X. Benedict Posted February 4, 2015 Report Share Posted February 4, 2015 Although I'd like to be excited about the win, I think we played better periods than the third last night. How the team got out of Montreal with a win is a mystery to me. Glad the streak is over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rasmus_ Posted February 4, 2015 Report Share Posted February 4, 2015 It was awesome last night. I wore my Mogilny jersey and just enjoyed the game and atmosphere. By far the second best experience to date. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerme1 Posted February 4, 2015 Report Share Posted February 4, 2015 Although I'd like to be excited about the win, I think we played better periods than the third last night. How the team got out of Montreal with a win is a mystery to me. Glad the streak is over. This is all correct. Enroth obviously the reason we won. The first was enjoyable but only because Price had a let down period. But we were creating some things that was fun to see but no way Price gives up three goals in seven shots too often is it? That streak needed to end for everyone's sake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Crotch Posted February 4, 2015 Report Share Posted February 4, 2015 That was a pretty nasty, physical game last night. Good win for the Sabres. You could tell Gorges really wanted that one. He played like it was game 7 of the Stanley Cup finals. I liked the new line combinations (e.g., Stewart with Girgs and Ennis instead of Moulson). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted February 4, 2015 Report Share Posted February 4, 2015 Seriously?? Considering the defense in front of him, Enroth is the greatest goalie of all time right now. His games are like other teams shootarounds. Believe it or not, there hasn't been found to be much of any relationship between team quality and a goaltender's sv%. Whether his down year is due to the randomness of goaltending, that maybe his previous seasons were only good due to randomness, or because the rigors of starting really are making a difference from being a backup...I cannot say. But I'm very confident that he hasn't proven to be a capable starter with his performance this season, and I would not want to invest even a 4 year $16MM contract in him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted February 4, 2015 Report Share Posted February 4, 2015 (edited) I like Enroth, he's a battler. Neuvirth might have better tools, but he seems high maintenance. Both can be a starter, neither can be depended on to anchor a team. Don't think either has a future with this team. Edited February 4, 2015 by dudacek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted February 4, 2015 Report Share Posted February 4, 2015 Believe it or not, there hasn't been found to be much of any relationship between team quality and a goaltender's sv%. Whether his down year is due to the randomness of goaltending, that maybe his previous seasons were only good due to randomness, or because the rigors of starting really are making a difference from being a backup...I cannot say. But I'm very confident that he hasn't proven to be a capable starter with his performance this season, and I would not want to invest even a 4 year $16MM contract in him. I don't even know how to respond to that....... and I've read some ludicrous statements on this board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huckleberry Posted February 4, 2015 Report Share Posted February 4, 2015 (edited) Believe it or not, there hasn't been found to be much of any relationship between team quality and a goaltender's sv%. Whether his down year is due to the randomness of goaltending, that maybe his previous seasons were only good due to randomness, or because the rigors of starting really are making a difference from being a backup...I cannot say. But I'm very confident that he hasn't proven to be a capable starter with his performance this season, and I would not want to invest even a 4 year $16MM contract in him. You'll have to invest it in someone, and frankly if you can't sign the likes of Niemi in the offseason, he is your best option at the moment. Edited February 4, 2015 by Heimdall Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted February 4, 2015 Report Share Posted February 4, 2015 I have to agree as a goalie with the save percentage in relation to quality of the team in front. The only thing a good better team in front will usually help is the number of shots faced, and personally I like facing more shots because it keeps me active on the ice more. It's the quality of the shots faced that can affect save percentage, facing shots that hit you in the chest really helps bump up the percentage. As for Enroth as a starter, I also agree that I don't think he is a #1 guy, he is a very good #1a/b in a tandem situation and a really good backup, but I don't see him being a solid #1 guy who will carry a team like a Price, Quick, Miller, Louongo type Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted February 4, 2015 Report Share Posted February 4, 2015 I have to agree as a goalie with the save percentage in relation to quality of the team in front. The only thing a good better team in front will usually help is the number of shots faced, and personally I like facing more shots because it keeps me active on the ice more. It's the quality of the shots faced that can affect save percentage, facing shots that hit you in the chest really