HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Notices

The Carey Price Discussion Thread (Part 5)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-24-2013, 02:53 PM
  #76
dmanfish90
How about 76 for 25?
 
dmanfish90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Waterloo/TOR (Sigh)
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,498
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to dmanfish90
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsfanatics View Post
I've forgotten more about hockey than you will ever know. I'm not even close to trying to run Price out of town. I think we're fine with a top 10-15 goalie and that is all I expect. I take exception to the blind support and over the top evaluations though.

Continually put the team down in order to prop up one player.

I have never mentioned Craig Anderson in this thread. I'm not sure what your entire first two paragraphs are about, but whatever.

The intelligent thoughts haven't been posted by you, mostly everything you have posted is incorrect BS.
Same thing about u.

I brought up Craig Anderson because people think (especially Sens fans) that he's the best goalie ever or a Top 5 Goalie now. Now, I'll agree to this statement, except for the fact that he's losing it against PIT right now.

Now outside the last 2.25 seasons, Craig Anderson did **** all. He was almost a nobody, not even a Top 10 goalie. Then all of a sudden he starts playing well? Why do you think this happens? Maybe a change of team, maybe cuz he's older and in his prime, maybe a combination of both?

Whatever it may be, the key for me is if you look at Carey's career stats during the regular season and the same for Craig's, they are almost the EXACT SAME, save for Carey's GAA #s which is LOWER.

It's funny how u mention that all my posts are BS when I ahve multiple posters on this thread sharing somewhat similar thoughts and opinions as I do...why don't you call them out too while you're at it as well...

dmanfish90 is offline  
Old
05-24-2013, 02:55 PM
  #77
dmanfish90
How about 76 for 25?
 
dmanfish90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Waterloo/TOR (Sigh)
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,498
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to dmanfish90
Quote:
Originally Posted by montreal961 View Post
Agreed.

I was only trying to add emphasis to my point. What i was trying to get at is that i would rather trade Markov, Gorges, or Diaz in haste, than trade Price, since Price has the potential to be a franchise player, while the others really do not have that same impact. Not suggesting that we trade any of these players however. One bad year should not spell the end of a player IMO, which goes for both Price and those 3 dmen.
Yes yes I would definitely agree. In haste, Markov (highest value) would be my first to go, sadly (Love the General), then Gorges and Diaz.

Agreed, agreed, agreed.

Faith in humanity: RESTORED.

dmanfish90 is offline  
Old
05-24-2013, 02:58 PM
  #78
Pricenyuk
Montreal961
 
Pricenyuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,431
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmanfish90 View Post
Yes yes I would definitely agree. In haste, Markov (highest value) would be my first to go, sadly (Love the General), then Gorges and Diaz.

Agreed, agreed, agreed.

Faith in humanity: RESTORED.

Even with this thread, there may still be hope for us after all

Pricenyuk is offline  
Old
05-24-2013, 03:02 PM
  #79
habsfanatics
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,430
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmanfish90 View Post
MB >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PG + BG put together.

What he did in less than 12 months is way better than anything Gainey or Gauthier ever did. Traded Cole for Ryder and got a 3rd pick back. He signed Prust, Bouillon (plays well defensively as a 6th defenseman), etc.

I mean why else would the NHL have him as a finalist for GM of the Year. But hey was Bob Gainey or Pierre Gauthier ever recognized for their "efforts" in their first year as a rookie GM behind a team like the Montreal Canadiens? Didn't think so...

Call me a "GM vote-of-confidence virgin" all you want, I have faith in Bergevin and nothign you or any other illogical poster here is going to make me believe otherwise.



Explain this to me:

http://www.nhl.com/ice/playerstats.h...savePercentage

For the top 10 goalies that faced the most shots in the NHL, why do 6 have a Save % above .919, 7 have a % above a .914 and 9 of them have a % above .909.

Explain this to me then using your less shots are less scoring chances...

