Monday, July 19, 2010

Call me an apologist

I wouldn't blame you if you did. For the amount of times I've used this space to defend Carey Price in the face of seemingly undeniable evidence that he is ever so obviously destined to be a bust, it could seem like I'm on Price's payroll.


But I'm not. Trust me.


However, from time to time I read things that inspire me to try and interject a little dose of perspective on things. Today, it happened twice.


The first was Richard Labbe's piece in La Presse where he claims an enormous number of hockey people have told him Price does not have the mental makeup to succeed in Montreal. This is a theory that has gained pretty widespread approval, though I'm not quite sure why. Because the kid likes to party? Because he's shown his frustration from time to time?


I'm not sure what kind of person it takes to succeed in Montreal. Yes, people love hockey here. Yes, people have high standards here. But do the Nashville Predators as an organization tolerate losing more than the Canadiens do? Don't all athletes making millions of dollars have an inherent pressure to perform? I suppose a player for the Canadiens needs to enjoy that "spice" of Montreal, as Bob Gainey put it, but I refuse to believe it takes someone with superhuman powers to overcome the pressure from the fans and media here.


Then, refreshingly, I was reading a blog post from Robert L of Habs Eyes on the Prize on how fans need to cut Price some slack, how he's going through the same growing pains everyone does, how he shouldn't be branded for the rest of his career just because of a few transgressions early on. It was refreshing.


But then I read a comment in response to the blog, and it led me right back on this path to writing in the wee hours of the morning about just what Price has accomplished thus far, no matter what people may perceive or think.


I know everyone has heard the comparisons of where Price stands with some of the greats of the game in terms of his age and what he's done. I'm also aware it gets tiresome. But the reason it is brought up so often is because it needs to be said.


Here are Price's career numbers at age 22 (he turns 23 on August 16):
134 GP, 60-48-18, 2.73 GAA, .912 SP


Here are the career numbers of some of the league's other top goalies at the same age, in no particular order:


Martin Brodeur - 91 GP, 48-23-14, 2.45 GAA, .909 SP
Roberto Luongo - 129 GP, 35-57-12, 2.74, .915
Ryan Miller - 15 GP, 6-8-1, 2.63, .902
Tomas Vokoun - 38 GP, 12-18-4, 3.04, .905
Cam Ward - 88 GP, 44-29-8, 3.12, .892
Marc-Andre Fleury - 138 GP, 57-57-17, 3.10, .901


The list is a short one (it is by no means exhaustive) largely because many of the best goalies in the NHL today hadn't even made the NHL at age 22. They include Miikka Kiprusoff, Niklas Backstrom, Tim Thomas, Henrik Lundqvist, Evgeni Nabokov, Marty Turco, Jonas Hiller, Pekka Rinne, Dan Ellis and many, many others.


The point here is clear, that Price has gained a lot of valuable experience before many goalies even made the league, and among those who did Price measures up pretty darn well.


Some might respond that bringing Price to the NHL so early was a mistake, and it's a fair argument to make. Gainey never hid the fact his management, or mis-management, of Price was based on his desire to get the goalie this experience that will serve him well in the future. Gainey did so seemingly to the detriment of the team, and definitely to the detriment of Jaroslav Halak.


But in Boston we see a perfect comparison to Price, the one that took the more conventional route of learning in the minors and paying his dues before earning his starter's position. Tuukka Rask just completed his first full season in the NHL, even though he's five months older than Price, and he was dominant. You see a 22-12-5 record with a 1.97 GAA and .931 save percentage and you say, "See? Price should have waited." Except who knows how Rask will respond to being the clear starter? Does anyone have any idea how he reacts to adversity? Has his head gotten used to being heaped with praise?


Perhaps, but perhaps not. I would say that the most valuable "experience" Price has gained came this season when he was knocked down a peg and saw his own mortality, for lack of a better term. He said it himself after the season that he got a wake up call watching Halak take his job and realized that he had stopped improving. Of course, talk is easy. Now that talk needs to be put into action.


Except while everyone is hoping Price shows a miraculously dramatic improvement this coming season, the fact is he doesn't have that far to go.


Yes, his won-loss record was atrocious at 13-20-5, and for whatever reason the Canadiens became a horrible team whenever Price was manning the net. A lot of people have some cockamamie explanations for why that was the case, like, for instance, Price didn't work as hard as Halak so his teammates didn't work for him. But his won-loss record needs to be looked at in the proper perspective.


