HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Buffalo Sabres
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Biron awarded 2.8 mil.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-10-2004, 10:54 AM
  #51
Takeo
Registered User
 
Takeo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 19,270
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
For this team to be better than mediocre, you will need another superstar in net. I don't see a lot of them out there that will do significantly better than Biron, that we have a legitimate chance of getting without getting rid of promising young players who in the future will help us be better than mediocre...
I thought you said a superstar goalie was necessary to escape mediocrity? Or are you suggesting we shouldn't trade Miller? If that's the case, I agree.

My entire perspective is based on the fact that Biron has had ample opportunity to succeed. The team is weak overall, so it might not be fair to judge him on whether he can carry it (although a goaltender should be a positive difference-maker more often than not). But the fact of the matter is, he can't, fair or not. He can't even retain his starting job for more than a month. That's partly attributable to Ruff's idiocy, but Biron is brutally inconsistent regardless. If he was just plain bad, I would partly blame the team. But because he can show flashes of brilliance and then sharply regress with the same team in front of him, that speaks of the player. Fact is, Biron has had three seasons to demonstrate some consistent play and has failed. How will we know if we possibly have something better in the wings without moving him?

Takeo is offline  
Old
08-10-2004, 01:23 PM
  #52
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takeo21
I thought you said a superstar goalie was necessary to escape mediocrity? Or are you suggesting we shouldn't trade Miller? If that's the case, I agree.

My entire perspective is based on the fact that Biron has had ample opportunity to succeed. The team is weak overall, so it might not be fair to judge him on whether he can carry it (although a goaltender should be a positive difference-maker more often than not). But the fact of the matter is, he can't, fair or not. He can't even retain his starting job for more than a month. That's partly attributable to Ruff's idiocy, but Biron is brutally inconsistent regardless. If he was just plain bad, I would partly blame the team. But because he can show flashes of brilliance and then sharply regress with the same team in front of him, that speaks of the player. Fact is, Biron has had three seasons to demonstrate some consistent play and has failed. How will we know if we possibly have something better in the wings without moving him?

Isn't that like saying Boston should get rid of Thornton because he only shows flashes of brilliance? Or any other player in the league, for that matter? It takes time for players to develop. Biron may not be as consistent as you'ld like, but he is still better than either Noronen and Miller right now and he will continue to get better. Noronen has had 3 years to take the starting job away from Biron, but hasn't been able to do it. In fact, he has looked even worse than Biron on many nights and as someone else pointed out, played poorly even when the team in front of him was playing much better in the second half of last season.

If Noronen would come out and take the starting job from Biron, that would be fine. We can get rid of Biron at that point. I don't see the sense in dumping Biron because you have two other goaltenders that may or may not be better than Biron, especially when those other two goaltenders have not been able to carry this team any better than Biron. (In fact, they have been worse...)

Brutally inconsistent is a matter of opinion. Noronen to me has been even more inconsistent than Biron. That points to overall team weakness being the problem. The fact that Biron has been better than Noronen even with such a weak team would imply that we should hold on to Biron since he will still be the better goaltender when the rest of the team improves.

djhn579 is offline  
Old
08-10-2004, 02:48 PM
  #53
Takeo
Registered User
 
Takeo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 19,270
vCash: 500
This goalie crap gives me a headache. It's amazing how we all interpret the situation so differently. I see Biron as an average goalie who has been given every opportunity to take a mediocre team over the top but who has proven himself as too inconsistent to do so. I see Noronen and Miller as unproven goaltenders with higher upside who cannot gain their footing because the coaching staff finds it appropriate to bench them for a month after one bad start. Noronen and Miller may not be the answer either, but the first experiement has failed...time for a new one. Stubbornly petting Marty as the #1 and retaining all three netminders only fosters complacency and stunts the development of young players. But alas this is the Buffalo Sabres, and this is how we do things.

Takeo is offline  
Old
08-10-2004, 04:03 PM
  #54
Buffaloed
Administrator
Webmaster
 
Buffaloed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 24,967
vCash: 2635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fan-of-#9
It sure is....
It's understandable too. We had 8 great years from Hasek. For most Sabres fans aged 25 or younger, the Hasek experience is all they have to relate to. You get conditioned by it and come to believe that's the way a goalie is supposed to play so expectations are unrealistic. The reality is that Hasek was just as far above the norm as Bob Essensa was below it during his season in Buffalo. The coaching and gm were affected by it too. They seem to be putting far too much hope in one of their goalies becoming a "dominator" than in building a team that can win with average goaltending. Rather than build a solid defense, they've pinned their hopes on the goaltending. Hasek recorded 41 wins for the Wings with an ordinary .915 SA. He never won more than 37 for the Sabres while putting up much loftier numbers.