Have you ever heard of "Fire a ton of shots at the goalie, he gets into a rhythm, he gets hot and you can't put one past him" argument? Is that not true too? Even though we saw an example of this pretty recently (I think it was like 3-4 weeks ago...)

Explain.
No, it's not really true at all. It makes for a nice narrative, but it's not really true. Goalies get more shutouts when the face 20 shots or fewer than they do if they face 40 shots or more.

As far as the SV% stats, it's easier to have a slightly better sv % with a few higher shots. A goalie that gives up 2 goals on 30 shots vs a goalie who gives up 2 on 20 shots, chances are they both played pretty well, but the one with 30 shots will have the better numbers, regardless this has nothing to do with what I am talking about.

Shooting % will usually regress to the mean, shot quality is not the driving force behind goals, shots are. The reason the goal scorers are the top goal scorers is because they take way more shots.

As far as team stats go, the team that shoot more will score more, the top guys with top shooting % balance out the guys who aren't particularly good shooters. It's not always about goals it's about how those goals were created, by every metric, the habs were the real deal this year. They ran into some bad luck, a hot Anderson and had a struggling goalie of their own.

Looking at these numbers, the Leafs are good bet to miss the playoffs completely next year. Wait and see.

48/82 games, why the arbitrary cut off at a full season? You think 82 is significant sample too I suppose?


Last edited by habsfanatics: 05-24-2013 at 03:07 PM.
habsfanatics is offline  
Old
05-24-2013, 03:06 PM
  #80
habsfanatics
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,430
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmanfish90 View Post
Same thing about u.

I brought up Craig Anderson because people think (especially Sens fans) that he's the best goalie ever or a Top 5 Goalie now. Now, I'll agree to this statement, except for the fact that he's losing it against PIT right now.

Now outside the last 2.25 seasons, Craig Anderson did **** all. He was almost a nobody, not even a Top 10 goalie. Then all of a sudden he starts playing well? Why do you think this happens? Maybe a change of team, maybe cuz he's older and in his prime, maybe a combination of both?

Whatever it may be, the key for me is if you look at Carey's career stats during the regular season and the same for Craig's, they are almost the EXACT SAME, save for Carey's GAA #s which is LOWER.

It's funny how u mention that all my posts are BS when I ahve multiple posters on this thread sharing somewhat similar thoughts and opinions as I do...why don't you call them out too while you're at it as well...
Everything I have stated is by definition factually correct. I've posted the numbers to back it up, you have posted what your emotions and what you think your eyes are seeing. We're a creature of habit and often see what we want to see. You are no different.

I think you are trying to imply that I am a Price hater. I am not. I like him and think e's going to be fine and for the most part has not been a major problem. My only contention is that he is not a top 5 goalie, when ranking players at their current rank in the league has nothing to do with age or whatever else you conjure up. The question is simple, is he top or is he not? Is he top 5 for his age group, probably, is he top 5 in the league, no. At some point in time, we have to evaluate Price on his experience, not his age. He's a veteran goalie now, he'll be better next year can't always be the answer.

habsfanatics is offline  
Old
05-24-2013, 03:14 PM
  #81
dmanfish90
How about 76 for 25?
 
dmanfish90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Waterloo/TOR (Sigh)
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,498
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to dmanfish90
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsfanatics View Post
No, it's not really true at all. It makes for a nice narrative, but it's not really true. Goalies get more shutouts when the face 20 shots or fewer than they do if they face 40 shots or more.

As far as the SV% stats, it's easier to have a slightly better sv % with a few higher shots. A goalie that gives up 2 goals on 30 shots vs a goalie who gives up 2 on 20 shots, chances are they both played pretty well, but the one with 30 shots will have the better numbers, regardless this has nothing to do with what I am talking about.

Shooting % will usually regress to the mean, shot quality is not the driving for behind goals, shots are. The reason the goal scorers are the top goal scorers is because they take way more shots.