The goalie stats at Behind the Net show that Price was really put behind the eight ball by his teammates more often than not. For starters, Price received just about the worst offensive support in the NHL among goalies who played at least 20 games. Only three goalies - Brian Boucher, Tim Thomas and Chris Osgood - were on the ice for fewer 5-on-5 goals per 60 minutes of ice time than Price's 1.87. Now, it's not as if the Habs were lighting it up for Halak seeing as he's at 2.30, but still, that's better than 19 other goalies. Price's goal support was better than only three.


When a team is leading, especially the Jacques Martin-coached Canadiens, they have a tendency to shore up defensively. When you're trailing, or even tied, risks need to be taken and that subjects your goalie to higher quality scoring opportunities. It's true that Price appeared to rarely bail his teammates out when those chances came, but it's also true he saw an inordinate number of them.


The biggest statistical difference between Price and Halak came on the penalty kill. Price allowed over a full goal more than Halak for every 60 minutes they each played while down a man. Price was at 5.99 goals against per 60 shorthanded minutes, while Halak was at 4.96. But even here, there's an odd discrepancy to how their teammates played in front of each goalie. Price spent 5.87 minutes on the penalty kill for every 60 minutes of ice time, while Halak was only at 5.37 shorthanded minutes. 


While half a minute doesn't explain the wide gap in goals against, consider that Price's shorthanded minutes were seventh highest among goalies that played 20 games, yet his goals against was only 26th highest among that same subset. Halak, meanwhile, was 25th in the league in terms of shorthanded minutes and 42nd highest in goals against (or 12th best, depending on your perspective).


I don't profess to know why the Canadiens were such a wildly different team with Price in goal, nor am I able to figure out in any concrete way how many wins the lack of goal support and increased penalty-killing time may have cost him.


But I do know that Price will only be 23 when training camp begins, and while he has a lot to prove, he also has a lot to be proud of. In closing, I ask you this: Do you think Columbus fans should give up on Steve Mason just because he had a poor second season in the NHL at age 21?


Didn't think so.

44 comments:

Anonymous said...

most of carey's starts were at the beginning of the season while the team (especially d-corps)was injury riddled (markov, o'byrne gill)and while team chemistry wasn't put up together. that could easily explain W/L stats.

Grrrreg said...

Glad you took Richard Labbe's article as an example. His pieace is so weak. Always the same old stuff. I couldn't agree more with you here. Everyone loved Halak here, but he's gone, and we're left with a very good young goalie. It's hardly the end of the world for Montreal.

Anonymous said...

Yes his stats were better earlier in his NHL career - that is the problem. Up to January 2009 when he was voted in as All-Star goalie he was playing much better hockey with the exception of the Philly playoff series. Since January 2009 his record in won/loss decisions in the 69 games he got credit for was 20 wins and 49 losses. And Halak's record behind the same team was far superior in win/loss record, GAA and Save Percentage.

Anonymous said...

There is a catch-all phrase commonly used in professional sports to group things that can't be measured by any statistic: intangibles. It is not a fair comparable, as it is largely, subjective, but it is pervasive.

Nobody disputes that Joe Thornton, Jason Spezza, Pierre Turgeon and Patrick Marleau are excellent hockey players statistically. But they were all, rightly or wrongly, maligned because of their intangibles. I think Carey Price is another victim of this: statistically, he is an excellent young goalie. But there are causes for concern: poor focus, off-ice incidents that call into question his professionalism and sense of entitlement, atrocious body language on the ice and occasional bouts of tremendous immaturity, even as recently as the playoffs this past spring. In a market that eats its stars alive, similar traits have seen young developing players (Ribeiro), established stars (Chelios) and beloved faces of the franchise (Roy and Carbonneau) exit stage-left.

I am not arguing that Price can't succeed in Montreal, or that his transgressions or baggage come anywhere close to that that saw the aforementioned players banished from town. I merely point it out to illustrate that there is certainly room for professional sports people, who put a lot of stock in chemistry and intangibles, to question whether an introverted Carey Price can excel in a hockey-mad market with a voracious appetite for dirt on its players. You could also argue that Carey Price may not WANT to stay in Montreal himself, that there is already so much water under the bridge between him and the fan base that he may have to go elsewhere to get a fair shake.

We'll probably know the answer to all the hypotheticals in another couple of years. Until then, everybody is just speculating based on their own personal biases when it comes to Carey Price.