Buffaloed is offline  
Old
08-10-2004, 04:16 PM
  #55
Jamie Walker
Registered User
 
Jamie Walker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Hamilton, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 452
vCash: 500
Martin Biron is just starting to mature as an NHL goalie. He turns 27 this Sunday; and if you look at any goalies who have been extremely successful, it wasn't until they "aged a little" in the NHL. Hasek used to be a back up in Chicago during his "developement" stage, and we (Buffalo) came in and picked him up. Does anyone Know how old he was when we acquired him?
I think we'd be crazy to let him go, because he wasn't picked 16th overall for nothing. He is only going to get better with age, and what's the average age of the NHL goalie?

Jamie Walker is offline  
Old
08-10-2004, 06:34 PM
  #56
imyourhuckleberry
Nyaaa..What's Up Doc
 
imyourhuckleberry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 2,070
vCash: 500
Why would anyone give him a raise? If I do only half my work for an entire year, I won't see a raise, in fact, I'd probably be told if I didnt improve I'd be fired. So why does Biron, who for all accounts basically played only half the season and really didnt show improvement, deserve this raise? He should be ashamed to accept it, he should give what was given to him and put it to charity or something and keep the salary he had last year. That may sound harsh, but does he really deserve this?

Oh if only the nhl, and other sports, was based on a "do good get a pay raise/do bad get a pay cut basis."

imyourhuckleberry is offline  
Old
08-10-2004, 07:13 PM
  #57
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie Walker
Martin Biron is just starting to mature as an NHL goalie. He turns 27 this Sunday; and if you look at any goalies who have been extremely successful, it wasn't until they "aged a little" in the NHL. Hasek used to be a back up in Chicago during his "developement" stage, and we (Buffalo) came in and picked him up. Does anyone Know how old he was when we acquired him?
Hasek was 27 or 28 when we picked him up, then he was a backup here for a few more seasons.

djhn579 is offline  
Old
08-10-2004, 07:17 PM
  #58
Ruckus007
Said too much
 
Ruckus007's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Huntington, WV
Posts: 7,487
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
Hasek was 27 or 28 when we picked him up, then he was a backup here for a few more seasons.
Hasek had 25 games under his belt when he came to Buffalo. Biron has 246 entering this season.

Ruckus007 is offline  
Old
08-10-2004, 08:17 PM
  #59
Fan-of-#9
Registered User
 
Fan-of-#9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Southern Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,775
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takeo21
Your stats are so dry. The majority of Biron's success comes after the team is already eliminated from playoff contention. That tells me he's a decent goalie who can be impressive every so often, but is incapable of carrying a team any further than mediocrity or winning crucial games at potential turning points in the season. Stats are useful to bicker with, but wins and success are all that really matters.
Thanks, I can tell that my "proof" is starting to get to you, because all you have to come back with is your "opinion". Wins are what matter right? Well the stats prove that Biron can win, with a 28-16-5 record last season.

Fan-of-#9 is offline  
Old
08-10-2004, 08:31 PM
  #60
imyourhuckleberry
Nyaaa..What's Up Doc
 
imyourhuckleberry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 2,070
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fan-of-#9
Thanks, I can tell that my "proof" is starting to get to you, because all you have to come back with is your "opinion". Wins are what matter right? Well the stats prove that Biron can win, with a 28-16-5 record last season.
Wrong, all those stats prove is Biron can record a win, when the team decides to play tough and aggressive. When they don't, Biron has no ability to win a game all by himself. That's what that proves.

imyourhuckleberry is offline  
Old
08-10-2004, 08:33 PM
  #61
Fan-of-#9
Registered User
 
Fan-of-#9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Southern Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,775
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabres22
Wrong, all those stats prove is Biron can record a win, when the team decides to play tough and aggressive.
Thanks for enlightening me. Too bad you have no proof to back that up.

Quote:
When they don't, Biron has no ability to win a game all by himself. That's what that proves.
Tell that to the folks who choose the "3 stars" every game.