As far as team stats go, the team that shoot more will score more, the top guys with top shooting % balance out the guys who aren't particularly good shooters. It's not always about goals it's about how those goals were created, by every metric, the habs were the real deal this year. They ran into some bad luck, a hot Anderson and had a struggling goalie of their own.

Looking at these numbers, the Leafs are good bet to miss the playoffs completely next year. Wait and see.

48/82 games, why the arbitrary cut off at a full season? You think 82 is significant sample too I suppose?
Take a look at this:

http://www.nhl.com/ice/playerstats.h...me=shootingAll

and this:

http://www.nhl.com/ice/playerstats.h...me=shootingAll

Now taking into account on the second link, removing any player who played less than 30 GP this season, the only people on the first link in the top 30 of Shot % (playing 30GP or more remember) are Steven Stamkos, Jonathan Tavares, and Patrick Kane.

So again explain to me your theory of shoot more shots, get more goals...

48 games is a larger sample size than 82 games. 82 is still a small sample, but it is bigger than 48. You used a 48-game sample size as evidence for your argument...

dmanfish90 is offline  
Old
05-24-2013, 03:18 PM
  #82
dmanfish90
How about 76 for 25?
 
dmanfish90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Waterloo/TOR (Sigh)
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,498
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to dmanfish90
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsfanatics View Post
Everything I have stated is by definition factually correct. I've posted the numbers to back it up, you have posted what your emotions and what you think your eyes are seeing. We're a creature of habit and often see what we want to see. You are no different.

I think you are trying to imply that I am a Price hater. I am not. I like him and think e's going to be fine and for the most part has not been a major problem. My only contention is that he is not a top 5 goalie, when ranking players at their current rank in the league has nothing to do with age or whatever else you conjure up. The question is simple, is he top or is he not? Is he top 5 for his age group, probably, is he top 5 in the league, no. At some point in time, we have to evaluate Price on his experience, not his age. He's a veteran goalie now, he'll be better next year can't always be the answer.
Quote:
habs are the real deal
So by your definition, you're taking as fact that the Habs were SC Contenders this year?

That in itself is factually incorrect. Who in their right mind would think that a team that finished 15th in their Conference the previous season, makes minimal changes to their lineup, is all of a sudden "the real deal"

C'MON MAN. Don't call me out for spewing BS and than spew BS yourself. LIES. ALL MOTHER****ING LIES.

No i don't think you're a hater, but you're bordering on one. The reason why you're so passionate "against" Price (i use that in quotes cuz you're not actually against him) is because of my passion "for" Price.

However, I don't think any of your arguments you've shown me have any logic behind them. Stats are great some instances, but in most you have to use hockey knowledge in general to come to conclusions, like what I said about Anderson and Price.

dmanfish90 is offline  
Old
05-24-2013, 03:29 PM
  #83
habsfanatics
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,430
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmanfish90 View Post
Take a look at this:

http://www.nhl.com/ice/playerstats.h...me=shootingAll

and this:

http://www.nhl.com/ice/playerstats.h...me=shootingAll

Now taking into account on the second link, removing any player who played less than 30 GP this season, the only people on the first link in the top 30 of Shot % (playing 30GP or more remember) are Steven Stamkos, Jonathan Tavares, and Patrick Kane.

So again explain to me your theory of shoot more shots, get more goals...

48 games is a larger sample size than 82 games. 82 is still a small sample, but it is bigger than 48. You used a 48-game sample size as evidence for your argument...
The top goal scorers are almost always those who take the most shots. However, there is some random variation at play here or luck and there will be some anomalies every year, the reason being, is that 82 games is no less of an arbitrary number than 48, both are small sample sizes. Generally speaking, the top goal scorers variation in shooting % is plus/minus 5% of one another, some of this is because some have a slightly better shot, but they score consistently because of their high shot volume, take the top 10 goal scorers over the past 5 years and see how many shots they took, they'll all be near the top is shots created over that time.

