. A goaltender can play perfectly and have mediocre stats. As I've said, Quick is a prime example.
This past series, special teams dominated it. Philly capitalized on their powerplays and we didn't with as much frequency, nor could we help ourselves in putting them on the powerplay over and over again. That was the x-factor.
You don't win in the playoffs because of 1 player. Being a fan of a team who went to 2 Stanley Cup finals, you of all people should know that.
The thing that pisses me off, is of the teams left, all of them play a game we played when DB first took over. We don't play that way anymore.
the rest of your points are fine and dandy, but the bolded is really the crux of the matter and the reason we are all disagreeing.
in my eyes, there is absolutely no, none, nada, zilch way that fleury was average in the 4 games you speak of. i just don't understand how people can watch the same games i did and walk away saying fleury was average.
i am working at a psych ward now, and i just sat in an interview with a 78 year old african american female that has resided in Philly her entire life, with paranoid-type schizophrenia-- she told the story of her life, of how she went to the Soviet Union, fought against the Bolsheviks and is now being tracked by the FBI and CIA. Clinically delusional and psychotic, getting heavy doses of multiple antipsychotics.
i am less baffled by her story than i am by people saying fleury was average against the Flyers. it makes my head hurt.
Smith's been ridiculous, that's why I can't swallow this thread anymore.
I knew I was fighting a losing battle when I made my montage of Smith saves from one half of one game, where he's stopping breakaways and 2 on 1's and gimmes in the slot, only to be met by: "Well, his defense is giving him confidence"
I think that Smith *IS* playing great. I also haven't seen saves on chances like our game 1 OT loss. Where our Norris candidate of the future (letang) deflects the shot away from Fleury who goes down for the save. Over by our Selke nominee center (Staal) who inexplicably doesn't box out the crease and a flyer waltz's in and taps the puck into an empty net. How does that even happen?
How can you go up 3 and 2 goals late in a game and NOT make the other team go through layers of defense (see Devils) to try and score is beyond me. How you don't play simple dump and forcheck the puck when up like that is just bewildering.
None of that is on Fleury.
You also don't see many shots from guys less then 15 feet away on Smith with a clear view at the net. The flyers scored, I believe, TWENTY goals from that distance.
I won't argue that Fleury was bad, he *was* bad. But whether he was bad because the defensive bad play eroded his confidence or not I'm not sure. Our defense was bad too, that can not be overlooked.
To think just plugging Smith in would result in us having a victory parade in June is wrong. Tampa's D was bad in this game: http://espn.go.com/nhl/boxscore?gameId=301112016 Smith had a 75% save. It is ONE game, so it is just a microcosm.
Just saying Smith couldn't even get a starting gig full time until this season. He has a much better defense in front of him now, and at least as important a better goalie coach to help him with his fundamentals.
THAT is what we need, Fleury is capable. But we must get a new goalie coach in. We also must play better team defense.
I'm cool with that for the most part. I just think you are on the one hand saying goalie stats are team stats when trying to defend his generally mediocre stats, and then on the other hand saying how good he is and using the one biggest team stat of all. It seems a little self serving to your argument.
How is Quick a prime example? His stats were awesome this season and he's played awesome. Confused.
I'm not defending his stats because I don't believe they are that telling. As I've said before, he let it some bad goals, but there were just as many goals where he had no hope of stopping them. Guys were posted up wide opened right at the top of the crease with no one even putting a stick on him.
I'm not using stats to say how good he is at all. What I said was that he is capable of backstopping this team to 35-40 wins a season. A guy doesn't do that if he's not a good hockey player. A guy doesn't just fly by the seat of his pants and miraculously get to the Cup finals twice.
It is a team game, and pretty much everything used to judge a goaltender could be a team stat, for the most part. Every goal that crosses the goal line isn't pinned on the goalie, and some do that. You can see it in the GDT's or listening to people at games. Puck goals across the line...goaltenders fault.
Quick is an example, IMO, because he has always been this good. People have seen this coming for a long time. He put up pretty pedestrian stats until Lombardi solidified that defense. He gets a defense, he puts up great stats.
I'm not defending his stats because I don't believe they are that telling. As I've said before, he let it some bad goals, but there were just as many goals where he had no hope of stopping them. Guys were posted up wide opened right at the top of the crease with no one even putting a stick on him.
I'm not using stats to say how good he is at all. What I said was that he is capable of backstopping this team to 35-40 wins a season. A guy doesn't do that if he's not a good hockey player. A guy doesn't just fly by the seat of his pants and miraculously get to the Cup finals twice.
