HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > San Jose Sharks
Notices

Is Nabby the problem ???

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-07-2009, 01:43 AM
  #51
VP and GM
Havlat Sucks!
 
VP and GM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: at home
Country: United States
Posts: 5,250
vCash: 500
So, if you all could pick a starting goalie for the Sharks
right now / this season - who would it be? Best goalie
for the Sharks to win the cup. Must be a
current/active Pro goalie and money or cap space is not
an issue so this is not about feasibility / availability of a
player or specifics of the deal.

If we did a poll on this, would Nabby win it? Would he even
make the top 5??

VP and GM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2009, 01:52 AM
  #52
Kitten Mittons
Registered User
 
Kitten Mittons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Francisco
Country: Armenia
Posts: 46,810
vCash: 500
He probably would be 5th.

Osgood (clutch in the playoffs)
Ward
Brodeur/Lundqvist/Nabokov/Kiprusoff/Miller/Anderson/Fleury/Backstrom (no order)

Kitten Mittons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2009, 02:07 AM
  #53
BrianSmith
Strike Over Spare
 
BrianSmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Cali
Country: United States
Posts: 2,953
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VP and GM View Post
So, if you all could pick a starting goalie for the Sharks
right now / this season - who would it be? Best goalie
for the Sharks to win the cup. Must be a
current/active Pro goalie and money or cap space is not
an issue so this is not about feasibility / availability of a
player or specifics of the deal.

If we did a poll on this, would Nabby win it? Would he even
make the top 5??
Out of all the players in the league, cap not an issue, getting them here is not an issue, who would you rather trade a 7th round pick for?

Sorry, I just don't see how this really relates to Nabby being the problem or not? So some pick another goalie. Guess what, I'm pretty sure everyone here would want Ovie or Malkin or Croby on their team more than any other player here. Does that mean our current core should be ousted?

BrianSmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2009, 03:03 AM
  #54
StalockSuperfan
Registered User
 
StalockSuperfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Boston, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,496
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derick View Post
Maybe we'd have less of a depth problem if we didn't have an average goalie taking up superstar cap space.
Nice post until you said this. If you think Nabokov is an "average goalie" you have not been watching the same one I have.

StalockSuperfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2009, 03:08 AM
  #55
WTFetus
Moderator
 
WTFetus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 11,589
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanley cup pleeease View Post
If you think Nabokov is an "average goalie" you have not been watching the same one I have.
This. Howard and Leighton are average goalies. Nabokov is definitely not in the same category as these guys.

WTFetus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2009, 03:40 AM
  #56
Derick*
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,624
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Derick*
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanley cup pleeease View Post
Nice post until you said this. If you think Nabokov is an "average goalie" you have not been watching the same one I have.
So it's come to the save percentage and shots data myself and the other critics have been giving, versus "BUT HE'S GOOD! LOOK AT HIM HE'S GOOD!"

Re:more shots is more opportunities to make a save.

That's kind of facepalm. Come on, you know better than that. It's more opportunities to make a save *and* more opportunities to get scored on. Which is why the percentage is better than looking just at goals against or saves made. How can letting in more goals on fewer shots (as Nabokov did in every loss against Anaheim) possibly be better?

Derick* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2009, 08:48 AM
  #57
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 16,829
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derick View Post
That's kind of facepalm. Come on, you know better than that. It's more opportunities to make a save *and* more opportunities to get scored on. Which is why the percentage is better than looking just at goals against or saves made. How can letting in more goals on fewer shots (as Nabokov did in every loss against Anaheim) possibly be better?
Because he had a bad series, and was horribly hung out to dry by his defense on top of it.

The team was an absolute disaster in that series. That Nabby had no confidence in his defense is an understatement, and that caused poor team play and poor goaltending.

Nabby is more than capable of winning a cup, I have full confidence. I can't say the same about some of our other players.

hockeyball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2009, 09:39 AM
  #58
USF Shark
ZŰion politikÚn
 
USF Shark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: DC Area
Country: United States
Posts: 20,265
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
Because he had a bad series, and was horribly hung out to dry by his defense on top of it.

The team was an absolute disaster in that series. That Nabby had no confidence in his defense is an understatement, and that caused poor team play and poor goaltending.

Nabby is more than capable of winning a cup, I have full confidence. I can't say the same about some of our other players.
Nabby has had 1 good playoff series since the WCFs in 04. He needs to prove that he can be that elite caliber goalie again for any of us to claim he's capable of winning a cup.

