What's important is to perform when it counts. And that's mostly the playoffs.
I don't think it's "mostly" the playoffs. You have to perform well in the regular season before you're even ALLOWED to compete in the playoffs, where it "matters most." Sure, playoff competition is very important, but let me put it this way:
You have a job interview 50 miles away. What is more important: how you perform in that interview that will get you the job, or the mode of transportation that will get you to the job interview? It sounds pretty equal to me.
Sure you need to perform well at the job interview [playoffs] to get the job [Stanley Cup], but you need to have that mode of transportation [regular season success] to get to that interview [playoffs].
What's important is to perform when it counts. And that's mostly the playoffs. If I had to put money on a goaltender to win the cup, I'd take the one that performs under pressure (Giguere) over the one that "performed" during reg season.
Anyway, I think Theodore was not even desserving of the Hart and Vezina that year. His stats were inflated by the system the team was using. I've said so since he won the award. I also believe that Garon is better than Theodore, and that Theodore is a 10-20 goaltender. I know 98% of the people disagree with me and it's okay. However, I still stand by the fact that with what he had done, Theodore deserved $4.5M at most. Of course, I wouldn't have paid that myself, but that's another story.
I really love that post. I'm going to read your previous posts because I've read some good analysis from you.
Basically, the strategy was to play a full 60 minutes in PK mode. As in, no pressure on the outside and let them shoot. Most of the shots that Montreal received were from the perimeter. The system was built around Theodore...
That's so true. Basically, Theodore had his saving percentage tremendously inflated because of that. A shot on goal isn't really a scoring chance. That's two different thing.
Theo on that list is unfair, this make the 'teams can take their player to arbitration' idea make even more sense. Think about it, say Theo has a amazing season worth 5.5 million over 5 years but the next season he has a 3.57 GAA and a .812 SV%. Wouldn't it be nice for the team to have his salary reduced to 1 million for the next season. In that season he can go back to form and earn another 5.5 million contract? It would make it so that for those 5 years on the original contract he can only be a RFA unless the team wants him gone?