Ovy is a prime example, winning rocket Richards because he took sometimes 100 shots more than his closest rival, his sh% was nowhere near the top.


Last edited by habsfanatics: 05-24-2013 at 03:42 PM.
habsfanatics is offline  
Old
05-24-2013, 03:33 PM
  #84
habsfanatics
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,430
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmanfish90 View Post
So by your definition, you're taking as fact that the Habs were SC Contenders this year?

That in itself is factually incorrect. Who in their right mind would think that a team that finished 15th in their Conference the previous season, makes minimal changes to their lineup, is all of a sudden "the real deal"

C'MON MAN. Don't call me out for spewing BS and than spew BS yourself. LIES. ALL MOTHER****ING LIES.

No i don't think you're a hater, but you're bordering on one. The reason why you're so passionate "against" Price (i use that in quotes cuz you're not actually against him) is because of my passion "for" Price.

However, I don't think any of your arguments you've shown me have any logic behind them. Stats are great some instances, but in most you have to use hockey knowledge in general to come to conclusions, like what I said about Anderson and Price.
Stats tell more than your eyes, a combination of stats and eyes is the best. Most of us don't see nearly enough of the other 25 goalies we rank price ahead of. If you want to claim that you watch all 30 goalies enough to form a valid opinion, go for it, I think you're full of it. Sometimes the numbers are the best we got.

habsfanatics is offline  
Old
05-24-2013, 03:51 PM
  #85
dmanfish90
How about 76 for 25?
 
dmanfish90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Waterloo/TOR (Sigh)
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,498
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to dmanfish90
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsfanatics View Post
The top goal scorers are almost always those who take the most shots. However, there is some random variation at play here or luck and there will be some anomalies every year, the reason being, is that 82 games is no less of an arbitrary number than 48, both are small sample sizes. Generally speaking, the top goal scorers variation in shooting % is plus/minus 5% of one another, some of this is because some have a slightly better shot, but they score consistently because of their high shot volume, take the top 10 goal scorers over the past 5 years and see how many shots they took, they'll all be near the top is shots created over that time.
For length of this post's sake, let's go back 3 years:

2012-13

Top 10 Goal Scorers:
Alexander Ovechkin (32)
Steven Stamkos (29)
John Tavares (28)
Jeff Carter (26)
Patrick Kane (23)
Jonathan Toews (23)
Jiri Tlusty (23)
Chris Kunitz (22)
Jakub Voracek (22)
Nash/Couture/Neal (21)

Top 10 Shot Takers:
Alexander Ovechkin (220)
Evander Kane (190)
Zach Parise (182)
David Clarkson (180)
Rick Nash (176)
Henrik Zetterberg (173)
Max Pacioretty (163)
John Tavares (162)
Phil Kessel (161)
Tyler Seguin (161)

Only 30% of the top 10 shooters were among the top 10 goal scoring leaders.

2011-12

Top 10 Goal Scorers:
Steven Stamkos (60)
Evgeni Malkin (50)
Marian Gaborik (41)
James Neal (40)
Alexander Ovechkin (38)
Ilya Kovalchuk (37)
Phil Kessel (37)
Scott Hartnell (37)
Corey Perry (37)
Matt Moulson (36)

Top 10 Shot Takers:
Evgeni Malkin (339)
James Neal (329)
Ilya Kovalchuk (310)
Rick Nash (306)
Steven Stamkos (303)
Alexander Ovechkin (303)
Phil Kessel (295)
Zach Parise (293)
Evander Kane (287)
John Tavares (286)
Max Pacioretty (286)

So 6/11 shooters in the Top 10 (Pacioretty and Tavares tied, so they are both included) were in Top 10 for Goal Scoring. Okay last year is fine.

