HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Boston Bruins
Notices

Rask-Trying to get a feel for the average Bruins fan on here, please help

View Poll Results: How Many of the Goals Were Rask's Fault Tonight?
1 goal was his fault 41 24.55%
2 goals were his fault 25 14.97%
3 goals were his fault 8 4.79%
4 goals were his fault 1 0.60%
5 goals were his fault 7 4.19%
None of the goals were his fault. Bad luck and big breakdowns on D to fault 85 50.90%
Voters: 167. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-28-2013, 11:56 PM
  #202
Neely08
Registered User
 
Neely08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: North of Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 17,553
vCash: 500
Which goals were his fault? None.

Which goals could he have come up w/ a big save on? I think there were a couple.

Are the major issues w/ this team Tuukka Rask? Not by a long shot.

Should it be out of the question for me to expect Tuukka to make a difficult, or game changing save once in a while? When it matters? I think that's fair.

Is he giving them a chance to win every night? I think it's fair to say he is. But I also think he can be better. I don't think Julien plays Dobby two games in a row if that's not the case.

Do I think the B's need to improve on several fronts to give Tuukka any chance? Absolutely.

Neely08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2013, 12:03 AM
  #203
Bone for your jar
Registered User
 
Bone for your jar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Boston, Mass.
Posts: 2,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EverettMike View Post
I wouldn't normally do this, but since so many people said they loved this or thought it was amazing, I just wanted to say I thought it was mostly garbage.

It is full of nonsense and flat out falsehoods. You twisted meaningless stats to have the appearance of substance, but on only a superficial analysis they fall apart.

Tuukka Rask deserves a better defense than this trash.

(I have my concerns, but he deserves a stronger argument than this.)
So what are the "falsehoods" exactly?

Bone for your jar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2013, 01:12 AM
  #204
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EverettMike View Post
I wouldn't normally do this, but since so many people said they loved this or thought it was amazing, I just wanted to say I thought it was mostly garbage.

It is full of nonsense and flat out falsehoods. You twisted meaningless stats to have the appearance of substance, but on only a superficial analysis they fall apart.

Tuukka Rask deserves a better defense than this trash.

(I have my concerns, but he deserves a stronger argument than this.)
Be my guest to tell me all the falsehoods, nonsense and meaningless stats that i somehow twisted.

If he deserves a better defense, then give one.

I've actually done a full analysis of every goal of his except the last two games. I would post it but people would say I'm only seeing goals the way I want to see them so I'm not going to bother.

I guess I'll do what everyone else does (like you just did here), and instead of backing up my opinion with something...

I'll just say that Rask is the greatest!!1!!!1!

This place would be so much better if people did things like that all the time instead of giving any analysis like they always do

sjaustin77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2013, 01:23 AM
  #205
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone for your jar View Post
Thank you. This is one of the very best posts I've read here, ever. And I love how you phrased the bolded part above.

I vaguely recall disagreeing strongly with you on some other thread a while back, but all is forgiven.
Thanks. I don't remember any disagreement, but that doesn't surprise me. My opinions don't seem too popular here. It's all good, it's just a message board.

sjaustin77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2013, 01:55 AM
  #206
Colt.45Orr
Registered User
 
Colt.45Orr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,486
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjaustin77 View Post
MTaylor - thanks for taking the heat. I don't have the time or energy to post much lately. You are right. Each goal means the same. The better you are earlier is actually more important than later though, because the other team now has to outplay you with less time to do it. The late goals only matter if you didn't do enough in the 1st 2 periods or 55 minutes.

The saves made in the 1st period, through 2 periods, through 55 minutes are actually more important than saves made in what people think is "clutch" which is contrary to what people are arguing against you.

I don't have time to post a sortable table but here are some numbers for people to chew on. (You can go to NHL.com under team stats - summary and sort these yourself if you want).

Team Pt % when scoring 1st (average is well within the first 20 minutes):
Highest - .882
Lowest - .421

Only 2 teams under .500. Making those 1st saves is very critical.

Now leading after a full 20 minutes:
Highest - 1.000 (1 team)
Lowest - .500

No team under .500 when leading after 1. So the goalie who lets in less goals is never going to have a losing record.

Now after 40 minutes:
Highest - 1.000 (3 teams)
Lowest - .545

Even better after 40 minutes. What a goalie does in the longer time period is most important, not what he does in the 3rd or last 5 minutes.

You want "clutch"? How about the shootout?

Rask has a .731 Sv% in the shootout in 26 shots. 4th best of anyone over 10 shots. The 3 above him Bishop, Pavelec and Lundqvist only have - 19, 16, and 19 shots faced respectively.

Rask makes many "clutch" saves. 1st period, 2nd period, 3rd period, OT, shootout. The eyes and mind are biased with great selective memory. The Bruins are +8 in 1st, +6 in the 2nd, and +7 in the 3rd. Looks pretty even to me, yet selective memory has everyone here in a panic over their 3rd period play. What about the games they have been great in the 3rd? It looks to me like there are a lot of them if they are a +7 with all of their blown leads.

