HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Detroit Red Wings
Notices

Howard

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-30-2012, 06:31 PM
  #101
Bench
Moderator
Realgud!
 
Bench's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Monk's
Posts: 7,224
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoupNazi View Post
Eventually, I hope he wins. But not if he has to beat us.

That said, I don't think Buffalo has any reason to save money.
I hope so, too. Buffalo is a great hockey city, like Detroit. The locals are diehard.

Bench is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2012, 04:24 AM
  #102
14ari13
Registered User
 
14ari13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Western Sahara
Country: Norway
Posts: 9,140
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZetterBurger View Post
Haha once again, you're just throwing away any credibility you have. Find me where I say Datsyuk or Stuart were anything but bad, and show me where I say Howard is an 8 of 10, please.

I think Howard was good. If you want to put a rating system on it, then it goes like this.

Perfect
Incredible
Great
Good
Servicable
Decent
Bad
Horrible
Liability
Put Conklin in.

That puts him at about 6 out of ten. You're just making stuff up again so it suits your argument. You are probably one of these people that thinks Radulov was their best forward in round one because he led the team in points... Howard and Zetterberg were good. It takes more that 2 players to win any games in the playoffs.
Name the goalies Howard has outplayed in these playoffs!
Name the goalies who outplayed Howard before he got injured!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZetterBurger View Post
Playoff teams currently alive: Games started for goalies

NJD: Brodeur - 59, Hedberg - 23
NYR: Lundqvist 62, Biron - 20
PHI: Bryz - 57, Bob - 25
WSH: Vokoun - 46, Neuvirth - 30, Holtby - 6
STL: Halak - 46, Elliot - 36
PHO: Smith - 67, LaBarbara - 14, McElhinney - 1
NSH: Rinne - 72, Lindback - 10
LA: Quick - 69, Bernier - 13

Red Wings: Howard - 57, Conklin - 13, MacDonald - 12
Vancouver: Luongo - 54, Schneider - 28
Boston: Thomas - 55, Rask - 22, Turco - 4, Khudobin - 1

The perfect scenario is NYR. Lundqvist starts 60 games and the backup 20. Rinne played a ridiculous amount this year, and could get worn down by the end of this round. He could be worn down now. Quick played a ton of games, and looks as sharp as he has all year.

The problem with Howie was that he played so many games consecutively. He didn't get on a good start:rest ratio because Conklin was so bad. There is no perfect ratio for starter:backup, but generally you want your starter playing in 60-65 games and the backup handling the rest of them. Nearly every goalie on that list is better than Conklin and MacDonald. Back up needs an upgrade.
Well, before Howard got injured Babcock played him every game, several back to back games, if I remember right.

14ari13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2012, 12:43 PM
  #103
GentlemanMasher*
Registered Abuser
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Country: Ajman
Posts: 906
vCash: 500
I don't know how we look at those goalies numbers up there and try to find any pattern. It's diverse and it's only one postseason. I've seen guys play half a season and win, and I've seen guys play 80 games and win.I just don't buy the goaltender exhaustion thing as much as other people. These guys are professional athletes. I played goaltender at a fairly high level until later in my life and I can say with certainty that the few times I skated out and played D or maybe the odd time O, I got a hell of a lot more tired. Sure in net I was on the ice for 60 minutes but no goalie has to exert himself for all 60. It's maybe half of that and even when you're seeing the most the other team can throw at you, you're still not skating hard for 200 feet or skating hard for 30 seconds to a minute straight, you're just pushing off of your skates and standing up. That's just not as tiring at all. It's tiring but playing forward or defense is much more taxing. The reason a goalie probably won't get exhausted over a season is the reason we can leave them out all game without worries. Get enough sleep at night, have a good diet and any goalie in good enough shape in his 20s or early 30s shouldn't have an issue. Sure teams talk about it but it never feels like it's as big a deal to them as it is to us.I think teams would like a competent #2 goalie more to alleviate injury. The more you play, more higher the risks of getting injured. I don't buy that simply being tired plays in. Goaltending is one of the toughest positions to play in sports but not one of the most physically exhausting. I just find it silly that we worry about a goalie playing 60 games but then we expect our defenseman who are tiring themselves out much more to play 20+ minutes a night for 82 games and not think about it. And risk much more injury, too.