2010-11

Top 10 Goal Scorers:
Corey Perry (50)
Steven Stamkos (45)
Jarome Iginla (43)
Daniel Sedin (41)
Ryan Kessler (41)
Patrick Marleau (37)
Jeff Carter (36)
Bobby Ryan (34)
Patrick Sharp (34)
Danny Briere (34)
Michael Grabner (34)

Top 10 Shot Takers:
Alexander Ovechkin
Dustin Byfuglien
Jeff Carter
Phil Kessel
Henrik Zetterberg
Rick Nash
Brian Gionta
Eric Staal
Corey Perry
Jarome Iginla

Only 30% of the Top 10 Shot Takers were among the Top 10 Goal Scorers.

I know it's a small sample space but...

dmanfish90 is offline  
Old
05-24-2013, 03:53 PM
  #86
dmanfish90
How about 76 for 25?
 
dmanfish90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Waterloo/TOR (Sigh)
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,498
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to dmanfish90
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsfanatics View Post
Stats tell more than your eyes, a combination of stats and eyes is the best. Most of us don't see nearly enough of the other 25 goalies we rank price ahead of. If you want to claim that you watch all 30 goalies enough to form a valid opinion, go for it, I think you're full of it. Sometimes the numbers are the best we got.
I use a combo of numbers, team make-up/roster, and common opinions among smart NHL analysts to come up with my decisions.

Before this season, a lot of analysts maybe wouldn't have had Price in their Top 5 based on the cluster**** that was the Habs season in 2011-12, but he played well, DESPITE WHAT HIS STATS SHOW.

I'm not full of it. Tell me that last year Carey Price didn't have a good season with a straight face.

dmanfish90 is offline  
Old
05-24-2013, 04:02 PM
  #87
habsfanatics
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,430
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmanfish90 View Post
I use a combo of numbers, team make-up/roster, and common opinions among smart NHL analysts to come up with my decisions.

Before this season, a lot of analysts maybe wouldn't have had Price in their Top 5 based on the cluster**** that was the Habs season in 2011-12, but he played well, DESPITE WHAT HIS STATS SHOW.

I'm not full of it. Tell me that last year Carey Price didn't have a good season with a straight face.
Who determines the smart ones from the not so smart ones? BTW: How often are these analysts actually right? Seems for the most part they have us missing the playoffs every year and last year was about the only time in recent memory they got it right, even a blind squirrel finds a nut. I also think this opinion is over stated. They watch way less habs hockey than any of us. I haven't missed an entire habs game in roughly 10 years. I have played and been around hockey my entire life, many of the posters on this board are no different. I'd take the opinions of whitesnake, krisse, andy, lafleursguy, rhiessin, ohashi, ozymandias, overlords, habsfan18, whisky7, wethreekings, ect ect ect over many of those guys. We've watched more habs hockey than any of them.

When your analysts consist of PJ Stockton, Kelly Hrudey, Don Cherry, Glen Healy, Milbury, Torterella, Kipper ect, who the hell really cares about these guys, most of them wouldn't know a good hockey player if they fell over one. Out of the bunch, I like Pierre Lebrun, Mac, Friedman, Weekes, the rest are bad/terrible. I didn't include the rds cast as they are the worst of the bunch.

I won't say he was great last year, definitely has no claim to top 5, but he certainly was the least of our problems.

You went back 3 years and took the numbers for the individual years only. Sry, doesn't pass the smell test.

There are anomalies like cheechoo/lupol every year, because the game is a game of chance/luck. you need at least 5 years and to take the average over those 5 years.

What you did is take 3 separate sample sizes and call them one. Some numbers are unsustainable and every year, the league leader in goals is in the top 5 in shots, and so usually is number 2 and so on, there are the odd guys that get in the mix like perry/cheecoo ect, they are the exception, not the rule and usually never do it again, you need the sample size to eliminate these players.


Last edited by habsfanatics: 05-24-2013 at 04:17 PM.
habsfanatics is offline  
Old
05-24-2013, 04:04 PM
  #88
Agnostic
11 Stanley Cups
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmanfish90 View Post
I use a combo of numbers, team make-up/roster, and common opinions among smart NHL analysts to come up with my decisions.