The Bruins were .471 in 1 goal games in their cup season and people think they were great. They are .556 this year and people think they suck.

Clutch and momentum are fallacies. They aren't there - until they are, and then they aren't there again. Ortiz, ARod, Pats-49ers, Canadiens series, Canucks series, Hurricanes series, Caps series, last nights game.

Thomas gave up plenty of soft goals, including in every playoff series he has ever played which includes his cup run and finals. Had Thomas been "clutch" maybe we sweep Vancouver. Anyone remember the end of games 1 and 2? He was let off the hook in some games in the Montreal and Tampa series because the Bruins offense was great. Thomas let in some major softies in last year's Caps series. Only 2 and 2 in OT games, Game 5 - late Brouwer goal, game 6 - late Ovechkin goal. Carolina series - Walker.

People really need to look at the overall picture and what is actually most important. If you are going to pick out every "unclutch" save or bad goal, then also start picking out every "clutch" save and good save. Compare Rask, or whoever, or the Bruins to their peers, and current teams instead of some fantasy you have of what they should be. If we are going to criticize every time they win because it isn't good enough, then they deserve credit for games they were good enough but didn't win. Either winning is the only thing that matters or the way they play in every game win or lose does.

Rask is great, in fact elite by the numbers, and makes plenty of "clutch" saves. Don't let bias, selective memory, and focusing on only the 3rd period or what you think is important cloud that fact.

I will take a stats (objective) argument over the people on this board any day. But what do I know, I'm the biased fanboy that doesn't know how to look at things objectively apparently, or so I've been told by the (unbiased ) posters on this board.
Take a bow, sir.

This is up there in top 20 posts I have read on this board (likely read 100,000+).

Sadly, the Rask silliness will continue from people who should know better and Thomas' memory will continue to grow to sainthood until all his games are canonized.

Colt.45Orr is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2013, 07:48 AM
  #207
Kate08
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Kate08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Medford MA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,841
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colt.45Orr View Post
Take a bow, sir.

This is up there in top 20 posts I have read on this board (likely read 100,000+).

Sadly, the Rask silliness will continue from people who should know better and Thomas' memory will continue to grow to sainthood until all his games are canonized.
Good to know there isn't room around here to disagree without your opinion being labeled as stupid or silly.

Talk about someone that should know better.

Kate08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2013, 07:55 AM
  #208
WBC8
Registered User
 
WBC8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Da Wood, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 34,531
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to WBC8
I love Rask, he is top 5 statistically in his position...butttt Claude?

“Yeah, that’s what we need every once in a while,” Julien said. “Their goaltender [James Reimer] did the same thing at their end.”

Once in a while? Rask clearly has given the Bruins timely saves and more on most occasions this season. As center Patrice Bergeron pointed out following the game, the Bruins' recent struggles were the result of a lack of focus from his teammates in front of Rask.

WBC8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2013, 08:00 AM
  #209
ODAAT
Registered User
 
ODAAT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,064
vCash: 500
Rask is far from the problem, he let`s in softies just like every other NHL goalie.

Where I have concerns is his mindset to rebound and forget about those softies. I`m a massive fan of anyone who can stop the puck, could care less who it is, but one of Timmy`s greatests strengths was his absolute refusal, after a softie, to let anything so much as hit the post let alone get by him but he was special, his Cup run was special and I hardly predict I`ll see anything like that again in my lifetime and I need to remember that when "evaluating" (which I am not trained to do) Tuukka

ODAAT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2013, 08:41 AM
  #210
Riiseli
Unregistered User
 
Riiseli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: Finland
Posts: 442
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Riiseli
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjaustin77 View Post
If you are going to pick out every "unclutch" save or bad goal, then also start picking out every "clutch" save and good save.
This. Solid post overall and so this. I think Rask had two or three of these against Montreal. Now I don't think he let in any softies in that game, but I would've liked to see two more saves from him in the game. They definitely would've fitted the category of good saves.

This is slightly outdated and the stats have changed for the worse, but I'm sure people thought Rask was bad back when this was written too:
http://www.stanleycupofchowder.com/2...ch-goaltending

Riiseli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2013, 08:43 AM
  #211
Kaoz
Ima Krejciist.
 
Kaoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,580
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhamBamCam8 View Post
I love Rask, he is top 5 statistically in his position...butttt Claude?

“Yeah, that’s what we need every once in a while,” Julien said. “Their goaltender [James Reimer] did the same thing at their end.”

Once in a while? Rask clearly has given the Bruins timely saves and more on most occasions this season. As center Patrice Bergeron pointed out following the game, the Bruins' recent struggles were the result of a lack of focus from his teammates in front of Rask.
Rask seems to be unfairly compared to a guy that was able to make ridiculous game saving saves seemingly at will by even management. That's too much. Rask is actually more technically sound then Thomas was but has been facing far too many quality chances for being on a D first team.

