Seabrook had a terrible game last night but nobody says "oh we need an upgrade on 1st-pair defense."
The eye test is utter ******** because it is colored by all of our biases and nobody can be objective with this team. That much is obvious. Though this early in the season stats don't mean much of anything either.
Give it time, folks.
Yes he had a bad game, Crawford last year had a horrible year, that year was his first year as the starting #1 goalie on this team. If Seabrook in his first year as a everyday player had a bad a year as Crawford then we might be saying the same thing. Fact is Seabrook has been one of the best D in the league for several years now and like every player will have a bad game here or there but his good games will far outweight his bad ones.
For half a season, yes he was great. Goalies get figured out.
Not saying Crow is, but comparing Seabrook's track record with Crows is pants on head insane.
57 games is more than half a season, I think. It was the same number that Thomas played that year.
And yes, Seabrook obviously has a longer track record of success, however Crow gets dismissed far too easily.... especially when one considers how good he was his rookie year.
Carey Price tied for most wins that year, with 38, 5 more wins than crow. However, he got 5 more wins in 15 more games played. In fact almost every goalie ahead of Crow in wins that year played at least 10 more games. Lets not forget that he also posted a .917 SV%, right behind the likes of Fleury and Quick, and ahead of Miller and Backstrom. He also posted a 2.3 GAA good for 6th in the league for goalies that played at least 50 games.
And lest we forget... his playoff stats were even better.
There's a pretty large and undefined line as to what makes a good vs. a poor goalie, as cup-winning all-star goalie MAF proved last year.
Crow is not a goalie that will carry a team, that much is obvious. He's probably not even a goalie that can steal the occasional game. However, he has demonstrated that he can put numbers that are comparable to the best in the league. It's much too early to pull the plug on him. It's also too early to say our goalie woes are solved. For as good as his rookie year was, his sophomore year was equally as bad. Time will tell
57 games is more than half a season, I think. It was the same number that Thomas played that year.
And yes, Seabrook obviously has a longer track record of success, however Crow gets dismissed far too easily.... especially when one considers how good he was his rookie year.
Carey Price tied for most wins that year, with 38, 5 more wins than crow. However, he got 5 more wins in 15 more games played. In fact almost every goalie ahead of Crow in wins that year played at least 10 more games. Lets not forget that he also posted a .917 SV%, right behind the likes of Fleury and Quick, and ahead of Miller and Backstrom. He also posted a 2.3 GAA good for 6th in the league for goalies that played at least 50 games.
And lest we forget... his playoff stats were even better.
There's a pretty large and undefined line as to what makes a good vs. a poor goalie, as cup-winning all-star goalie MAF proved last year.
Crow is not a goalie that will carry a team, that much is obvious. He's probably not even a goalie that can steal the occasional game. However, he has demonstrated that he can put numbers that are comparable to the best in the league. It's much too early to pull the plug on him. It's also too early to say our goalie woes are solved. For as good as his rookie year was, his sophomore year was equally as bad. Time will tell
Wins are a result of the team just as much as the goalie. The Habs where horrible last year and the Hawks were really good, switch them and Price has 50 wins and Crawford has 20. The fact that Craw put up such horrible numbers behind such a great team shows he isn't very good.
His rookie year is half a year, mostly as the back-up with little to now pressure, once he was named the guy and given the full time job his game went to crap. No he can't put up numbers comparable to best in the league, I won't take 1 year then throw out the rest. A good goalie is good all the time, right now it looks more like the Hawks have the next Steve Mason then they do Carey Price, a 1 year flash in the pan.
To win the Cup in the NHL you need a goalie who can steal you a game here and there. Some nights the team won't play great and you need to know that your goalie can keep you in that game, Crawford isn't that goalie, he is the opposite, if the Hawks play great he can get you a W otherwise it's a crap shoot. That doesn't win Cups.
A lot of discussion on Crawford here, I had some questions for fantasy. I'm trying to decide between Crawford and Varly as my final goalie. How is the time divided between Crawford and Emery? My league counts saves, goals against, and wins. Who is the safer bet Crawford or Varly?
A lot of discussion on Crawford here, I had some questions for fantasy. I'm trying to decide between Crawford and Varly as my final goalie. How is the time divided between Crawford and Emery? My league counts saves, goals against, and wins. Who is the safer bet Crawford or Varly?
How much is each worth, chances are Varly will make more saves and have a better GAA but Crawford will get more wins.
A save is worth .2, a goal against is worth -1, and a win is worth 5. Last season Varly finished with 291.6 and Crawford with 276.2.
That's because Crawford was horrible. I think Crawford will play better, in the end it's a toss up and you just have to decide who you think will play better.