It is a team game, and pretty much everything used to judge a goaltender could be a team stat, for the most part. Every goal that crosses the goal line isn't pinned on the goalie, and some do that. You can see it in the GDT's or listening to people at games. Puck goals across the line...goaltenders fault.
Quick is an example, IMO, because he has always been this good. People have seen this coming for a long time. He put up pretty pedestrian stats until Lombardi solidified that defense. He gets a defense, he puts up great stats.
Thanks for clarifying. There's really not much I can disagree with there. I think Fleury is a good goalie. I give him credit, along with the rest of the team for their success just as I blame him along with the team defense and special teams for their demise this season. However, I disagree that goalie stats are meaningless.
I think goalie play is so hard to judge. Take Game 4. Did Fleury really do anything so different? Or did Philly's shooters just put pucks into his pads and into his glove where in other games they found the daylight and went in?
He was bad in the first period, but after that, he was really really good. So yes I agree. But damn, can't we get some consistency?
We had it for 7 months. It was here...we were rolling. 2 weeks before the playoffs I have no idea what ****ing happened.
The only conclusion I can draw is that one media scrum he had where that reporter essentially told him he was playing like dog ****, and Fleury got a little upset with him.
I think goalie play is so hard to judge. Take Game 4. Did Fleury really do anything so different? Or did Philly's shooters just put pucks into his pads and into his glove where in other games they found the daylight and went in?
Is the game 4 being mentioned a few times here supposed to be game 5 of the Flyers series? Game 4 was the one where the Pens scored 10 goals and went about 15 minutes of game time without even allowing a shot in the 2nd period after a poor effort in the 1st. Game 5 was the game MAF played best in. Just bringing this up for clarification sake since it has been mentioned a couple of times and don't want it to lead to any confusion when it is being referenced to.
We had it for 7 months. It was here...we were rolling. 2 weeks before the playoffs I have no idea what ****ing happened.
The only conclusion I can draw is that one media scrum he had where that reporter essentially told him he was playing like dog ****, and Fleury got a little upset with him.
Yeah I agree and I really like the guy. He seems like a great teammate and he is obviously an extremely talented goaltender. I really would like to see a competent back up that can push him and a new goalie coach. Hopefully we get at least one of the two.
the rest of your points are fine and dandy, but the bolded is really the crux of the matter and the reason we are all disagreeing.
in my eyes, there is absolutely no, none, nada, zilch way that fleury was average in the 4 games you speak of. i just don't understand how people can watch the same games i did and walk away saying fleury was average.
i am working at a psych ward now, and i just sat in an interview with a 78 year old african american female that has resided in Philly her entire life, with paranoid-type schizophrenia-- she told the story of her life, of how she went to the Soviet Union, fought against the Bolsheviks and is now being tracked by the FBI and CIA. Clinically delusional and psychotic, getting heavy doses of multiple antipsychotics.
i am less baffled by her story than i am by people saying fleury was average against the Flyers. it makes my head hurt.
it just doesn't.... make sense...
+1
Fleury was putrid during that series - plain and simple. I really can't even count how many softies/deflating goalies he let up.
I think it's pretty illogical/irrational to defend his lousy play in net. Gotta call a spade a spade.
the rest of your points are fine and dandy, but the bolded is really the crux of the matter and the reason we are all disagreeing.
in my eyes, there is absolutely no, none, nada, zilch way that fleury was average in the 4 games you speak of. i just don't understand how people can watch the same games i did and walk away saying fleury was average.
i am working at a psych ward now, and i just sat in an interview with a 78 year old african american female that has resided in Philly her entire life, with paranoid-type schizophrenia-- she told the story of her life, of how she went to the Soviet Union, fought against the Bolsheviks and is now being tracked by the FBI and CIA. Clinically delusional and psychotic, getting heavy doses of multiple antipsychotics.
i am less baffled by her story than i am by people saying fleury was average against the Flyers. it makes my head hurt.
People forget Quick when he first broke into the league and was getting hung out to dry by that LA defense. He was putting up numbers similar to Fleury (and even worse). He gets a good defense around him though, and he's putting up great stats in a system that focuses on keeping guys from sitting in the box...you see what happens. Quick was always this good.
Your Quick example doesn't hold any water. He was putting up terrific numbers under Murray this year before he got the axe, and Murray was the same coach be broke into the league with. There was no magical system change that took place for him to start posting elite numbers. His career progression is also nothing like Fleury. Aside from one mediocre year, he's been above average to amazing. Hell, during this 'mediocre year' that I speak of he posted practically identical numbers to Fleury's 08-09 playoff run.