What's worse is that people aren't comparing Rask to Thomas' entire body of work but rather his cup run. Thomas was at his best and had a performance of a lifetime. Expecting any starter to do that consistently is a recipe for disaster (but does however provide a full time scape goat).

People conveniently forget how Thomas was perceived before that cup run took place, and how he was often criticized for not being able to step up in big games (two big game 7 exits against Montreal, and Carolina after putting up ridiculously good regular seasons will do that). People were ready to anoint Rask the #1 before the cup for this very reason, and many were perplexed to put it mildly, when Thomas was given the chance to win back his starting job.

It's all revisionist history, there was never any big amount of faith in Thomas until he won it all. The masses were always saying "well he's good, but he's not vezina good", then "well he's good, but he's not two vezina good" and "well he's good, but can you ever see him backstopping a team to the cup finals?" Take out the cup run and Timmy lost 3 game 7 series (Montreal, Carolina, Washngton) despite great personal performances, proving nothing more then goalies can't do it all themselves.

Rask does what he needs to do in net and that's give Boston a chance every single game he plays. It's the same thing Thomas did. Just because the team isn't as successful as you want them to be in front of him doesn't change that.


Last edited by Kaoz: 03-29-2013 at 08:49 AM.
Kaoz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2013, 08:45 AM
  #212
LSCII
Dark Cloud
 
LSCII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Central MA
Country: United States
Posts: 24,008
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjaustin77 View Post
MTaylor - thanks for taking the heat. I don't have the time or energy to post much lately. You are right. Each goal means the same. The better you are earlier is actually more important than later though, because the other team now has to outplay you with less time to do it. The late goals only matter if you didn't do enough in the 1st 2 periods or 55 minutes.

The saves made in the 1st period, through 2 periods, through 55 minutes are actually more important than saves made in what people think is "clutch" which is contrary to what people are arguing against you.

I don't have time to post a sortable table but here are some numbers for people to chew on. (You can go to NHL.com under team stats - summary and sort these yourself if you want).

Team Pt % when scoring 1st (average is well within the first 20 minutes):
Highest - .882
Lowest - .421

Only 2 teams under .500. Making those 1st saves is very critical.

Now leading after a full 20 minutes:
Highest - 1.000 (1 team)
Lowest - .500

No team under .500 when leading after 1. So the goalie who lets in less goals is never going to have a losing record.

Now after 40 minutes:
Highest - 1.000 (3 teams)
Lowest - .545

Even better after 40 minutes. What a goalie does in the longer time period is most important, not what he does in the 3rd or last 5 minutes.

You want "clutch"? How about the shootout?

Rask has a .731 Sv% in the shootout in 26 shots. 4th best of anyone over 10 shots. The 3 above him Bishop, Pavelec and Lundqvist only have - 19, 16, and 19 shots faced respectively.

Rask makes many "clutch" saves. 1st period, 2nd period, 3rd period, OT, shootout. The eyes and mind are biased with great selective memory. The Bruins are +8 in 1st, +6 in the 2nd, and +7 in the 3rd. Looks pretty even to me, yet selective memory has everyone here in a panic over their 3rd period play. What about the games they have been great in the 3rd? It looks to me like there are a lot of them if they are a +7 with all of their blown leads.

The Bruins were .471 in 1 goal games in their cup season and people think they were great. They are .556 this year and people think they suck.

Clutch and momentum are fallacies. They aren't there - until they are, and then they aren't there again. Ortiz, ARod, Pats-49ers, Canadiens series, Canucks series, Hurricanes series, Caps series, last nights game.

Thomas gave up plenty of soft goals, including in every playoff series he has ever played which includes his cup run and finals. Had Thomas been "clutch" maybe we sweep Vancouver. Anyone remember the end of games 1 and 2? He was let off the hook in some games in the Montreal and Tampa series because the Bruins offense was great. Thomas let in some major softies in last year's Caps series. Only 2 and 2 in OT games, Game 5 - late Brouwer goal, game 6 - late Ovechkin goal. Carolina series - Walker.

People really need to look at the overall picture and what is actually most important. If you are going to pick out every "unclutch" save or bad goal, then also start picking out every "clutch" save and good save. Compare Rask, or whoever, or the Bruins to their peers, and current teams instead of some fantasy you have of what they should be. If we are going to criticize every time they win because it isn't good enough, then they deserve credit for games they were good enough but didn't win. Either winning is the only thing that matters or the way they play in every game win or lose does.

Rask is great, in fact elite by the numbers, and makes plenty of "clutch" saves. Don't let bias, selective memory, and focusing on only the 3rd period or what you think is important cloud that fact.

