OK, So What I have been told

Welcome to the main forum of our site. Anything and everything to do with the Vancouver Canucks is dicussed and debated here.

Moderator: Referees

User avatar
coco_canuck
CC 1st Team All-Star
Posts: 966
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 9:54 pm

Re: OK, So What I have been told

Post by coco_canuck »

Mondi wrote: To argue he is still top 5 is futile.

Lunqvist
Rhinne
Quick
Fleury
Raask
Schneider
Kiprusof
Howard
Thomas
:lol:

Rask, Kipper, Howard and Quick are obviously better?

Good one Mondi.

Keep on keeping on.
Larry Goodenough
CC 1st Team All-Star
Posts: 728
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 10:43 am

Re: OK, So What I have been told

Post by Larry Goodenough »

Island Nucklehead wrote:Schneider is up to 2nd in the league in Save% (5th in GAA). Dude's a keeper. Luongo is t-20 GAA and t-16%. It's very hard to argue those numbers....

I don't really want to get into another Luongo debate. My opinion is you'd be hard pressed to find 5 better goalies over the past 10 years.

We're in a tough spot. I've advocated keeping Luongo in the past because you know your'e going to get consistancy from him year to year. It still presents a big risk hanging all your eggs in Schneiders basket, because Brian Elliot is the best goalie in hockey this year, doesn't mean I'd trade Luongo for him... CS appears to be the real deal, and if we do trade him we better get a helluva return because we might be trading the better of our two star goalies.

However, Luongo has a better even strength save % than Schneider.

The difference in total save % is Schneider has a very high save % while shorthanded. Almost unsustainable. The smaller sample size for Schneider might be the reason for this.

So, in the playoffs, when you suspect fewer penalties will be called, who do you want in net?
User avatar
donlever
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1926
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:07 pm

Re: OK, So What I have been told

Post by donlever »

coco_canuck wrote:
Mondi wrote: To argue he is still top 5 is futile.

Lunqvist
Rhinne
Quick
Fleury
Raask
Schneider
Kiprusof
Howard
Thomas
:lol:

Rask, Kipper, Howard and Quick are obviously better?

Good one Mondi.

Keep on keeping on.

Throw Schneider and Fleury in there as well.

So Rinne, Lundqvist and Thomas we can debate (agree) are superior.

Add Ryan Miller.

Leaving Luongo top 5, which was the point I think?

Look, I'm no big proponent of the Italian Stallion (as Coco is well aware) but let's practice a little bit of journalistic integrity here.
A different goddamn hockey talk messageboard!
wafflecombine
CC 2nd Team All-Star
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 12:20 pm

Re: OK, So What I have been told

Post by wafflecombine »

Lol.. don't worry Don. My reference to "the trophy which shall not be named" was simply illustrative that we didn't suck this year. Hell, a lot of the success was our tandem stealing games where the rest of the team played with a big, fat "meh".

I consider Lou a top 5 goalie. You don't hit 100+ points in a season without one. My observation on Lou is that he rarely has "ok" games. But that is just how he is. You can put Thomas up in the top 5 too but lets not forget the absolute stink fest he has had also this year at times.

The only guy who has been consistently a monster is Lunquist. Others have been great but human with some highs and lows.

Again, tandem for the win.

Bring on the playoffs!
User avatar
donlever
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1926
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:07 pm

Re: OK, So What I have been told

Post by donlever »

wafflecombine wrote:Lol.. don't worry Don. My reference to "the trophy which shall not be named" was simply illustrative that we didn't suck this year.
Right waffle.

You called it the Presidents Cup though.

That's a golfing trophy.

:look:

Hence my comment.

:wink:
A different goddamn hockey talk messageboard!
dbr
CC Legend
Posts: 3059
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 5:37 pm

Re: OK, So What I have been told

Post by dbr »

:arry, according to NHL.com Schneider is .001 ahead of Luongo at even strength.

If you look at all the Goaltenders with at least 500 saves at even strength (that's 46 keepers, Schneider stands 39th with 614 ES saves - Luongo is 18th), Schneider is tied for 9th in ES SV% and Luongo is tied for 13th.