GentlemanMasher* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2012, 12:54 PM
  #104
ZetterBurger
Registered User
 
ZetterBurger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Detroit, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 6,211
vCash: 500
A good backup goalie that can be trusted with 20 games is nothing more than a great insurance policy. If your starter can play 73 games in a year, that's great, but there is no denying the fact that having him play 60-65 and have a steady starts:rests ratio is important.

A good backup that can push Howie and give him the occasional night off would do nothing but help him.

ZetterBurger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2012, 01:13 PM
  #105
GentlemanMasher*
Registered Abuser
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Country: Ajman
Posts: 906
vCash: 500
Brodeur played 73 games and won. He also played 72 games and won. From 98 to 2008 he never played less than 70 games. A decade straight of playing pretty much the whole season. Roy in Colorado played over 60 games each time he won. Belfour played 60. Ozzie did too. Richter played 70 games and won. Funny enough he didn't win until he played a lot for what it's worth. Barrasso played about 60 when he got his rings. Fuhr played 75 and won. Guys who play the 40-50 we want Howard playing didn't look any less tired than those guys. You could make an case that when you play the backup too much you can ruin the goalie's rhythm. Rinne played 72 and Quick played 70, they don't look tired. I'd rather have a good backup to lower the chance for injury but I don't think we should shelter our goalie and disrupt the flow trying to force it. If Howard's playing great and we want to keep him rolling and 55 games turns into 65, so be it. The risk of injury is just present in hockey. Either we fold or we just go with the flow and not worry.

GentlemanMasher* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2012, 01:20 PM
  #106
KingzOverAcez
Registered User
 
KingzOverAcez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Michigan
Country: United States
Posts: 202
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZetterBurger View Post
A good backup goalie that can be trusted with 20 games is nothing more than a great insurance policy. If your starter can play 73 games in a year, that's great, but there is no denying the fact that having him play 60-65 and have a steady starts:rests ratio is important.

A good backup that can push Howie and give him the occasional night off would do nothing but help him.
There aren't many goalies that have played 70+ games in the regular season and gone on to win the Cup. You shouldn't have your starting goaltender playing that many games.

Actually here's a list of winning goalies in the last 10 years with the amount of regular season games played (Brodeur is the only one to play in 70+)

2000-01 Roy (62)
2001-02 Hasek (65)
2002-03 Brodeur (73)
2003-04 Khabibulin (55)
2005-06 Ward (28)
2006-07 JSG (56)
2007-08 Osgood (43)
2008-09 MAF (62)
2009-10 Niemi (60)
2010-11 Thomas (57)

KingzOverAcez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2012, 01:22 PM
  #107
KingzOverAcez
Registered User
 
KingzOverAcez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Michigan
Country: United States
Posts: 202
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GentlemanMasher View Post
Brodeur played 73 games and won. He also played 72 games and won. From 98 to 2008 he never played less than 70 games. A decade straight of playing pretty much the whole season. Roy in Colorado played over 60 games each time he won. Belfour played 60. Ozzie did too. Richter played 70 games and won. Funny enough he didn't win until he played a lot for what it's worth. Barrasso played about 60 when he got his rings. Fuhr played 75 and won. Guys who play the 40-50 we want Howard playing didn't look any less tired than those guys. You could make an case that when you play the backup too much you can ruin the goalie's rhythm. Rinne played 72 and Quick played 70, they don't look tired. I'd rather have a good backup to lower the chance for injury but I don't think we should shelter our goalie and disrupt the flow trying to force it. If Howard's playing great and we want to keep him rolling and 55 games turns into 65, so be it. The risk of injury is just present in hockey. Either we fold or we just go with the flow and not worry.
Osgood did NOT play in over 60 games when DET won the Cup. He played in 43 games.