I will take a stats (objective) argument over the people on this board any day. But what do I know, I'm the biased fanboy that doesn't know how to look at things objectively apparently, or so I've been told by the (unbiased ) posters on this board.
So wait, you're saying a team that scores first wins more? Wow. Stunned by that. Shocking, actually.

What does whether they jump out to a lead early have to do with them blowing games late? You want to make blanket statements about all goals being equal, but even your stats don't bear that out. If the Bruins (and by extension Rask) were clutch, how is it they rank dead last in 3rd period goals allowed (22), yet lead the league in losses when leading after 2 periods? Somehow, despite giving up the least number of 3rd period goals in the league, they've managed to blow more games than anyone else.

To further my point, the Bruins are top 4 in wins after trailing and top 3 in winning % when trailing after 2 periods. In fact, to even take it a step further, Boston has scored the least amount of it's goals in the first period than any other time in their games. So your theory that scoring first is the key and that makes all goals equal, it doesn't hold up.

I'll make it simple for you: Sports aren't a stats class exercise. Sure you can measure and analyze the numbers all day long, but there's always an anomaly. People always want to dismiss the concept of clutch because it can't be measured and it's hard to quantify, yet you can always see it on display in every sport. Some guys stand tall in the big moments, others shrink. It's the human element, and no amount of number crunching can take that out of the games.

LSCII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2013, 08:47 AM
  #213
MarchandNoseBest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 695
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
Rask seems to be unfairly compared to a guy that was able to make ridiculous game saving saves seemingly at will by even management. That's too much. Rask is actually more technically sound then Thomas was but has been facing far too many quality chances for being on a D first team.

What's worse is that people aren't comparing Rask to Thomas' entire body of work but rather his cup run. Thomas was at his best and had a performance of a lifetime. Expecting any starter to do that consistently is a recipe for disaster (but does however provide a full time scape goat).

People conveniently forget how Thomas was perceived before that cup run took place, and how he was often criticized for not being able to step up in big games (two big game 7 exits against Montreal, and Carolina after putting up ridiculously good regular seasons will do that). People were read to anoint Rask the #1 before the cup for this very reason, and many were perplexed to put it mildly, when Thomas was given the chance to win back his starting job.

It's all revisionist history, there was never any big amount of faith in Thomas until he won it all. The masses were always saying "well he's good, but he's not vezina good", then "well he's good, but he's not two vezina good" and "well he's good, but can you ever see him backstopping a team to the cup finals?"

Rask does what he needs to do in net and that's give Boston a chance every single game he plays. It's the same thing Thomas did. Just because the team isn't as successful as you want them to be in front of him doesn't change that.
Great post. I've been mentioning similar things in other threads like the "missing Thomas" thread, but you put it into words far better than I ever could've.

MarchandNoseBest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2013, 08:55 AM
  #214
Latrappe
Selke winner
 
Latrappe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,836
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
Rask seems to be unfairly compared to a guy that was able to make ridiculous game saving saves seemingly at will by even management. That's too much. Rask is actually more technically sound then Thomas was but has been facing far too many quality chances for being on a D first team.

What's worse is that people aren't comparing Rask to Thomas' entire body of work but rather his cup run. Thomas was at his best and had a performance of a lifetime. Expecting any starter to do that consistently is a recipe for disaster (but does however provide a full time scape goat).

People conveniently forget how Thomas was perceived before that cup run took place, and how he was often criticized for not being able to step up in big games (two big game 7 exits against Montreal, and Carolina after putting up ridiculously good regular seasons will do that). People were ready to anoint Rask the #1 before the cup for this very reason, and many were perplexed to put it mildly, when Thomas was given the chance to win back his starting job.

It's all revisionist history, there was never any big amount of faith in Thomas until he won it all. The masses were always saying "well he's good, but he's not vezina good", then "well he's good, but he's not two vezina good" and "well he's good, but can you ever see him backstopping a team to the cup finals?" Take out the cup run and Timmy lost 3 game 7 series (Montreal, Carolina, Washngton) despite great personal performances, proving nothing more then goalies can't do it all themselves.

Rask does what he needs to do in net and that's give Boston a chance every single game he plays. It's the same thing Thomas did. Just because the team isn't as successful as you want them to be in front of him doesn't change that.
/thread. Very good post who put a lot of things in perspective.

Latrappe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2013, 09:09 AM
  #215
ReggieMoto
Registered User
 
ReggieMoto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Manchester, NH
Country: United States
Posts: 4,311
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to ReggieMoto
I'll add my two cents to this regarding my perception of Rask's performance in net.

1) I think too often he gets too far out of net and gets caught (one of the MTL goals was on this);
2) I am concerned about his high-glove-side abilities (too many other goals have been on this).

I think if he manages to get control of these two aspects of his game, he becomes a great goalie, which I don't feel he is yet.

He could also get better at handling the puck but they all mostly suck at that.

