NHL Thread

Paul Smeenus · 06-09-2014, 11:17 PM

Well, no controversy about tonight's game, this series is all but over

The Ascension · 06-09-2014, 11:23 PM

Big time Rangers fan.

They beat themselves in the first two games. Depressing to watch this run end this way. At this point I'm just hoping they can win a game or two just so they don't go out with a complete whimper.

The Ascension · 06-09-2014, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Smeenus

Well, no controversy about tonight's game, this series is all but over

I see you live in Seattle...would you root for an NHL team if they moved/expanded there? Just curious.

Thom Yorke · 06-10-2014, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ninetales

Welll in 2012-2013 (while Lundqvist and Quick were playing respectively),

Average 5on5 shot against distance NYR = 34.3
Average 5on5 shot against distance LA = 34.3

Exactly the same. And yet Quick allowed 4 more goals on over 200 less shots. The year before the rangers allowed shots from an average of 33.8 feet, while the kings kept opponents to a much better 36 feet. 2010-2011 was an even larger difference (32.1 to 36.5). So no, the Rangers were not a better team at keeping pucks away from the net than the Kings during Torts' tenure. And you can just look at the graphics to see that they have way more shots from in close than the kings.

Playoffs last year, Lundqvist had a better sv% than Quick, but also had shots from farther away. The year before was exactly the opposite (ie Quick having better sv% with shots from farther away. The differences between the two were also very similar). So basically they had nearly identical playoff numbers the last 2 years with lundqvist is significantly outplaying quick this year.

Im not really sure why youd concede that some of Rask's great numbers come with him playing on a great team, but defend quick's comparatively worse numbers on a similarly great team.

And im not knocking the Kings. They are a powerhouse and probably the best team in the league, but it's not because of Quick that they are winning. Crawford has similar career playoff numbers as Quick and hes getting lynched.

Seems like the millionth argument we've had about stats vs. watching them play, but this series has completely encapsulated my views on these two goalies so far. You probably don't believe in players being clutch, elevating their games, or, in the case of goalies, making big saves when they have to (few numbers guys do), but Quick is just such a money goalie. There isn't any goalie in the NHL like him right now. He always comes up big when it matters most. Some of the saves he's made in crucial situations (overtimes, holding onto the lead while being peppered by the Rangers) have been nothing short of remarkable, and then Lundqvist just can't keep the puck out of his net when the Kings go the other way.

As for your comment on Rask, I never said that at all; that's just the opinion you're running with. What I said was Rask doesn't usually come up big at the right times. He's whimpered out in both playoff runs he's had to some degree, and he frequently seems to be the first to break in goaltending duels he's involved in.

The Ascension · 06-10-2014, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thom Yorke

Seems like the millionth argument we've had about stats vs. watching them play, but this series has completely encapsulated my views on these two goalies so far. You probably don't believe in players being clutch, elevating their games, or, in the case of goalies, making big saves when they have to (few numbers guys do), but Quick is just such a money goalie. There isn't any goalie in the NHL like him right now. He always comes up big when it matters most. Some of the saves he's made in crucial situations (overtimes, holding onto the lead while being peppered by the Rangers) have been nothing short of remarkable, and then Lundqvist just can't keep the puck out of his net when the Kings go the other way.

As for your comment on Rask, I never said that at all; that's just the opinion you're running with. What I said was Rask doesn't usually come up big at the right times. He's whimpered out in both playoff runs he's had to some degree, and he frequently seems to be the first to break in goaltending duels he's involved in.

The Kings as a group are collectively better as shooters than the Rangers' group, though, by a long shot.

I don't disagree that Quick has outplayed Lundqvist, but if you swap Lundqvist/Quick, the Kings are still likely up 3-0.

Paul Smeenus · 06-10-2014, 03:40 PM

That stick save Quick made yesterday was just sick.

Ninetales · 06-10-2014, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thom Yorke

Seems like the millionth argument we've had about stats vs. watching them play, but this series has completely encapsulated my views on these two goalies so far. You probably don't believe in players being clutch, elevating their games, or, in the case of goalies, making big saves when they have to (few numbers guys do), but Quick is just such a money goalie. There isn't any goalie in the NHL like him right now. He always comes up big when it matters most. Some of the saves he's made in crucial situations (overtimes, holding onto the lead while being peppered by the Rangers) have been nothing short of remarkable, and then Lundqvist just can't keep the puck out of his net when the Kings go the other way.

As for your comment on Rask, I never said that at all; that's just the opinion you're running with. What I said was Rask doesn't usually come up big at the right times. He's whimpered out in both playoff runs he's had to some degree, and he frequently seems to be the first to break in goaltending duels he's involved in.

Why is it always stats vs watch the games as if theyre mutually exclusive. It's like you think i just read spreadsheets and have never seen a game in my life.

I think what makes people love quick so much is the way he makes saves. He's very good at extending across the crease and making saves that look incredible whereas Rask or Lundqvist make them look more routine. Just a theory but Quick is more likely to make a highlight real save than the other two, but that doesnt mean hes better.

I havent been able to see a lick of these finals unfortunately, so I cant really comment on it, but no generally I wont change my opinion of a player based on 1 shutout they had. Anyone can look good in small sample sizes.

Paul Smeenus · 06-10-2014, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ninetales

I havent been able to see a lick of these finals unfortunately, so I cant really comment on it, but no generally I wont change my opinion of a player based on 1 shutout they had. Anyone can look good in small sample sizes.

Well what about 2 Conn Smythes in 3 years? He won it in '12, and my money is on him this year. I agree with Thom, when his team needs him to come up big, he delivers.

Ninetales · 06-10-2014, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Smeenus

Well what about 2 Conn Smythes in 3 years? He won it in '12, and my money is on him this year. I agree with Thom, when his team needs him to come up big, he delivers.

Does he deserve it this year? He wasnt great in the first 3 rounds. I could easily see Kopitar or even Doughty win it.

And ive never said he was a bad goalie. Just not better than Lundqvist.

The Ascension · 06-10-2014, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Smeenus

Well what about 2 Conn Smythes in 3 years? He won it in '12, and my money is on him this year. I agree with Thom, when his team needs him to come up big, he delivers.

Absolutely no way Quick wins the Smythe. It'll be Doughty, Kopitar, Carter, or Gaborik. I'd bet money on it.

06-09-2014, 11:23 PM	#1942 (permalink)
The Ascension RJ4W Join Date: Jun 2014 Location: NJ Posts: 100	Big time Rangers fan. They beat themselves in the first two games. Depressing to watch this run end this way. At this point I'm just hoping they can win a game or two just so they don't go out with a complete whimper.