Fan-of-#9 is offline  
Old
08-10-2004, 08:45 PM
  #62
Ruckus007
Said too much
 
Ruckus007's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Huntington, WV
Posts: 7,487
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fan-of-#9
Tell that to the folks who choose the "3 stars" every game.
If someone selects it then it's not a stat. 3 stars is somebody's opinion. Just like saying "Biron can't win by himself" is an opinion. I think if you really looked deep into 3 stars you'll find that goalies will often get a default spot on that list when there aren't three obviously worthy players. But that's just an opinion too. Maybe someone can make a stat out of that statement.

Show me who selects the three stars and I'll be happy to tell them Biron doesn't have that special je ne se qua of taking over games by himself. And there isn't a stat in the world that can prove or disprove that.

Ruckus007 is offline  
Old
08-11-2004, 07:16 AM
  #63
Kruschiki
Registered User
 
Kruschiki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 14,429
vCash: 50
This debate rages on and hate to add to it, but...

I take in probably 95% of the Sabres games every year (TV) and have the same feeling every time the sabres get a lead, whether it's 1, 2 or 3 goals: will it be enough? This IMO is an indictment of the goaltending overall. I've watched too many leads slip away with bad goals the past 2 years to have any faith what-so-ever in Biron.

Kruschiki is online now  
Old
08-11-2004, 08:30 AM
  #64
Digable5
Registered User
 
Digable5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: B-Lo
Country: United States
Posts: 3,856
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruckus007
Just like saying "Biron can't win by himself" is an opinion.
Show me who selects the three stars and I'll be happy to tell them Biron doesn't have that special je ne se qua of taking over games by himself. And there isn't a stat in the world that can prove or disprove that.
Well, maybe this stat will tell you Biron can win games by himself.

Biron: 26Wins 18Losses
Noronen:11Wins 17Losses

I watched every game last year and didn't notice them playing with two different teams. Did you?

Was there a Sabres Team A that played with Biron and a Sabres Team B that played with Noronen?

Some people discount wins as a way to judge goalies, but there has to be something behind Biron winning and Noronen not with the same team. Maybe the skaters play harder for Biron? Hard to tell, but shouldn't that be a quality of Biron's too? Even if you're not the best goalie(Biron) or the best coach(Nolan) there just may be something about them that inspires the team to victory.

And the fact that you expect Biron to win every game "by himself" is ridiculous. It is a TEAM game, isn't it? Since when did it become the Buffalo Biron's? You're also forgetting that there aren't many goalies in the league, or even in history, that "won by themselves". Not everyone is going to be a Dominik Hasek. One of the best goalies in the league right now is Roberto Luongo. He plays for a horrible team and has a losing record. Does that mean he can't "win by himself"? And if it does, does it make him a bad goaltender?

Digable5 is offline  
Old
08-11-2004, 09:15 AM
  #65
Takeo
Registered User
 
Takeo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 19,270
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fan-of-#9
Thanks, I can tell that my "proof" is starting to get to you, because all you have to come back with is your "opinion". Wins are what matter right? Well the stats prove that Biron can win, with a 28-16-5 record last season.
Proof of what? That Biron wins more games than he loses yet is still unable to make any significant impact and has failed to lead his team to the playoffs in three straight seasons as the starter? Context negates statistics.

Takeo is offline  
Old
08-11-2004, 09:29 AM
  #66
Ruckus007
Said too much
 
Ruckus007's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Huntington, WV
Posts: 7,487
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digable5
Well, maybe this stat will tell you Biron can win games by himself.

Biron: 26Wins 18Losses
Noronen:11Wins 17Losses

I watched every game last year and didn't notice them playing with two different teams. Did you?

Was there a Sabres Team A that played with Biron and a Sabres Team B that played with Noronen?

Some people discount wins as a way to judge goalies, but there has to be something behind Biron winning and Noronen not with the same team. Maybe the skaters play harder for Biron? Hard to tell, but shouldn't that be a quality of Biron's too? Even if you're not the best goalie(Biron) or the best coach(Nolan) there just may be something about them that inspires the team to victory.