Anonymous said...

You ARE an apologist.

NO other city than this one crowns someone a Saviour only to crucify them.

If you are on Price's payroll, it must be costing him a pretty penny since he's not even signed!

V said...

Good article Arpon. Unfortunately needed. You can't speak too often or eloquently for reason and fairness.

Many unfortunate fans can't remember it's just sport. Their relationship to Price and what he represents becomes personal. Your articles are a reminder he is a very young man in a very big and public challenge. That's the real story. Under the circumstances, he has handled himself very well and deserves are un-qualified support. Win or lose.

Anonymous said...

V- those are the best words I've heard in a long time. This is our team, get behind them, support every person on the team, don't make judgements before the season even starts!

Michael Whitehouse said...

Nice piece, Arpon. What's the root of the animosity towards Price? It must be that second round series against Philly in 2008. He was solid in the first round against Boston: faced an average of 28 shots per 60 minutes played and posted a save PCT of .925.

Then he collapsed against Philly. From a save percentage standpoint, it was the 4th worst playoff series turned in a by a Habs goalie since 1970. He was Thibault bad. If I recall correctly, there was something wrong with his glove; he couldn't keep a handle on pucks, he kept dropping them.

I feel that the negative vibe started then. Remember the heady sensation in the city after finishing first overall in the Eastern Conference in 2008? Carey was supposed to be the latest heroic kid goalie (c.f. Dryden, Roy) to take the Habs to the promised land. He didn't live up to the myth and I still don't think he's been forgiven for it.

TK said...

I enjoyed the article Arpon. I for one have always felt that Price will eventually come into his own, and it is way to early to start saying he will not do so in Montreal.
I can't help but cringe every time I hear one of these experts claim Price does not have what it takes to succeed in this city. I wonder if this will become some kind of self-fulfilling prophecy- where fans will shorten an already diminished leash, and eventually run him out of town with our obnoxious behavior.

Anonymous said...

20 and 49 since January 2009 including playoffs! Are you people blind?

MathMan said...

@Anonymous: Are *you* blind?

Win-loss is a team stat. Goaltender record is one of the most useless individual stats there is.

January 2009 onwards was the period in which the Habs in general were a complete mess. Price was hardly the sole responsible party for the Habs falling apart. But, of course, because of the silly notion of crediting W-L to an individual player, he's the one who takes the fall.

Furthermore, he's played well enough, particularly this year, to be a quality starter in the NHL; it's hardly his fault if the team doesn't play enough that they can't win without unsustainably good goaltending. Neither Price nor Halak is very likely to provide that level of goaltending next year and neither goalie is more likely to provide it than the other.

Price has been one of the least well-supported goaltenders in the league. He's one of the goalies whose good games have been wasted by his team the most, and bailed him out very little -- nowhere near, in either case, as they've supported Halak: http://www.puckprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=568

Anonymous said...

@MathMan

Win-loss is a team stat. Goaltender record is one of the most useless individual stats there is.

--

Say what? So are pitchers won/loss stats in your thinking! Fact is there is no better stat than wins and losses to judge any goalie. But with the exact same team Halak not only had a winning record every single season with the Habs but he also had a much better GAA, Save percentage and won at a clip of 2 wins to one loss this past season while Price had a poor losing record.

Arpon Basu said...

@Anonymous (the belligerent one)

I am assuming you didn't even read the article before going on and on about wins and losses. It's clear that when the team averages fewer than two goals scored in your starts that you will lose more games than you win. Think of it in these terms, if both Halak and Price had a 2.00 GAA and each started 41 games, based on the Habs average goals scored for each goalie, Halak would be 41-0-0 and Price would be 0-41-0. Does that illustrate how useless the won-loss stat is? You're using the pitching analogy, think of Zack Greinke last year, who at the end of May had an 8-1 record and was looking like a lock for 20 wins. From June onward he had a 2.74 ERA with 154 K, 39 BB and 133 hits allowed in 147 1/3 innings. Pretty dominant stuff, except he went 8-7 over the final four months of the season and finished with a pretty ordinary 16-8 mark. It was still a good enough record to win him the Cy Young Award because voters looked past the wins and losses and saw a pitcher with a 2.16 ERA and 242 Ks with a 1.07 WHIP in 229 1/3 innings. Except his team didn't give him the run support he needed to get the wins, he did his part but they didn't do theirs. That's how important won-loss record is in baseball, it's a team stat, just like hockey.