USF Shark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2009, 09:53 AM
  #59
Blades of Glory
Troll Captain
 
Blades of Glory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 18,334
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by USF Shark View Post
Nabby has had 1 good playoff series since the WCFs in 04. He needs to prove that he can be that elite caliber goalie again for any of us to claim he's capable of winning a cup.
He was brilliant during the entire 2006-07 playoffs. Struggled for most of the 2007-08 first round and the first two games of the second round. He was amazing in Games 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the Dallas series. Last season, he was atrocious.

Nabokov has a lot to prove, but there's nothing to say that he isn't capable of leading this team deep in the playoffs.

Blades of Glory is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2009, 10:03 AM
  #60
WineShark
HFBoards Sponsor
 
WineShark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Napa Valley, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 6,985
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derick View Post
So it's come to the save percentage and shots data myself and the other critics have been giving, versus "BUT HE'S GOOD! LOOK AT HIM HE'S GOOD!"

Re:more shots is more opportunities to make a save.

That's kind of facepalm. Come on, you know better than that. It's more opportunities to make a save *and* more opportunities to get scored on. Which is why the percentage is better than looking just at goals against or saves made. How can letting in more goals on fewer shots (as Nabokov did in every loss against Anaheim) possibly be better?
Shot totals tells you very little. Save percentage tells you more. If there were a quality save stat, that would tell you even more but there is no stat like that.

But pointing out that a goalies save percentage was worse that the winning goalies save percentage is not telling you anything either. A winning goalie will in most instances have a better save percentage when they win a series. That because the winning team will probably score more goals in a series.

Nabby is not elite but he is close. In recent games, he has played at an elite level.

__________________
The Best Sports Team in the Bay Area for 20 Years
WineShark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2009, 10:26 AM
  #61
HOOCH2173
That HOOCH is Crazy!
 
HOOCH2173's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Anacrime
Country: United States
Posts: 4,122
vCash: 516
It's not Nabby it's Huskins nuff said.

HOOCH2173 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2009, 10:32 AM
  #62
thegreatfatman
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 73
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by estevao View Post
If you give the goalie more chances to save the puck, he has the opportunity to save the puck more.

SHOT TOTALS PLZ.


If you shoot the puck more often, you also have the opportunity to score more often. Bit of a two-way street there, isn't it? Anyways, I'll take you up on your offer:

Quote:
08-09: Nabby .885 (138/155) - Hiller .957 (220/230), Sharks lose 4-2
07-08: Nabby .895 (145/162) - Kipper .917 (178/196), Sharks win 4-3
07-08: Nabby .913 (157/171) - Turco .941 (175/186), Sharks lose 4-2
06-07: Nabby .896 (120/133) - Vokoun .902 (147/163), Sharks win 4-1
06-07: Nabby .932 (177/190) - Hasek .940 (135/144), Sharks lose 4-2
So, in the 1 series where the Sharks got out-shot, Nabby still lost the SV% battle, while in 2 of the other 4 series Nabokov allowed more goals than the opposing goalie while handling many fewer shots. So unless you think Nabokov would have made 83 saves if the Ducks had shot 75 more times, I don't see how the shot totals account for the discrepancy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
Because he had a bad series, and was horribly hung out to dry by his defense on top of it.

The team was an absolute disaster in that series. That Nabby had no confidence in his defense is an understatement, and that caused poor team play and poor goaltending.
I thought great players were supposed to step it up when their teammates suck, and help will their teams to victories? And shouldn't he have bailed his team out a bit, seems like that would help the defense, who had no right to feel confident in their goaltender.

For the record, I don't believe that last years performance falls only on Nabokov. Having an under-performing 1st line (with that idiotic line-matching against RPG), a non-existant 2nd line, and a #1 d-pairing forgetting to play defense were all equally important to our loss, but being seriously outdeuled at goaltender doesn't help matters either. I don't think he needed to match Hiller, since Hiller was just on fire, but ~92.0 SV% would have been much appreciated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Derick View Post
Going by *this year's regular season stats*, I could as easily say "where is there a valid arguement for scoring being an issue for us?" seeing as we're second in the league in goals scored.

Having a lower save percentage in that many consecutive series is pretty telling.

Last year's series agaist Anaheim....

Game One: 2 - 0 Ducks. Sharks outshoot Ducks 35 to 17
Game Two: 3 - 2 Ducks. Sharks outshoot Ducks 44 to 26.
Game Three: 4 -3 Sharks. Sharks outshoot Ducks 35 to 30.
Game Four: 4 - 0 Ducks. Sharks outshoot Ducks 31 to 26.
Game Five: 3 - 2 Sharks. Sharks outshoot Ducks 48 to 25.
Game Six: 4 -1 Ducks. Sharks outshoot Ducks 37 to 32.