And the fact that you expect Biron to win every game "by himself" is ridiculous. It is a TEAM game, isn't it? Since when did it become the Buffalo Biron's? You're also forgetting that there aren't many goalies in the league, or even in history, that "won by themselves". Not everyone is going to be a Dominik Hasek. One of the best goalies in the league right now is Roberto Luongo. He plays for a horrible team and has a losing record. Does that mean he can't "win by himself"? And if it does, does it make him a bad goaltender?

Who started more games in the first half? Who started more in the second half?


Now how well did the skaters play in the first half? How well did they play in the second half?


There were two different Sabres teams and Noronen played his best hockey (and was healthy) when the team in front of him was at his worst. Biron played his best hockey when the team in front of him was was at it's best.


You saw every game. I'm not telling you anything you don't already know.

Ruckus007 is offline  
Old
08-11-2004, 11:02 AM
  #67
Digable5
Registered User
 
Digable5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: B-Lo
Country: United States
Posts: 3,856
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruckus007
Who started more games in the first half? Who started more in the second half?.
Why did Marty play more games in the second half? Because he paid off Ruff? I don't think so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruckus007
Now how well did the skaters play in the first half? How well did they play in the second half?
The skaters did play better in the second half, but again that can be attributed to two things, the trades and the fact that they seem to play better with Marty in net.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruckus007
There were two different Sabres teams and Noronen played his best hockey (and was healthy) when the team in front of him was at his worst. Biron played his best hockey when the team in front of him was was at it's best.
You saw every game. I'm not telling you anything you don't already know.
I did a calculation of the second half when the skaters were "better". I gave a win if both goalies appeared in a win and a loss to the starting goalie when they both appeared in a loss (which benefits Noronen). However in the second 41 games, Noronen was 3-6 and Biron was 19-8. I will give credit to Noronen for facing a lot of the top teams in the second half, but he lost a lot against easier teams in the first half. And a lot of Biron's losses in the 2nd half were legitimate as well. I even included the overtime losses, Biron got against Boston(twice) and Toronto in the loss column.

In the first 41 games: Noronen 9-9 and Biron 8-9. Not much different here. And we all know Miller was 0-3.

Here's a link for game-to-game wins and losses and what goalies appear, if you want to check it out for yourself:

http://tsf.waymoresports.thestar.com...amgbyg.cgi?Buf

Digable5 is offline  
Old
08-11-2004, 11:40 AM
  #68
Ruckus007
Said too much
 
Ruckus007's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Huntington, WV
Posts: 7,487
vCash: 500
Marty played more games in the second half one because Noronen got hurt in December and he was the goalie when the team took off. You know Ruff, you know he likes to ride one goalie if he can. Isn't it reasonable to assume if Noronen was still the #1 goalie in January (and based on December play it's also reasonable to assume he would be) that Noronen would reap some of those benefits?

I don't think you can attribute the second half surge to the trades. The team was rolling long before the trading deadline and though the got better through the trades it didn't flip the light switch. Saying they played better because Biron was in net is pure conjecture. It may very well be true but we don't know one way or the other but they didn't play well in the first half with Noronen or Biron in net so I'm inclined to not believe that as a cause more than believe it. Like I said I might be wrong but it's not something I think can be taken as a concrete fact.

I'm trying to get what new information your second half records are bringing. I know Biron had a great record in 2004, I know Noronen's wasn't. What doesn't show up in that stat page is how much the team had to do in the win and how much the goalie did. It's very easy to win games 5-1, 6-0, 6-2, which both goalies did. It's a lot harder to win games 2-1. By my rough estimate Biron has a goal support of 3.06 in his starts (including games Noronen played in) and Noronen had 2.25 goals. Compared to their GAA (2.52 Biron, 2.57 Noronen), it's not surprising to me that Biron had a better record. He also had a much greater margin for error.

Ruckus007 is offline  
Old
08-11-2004, 12:45 PM
  #69
Digable5
Registered User
 
Digable5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: B-Lo
Country: United States
Posts: 3,856
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruckus007
Marty played more games in the second half one because Noronen got hurt in December and he was the goalie when the team took off. You know Ruff, you know he likes to ride one goalie if he can. Isn't it reasonable to assume if Noronen was still the #1 goalie in January (and based on December play it's also reasonable to assume he would be) that Noronen would reap some of those benefits?
One of the biggest problems Lindy had in the first half is that he didn't stay with one of the goalies. If someone was doing well, he would immediately replace him after a loss. In December Mika, loss 4 starts in a row to poor teams.(Phx,Min, Pit, and NYR). Yes he did come back later that month to beat Wash and Carolina, but I hardly think that would have made him No. 1 going into the second half.

