And Price isn't immune to fatigue, mentally or physically, come playoff time either and this could precisely explain a bit of why he hasn't looked as quick as before. (not that his team is helping him in anyway). And you're essentially comparing the fatigue of playing 60 games from October to February vs playing 60 games from October to April.
This team is not relying on Auld since they don't have any points to spare right now, which is more of a drain for Price.
I'm not debating who wins it or not, was never my real interest on the subject.. just stating that TT would never be part of my elite goalie list and my opinion is only validated when we look at his career and see the 1 time he's played over 60 he was far from Vezina-like.
The over playing of Price has been maybe the biggest blunder by JM this year. He's been pulled 3 times in a week and a half.There has to be a connection to being physically and/or mentally tired. I hate the B's but TT is almost a no-brainer for the vezina,especially when you look at his #'s compared to a very capable Rasks,their #2
Timmy to me is a hot and cold goalie. I don't have quantitative proof to back this up but I believe he is far more streaky than Price.
Part of this, imo, is the fact that Price simply destroys him in terms of positional play ... Timmy in my eyes plays like a poor man's Hasek - when he's hot, it may appear like he's Hasek like - but when he's not, he looks like a Hasek-tard.
I don't think Timmy's play lends itself to being capable of holding-up for 70 game season. His one season of 60 games plus was nothing to brag about, statistically.
Lastly, considering the injuries and the team in front of him, Price had a lot more on his plate than Timmy... This may or may not be relevant in terms of the Vezina, but it is certainly relevant in my eyes when trying to interpret the raw stats.
The big question mark is '' if Timmy'' had played 70 games would he have had the insane save % going into the various stretches of the season? I'm highly skeptical.
Let's use a more realistic example:
55 games , .930ish sv %
70 games, .920ish sv %
If it comes down to this statistic alone, I think the better one is the 70 games played.
Whether or not the voting takes games played into consideration as much as I would is not something Im informed about - one thing for certain though, if my vote counted, it most certainly would.
Clearly, 55 games .930ish vs 70 games, .900 , 55 games is the better stat here.
But the discrepancy in the existing situation is not as large as this example.
If Rask was your second goalie, trust me Price wouldn't have played so many games also... or put it this way, Auld in Boston this year.. Thomas would have played 60+ games. What would be his stats then is pure speculation I think.