KingzOverAcez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2012, 01:25 PM
  #108
GentlemanMasher*
Registered Abuser
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Country: Ajman
Posts: 906
vCash: 500
Meh thought I remembered him playing 60. Either way the rest stands. Lately some guys who rest more have won so it's the current copycat trend. Watch a couple work horses win and we'll change our minds and will be certain we know exactly why it works.

GentlemanMasher* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2012, 01:27 PM
  #109
KingzOverAcez
Registered User
 
KingzOverAcez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Michigan
Country: United States
Posts: 202
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GentlemanMasher View Post
Meh thought I remembered him playing 60. Either way the rest stands. Lately some guys who rest more have won so it's the current copycat trend. Watch a couple work horses win and we'll change our minds and will be certain we know exactly why it works.
There are only 3 "workhorses" that have won the Cup in the last 10 years and 2 of them are HOF goalies (Brodeur and Hasek) and the 3rd very well could be once his career is over (MAF). I wouldn't call that a trend.

KingzOverAcez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2012, 01:34 PM
  #110
P U L L H A R D
 
P U L L H A R D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa
Country: Somalia
Posts: 24,076
vCash: 420
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashyG View Post
I think they'd be able to work around the Howard-Miller swap but Vanek for Franzen wouldn't fly for them.
I think you're working backwards there. Franzen's cap hit is almost half of Vanek's. They could just sign someone like Dallas signed Ryder to replace the lost production. Howard for Miller is not "work around" able, you have to change your gameplan if that swap is made.

P U L L H A R D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2012, 02:11 PM
  #111
GentlemanMasher*
Registered Abuser
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Country: Ajman
Posts: 906
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingzOverAcez View Post
There are only 3 "workhorses" that have won the Cup in the last 10 years and 2 of them are HOF goalies (Brodeur and Hasek) and the 3rd very well could be once his career is over (MAF). I wouldn't call that a trend.
I wouldn't call it a trend either if you just picked a random arbitrary number like 10 years. Did human lung capacity and physical endurance just suddenly change exactly 10 years ago? In the bigger picture, goalies can win playing a lot. It's happened. It'll happen again. Looking for trends just leaves you one step behind. We're making too much out of goaltender exhaustion when it's more about just having a safety net so your goalie won't pull a hammy or pop his knee out. In that regard I agree but if he can hold up over 70 games unless he's totally out of shape and 40 years old I doubt it's going to do much to him.

GentlemanMasher* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2012, 02:18 PM
  #112
KingzOverAcez
Registered User
 
KingzOverAcez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Michigan
Country: United States
Posts: 202
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GentlemanMasher View Post
I wouldn't call it a trend either if you just picked a random arbitrary number like 10 years. Did human lung capacity and physical endurance just suddenly change exactly 10 years ago? In the bigger picture, goalies can win playing a lot. It's happened. It'll happen again. Looking for trends just leaves you one step behind. We're making too much out of goaltender exhaustion when it's more about just having a safety net so your goalie won't pull a hammy or pop his knee out. In that regard I agree but if he can hold up over 70 games unless he's totally out of shape and 40 years old I doubt it's going to do much to him.
I only went back 10 years as I didn't feel like going back further than that and looking up the stats. And no those things haven't changed but the game itself has changed alot in the last 10+ years. I just disagree that we should want our starting goalie playing in 70+ games going into the playoffs.