Not to mention, he had 4 consecutive starts when he came back in January and lost three of them. Then Biron won one, Noronen lost again, and the rest is history. Mika had as much a chance to be No.1 down the stretch as Biron did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruckus007
I don't think you can attribute the second half surge to the trades. The team was rolling long before the trading deadline and though the got better through the trades it didn't flip the light switch.
True, but they did lose 5 out of seven just before our first game with the "new guys". They had one big string of 9 wins before that but 5 of those teams did not make the playoffs. However, most of the teams we played after the deadline weren't so great either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruckus007
Saying they played better because Biron was in net is pure conjecture. It may very well be true but we don't know one way or the other but they didn't play well in the first half with Noronen or Biron in net so I'm inclined to not believe that as a cause more than believe it. Like I said I might be wrong but it's not something I think can be taken as a concrete fact.

I'm trying to get what new information your second half records are bringing. I know Biron had a great record in 2004, I know Noronen's wasn't. What doesn't show up in that stat page is how much the team had to do in the win and how much the goalie did. It's very easy to win games 5-1, 6-0, 6-2, which both goalies did. It's a lot harder to win games 2-1. By my rough estimate Biron has a goal support of 3.06 in his starts (including games Noronen played in) and Noronen had 2.25 goals. Compared to their GAA (2.52 Biron, 2.57 Noronen), it's not surprising to me that Biron had a better record. He also had a much greater margin for error.
You're right about two things. 1. How the team plays in front of Biron is not a fact 2. How the "team" plays does affect the quality of the win.
However, the fact that the team scores almost a goal more per game when Biron is in net as opposed to Noronen, makes me believe even more that they play better for Marty. Me just saying they play better isn't fact, but I'd like to submit the goal support as exhibit A. So, since Biron has a lower GAA and a higher GFA(goals for average), why would you rather have Noronen in net?

Digable5 is offline  
Old
08-11-2004, 01:07 PM
  #70
Ruckus007
Said too much
 
Ruckus007's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Huntington, WV
Posts: 7,487
vCash: 500
First the difference between Biron's GAA and Noronen's GAA isn't statistically significant. Essentially, they're the same number.


I just don't see how you can say with any certainty that they played better in front of Biron because they were playing in front of Biron. If that's the case why wasn't he 19-8 in the first half? Check out the stats you linked. The Sabres put up 5,6 goal performances in front of Noronen too. In fact they were mostly in the second half of the season. Personally, I'm inclined to believe they were crummy in 2003 regardless of who was in net and excellent in 2004 regardless of who was in net.


So why would I rather have Noronen? Because I think he's more skilled than Biron. Because I think he has that je ne se qua of being able to "take over a game" moreso than Biron and because he's younger and is paid a third of Biron. Even if Biron is the better of the two, which I don't believe, I certainly don't think the difference between them warrents the money discrepancy and playing time discrepancy.

Ruckus007 is offline  
Old
08-11-2004, 03:11 PM
  #71
Digable5
Registered User
 
Digable5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: B-Lo
Country: United States
Posts: 3,856
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruckus007
So why would I rather have Noronen? Because I think he's more skilled than Biron. Because I think he has that je ne se qua of being able to "take over a game" moreso than Biron and because he's younger and is paid a third of Biron. Even if Biron is the better of the two, which I don't believe, I certainly don't think the difference between them warrents the money discrepancy and playing time discrepancy.
What makes you think Noronen has this "je ne se qua" to take over a game? I mean maybe he does, but why didn't he use any of it in 2003 or 2004? I guess maybe he did, but it only happened, what 11 times at most? Is it like a pill he can take only 15 times a season?

Biron is only 1 year older and has had three seasons of 35 games or more and has never had as bad a SV% as Noronen did(.906) last year. Biron's worst is .908 and that was last year on the worst "team" in Sabres history. The GAA may be close, but the better stat to use in comparing goaltenders is SV% and Biron is well ahead of Mika. Yes the cost difference in salary is a lot, but the price you would pay, if Noronen has another losing season like he had last year, would be much greater.