Yes, the Sharks outshot the Ducks every single game. I understand there's shot quality issues, that Hiller was also hot, and that the Sharks weren't scoring enough, but outshooting every single game in a series you lost is pretty telling.
For this sort of thing, better to look at the 1st 2 periods, since playing to the score effects show up in the 3rd. For example, I could see the Ducks outshooting the Sharks in Games 4 and 6 after 2, but then the Sharks just fling things on net in the 3rd hoping something happens, which makes it look like the Sharks controlled play. Anyways, here are the results for those 2 games:

Game 4: Anaheim 20, San Jose 19 after 2, Ducks lead 2 - 0. Sharks shoot 12 in the 3rd compared to 6 by Anaheim.

Game 6: Anaheim 24, San Jose 26 after 2, Ducks lead 3-1. Sharks shoot 11 in the 3rd compared to 8 by Anaheim.

So while it doesn't account for everything, the 2 blowouts in the series by the Ducks also involved them shooting much more than normal, i.e., the Ducks were carrying the play a lot more than usual, which is probably why it was a blowout.

thegreatfatman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2009, 11:42 AM
  #63
SJGoalie32
Registered User
 
SJGoalie32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: TealTown, USA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,948
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derick View Post
Is more than 90% of the time in the playoffs not when he needs to?

Everyone here arguing on Nabokov's behalf are using adjectives and vague immeasurables. The numbers do not speak kindly to him.
Alright, here's some numbers for you.....

In the last 6 Sharks playoff losses, the Sharks failed to score more than 1 goal in 5 of 6 games.

That means that, in those games, had Nabokov given up any goal at all, the Sharks weren't going to win.

The Sharks have scored more than 2 goals in regulation just once in their past 12 playoff games....including wins.

Asking your goaltender to pitch you a shutout or you will lose pretty much every game where he allows even one goal against (and even a shutout through regulation would've been no guarantee for victory with a team that doesn't score) is utterly ridiculous.

SJGoalie32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2009, 11:48 AM
  #64
VP and GM
Havlat Sucks!
 
VP and GM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: at home
Country: United States
Posts: 5,250
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianSmith View Post
Out of all the players in the league, cap not an issue, getting them here is not an issue, who would you rather trade a 7th round pick for?

Sorry, I just don't see how this really relates to Nabby being the problem or not? So some pick another goalie. Guess what, I'm pretty sure everyone here would want Ovie or Malkin or Croby on their team more than any other player here. Does that mean our current core should be ousted?
Only cause we're talking about Nabby does it relate to him being the problem or not.
I'm not talking about blowing up the core - i am talking about if Nabby is the right goalie to lead us to the promised land. I believe HFers might / probably would make the case for another player to replace him disregarding the logistics of actually doing so which people get to bogged down in. Sure, it's a little bit of a popularity contest - the point being that there are allot of other goalies that HFers would rather have than Nabby for the cup run. Stated another way, if he's so great of a goalie, why wouldn't he win or come close to winning the popularity contest...

VP and GM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2009, 02:31 PM
  #65
SJGoalie32
Registered User
 
SJGoalie32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: TealTown, USA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,948
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VP and GM View Post
Only cause we're talking about Nabby does it relate to him being the problem or not.
I'm not talking about blowing up the core - i am talking about if Nabby is the right goalie to lead us to the promised land. I believe HFers might / probably would make the case for another player to replace him disregarding the logistics of actually doing so which people get to bogged down in. Sure, it's a little bit of a popularity contest - the point being that there are allot of other goalies that HFers would rather have than Nabby for the cup run. Stated another way, if he's so great of a goalie, why wouldn't he win or come close to winning the popularity contest...
There are NOT a lot of goalies that even HF'ers would prefer.

Here's the list of goaltenders Sharks fans "might" prefer over Nabby:

-Brodeur
-Luongo
-Kipprusoff

That's it. Brodeur is at the end of his career, and neither Kipper nor Luongo have won a Cup before either (though they've also played with lesser teams).

Nabokov is on par with or better than every other current goaltending name one could throw out there.

Plenty of goalies not named Brodeur have won Cups before. Do you think Nabby is worse than Marc-Andre Fleury? Or Chris Osgood? Or Nikolai Khabibulan? Or JS Giguere?

Nabokov can do it. Nabokov can be the centerpiece of a Cup run. But even Patrick Roy himself needed more than 21 goals over 12 playoff games from his own offense (13+ games if you include all the overtimes from the Anaheim and Dallas series).

SJGoalie32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2009, 03:35 PM
  #66
VP and GM
Havlat Sucks!
 