Before this season, a lot of analysts maybe wouldn't have had Price in their Top 5 based on the cluster**** that was the Habs season in 2011-12, but he played well, DESPITE WHAT HIS STATS SHOW.

I'm not full of it. Tell me that last year Carey Price didn't have a good season with a straight face.
You now make Lafleurs guy look reasonable by comparison. Congratulations.

Agnostic is offline  
Old
05-24-2013, 04:16 PM
  #89
dmanfish90
How about 76 for 25?
 
dmanfish90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Waterloo/TOR (Sigh)
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,498
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to dmanfish90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agnostic View Post
You now make Lafleurs guy look reasonable by comparison. Congratulations.
Then i guess real analysts like Jamie McLennan and other analysts have called Carey Price a Top 5 goalie are in my boat then. I'm happy with that.

Don't need your unqualified statements/comparisons of me. I know i'm a smart hockey person. Don't care what you say about it.

dmanfish90 is offline  
Old
05-24-2013, 04:18 PM
  #90
dmanfish90
How about 76 for 25?
 
dmanfish90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Waterloo/TOR (Sigh)
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,498
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to dmanfish90
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsfanatics View Post
Who determines the smart ones from the not so smart ones? BTW: How often are these analysts actually right? Seems for the most part they have us missing the playoffs every year and last year was about the only time in recent memory they got it right, even a blind squirrel finds a nut. I also think this opinion is over stated. They watch way less habs hockey than any of us. I haven't missed an entire habs game in roughly 10 years. I have played and been around hockey my entire life, many of the posters on this board are no different. I'd take the opinions of whitesnake, krisse, andy, lafleursguy, rhiessin, ohashi, ozymandias, overlords, habsfan18, whisky7, wethreekings, ect ect ect over many of those guys. We've watched more habs hockey than any of them.

When your analysts consist of PJ Stockton, Kelly Hrudey, Don Cherry, Glen Healy, Milbury, Torterella, Kipper ect, who the hell really cares about these guys, most of them wouldn't know a good hockey player if they fell over one. Out of the bunch, I like Pierre Lebrun, Mac, Friedman, Weekes, the rest are bad/terrible. I didn't include the rds cast as they are the worst of the bunch.

I won't say he was great last year, definitely has no claim to top 5, but he certainly was the least of our problems.

You went back 3 years and took the numbers for the individual years only. Sry, doesn't pass the smell test.

There are anomalies like cheechoo/lupol every year, because the game is a game of chance/luck. you need at least 5 years and to take the average over those 5 years.

What you did is take 3 separate sample sizes and call them one. Some numbers are unsustainable and every year, the league leader in goals is in the top 5 in shots, and so usually is number 2 and so on, there are the odd guys that get in the mix like perry/cheecoo ect, they are the exception, not the rule and usually never do it again, you need the sample size to eliminate these players.
Do it for me. Take the top 10 shot takers over a 5 year period and the top 10 goal scorers over that same period and show me the similarities. I'm curious to see if your statement is valid. I think its right half the time.

dmanfish90 is offline  
Old
05-24-2013, 04:38 PM
  #91
Agnostic
11 Stanley Cups
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmanfish90 View Post
Then i guess real analysts like Jamie McLennan and other analysts have called Carey Price a Top 5 goalie are in my boat then. I'm happy with that.

Don't need your unqualified statements/comparisons of me. I know i'm a smart hockey person. Don't care what you say about it.
I've read this thread and in no way will you ever be mistaken for someone knowledgable mostly because you type more than you read. Your clock has been cleaned by every poster here at one point or another because you match emotion against facts. No hard feelings. I am going to sign out of this discussion and let you get the last word in because I think it's probably important to you .

We can get together for a beer and I told yo so after Prices pedestrian career is in the books.