Anonymous said...

I think a great by-product of the Halak-Price saga has been the social experiment it showcased. You have all the (predominantly)uneducated, "play it by feel" experts citing intangibles, personality traits, win-loss records and repeatedly exclaiming their point (with unnecessary amounts of exclamation points and capital letters) that Price will never succeed no matter what on one side. And on the other side you have the clearly more so educated group citing statistics and providing in-depth articles such as the one by Apron. It's astonishing how columnists/bloggers/internet posters/coaches/TV personalities seem to perfectly slot into these two categories based on their perceptions of a 22 year old hockey player.

Anonymous said...

Watching our defense first strategy, it was difficult for us to generate offence when we played for behind. I don't think Price had bad luck, he just gave up goals at bad times.

Two stats could clear up the difference between Price and Halak.

1. How many times did Price yield a first goal or a goal that gave the other team a lead; and

2. How many times did Price and Halak yield a goal at the of a period (like the last minute or two).

Can we find them?

Anonymous said...

Just to fuel the fire I'm going to put Halak's numbers at age 22 as well.

Halak- 22 GP, 12-7-1, 2.50 GAA, .920 SP

Anonymous said...

Not sure why, but it seemed to me that Price had the worst luck with own goals this year as well. He would play well enough to win but his D would inevitably kick one in at the worst time. This not only made Price look bad, it had to kill his confidence. I think this will be a bounce back year for him and I still maintain that Price is the better choice over the long term. I suppose only time will tell, but you could easily look at Fleury's first years and wonder if he was ever going to turn into an NHL goalie. Now look at where he is. Carey will do just fine.

Sliver24 said...

Discounting win/loss stats is a ridiculous notion. How many times have you heard someone argue that "stats don't matter - all that matters is winning."

As it relates to goalies is can be in favour (Fuhr) or against (Curtis Joseph). The same can be said for players, both in hockey (Chokin' Joe Thornton, Eric Lindros) or other sports (Dan Marino - sorry Arp).

When you hear an analyst argue in favour of Dan Marino as one of the greats, the caveat is always the first thing out of his mouth. "Sure, he never won that Super Bowl, but let’s look at those numbers..."

At the end of the day, winning is the only thing that matters. It's the same as with goals; nobody asks how, just how many.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a Price booster and in my mind Pierre Gauthier made the only possible choice in this situation. I wish all the Price-haters would give the kid a break and at least let him sink or swim on his own for 30 or 40 games before bringing out the daggers.

I just don't see how ignoring facts and discounting the importance of highly relevant statistics (arguably this ONLY relevant one) is a valid argument in his favour.

Anonymous said...

Generally a good post with some limits.

An aspect of the comparison to the 6 goalies you cite. I doubt that Price will ever be a Brodeur, or Miller or even a Luongo but I do expect he is likely to be better than Ward or Vokoun or Fleury. Expecting another Roy is not going to be good for anyone.

Did the Habs rush Price? Maybe but he had shown remarkable poise up til then so it seemed a reasonable risk. Did they overlook what they had in Halak and the wiggle room that bought them to develop Price slowly? Absolutely.

In many areas, the response "suck it up princess, you are a highly paid professional" applies. One that I often cite is goalies upset about sharing the workload, a perfectly reasonable thing for teams to ask. That is why the Habs could and should have kept both Price and Halak.

But I am quite sure that the pressure of being an anonymous hockey player in Nashville is not even close to 5% of the pressure of being a 7th defenseman in Montreal.

MathMan said...

@Silver24: "How many times have you heard someone argue that "stats don't matter - all that matters is winning." "

Way more often than is sensible and it drives me nuts. Sure, all that matters to *teams* is winning, but evaluating *individual players* on the basis of whether their teams win is both unfair and misleading. Why don't we evaluate #1 centers, defensemen, or, heck, fourth-line RWs on their win-loss records while we're at it?

It's the sort of logic that should lead one to rank, say, Yvon Lambert (4 Cups) as superior to Marcel Dionne (zero Cups).

Winning is a team achievement. Individual players are obviously a part of that, but rating players solely on that basis is not a good way to establish level of ability, or predict future performance.

Also, I am not a big believer in "chokers". I tend to view them as "players who have not been on winning teams before". It's worth noting that at one point Zetterberg and (especially) Datsyuk were viewed at players that didn't do much in the playoffs. Say such a thing now and you'll likely be met with ridicule and yet it was a pretty widespread notion prior to the Wings' 2008 Cup. But their team eventually won and suddenly they shed the label.