VP and GM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: at home
Country: United States
Posts: 5,250
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJGoalie32 View Post
There are NOT a lot of goalies that even HF'ers would prefer.

Here's the list of goaltenders Sharks fans "might" prefer over Nabby:
-Brodeur
-Luongo
-Kipprusoff
That's it. Brodeur is at the end of his career, and neither Kipper nor Luongo have won a Cup before either (though they've also played with lesser teams).

Nabokov is on par with or better than every other current goaltending name one could throw out there.

Plenty of goalies not named Brodeur have won Cups before. Do you think Nabby is worse than Marc-Andre Fleury? Or Chris Osgood? Or Nikolai Khabibulan? Or JS Giguere?

Nabokov can do it. Nabokov can be the centerpiece of a Cup run. But even Patrick Roy himself needed more than 21 goals over 12 playoff games from his own offense (13+ games if you include all the overtimes from the Anaheim and Dallas series).
That was my list also - i'd take any of the three at the top of the list over Nabber right now with the belief that we'd be better off for a cup run. In addition, there may be some in Europe that can play at a high NHL level - you never know where a hot goalie can come from. I'm not so much interested in who Nabby is better than as a debate as I am in recognition of the need for change as a first step. I'll agree that any goalie needs goals for support to be successful.

VP and GM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2009, 03:36 PM
  #67
Sleepy
Registered User
 
Sleepy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,495
vCash: 500
Nabby isn't the problem, nor is he the solution.

Let's face it, most nights he's a top 8 goaltender in the league during the regular season and about the same in the postseason. You know what happens to top 8 goaltenders in the playoffs? They lose when the playoff field is cut to 4, all things being equal.

Sleepy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2009, 08:41 AM
  #68
KzooShark
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derick View Post
Going by *this year's regular season stats*, I could as easily say "where is there a valid arguement for scoring being an issue for us?" seeing as we're second in the league in goals scored.

Having a lower save percentage in that many consecutive series is pretty telling.

Last year's series agaist Anaheim....

Game One: 2 - 0 Ducks. Sharks outshoot Ducks 35 to 17
Game Two: 3 - 2 Ducks. Sharks outshoot Ducks 44 to 26.
Game Three: 4 -3 Sharks. Sharks outshoot Ducks 35 to 30.
Game Four: 4 - 0 Ducks. Sharks outshoot Ducks 31 to 26.
Game Five: 3 - 2 Sharks. Sharks outshoot Ducks 48 to 25.
Game Six: 4 -1 Ducks. Sharks outshoot Ducks 37 to 32.

Yes, the Sharks outshot the Ducks every single game. I understand there's shot quality issues, that Hiller was also hot, and that the Sharks weren't scoring enough, but outshooting every single game in a series you lost is pretty telling.



I agree, except...

Nabokov's cap hit: 5,375,000
Osgood's cap hit: 1,416,667

3 958 333 is more than a Ryan Clowe or Rob Blake. It's more than what Jonathan Toews makes and more than double what Duncan Keith makes. More than what Drew Doughty makes. Slightly more than what Milan Hejduk makes. Maybe we'd have less of a depth problem if we didn't have an average goalie taking up superstar cap space.
I see 9 goals in 6 games. While howling about the incompetence of the $5 million goalie, don't forget the $30+ million in forwards. The year before vs. Dallas, I saw 10 regulation goals in 6 games. Those 12 games are equal to the 19 the Sharks had in their last playoff series win over Calgary.

Now that I think about it, didn't we all spend the entire offseason arguing this?

KzooShark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2009, 10:10 AM
  #69
ChompChomp
SACK T-MAC
 
ChompChomp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dallas, TX (Ugh)
Country: United States
Posts: 8,718
vCash: 500
The problem, IMHO, is that we group together the last four playoffs as if they are all connected.

They aren't.

05-06 was probably a true choke job versus Edmonton.

06-07 they got beat by a better team, but it was a semi-choke in the sense that they couldn't seal the deal, especially Games 2 and 4 BOTH with third period leads which would have given them an impressive sweep over the Wings.

07-08 had 4 OT games versus the Stars, could have gone either way.

And finally 08-09 the team was decimated by injuries, obvious when Goc is faster on the ice than Marleau [and many others were hurt too]. I know all teams in the playoffs face injuries but the Sharks hit the injury bug bad at the worst time in 08-09.

As fans we say "oh no, not again," but if you look at these playoff runs they are not entirely connected and each have their own set of circumstances.

ChompChomp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2009, 10:21 AM
  #70
CBJenga
Registered User
 
CBJenga's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 1,358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChompChomp View Post
The problem, IMHO, is that we group together the last four playoffs as if they are all connected.