Agnostic is offline  
Old
05-24-2013, 04:45 PM
  #92
Teufelsdreck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14,115
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmanfish90 View Post
Then i guess real analysts like Jamie McLennan and other analysts have called Carey Price a Top 5 goalie are in my boat then. I'm happy with that.

Don't need your unqualified statements/comparisons of me. I know i'm a smart hockey person. Don't care what you say about it.
Other ex-goaltender analysts have said the same thing about Price, not to mention former players at other positions. All I know is that Price won a lot of games this past season and the Habs finished ahead of the Bruins (with Rask), the Sabres (with Miller), the Rangers (with Lundqvist), the Devils (with Brodeur), and all the rest of the East (the Penguins, the team that won more, had to make heavy use of Vokoun because Fleury wasn't consistent).

Teufelsdreck is offline  
Old
05-24-2013, 04:47 PM
  #93
ECWHSWI
P.K. is perfect.
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,965
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmanfish90 View Post
Then i guess real analysts like Jamie McLennan and other analysts have called Carey Price a Top 5 goalie are in my boat then. I'm happy with that.

Don't need your unqualified statements/comparisons of me. I know i'm a smart hockey person. Don't care what you say about it.
Everyone think they're smart and know their stuff, majority of them is wrong though.

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
05-24-2013, 04:48 PM
  #94
ECWHSWI
P.K. is perfect.
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,965
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teufelsdreck View Post
Other ex-goaltender analysts have said the same thing about Price, not to mention former players at other positions. All I know is that Price won a lot of games this past season and the Habs finished ahead of the Bruins (with Rask), the Sabres (with Miller), the Rangers (with Lundqvist), the Devils (with Brodeur), and all the rest of the East (the Penguins, the team that won more, had to make heavy use of Vokoun because Fleury wasn't consistent).
faulty logic, Crawford and Emery arent the top goalies in the league despite them playing for Prez. trophy winners...

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
05-24-2013, 04:57 PM
  #95
dmanfish90
How about 76 for 25?
 
dmanfish90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Waterloo/TOR (Sigh)
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,498
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to dmanfish90
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
Everyone think they're smart and know their stuff, majority of them is wrong though.
Probably. How do i know if i'm part of the majority or the minority?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
faulty logic, Crawford and Emery arent the top goalies in the league despite them playing for Prez. trophy winners...
Agreed. How can u say even though we finished ahead of BOS and the NYR that Price was better than Rask and Lundqvist this year.

dmanfish90 is offline  
Old
05-24-2013, 05:02 PM
  #96
dmanfish90
How about 76 for 25?
 
dmanfish90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Waterloo/TOR (Sigh)
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,498
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to dmanfish90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agnostic View Post
I've read this thread and in no way will you ever be mistaken for someone knowledgable mostly because you type more than you read. Your clock has been cleaned by every poster here at one point or another because you match emotion against facts. No hard feelings. I am going to sign out of this discussion and let you get the last word in because I think it's probably important to you .

We can get together for a beer and I told yo so after Prices pedestrian career is in the books.
So because we differ on Price and i make arguments that you don't agree with based on non-logic to you, i'm not knowledgeable.

Ok? I don't understand. I've included links to stats in my posts than more people. Read my post history. Sometimes ill say something a bit off and someone will point it out and ill see it.

But everyone is entitled to their opinion. And should CP31 lead us to a SC, we can talk about it over a beer too...

dmanfish90 is offline  
Old
05-24-2013, 05:07 PM
  #97
Teufelsdreck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14,115
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
faulty logic, Crawford and Emery arent the top goalies in the league despite them playing for Prez. trophy winners...
I don't agree with your reasoning in the slightest. Price enabled the Habs--by no means a great team--to become the Northeast division leaders rather than enjoying the benefit of playing on a great team. Sure, Crawford and Emery were not the prime factors in the success of the heavily loaded Hawks. Why didn't Rask do it for the Bruins, who as we plainly see, have better personnel than the Habs? It seems to me that you aren't being realistic--or fair--in not acknowledging Price's major contribution to the Habs' rise from 15th to 2nd in the East.