KingzOverAcez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2012, 02:22 PM
  #113
GentlemanMasher*
Registered Abuser
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Country: Ajman
Posts: 906
vCash: 500
I'd argue it's easier on goalies now than it was back then. More pads means less space to cover, less you have to move. Goalies face less good scoring chances than they did going back to probably the height of the dead puck era. Goalies now are more protected from crease crashers, in spite of the couple Miller runnings. We've all seen the ridiculous penalties they'll call if you so much as brush a goalie and while I agree with it, it just makes life easier. Goalies now can stand up to half a period without seeing a good shot, and when they do get shot on, most just butterfly and resort to angles and technical stuff, not actually reacting. Holtby should be rested as all hell, but he doesn't look any less tired than Jon quick who played almost the whole damn season. They're pro athletes doing something that for a pro athlete in peak physical condition isn't all that taxing. It's just the injury aspect that scares GMs and it's not even about whether or not they think their goalie can rip through 70 games and do well, it's about covering your ass and getting a backup so you don't look bad if the starter breaks his wrist or something.

GentlemanMasher* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2012, 04:42 PM
  #114
Dynheart
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,423
vCash: 500
Honestly, it's the matter of how they make the saves NOW then the goalies of yester-year.

Howie, IMO, wont last longer than goalies like Quick/Marty/Thomas. Why? He doesn't rely on the butterfly on every save. Howie is one of the more aggressive goalies in the league; always out of the blue paint. But don't let that fool you. Howie is very athletic. He can stetch his legs ala Quick style when needed. So he doesn't rely on the butterfly all the time.

But that's my point. Look at Marty. Good old stand up. Doesn't take as much effort, and much easier on the hip/groin. Quick uses it 100% of the time. Howie? Probably about 40-50% of the time. Even for a professional, if you're sitting there, cold (which he often does in his games), then needs to make a spilts like save? All it takes is that one save. Especially if he doesn't rely on that style 100% of the time.

Add that up over one season + over one career. Who will wear out first? Probably Howie > Quick > Marty.

Then you have Thomas/Hasek. A style of no style. The Bruce lee's of hockey? These guys hardly use the butterfly as well. They just flop around until the puck hits them. Got to admit...it's effective.

IMO, Howie is set up for an injury prone career. Hardly uses the butterfly through out his game (he challenges instead, and is realy good knocking the puck to the corner or swallowing the puck up), but when he needs to? Usually there's traffic in the paint at that time (he uses it to recover 95% of the time; the butterfly/splits). Sounds like injury city to me.

Dynheart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2012, 02:50 AM
  #115
GentlemanMasher*
Registered Abuser
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Country: Ajman
Posts: 906
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dynheart View Post
Then you have Thomas/Hasek. A style of no style. The Bruce lee's of hockey? These guys hardly use the butterfly as well. They just flop around until the puck hits them. Got to admit...it's effective.
To his credit, Hasek never flopped randomly. People just didn't understand what he was doing and still don't.

GentlemanMasher* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2012, 07:23 AM
  #116
Winger98
Moderator
powers combined
 
Winger98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cleveland
Posts: 13,814
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to Winger98
Not to wade into this, but I think the game has changed in one other important aspect over the last ten years or so - regular season games have become more important and more competitive. In numerous interviews of players from the 80s and early 90s, I've seen references to being able to coast a bit because some teams just weren't built to compete with the big boys. And I know I saw it in the mid-late 90s with the Wings/Avs/Stars and their abilities to just get through the regular season.

That's essentially gone now. If there's one thing that I would wonder about making the game more taxing for goalies, it's the increased importance - and heightened levels of play - earlier in the season and across a greater percentage of teams.

__________________
blah, blah, blah
Winger98 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2012, 08:42 AM
  #117
KingzOverAcez
Registered User
 
KingzOverAcez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Michigan
Country: United States
Posts: 202
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winger98 View Post
Not to wade into this, but I think the game has changed in one other important aspect over the last ten years or so - regular season games have become more important and more competitive. In numerous interviews of players from the 80s and early 90s, I've seen references to being able to coast a bit because some teams just weren't built to compete with the big boys. And I know I saw it in the mid-late 90s with the Wings/Avs/Stars and their abilities to just get through the regular season.

That's essentially gone now. If there's one thing that I would wonder about making the game more taxing for goalies, it's the increased importance - and heightened levels of play - earlier in the season and across a greater percentage of teams.
Not to mention that the "Bettman" points have added parity into the league forcing players to not be able to "coast" as they did in the 80s and 90s.