They aren't.

05-06 was probably a true choke job versus Edmonton.

06-07 they got beat by a better team, but it was a semi-choke in the sense that they couldn't seal the deal, especially Games 2 and 4 BOTH with third period leads which would have given them an impressive sweep over the Wings.

07-08 had 4 OT games versus the Stars, could have gone either way.

And finally 08-09 the team was decimated by injuries, obvious when Goc is faster on the ice than Marleau [and many others were hurt too]. I know all teams in the playoffs face injuries but the Sharks hit the injury bug bad at the worst time in 08-09.

As fans we say "oh no, not again," but if you look at these playoff runs they are not entirely connected and each have their own set of circumstances.
I dunno, after four years, we have to look at it like we are now. We can keep making individual excuses for each year. Or we can sack up and recognize that our boys simply haven't been stepping it up in those series and need to.

CBJenga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2009, 10:41 AM
  #71
ChompChomp
SACK T-MAC
 
ChompChomp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dallas, TX (Ugh)
Country: United States
Posts: 8,718
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBJenga View Post
I dunno, after four years, we have to look at it like we are now. We can keep making individual excuses for each year. Or we can sack up and recognize that our boys simply haven't been stepping it up in those series and need to.
I'm not making excuses, but suggesting that there is more independence to each playoff run than we like to give.

You could apply the same logic to the Buffalo Bills of the early 90's. Four straight Super Bowls but no win. I don't think it's fair to say they were just chokers for all four Super Bowls, because each game was a different set of circumstances. I think they choked against the Giants in the 91 Super Bowl, but in the other 3 ran into much better teams. From 1985-1997 the NFC team won EVERY Super Bowl. Clearly the AFC was the weaker conf and the Bills were only the best of a weak conf.

The Sharks thoroughly choked against the Oilers with a 2-0 lead and then losing 4 straight to supposedly an inferior team, but the next season was a different season. And the next one after that was different too.

One way to look at it is to say the common denominator are players who have been there virtually the entire run, like Thornton/Marleau/Nabby. The other way is to say that it's a team game and the team was different each of those seasons and thus it's not fair to lump all of the those playoff runs together.

ChompChomp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2009, 03:43 PM
  #72
Kitten Mittons
Registered User
 
Kitten Mittons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Francisco
Country: Armenia
Posts: 46,810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChompChomp View Post
07-08 had 4 OT games versus the Stars, could have gone either way.
Yeah, if you look at only Game 6. Where were the Sharks in the first three?

Excuses, excuses ...

Kitten Mittons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2009, 04:42 PM
  #73
Nabokov20
Karlsson for Chuck
 
Nabokov20's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,663
vCash: 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfw13 View Post
After watching tonight's game and the soft goal Nabby gave up to Jokinen made me wonder whether Nabby is truly good enough to take us to the Finals.

To wit...he's been outplayed in each of the Sharks last five playoff series (using save percentage as the metric) and has had a save percentage under 90% in three of those:

08-09: Nabby .885 - Hiller .957, Sharks lose 4-2
07-08: Nabby .895 - Kipper .917, Sharks win 4-3
07-08: Nabby .913 - Turco .941, Sharks lose 4-2
06-07: Nabby .896 - Vokoun .902, Sharks win 4-1
06-07: Nabby .932 - Osgood .940, Sharks lose 4-2

In total that's one series above .915 (the approximate league average over that time)for Nabby, four series above .915 for opposing goalies. In fact, you have to go back to the 2nd round series against Colorado in 03-04 to find a series in which Nabby outplayed the opposing goalie, and even then he was outplayed by Kipper in the Conference Finals.

As much as I don't like to think it, there's a part of me wondering if we will ever be successful in the playoffs with Nabby between the pipes.
this just in: when you lose a series, your stats tend to be worse than your opponent (as for the series won... you won)

Nabokov20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2009, 04:16 PM
  #74
Tealblood
Registered User
 
Tealblood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Northern California
Country: United States
Posts: 2,572
vCash: 500

I made this crappy photoshop for nabby, maybe he'll close his legs more if don cherry babies start popping outta there.

Tealblood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2009, 09:15 PM
  #75
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 29,230
vCash: 500
In the playoffs, the goalie's stats are a good indicator of the team's play in general. All the hot goalies come playoff time get a lot of help from their blue liners clearing pucks and preventing second chances. The goalies that look bad generally have those bounces go in the net.

That was one of the reasons why the Sharks lost last year. The Ducks were excellent at clearing the front of the net and the Sharks weren't. That difference is applicable in a lot of different playoff match-ups.

Pinkfloyd 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 06:08 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.