Teufelsdreck is offline  
Old
05-24-2013, 05:09 PM
  #98
E = CH²
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Country: Sri Lanka
Posts: 15,619
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmanfish90 View Post
Okay so if I'm understanding things correctly:

2012 Los Angeles Kings = 2013 Montreal Canadiens
In the 2011-12 season, Quick was the ONLY reason that the kings even made the playoffs. I actually follow the NHL and register information in my brain unlike most people...apparently. And the kings wouldn't have made the playoffs at all, much less win a cup, without Quick's heroics.

So please stop pretending that Price is behind this most terrible team that is giving him no chance.

Not to mention that Fleury actually played really well the year the pens won the cup.

E = CH² is offline  
Old
05-24-2013, 05:14 PM
  #99
habsfanatics
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,430
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmanfish90 View Post
Do it for me. Take the top 10 shot takers over a 5 year period and the top 10 goal scorers over that same period and show me the similarities. I'm curious to see if your statement is valid. I think its right half the time.
My statement is 100% valid. I'm not going to go back and do all this right now, it's a lot of work. There is random variation between seasons, but over the larger sample it will work out. It's been done in the history section before, along with the by the numbers section on this message board.

You will see some variation from year to year on the individual level. Usually when you see someone with a sh% hovering around 20, it's a sure fire sign that there numbers will regress. Our own Travis Moen did this last year, no one confused him for a top scorer, he didn't score because he couldn't generate shots, however, my main point, which you have gotten off of, is the correlation between teams that outshoot their opponents regularly and those who don't.

Those who do are generally playing better hockey. Those who don't, aren't. Those who average plus 5 over 48 games are usually pretty damn good teams, those who average a minus 6 after 48 games are usually destine to miss the playoffs. The reason, I think the Leafs are going to miss the playoffs next year is because of this, they got lucky this year, **** happens. The reason being is that most of shooting % is relatively random, it has ebbs and flows and teams have very little control over it. What they do have control over is generating shots and preventing shots. Shot differential is the most telling stat of how teams are playing, even more so than goal differential, because a goal scored tells you nothing about how it was scored. Sometimes, like the Ottawa series, a team gets outplayed for 18minutes and then scores on one of the few chances they got, this isn't meant as a shot at price BTW, it's just reality. Some will mistake the result with meaning Ottawa was better or outplayed us, but they didn't. They were fortunate that more bounces went their way than ours, we deserved a better fate.


Last edited by habsfanatics: 05-24-2013 at 05:28 PM.
habsfanatics is offline  
Old
05-24-2013, 05:21 PM
  #100
habtastic
Registered User
 
habtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Mumbai via MTL
Country: India
Posts: 9,209
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agnostic View Post
Montreal was in the top half of the league in defence and #4 in offense.
How good do other players have to be in Montreal for Price to decide to show up and play. Your view of the team is so out of date it's like you slept through this last season.

In any case management is now alert to Price's problems, I look for a timely resolution.
I missed the part where we resembled that #4 offensive team in the playoffs.

Oh, that's right, we were off the bat missing Eller and Emelin AND had several key guys barely able to hold a stick.

Habs of the regular season were blessed with good health and during that time Carey was awesome (look up the damn stats).

Then we got cursed and was all downhill from there (not to mention Price himself being injured).

Management is alert to reality. Nothing to resolve here, just to hope that everyone stays healthy by time playoffs come around if we make them again. Look at Chicago last night. This is the NHL- you can be night and day depending on so many variables. And Chicago is not, to my knowledge suffering any key injuries.

Either way, if the Habs are healthy, we're good. Down the road, we're great! Carey will shine when it's time.

habtastic is offline  
Closed Thread

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 03:51 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.