Anonymous said...

Brodeur GP 117 W 53 L 41 OT 0 GAA 2.23 PCT 0.908 SO 9
Luongo GP 123 W 36 L 67 OT 0 GAA 2.47 PCT 0.917 SO 10
Miller GP 51 W 30 L 17 OT 3 GAA 2.72 PCT 0.908 SO 1
Halak GP 79 W 44 L 27 OT 6 GAA 2.49 PCT 0.920 SO 6

Above are the stats for a few of the goalies you mentioned when they where 23 and 24 years of age. I figured I’d look into the future at the next two years. I also included Halak for good measure given that Price and Halak discussion are joined at the hip these days. I included year 2006 for Miller given the lock out year.

It would be reasonable to assume that if Price can keep his SV% in the 0.912 range and get some goal support that he should be ok. He should have numbers somewhere close to that of Miller, Brodeur and Luongo if the team supports him with goal production.

The disappointing argument is that if… if Price can put up better numbers than that of Miller, Brodeur and Luongo he should have numbers similar to that of Jaro Halak.

S├ębastian Hell said...

Again with Price?

Look, sure, ok, his stats compare favorably to Luongo's and Fleury's. Until Fleury made the Cup finals, he was viewed as the goaltending equivalent of Alex Daigle. And Luongo played for the Islanders AND the Panthers - it's not as if Price is playing for the Lafs, he's playing for a team that made the payoffs 5 of the past 7 seasons (and once topped its conference).

That being said, Halak's gone, and Auld is #2, so Price is the only option pretty much no matter what (one guy who must be pissed off is Sanford - he's better than Auld). So, top-notch goalie or not, it's all on him to stop the puck as the last line of defense.

Unless he gets injured, we should know where we stand with him by Valentine's Day. By now, we know he likely won't be a Roy or Dryden (no rookie Conn Smythe season, a rookie breakdown against the Flyers instead), but if he can be a Niemi and we can have a team that thinks it's the Hawks, we can still get somewhere.

Die Hard Habs fan said...

Too make a long story short.
Price will not be the franchise player we hope him to be.
An average goalie if that in the NHL.
We traded our franchise goalie to St.Louis and we'll pay for it in the standings and in attendance.

Sliver24 said...

@ MathMan: So your argument is that players can be considered chokers (or at least 'not winners') until they prove otherwise. That's the same argument I'm making.

Datsyuk and Zetterberg are perfect examples of players that have done so. Dionne is also a perfect example of one that never did.

I'm not saying that it's the only measure of a player - far from it actually. There are literally dozens of factors that come into play. All I'm saying is that one could argue that winning is the single most important one.

Anonymous said...

@Sliver24
I don't think it's the argument he's making at all. Marcel Dionne spent his best years playing for the Kings during their worst years while his brother Gilbert managed to win a cup during his miserably short career.

And you really shouldn't cite Datsyuk and Zetterberg as examples either: Detroit was a powerhouse well before they were dominant.

Kamal Panesar said...

Another great piece, Arpon!

I think that many people fail to look beyond the surface and as such, unfairly blame Price and try to chase him out of town.

Price IS only 22 and already has three years of experience. He experienced some of the highest high's and lowest low's that a professional athlete can experience in his short time in the league.

He now knows what it is like to be a winner and a loser in Montreal and that experience can only serve him well in the future.

I also agree that getting knocked down a peg this past year and, for the firt time, having to work for his ice time, was the ego check that Price needed.

Now, only time will tell if he actually changes and gets his head screwed on straight or not, but so far, he seems to be walking the walk.

I also agree that Price could/should have been developed better and player development has not been the Habs strong suit in recent years...but I digress...

I still think that Price at 25 will be a better goalie than Halak at 25, and that is no slight on Halak.

I just think that Price's ceiling is much higher than Halak's.

Lastly, while everyone is always talking about the goaltenders in this city they are missing the gaping whole on this team called offense.

The Habs just could not score goals last year and unless AK46 and Pouliot wake up this year, we will be in for more of the same.

Let's face it people, despite the unexpected playoff performance, this is NOT a great team and the Habs will need a lot of IF's to pan out in order for them to have anything more than a .500ish season.

K.

MathMan said...

@Silver24: "@ MathMan: So your argument is that players can be considered chokers (or at least 'not winners') until they prove otherwise. That's the same argument I'm making."