1. .948 Brian Elliott
2. .940 Jaroslav Halak
T3. .934 Henrik Lundqvist, Jose Theodore
T5. .932 Jonathan Quick, Nicklas Backstrom
7. .931 Mike Smith
8. .930 Jimmy Howard
T9 .929 Miikka Kiprusoff, JS Giguere, Cory Schneider, Tuukka Rask
T13 .928 Pekka Rinne, Tim Thomas, Kari Lehtonen, Roberto Luongo

Basically if Luongo stopped two more shots he'd be in the pack at 9th spot and if he'd stopped four more he'd be ahead of Howard and Smith, too.
Larry Goodenough
CC 1st Team All-Star
Posts: 728
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 10:43 am

Re: OK, So What I have been told

Post by Larry Goodenough »

dbr wrote::arry, according to NHL.com Schneider is .001 ahead of Luongo at even strength.

If you look at all the Goaltenders with at least 500 saves at even strength (that's 46 keepers, Schneider stands 39th with 614 ES saves - Luongo is 18th), Schneider is tied for 9th in ES SV% and Luongo is tied for 13th.

1. .948 Brian Elliott
2. .940 Jaroslav Halak
T3. .934 Henrik Lundqvist, Jose Theodore
T5. .932 Jonathan Quick, Nicklas Backstrom
7. .931 Mike Smith
8. .930 Jimmy Howard
T9 .929 Miikka Kiprusoff, JS Giguere, Cory Schneider, Tuukka Rask
T13 .928 Pekka Rinne, Tim Thomas, Kari Lehtonen, Roberto Luongo

Basically if Luongo stopped two more shots he'd be in the pack at 9th spot and if he'd stopped four more he'd be ahead of Howard and Smith, too.
Thanks. I guess the story I read was wrong, cause it was before Luongo went perfect on ES shots on Saturday.
User avatar
coco_canuck
CC 1st Team All-Star
Posts: 966
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 9:54 pm

Re: OK, So What I have been told

Post by coco_canuck »

donlever wrote: Look, I'm no big proponent of the Italian Stallion (as Coco is well aware) but let's practice a little bit of journalistic integrity here.
Yeah, that's my point as well.

It's a highly debatable subject, especially when most of those guys on that list don't have a cup and have had varying degrees of playoff success which Luongo matches or even exceeds....and we know that the argument against Luo has been his play in the post-season, so it's funny seeing guys with less post-season success being "clearly better."
dbr
CC Legend
Posts: 3059
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 5:37 pm

Re: OK, So What I have been told

Post by dbr »

Seems like a lot of fans prefer the guy who looks good losing over the guy who loses less.
User avatar
coco_canuck
CC 1st Team All-Star
Posts: 966
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 9:54 pm

Re: OK, So What I have been told

Post by coco_canuck »

dbr wrote:Seems like a lot of fans prefer the guy who looks good losing over the guy who loses less.
Yeah, but even that has its misconceptions.

I'm too lazy to pull up the exact numbers, but look at some of the playoff performances of "guys who look good losing" and you'll see more than a few have had what we've come to call "Luongoesque" flameouts...especially in deciding games, and even in the 1st round.

The simple fact is, many fans who follow the Canucks closely don't pay nearly as much attention to teams around the league, specifically individual performances.

This isn't to completely absolve Luongo, or to suggest he's a top 2-3 goalie, but a very rational and valid argument can be made that he's a top 3-5 guy.
User avatar
coco_canuck
CC 1st Team All-Star
Posts: 966
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 9:54 pm

Re: OK, So What I have been told

Post by coco_canuck »

Mondi wrote: If you read my post, it said they are all arguably better. Anyways if you think Luongo is a top five player at his position, you're dreaming. He's not even the best goalie on his team.

Also, would you prefer a guy who hasn't had success in the playoffs because he hasn't had the opportunity to succeed. Or a guy who has had four opportunities and bombed out 3 times out of 4.
Unfortunately I did read your post, and it offers no good tangible argument that it's ridiculous to say Luongo is a top 5 goalie, so I don't get what you're perturbed about.

Since you're talking about stats, look at the playoff and regular season stats of the goalies you listed, their performances in deciding games and their tendency to have off-years from time to time in the regular season and playoffs.

The goalies who haven't proven anything and haven't had the opportunity can certainly be considered very good, but how do you surmise they would clearly be better when they haven't' proven it, regardless of opportunity?

Knowing you from Central Mondi, you have nearly as big an axe to grind with Luo as Tiger does with the Sedins.
dbr
CC Legend
Posts: 3059
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 5:37 pm

Re: OK, So What I have been told

Post by dbr »

coco_canuck wrote:Yeah, but even that has its misconceptions.

I'm too lazy to pull up the exact numbers, but look at some of the playoff performances of "guys who look good losing" and you'll see more than a few have had what we've come to call "Luongoesque" flameouts...especially in deciding games, and even in the 1st round.