Digable5 is offline  
Old
08-11-2004, 03:16 PM
  #72
Ruckus007
Said too much
 
Ruckus007's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Huntington, WV
Posts: 7,487
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digable5
What makes you think Noronen has this "je ne se qua" to take over a game? I mean maybe he does, but why didn't he use any of it in 2003 or 2004? I guess maybe he did, but it only happened, what 11 times at most? Is it like a pill he can take only 15 times a season?

Biron is only 1 year older and has had three seasons of 35 games or more and has never had as bad a SV% as Noronen did(.906) last year. Biron's worst is .908 and that was last year on the worst "team" in Sabres history. The GAA may be close, but the better stat to use in comparing goaltenders is SV% and Biron is well ahead of Mika. Yes the cost difference in salary is a lot, but the price you would pay, if Noronen has another losing season like he had last year, would be much greater.

I go back to my statement about their GAAs. .908 and .906 save percentages aren't a statistically significant difference.


Why do I say that? Because I've seen it. I've been to games where the only reason the Sabres have won was because Noronen was the best player on the ice (specifically at Carolina in March '03, vs Philly in '02 on what I believe was an ESPN2 game; not the only options). It's not something you can quantify with a stat. I'm just going with what I'm seeing and Noronen, IMO, has the ability to be the best player on the ice whereas Biron doesn't. The statistical differences really aren't all that different. Noronen's more skilled, IMO.

Ruckus007 is offline  
Old
08-11-2004, 03:33 PM
  #73
Ruckus007
Said too much
 
Ruckus007's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Huntington, WV
Posts: 7,487
vCash: 500
I went and did some beancounting of my own. All numbers generated from ESPN.com so I'm putting my faith in a somewhat unreliable source.

Anyhoo, I compared Noronen's numbers through Dec 29 (his last start of 2003 and the last game before his leg injury) vs Biron from Dec 31 through the end of the season. Basically when both goalies were at the top of their games.

Noronen
7-9-1
.918 SV%
2.05 GAA
2.20 GFA

Biron
20-10-3
.914 SV%
2.36 GAA
3.34 GFA



SV% is slightly Noronen but basically a push. GAA goes to Noronen. Biron gets record and GFA. I don't think it's a stretch to say that those last two numbers are somewhat interrelated right? I'll stand by what I've been saying. If Noronen was healthy when he came back (and according to Ruff and Mika he wasn't), and was able to reap the rewards of a bazooka offense, his second half numbers would've been much more impressive.

Ruckus007 is offline  
Old
08-11-2004, 03:34 PM
  #74
Digable5
Registered User
 
Digable5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: B-Lo
Country: United States
Posts: 3,856
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruckus007
I go back to my statement about their GAAs. .908 and .906 save percentages aren't a statistically significant difference.


Why do I say that? Because I've seen it. I've been to games where the only reason the Sabres have won was because Noronen was the best player on the ice (specifically at Carolina in March '03, vs Philly in '02 on what I believe was an ESPN2 game; not the only options). It's not something you can quantify with a stat. I'm just going with what I'm seeing and Noronen, IMO, has the ability to be the best player on the ice whereas Biron doesn't. The statistical differences really aren't all that different. Noronen's more skilled, IMO.
Well, first the .908 was two years ago. Last year Biron had a .913SV%

.913 and .906 is a big difference.

And why even bother bringing up two meaningless games, that didn't even happen last season. If he can dominate games so few and far between, what's the good in having this "je ne se qua"?

Biron was the only thing giving us hope the game against the Rangers when he faced 40 shots in game #80. There isn't much more pressure than not being able to lose and getting no help from the defense. If it wasn't for Biron we would have been out of that game and out of the playoff hunt a game earlier than we were.

We'll have to just agree to disagree. As long as the Sabres are winning (when they agree to play again) I think we'll both be happy with who's in net.

Digable5 is offline  
Old
08-11-2004, 03:41 PM
  #75
Ruckus007
Said too much
 
Ruckus007's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Huntington, WV
Posts: 7,487
vCash: 500
I figured the save percentages were from different seasons but that doesn't change the fact that there isn't a significant difference between the two.


As long as the Sabres win, you're right, I don't give a damn who's in goal as long as it's the best player. I'm not convinced it's Biron.



BTW, possibly the best goaltending performance of the season was when the Sabres lost 1-0 vs Carolina with Noronen in net.

Ruckus007 is offline  
Closed Thread

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 10:13 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.