ReggieMoto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2013, 09:54 AM
  #216
hoss75
Registered User
 
hoss75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Cambridge, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 3,604
vCash: 500
This is Rask's only real problem: He's the starting goalie. Remember when "Manny was the much better goaltender than Thomas" or when "Thomas' Vezina was his peak and it was time to move on" and how there was "no way the B's could go on a deep play off RUn with him".

hoss75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2013, 01:41 PM
  #217
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
Rask seems to be unfairly compared to a guy that was able to make ridiculous game saving saves seemingly at will by even management. That's too much. Rask is actually more technically sound then Thomas was but has been facing far too many quality chances for being on a D first team.

What's worse is that people aren't comparing Rask to Thomas' entire body of work but rather his cup run. Thomas was at his best and had a performance of a lifetime. Expecting any starter to do that consistently is a recipe for disaster (but does however provide a full time scape goat).

People conveniently forget how Thomas was perceived before that cup run took place, and how he was often criticized for not being able to step up in big games (two big game 7 exits against Montreal, and Carolina after putting up ridiculously good regular seasons will do that). People were ready to anoint Rask the #1 before the cup for this very reason, and many were perplexed to put it mildly, when Thomas was given the chance to win back his starting job.

It's all revisionist history, there was never any big amount of faith in Thomas until he won it all. The masses were always saying "well he's good, but he's not vezina good", then "well he's good, but he's not two vezina good" and "well he's good, but can you ever see him backstopping a team to the cup finals?" Take out the cup run and Timmy lost 3 game 7 series (Montreal, Carolina, Washngton) despite great personal performances, proving nothing more then goalies can't do it all themselves.

Rask does what he needs to do in net and that's give Boston a chance every single game he plays. It's the same thing Thomas did. Just because the team isn't as successful as you want them to be in front of him doesn't change that.
Good post. I have disagreed with you often, but am finding myself liking more of your posts lately.

The B's actually have a much higher Point% than the Cup year. Nothing is ever good enough for many on this board even when things are better than the cup year. It is Cup or go home, and you better look pretty doing it winning every game 8 to 0, outhitting your opponent every time and winning a couple fights.

sjaustin77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2013, 01:59 PM
  #218
WBC8
Registered User
 
WBC8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Da Wood, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 34,531
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to WBC8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
Rask seems to be unfairly compared to a guy that was able to make ridiculous game saving saves seemingly at will by even management. That's too much. Rask is actually more technically sound then Thomas was but has been facing far too many quality chances for being on a D first team.

What's worse is that people aren't comparing Rask to Thomas' entire body of work but rather his cup run. Thomas was at his best and had a performance of a lifetime. Expecting any starter to do that consistently is a recipe for disaster (but does however provide a full time scape goat).

People conveniently forget how Thomas was perceived before that cup run took place, and how he was often criticized for not being able to step up in big games (two big game 7 exits against Montreal, and Carolina after putting up ridiculously good regular seasons will do that). People were ready to anoint Rask the #1 before the cup for this very reason, and many were perplexed to put it mildly, when Thomas was given the chance to win back his starting job.

It's all revisionist history, there was never any big amount of faith in Thomas until he won it all. The masses were always saying "well he's good, but he's not vezina good", then "well he's good, but he's not two vezina good" and "well he's good, but can you ever see him backstopping a team to the cup finals?" Take out the cup run and Timmy lost 3 game 7 series (Montreal, Carolina, Washngton) despite great personal performances, proving nothing more then goalies can't do it all themselves.

Rask does what he needs to do in net and that's give Boston a chance every single game he plays. It's the same thing Thomas did. Just because the team isn't as successful as you want them to be in front of him doesn't change that.
Thomas play-off career

07-08 .914 sv 2.65gaa
08-09 .935 sv 1.85 gaa
10-11 .929sv 2.05 gaa
11-12 .923sv 2.15gaa

Rask

09-10 .912 sv 2.61gaa

WBC8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2013, 02:16 PM
  #219
nycbruins*
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 4,933
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSCII View Post
So wait, you're saying a team that scores first wins more? Wow. Stunned by that. Shocking, actually.

What does whether they jump out to a lead early have to do with them blowing games late? You want to make blanket statements about all goals being equal, but even your stats don't bear that out. If the Bruins (and by extension Rask) were clutch, how is it they rank dead last in 3rd period goals allowed (22), yet lead the league in losses when leading after 2 periods? Somehow, despite giving up the least number of 3rd period goals in the league, they've managed to blow more games than anyone else.

To further my point, the Bruins are top 4 in wins after trailing and top 3 in winning % when trailing after 2 periods. In fact, to even take it a step further, Boston has scored the least amount of it's goals in the first period than any other time in their games. So your theory that scoring first is the key and that makes all goals equal, it doesn't hold up.

I'll make it simple for you: Sports aren't a stats class exercise. Sure you can measure and analyze the numbers all day long, but there's always an anomaly. People always want to dismiss the concept of clutch because it can't be measured and it's hard to quantify, yet you can always see it on display in every sport. Some guys stand tall in the big moments, others shrink. It's the human element, and no amount of number crunching can take that out of the games.
We've had some crazy arguments but this is the best post in the thread, IMO.