No, my argument is that it's meaningless, and unfair, to call a player a 'choker' or 'not winner' based on the results of their teams.

That's not only the most important one, it's actually of very little relevance when evaluating an individual player.

I don't think those labels make sense at all, but we as sports fans are enamored of storylines and we'll make them even where they don't exist.

Anonymous said...

@Arpon Basu

@Anonymous (the belligerent one)

I am assuming you didn't even read the article before going on and on about wins and losses. It's clear that when the team averages fewer than two goals scored in your starts that you will lose more games than you win. Think of it in these terms, if both Halak and Price had a 2.00 GAA


--

Totally ludicrous agument I never heard Plante not being a great goalie because the Habs in front of him scored a lot of goals. Halak also had 5 shutouts last season alone. Halak won 3 elimination games in a row against powerful high scoring Washington by allowing but 1 goal per game. And to make your argument even worse Price backers like you blamed Halak for losing the Philly series WHEN the Habs were shutout 3 times by a minor league goalie! Price had zero shutouts last year. Price did have 3 shutouts his first year, but like his wins, like his GAA and his Save percentage it has got worse. Those are the stats that stick out like a sore thumb and it has created a record of Price decisions of 20 wins and 49 losses since January 2009 while Halak's improved over the same time especially last year. We are talking one and a half years! And you are ignoring it.

Anonymous said...

@Arpon Basu

Does that illustrate how useless the won-loss stat is? You're using the pitching analogy, think of Zack Greinke last year, who at the end of May had an 8-1 record and was looking like a lock for 20 wins. From June onward he had a 2.74 ERA with 154 K, 39 BB and 133 hits allowed in 147 1/3 innings. Pretty dominant stuff, except he went 8-7 over the final four months of the season and finished with a pretty ordinary 16-8 mark. It was still a good enough record to win him the Cy Young Award because voters looked past the wins and losses and saw a pitcher with a 2.16 ERA and 242 Ks with a 1.07 WHIP in 229 1/3 innings. Except his team didn't give him the run support he needed to get the wins, he did his part but they didn't do theirs. That's how important won-loss record is in baseball, it's a team stat, just like hockey.


--

Greinke was a very average pitcher who played WAY WAY OVER HIS HEAD for about the first half of last year. Never before was he near that level and this year he continues how he finished last year as his record this year is now 5-9 after losing 5-1 to oakland on the weekend. he won the cy young with one of the worst records of any winner which merely showed you it was a bad pitcher's year. sandy koufax or don drysdale for a couple of examples were great pitchers great winning records winning many, many of their games 1-0 as the dodgers of their day had absolutely no hitting.

but are you inferring that only in the last one and a half years canadiens only scored when halak played? maybe you should look a little deeper? maybe because they quickly werent behind? or because halak was not letting in soft goals that completely discouraged the players? more stats you omitt as you selectively use and then criticize others stats as meaningless WHEN THEY ARE NOT! Bill parcells said "you are what your record says you are!" and price since january 2009 is 20-49 out of his last 69 decisions.

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous (the belligerent one)

…amen.

Anonymous said...

@arpon

"Price received just about the worst offensive support in the NHL among goalies who played at least 20 games. .... Price's 1.87. Now, it's not as if the Habs were lighting it up for Halak seeing as he's at 2.30.

-----------

You are cherry picking stats to suit your opinion. So a difference of .43 goals per game more scored by the Habs on 5 on 5. BUT then you have to deduct the fact that Halak at 2.40 GAA was .37 goals per game better than Price at 2.77 GAA making the difference not .43 goals per game BUT only .06 goals per game. (that doesn't include empty net goals scored by the habs on 6 on 6 or shorthanded or powerplay goals scored against either goalie).


.06 and there is that huge discreopancy in won loss records? No it is not because Habs scored more for Halak.


Note- you said goalie shouldn't get wins or losses! Well tell it to the NHL who credits goalies in the stats. In fact each and every NHL boxscore lists the winning and the losing goalie of that game.

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous said...
@Anonymous (the belligerent one)

…amen


--


Can't debate or refute the facts so makes smarty pants comments!

Sliver24 said...

You anonymous people are annoying enough when you're just posting poorly-thought-out comments. Anonymously 'amen'-ing each others' posts is just downright obnoxious.

Anonymous said...