The simple fact is, many fans who follow the Canucks closely don't pay nearly as much attention to teams around the league, specifically individual performances.
Yeah, I totally agree. I actually meant it as more of a general point (makes me think of the folks who wanted to acquire a player to win fistfights once the game is out of reach), but you're spot on that even the guys who are "arguably" better than Luongo have some real blemishes on their resumes.
Mondi wrote:Also, would you prefer a guy who hasn't had success in the playoffs because he hasn't had the opportunity to succeed. Or a guy who has had four opportunities and bombed out 3 times out of 4.
Do you mean four playoff runs? I would hardly say Luongo bombed in 2007, and whatever you feel about his SCF losses last year the team would not have got there without his play so IMO you can't call that bombing either.
User avatar
donlever
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1926
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:07 pm

Re: OK, So What I have been told

Post by donlever »

Ahem....Ballard practiced today.

Cleared for full contact tomorrow.

After that he is good to go as long as all the numbers work.
A different goddamn hockey talk messageboard!
User avatar
coco_canuck
CC 1st Team All-Star
Posts: 966
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 9:54 pm

Re: OK, So What I have been told

Post by coco_canuck »

dbr wrote: Yeah, I totally agree. I actually meant it as more of a general point (makes me think of the folks who wanted to acquire a player to win fistfights once the game is out of reach), but you're spot on that even the guys who are "arguably" better than Luongo have some real blemishes on their resumes.
Yeah, I knew what you meant, I was just elaborating on that point.

The point wasn't to say Luo is clearly better than those guys or that he's obviously a top 3-5 goalie, but a sound argument can be made that he is in that class.

Not so sound to say he CLEARLY isn't and that those who say are "dreaming."
dbr wrote: Do you mean four playoff runs? I would hardly say Luongo bombed in 2007, and whatever you feel about his SCF losses last year the team would not have got there without his play so IMO you can't call that bombing either.
I remember Mondi's argument against Luo before, and one of the major ones was discounting his regular season stats by doubling down on the playoff flame outs.

Funny how he's now citing Theodore's REGULAR SEASON numbers for this season to boost his argument. Can't have it both ways.
User avatar
coco_canuck
CC 1st Team All-Star
Posts: 966
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 9:54 pm

Re: OK, So What I have been told

Post by coco_canuck »

Mondi wrote: With all the youngish/lesser known guys currently outperforming Luongo (Schneider, Raask, Quick, Howard, Elliot, Halak), the guys who have gotten it done under pressure (Ward, Broudeur, Fleury, Niemi, Khabibulin, Thomas) and the two superstar goalies (Rinne, Lundqvist) can you really tell me that Luongo is hands down top 5?
Who said he's hands down in the top 5?

You're the one who said it's "futile" to say he's in the top 5.

If you had a choice would you rather have Niemi or Khabibulin in the playoffs?

Even Cam Ward was benched in their cup run and has had poor playoff performances since. Hell, Brodeur has been more dreadful than good in the playoffs since the lockout.

Elliott, Howard, Quick, and Rask either have little or sub-standard playoff experiences. So they definitely don't pass the muster on the basis of your two important distinctions, specifically (2), so is then point (1) more important?

If so, then you're putting more emphasis on good regular seasons than you admit, and if that's the case, you're selectively dismissive of Luongo's previous strong regular seasons.

There isn't much consistency in your argument.
Mondi wrote: But, at this point I think Schneider the better player and if you take what HW says at face value the Canucks management may agree.
I'm a big Schneider fan, and I'm all for keeping Schneids over Luo long-term, but Schneider has proved fuck all in the playoffs and, as much as I like him, he's yet to prove he can handle the full-time starting job that comes with a lot of peaks and valleys.

I think he will do well on both fronts, but every single goalie you've named in this thread has had poor playoff series and average regular season performances for their standards, and sometimes even significantly sub-standard regular seasons. The overwhelming odds suggest Schneids will have his struggles over his career, but are you certain those struggles will not rear their ugly heads during a crucial point this post-season?

So as good as Schneider is, it's naive to think he's a sure bet to not only be better than Luo in the playoffs, and that he will not only match Luo's career resume, but also exceed it.

I get people may not think Luongo is the best, or that he may not even be in the top 5, but the arguments used against Luongo and for other goalies have tended to be more "futile" than substantive, and this is another case of a "futile" argument.
Post Reply