Break out all the statistical analysis you want, Tuukka has an established record of choking when it matters most. Not a huge sample size, but not too small to notice it. And the eye test works well, too. In the 3rd period, he is a pretty easy goalie to beat. All goalies face increased pressure in the 3rd period of games. Tuukka just doesn't handle it well. And we he gives up one, he tends to give up a 2nd or 3rd pretty quickly. Bruins get the lead back, or build it to 2, & he tends to give up goals even more easily.

I believe he can turn it around, but you want to pay a goalie $5-6 million in a Julien system where all goalies put up good #'s? then we need more than this.

And Julien sees it too. He's made comments, he's started Khudobin twice in a row. He knows he's not getting what he wants when he wants it from Tuukka. Pretty confident Khudobin and/or Svedberg could perform like this in Julien's system. Question is can they stop pucks in the 3rd period. Tuukka hasn't proved that yet, either.

nycbruins* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2013, 02:22 PM
  #220
Neely08
Registered User
 
Neely08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: North of Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 17,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
Rask seems to be unfairly compared to a guy that was able to make ridiculous game saving saves seemingly at will by even management. That's too much. Rask is actually more technically sound then Thomas was but has been facing far too many quality chances for being on a D first team.

What's worse is that people aren't comparing Rask to Thomas' entire body of work but rather his cup run. Thomas was at his best and had a performance of a lifetime. Expecting any starter to do that consistently is a recipe for disaster (but does however provide a full time scape goat).

People conveniently forget how Thomas was perceived before that cup run took place, and how he was often criticized for not being able to step up in big games (two big game 7 exits against Montreal, and Carolina after putting up ridiculously good regular seasons will do that). People were ready to anoint Rask the #1 before the cup for this very reason, and many were perplexed to put it mildly, when Thomas was given the chance to win back his starting job.

It's all revisionist history, there was never any big amount of faith in Thomas until he won it all. The masses were always saying "well he's good, but he's not vezina good", then "well he's good, but he's not two vezina good" and "well he's good, but can you ever see him backstopping a team to the cup finals?" Take out the cup run and Timmy lost 3 game 7 series (Montreal, Carolina, Washngton) despite great personal performances, proving nothing more then goalies can't do it all themselves.

Rask does what he needs to do in net and that's give Boston a chance every single game he plays. It's the same thing Thomas did. Just because the team isn't as successful as you want them to be in front of him doesn't change that.
That's not entirely true. Before 08/09 I was not a believer at all. After the Carolina series I said that; if you put a team that can score and defend in front of TT, he'll take you all the way. Many agreed, many disagreed, some even laughed. Some of his detractors even discounted his Vezina. 2011....*crickets*.

You can say he lost 3 big game 7's. Or you can say he had the Bruins one goal away from advancing in two of them, and they couldn't get it done. You can't have it both ways w/ Tuukka now, either. I don't remember a lot slack being given to Timmy in regard to "blown coverage", either. In fact, I can remember a lot of people saying, "so what? when are going to get a big save out of Thomas?".

Fair to ask the same of Tuukka? Or no?

In fairness to Tuukka, does he have a team right now that can defend, and score? Not all the time. But, lets not pretend TT ever had it 88 Oilers easy in the goal support department, either.

I think Tuukka has another level he hasn't gone to yet. Just my opinion.

Neely08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2013, 03:10 PM
  #221
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSCII View Post
So wait, you're saying a team that scores first wins more? Wow. Stunned by that. Shocking, actually.

What does whether they jump out to a lead early have to do with them blowing games late? You want to make blanket statements about all goals being equal, but even your stats don't bear that out. If the Bruins (and by extension Rask) were clutch, how is it they rank dead last in 3rd period goals allowed (22), yet lead the league in losses when leading after 2 periods? Somehow, despite giving up the least number of 3rd period goals in the league, they've managed to blow more games than anyone else.

To further my point, the Bruins are top 4 in wins after trailing and top 3 in winning % when trailing after 2 periods. In fact, to even take it a step further, Boston has scored the least amount of it's goals in the first period than any other time in their games. So your theory that scoring first is the key and that makes all goals equal, it doesn't hold up.

I'll make it simple for you: Sports aren't a stats class exercise. Sure you can measure and analyze the numbers all day long, but there's always an anomaly. People always want to dismiss the concept of clutch because it can't be measured and it's hard to quantify, yet you can always see it on display in every sport. Some guys stand tall in the big moments, others shrink. It's the human element, and no amount of number crunching can take that out of the games.
Sports aren't a stat class exercise, but you have no idea how to use them so maybe you should take one. Once again you are trying to pick out pieces of an argument (small sample) while I am looking at a the whole picture. You are even doing that wrong. Let me go through it for you.