Sliver24 said...
You anonymous people are annoying enough when you're just posting poorly-thought-out comments


--

Well if they are that poorly thought out you should have no problem using facts to refute the. but you can't, so what does it say about your own great mind?


btw- calling yourself "silver" or 'tonto" or whatever does not mean you are not anonymous as well!

pmk said...

wow. you clearly have a head on your shoulders anonymous

Sliver24 said...

@ Annoy, er... Anon

I don't need your address or phone number. It's just when someone is crafting an argument or making a bold statement it doesn't carry as much weight if there's no handle attached to the comments. Over time, if you comment enough, regular readers and commenters will also know where you're coming from a little bit.

There are a bunch of us that post regularly and my favourite part of coming here, along with reading Arpon's thought-provoking analysis, is seeing what the regulars have to post. They have a history here that adds weight to their opinions, and I can better understand their positions because I know those histories.

pfhabs hates everything. V loves everything. pmk is terse, sarcastic and often witty. MathMan is thoughtful and wordy. Then we have TK and nk and others that don't post as often but do put their two cents in fairly regularly. A bunch of guys with their own blogs also post comments regularly, and I enjoy their perspective.

To be honest I often like the Anon posts too as they often make good points and solid arguments.

What drives me up the wall, though, is anonymous posters that tear into other commenters' posts (and Arp's) without bothering to qualify their statements or make a half decent argument to back their positions up. Regulars can be accused of doing it too, but that's where the history comes in. When pfhabs slags a comment of mine (as he's often done ;P) I know where he's coming from.

In any case, feel free to continue to do whatever the hell you want. I know I will! And one of the things I will continue to do is roll my eyes when I come across comments like yours, and, if I'm in the mood at the time, post a comment about it.

Anonymous said...

@Sliver24
@ Annoy, er... Anon

What drives me up the wall, though, is anonymous posters that tear into other commenters' posts (and Arp's) without bothering to qualify their statements or make a half decent argument to back their positions up.

--

??????? I backed up every statement with facts and stats and logical thinking standing outside of my own shoes!

V said...

No problem with stating facts and stats. Without checking them, I am content to assume they are accurate.

It's your interpretation (your 'logical thinking') that is questionable. And the notion you can think logically outside of your own shoes is naive.

Here is a stat/fact. Halak is gone. That implies that all of the other stats about his and Price's relative performance are irrelevant - the team went with Price, likely for reasons beyond their comparitive stats.

Anonymous said...

@V
1-And the notion you can think logically outside of your own shoes is naive.

2-Here is a stat/fact. Halak is gone. That implies that all of the other stats about his and Price's relative performance are irrelevant - the team went with Price, likely for reasons beyond their comparitive stats.

--

1- YES, I and standing objectively outside my habs fan shoes and blindly supporting every single bonehead move(an I gave facts and stats on why I reached such a conclusion. No naivety at all!

2- Yes he is gone BUT the 2 bonweheads are still there and have done nothing to improve this team for this year off their 88 point display last season. And in fact as Halak was the only goalie the team won with last year and by a huge difference, they have made the team worse WHILE so many eastern teams just above and below the Habs have made big moves to improve their squads.

V said...

'... and in fact as Halak was the only goalie the team won with last year...'

That is not a fact. Beginning to suspect you don't know what a fact is. Look the word up in the dictionary.

And you won't know if the moves by management have made the team worse until this time next year at the earliest. Thinking so is just conjecture, not fact.

Anonymous said...

V said...
'... and in fact as Halak was the only goalie the team won with last year...'

That is not a fact. Beginning to suspect you don't know what a fact is. Look the word up in the dictionary.

-----------

Yes Halak was the only goalie Habs won their way into the playoffs at 88 points with. They had a bad losing record with Ptrice. But with Halak they were a winning team near twice the games than they lost with him. And to any logical Habs fan not some wishful thinker with his head buried in the sand - this is indeed a worse team. True enough if Price suddenly improves from his 20 wins 49 losses of his last 69 decisions over the LAST year and a half Habs might not be worse? But why on earth would a 2/7ths winning recvord give you hope? Because Gainey thinks he'll be great? Gainey has been wrong about him for 3 years now!

V said...

I guesss I'll rest my case...

Anonymous said...

V said...
I guesss I'll "rest" my case...


----

AGAIN, you used the wrong word!

The word is "lost" my case.

i.e.

What you should have said was, "I guess I "lost" my case"!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Panton said...

thought and informed piece.