KingzOverAcez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2012, 08:46 AM
  #118
SoupNazi
Global Moderator
No Soup for You!!!
 
SoupNazi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Kramerica Industries
Country: Argentina
Posts: 16,809
vCash: 545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winger98 View Post
That's essentially gone now. If there's one thing that I would wonder about making the game more taxing for goalies, it's the increased importance - and heightened levels of play - earlier in the season and across a greater percentage of teams.
You have a point. Gone are the days when you could throw your lousy backup goalie (*cough* Conklin) into every other game early in the season and still end up with 100 points. Unless you have two starters now, you need your #1 to play 55-60 games at minimum to stay competitive.

It's almost to the point where, if you want your #1 to play less, you need a Halak/Elliot or Luongo/Schneider type tandem.

SoupNazi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2012, 09:40 AM
  #119
Winger98
Moderator
powers combined
 
Winger98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cleveland
Posts: 13,814
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to Winger98
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingzOverAcez View Post
Not to mention that the "Bettman" points have added parity into the league forcing players to not be able to "coast" as they did in the 80s and 90s.
Every once in awhile someone crunches the numbers for what the standings would look like under the old point system, and the standings rarely have a drastic change to them. Point totals are usually lower, but the same teams are in and it's usually pretty tightly clustered. I think it's more teams are spending their money to keep their good players and to sign players. In the past, it was more like MLB where ten or so teams would just say to hell with it, ice a cheap club, and work to make a profit rather than be competitive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoupNazi View Post
You have a point. Gone are the days when you could throw your lousy backup goalie (*cough* Conklin) into every other game early in the season and still end up with 100 points. Unless you have two starters now, you need your #1 to play 55-60 games at minimum to stay competitive.

It's almost to the point where, if you want your #1 to play less, you need a Halak/Elliot or Luongo/Schneider type tandem.
At the same time, I don't think you want to overplay your starter (65+ games is what I would consider overplaying), because the regular season is more draining than it once was. In the past, I think you could also throw your regular starter out there more often, and know that he isn't going to have a hard night against certain teams. Now, as you're saying, every night is likely to be a hard night.

Winger98 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2012, 03:42 PM
  #120
Bench
Moderator
Realgud!
 
Bench's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Monk's
Posts: 7,224
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winger98 View Post
Every once in awhile someone crunches the numbers for what the standings would look like under the old point system, and the standings rarely have a drastic change to them. Point totals are usually lower, but the same teams are in and it's usually pretty tightly clustered. I think it's more teams are spending their money to keep their good players and to sign players. In the past, it was more like MLB where ten or so teams would just say to hell with it, ice a cheap club, and work to make a profit rather than be competitive.
Here's the issue: You can't just crunch old games that were determined by ties. The players approached the game with a different strategy.

Now it's totally viable for defensive teams to sit on a tie the last few minutes of a game to get the guaranteed point. Then go for it when they know it won't burn them in OT.

But as you said, money plays a factor now, too. As does increased emphasis on scouting, drafting, and development.

Bench is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2012, 05:49 PM
  #121
Winger98
Moderator
powers combined
 
Winger98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cleveland
Posts: 13,814
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to Winger98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bench View Post
Here's the issue: You can't just crunch old games that were determined by ties. The players approached the game with a different strategy.

Now it's totally viable for defensive teams to sit on a tie the last few minutes of a game to get the guaranteed point. Then go for it when they know it won't burn them in OT.

But as you said, money plays a factor now, too. As does increased emphasis on scouting, drafting, and development.
Applying the old point scores to today's outcomes is a bit clunky, but I'm not sure it's entirely without merit. I don't get the impression that teams "go for it" as much in OT, as they just can't help but trade chances with the extra ice and fewer players.

It's not a perfect way of making a comparison, but I still think the extra point bit is a bit of a red herring. Once the spending advantages were shrank, I think we'd see tighter competition regardless of the point system.

Winger98 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 10:20 PM.

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.