Yes the teams that scores 1st wins more. So conversely what I am actually saying is that early goalie play is critical, even more so than late goalie play. Next, I am not talking about timing of the goals at all. It isn't when they are scored, it is just the simple fact that teams that get the lead after 5 minutes, after 1 period, after 2 periods wins more at each stage because there is now less time and the other team is playing from behind. I'll make it simple for you. At first there are 60 minutes and you start tied. Anytime after that there are less minutes, so if you are down you now need to score at least 2 goals to win with less time to do it.

I don't think I said anything about jumping out to an early lead having anything to do with blowing games late, but I'll tell you what it has to do with it - If you don't have a lead, you can't blow a lead. Would you rather have Rask give up early goals and the Bruins always playing from behind? My stats actually do bear out what I'm saying. I'm also not saying the Bruins or Rask are clutch. However to answer your question on why they can rank dead last in 3rd period GA but lead the league in losses is because of their offense which I showed in another post.

Paragraph 2, you didn't further your point at all. Look at percentages - not where the Bruins rank. The Bruins are .818 when leading after the first. They are .250 when trailing after one. So yes scoring the first goal is key and all goals are equal. Again it isn't the timing - it is the time left in the game. Also look at all the teams not just one. Every single team is .500 or better when leading after 1. Only 6 teams are even better than .385 when trailing after 1. After 2 - only 1 team is even .500.

Paragraph 3. Yes there are always anomalies. You like to pick and choose any anomaly against every one of my arguments and think it proves your point - It doesn't. Anomalies are just that and nothing more. Stop looking at such limited data and look at the aggregate data. Clutch doesn't exist, in fact from the articles I've seen; any data that tried to prove clutch existed with "clutch" players, actually showed they were less effective in the "clutch". What you see that you think is clutch is just any other game or momemt, that you are assigning as big, and remembering that as opposed to all the times the player was not clutch in the same exact moments. Everyone remembers the winner but not the loser.

If you do believe in clutch, the 3rd period numbers show that Rask would be clutch.

Here is an exercise for you. Before looking at any numbers, pick out 20 players (or whatever decent sample size you want) in each of the 4 major sports that you think are clutch, and check to see if they are. I'll bet there is no significant difference in their performance. I would actually be very surprised if it didn't show worse performance.

Look I enjoy these discussions with you, but if you are going to keep disagreeing with every one of my arguments, then you need to come up with something better than misreading my argument, anomalies, small sample sizes, and I can't prove it but I know I see it. I'm the one doing all the work here. If you can prove me wrong, then do it. Take a large data set before looking at the numbers. Then present the numbers and don't just pick out the ones that work for your argument.

sjaustin77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2013, 03:25 PM
  #222
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nycbruins View Post
We've had some crazy arguments but this is the best post in the thread, IMO.

Break out all the statistical analysis you want, Tuukka has an established record of choking when it matters most. Not a huge sample size, but not too small to notice it. And the eye test works well, too. In the 3rd period, he is a pretty easy goalie to beat. All goalies face increased pressure in the 3rd period of games. Tuukka just doesn't handle it well. And we he gives up one, he tends to give up a 2nd or 3rd pretty quickly. Bruins get the lead back, or build it to 2, & he tends to give up goals even more easily.

I believe he can turn it around, but you want to pay a goalie $5-6 million in a Julien system where all goalies put up good #'s? then we need more than this.

And Julien sees it too. He's made comments, he's started Khudobin twice in a row. He knows he's not getting what he wants when he wants it from Tuukka. Pretty confident Khudobin and/or Svedberg could perform like this in Julien's system. Question is can they stop pucks in the 3rd period. Tuukka hasn't proved that yet, either.
No he doesn't and your eye test sucks. Look at the numbers and read this since you missed it the first time. http://www.stanleycupofchowder.com/2...ch-goaltending

Julien started Khudobin twice in a row and he blew the 2nd game. If he isn't getting what he wants from Rask he won't get it from any other goalie either. Maybe he should look at the rest of the team and not place the blame on Rask.

In this same system Rask is playing better than Khudobin. Khudobin is actually older too and has all of 16 career games played. Svedberg none.

Tuukka has proven he can stop pucks in the 3rd period.

sjaustin77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2013, 03:35 PM
  #223
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely08 View Post
That's not entirely true. Before 08/09 I was not a believer at all. After the Carolina series I said that; if you put a team that can score and defend in front of TT, he'll take you all the way. Many agreed, many disagreed, some even laughed. Some of his detractors even discounted his Vezina. 2011....*crickets*.

You can say he lost 3 big game 7's. Or you can say he had the Bruins one goal away from advancing in two of them, and they couldn't get it done. You can't have it both ways w/ Tuukka now, either. I don't remember a lot slack being given to Timmy in regard to "blown coverage", either. In fact, I can remember a lot of people saying, "so what? when are going to get a big save out of Thomas?".

Fair to ask the same of Tuukka? Or no?

In fairness to Tuukka, does he have a team right now that can defend, and score? Not all the time. But, lets not pretend TT ever had it 88 Oilers easy in the goal support department, either.

I think Tuukka has another level he hasn't gone to yet. Just my opinion.
Thanks for a level post from someone I have seen be very critical of Rask.

However he does make plenty of big saves, early and late. People are only remembering the ones that go in, and I think on most there should have been no reasonable expectation of a save.

I hope you are right because if Tuukka has another level and he does it for any sustained period - he will be considered one of the best goalies of all-time. The best if the Bruins are good, healthy, and lucky enough to win a cup or 2.

sjaustin77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2013, 03:46 PM
  #224
LSCII
Dark Cloud
 
LSCII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Central MA
Country: United States
Posts: 24,008
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjaustin77 View Post
Sports aren't a stat class exercise, but you have no idea how to use them so maybe you should take one. Once again you are trying to pick out pieces of an argument (small sample) while I am looking at a the whole picture. You are even doing that wrong. Let me go through it for you.

Yes the teams that scores 1st wins more. So conversely what I am actually saying is that early goalie play is critical, even more so than late goalie play. Next, I am not talking about timing of the goals at all. It isn't when they are scored, it is just the simple fact that teams that get the lead after 5 minutes, after 1 period, after 2 periods wins more at each stage because there is now less time and the other team is playing from behind. I'll make it simple for you. At first there are 60 minutes and you start tied. Anytime after that there are less minutes, so if you are down you now need to score at least 2 goals to win with less time to do it.

I don't think I said anything about jumping out to an early lead having anything to do with blowing games late, but I'll tell you what it has to do with it - If you don't have a lead, you can't blow a lead. Would you rather have Rask give up early goals and the Bruins always playing from behind? My stats actually do bear out what I'm saying. I'm also not saying the Bruins or Rask are clutch. However to answer your question on why they can rank dead last in 3rd period GA but lead the league in losses is because of their offense which I showed in another post.

Paragraph 2, you didn't further your point at all. Look at percentages - not where the Bruins rank. The Bruins are .818 when leading after the first. They are .250 when trailing after one. So yes scoring the first goal is key and all goals are equal. Again it isn't the timing - it is the time left in the game. Also look at all the teams not just one. Every single team is .500 or better when leading after 1. Only 6 teams are even better than .385 when trailing after 1. After 2 - only 1 team is even .500.

Paragraph 3. Yes there are always anomalies. You like to pick and choose any anomaly against every one of my arguments and think it proves your point - It doesn't. Anomalies are just that and nothing more. Stop looking at such limited data and look at the aggregate data. Clutch doesn't exist, in fact from the articles I've seen; any data that tried to prove clutch existed with "clutch" players, actually showed they were less effective in the "clutch". What you see that you think is clutch is just any other game or momemt, that you are assigning as big, and remembering that as opposed to all the times the player was not clutch in the same exact moments. Everyone remembers the winner but not the loser.

If you do believe in clutch, the 3rd period numbers show that Rask would be clutch.

Here is an exercise for you. Before looking at any numbers, pick out 20 players (or whatever decent sample size you want) in each of the 4 major sports that you think are clutch, and check to see if they are. I'll bet there is no significant difference in their performance. I would actually be very surprised if it didn't show worse performance.

Look I enjoy these discussions with you, but if you are going to keep disagreeing with every one of my arguments, then you need to come up with something better than misreading my argument, anomalies, small sample sizes, and I can't prove it but I know I see it. I'm the one doing all the work here. If you can prove me wrong, then do it. Take a large data set before looking at the numbers. Then present the numbers and don't just pick out the ones that work for your argument.
Wow. Condescending, snarky, overly defensive. I really must have struck a nerve. For the record, I approve this message.

I have zero interest in processing spreadsheets. That's your bag, and I'm happy to leave you to it. All I'm doing is disagreeing with what you say. It's also very ironic that you accuse me of picking and choosing data sets that fit my argument, when most of your analysis consists of including multipliers and advanced stats that are designed to do nothing more than fit your argument. In other words, pot meet kettle.

Like I've always said, I appreciate the amount of effort you put in, but in this case, I simply disagree that a goal is a goal is a goal. It's not. Context matters. Some guys recognize and embrace the moment, some don't and fail. Where Rask ends up in that is yet to be determined.

LSCII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2013, 04:06 PM
  #225
WBC8
Registered User
 
WBC8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Da Wood, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 34,531
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to WBC8
Rask third periods in Jan-Feb

14 games, 2 ga, 0.43 gavg, .985 svpct

Rask third periods in March

10 games, 10 ga 3.00 gavg, .882 svpct

given up 3rd period goals in 7 of his 24 appearances, including 7ga in his past 4g in the 3rd.

WBC8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:29 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.