helps bump up the percentage. As for Enroth as a starter, I also agree that I don't think he is a #1 guy, he is a very good #1a/b in a tandem situation and a really good backup, but I don't see him being a solid #1 guy who will carry a team like a Price, Quick, Miller, Louongo type Pretty much where I'm at. IMHO, he is essentially a short Marty Biron. He's somewhere in the top 21-50 goalies out there. (Quite probably top 40.) Good enough to start on a few teams and definitely belongs in the league, but wouldn't be the clear cut #1 on any but a few teams and would be the #3 on even fewer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted February 4, 2015 Report Share Posted February 4, 2015 I don't even know how to respond to that....... and I've read some ludicrous statements on this board. There is some team-level effect...but it is not particularly large or consistent. Put another way, it's really unlikely a good goaltender's sv% looks replacement-level due to a bad team. http://objectivenhl.blogspot.com/2011/05/team-effects-and-even-strength-save.html http://www.sloansportsconference.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/DIGR-A-Defense-Independent-Rating-of-NHL-Goaltenders-using-Spatially-Smoothed-Save-Percentage-Maps.pdf http://war-on-ice.com/goalietable.html(compare sv% to adjusted sv%) More goalie articles than you'll ever want to read: http://nhlnumbers.com/2012/11/2/reference-library-goalies-goaltending-stats Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted February 4, 2015 Report Share Posted February 4, 2015 There is some team-level effect...but it is not particularly large or consistent. Put another way, it's really unlikely a good goaltender's sv% looks replacement-level due to a bad team. http://objectivenhl.blogspot.com/2011/05/team-effects-and-even-strength-save.html http://www.sloansportsconference.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/DIGR-A-Defense-Independent-Rating-of-NHL-Goaltenders-using-Spatially-Smoothed-Save-Percentage-Maps.pdf http://war-on-ice.com/goalietable.html(compare sv% to adjusted sv%) More goalie articles than you'll ever want to read: http://nhlnumbers.com/2012/11/2/reference-library-goalies-goaltending-stats I glanced over those, I'll look more in-depth later. The problem I have with advanced stats are the variables are highly debatable. The author can create any variable he so desires to throw into his formula. Just because his argument sounds legit, doesn't mean it is. Sorry, if team quality has little to no bearing on save percentage, that means Quick is a 20-30 goaltender. Or Jaroslav Halak, finishing in the top six in save percentage three times throughout his career but now sits 25th in the league...... on a team with absolutely no defense. Yet the league thinks that's good enough to give him an alternate spot at the All Star game. If quality of team has little to no impact on save percentage, why is it Hodgson's defensive liability is always such a concern? It's certainly not about the number of shots given up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted February 4, 2015 Report Share Posted February 4, 2015 I glanced over those, I'll look more in-depth later. The problem I have with advanced stats are the variables are highly debatable. The author can create any variable he so desires to throw into his formula. Just because his argument sounds legit, doesn't mean it is. Sorry, if team quality has little to no bearing on save percentage, that means Quick is a 20-30 goaltender. Or Jaroslav Halak, finishing in the top six in save percentage three times throughout his career but now sits 25th in the league...... on a team with absolutely no defense. Yet the league thinks that's good enough to give him an alternate spot at the All Star game. If quality of team has little to no impact on save percentage, why is it Hodgson's defensive liability is always such a concern? It's certainly not about the number of shots given up. My defense of this particular criticism of "advanced" stats is always going to be that people (all of us) do the same kind of thing with our eyes. We're going to be looking for certain things and select a subset of plays which illustrate that, and then boom, that's our reality. Even if we're not specifically looking for something, it's a near certainty that a handful of plays are going to stick with us and color what we see going forward, whether it's fair or not. Specifically, I do think Quick is vastly overrated by most fans and talking heads--I don't think he's bad, but I do think his contract is a very inefficient use of cap dollars. Quick is a career .914 goaltender, and I think he'd be that whether playing for the Kings or Sabres. Miller (although I'm somewhat loath to discuss him with you :p ) is a career .915 goaltender who is playing on a team much better than last year's Sabres...yet has a lower sv% than last year (not to mention his significantly lower numbers on St. Louis last year). The Leafs aren't meaningfully worse defensively than they were last season, yet Bernier's sv% is much lower. How do things like this happen if team effects are very strong? With goaltenders, randomness really does rule the day, which is why it's so damn hard to evaluate them without a sufficient sample (~3000 even strength shots...although 5000 would be preferable, it's unrealistic to wait that long before making a judgment). On a more general point, because of the strength of randomness, I think goaltending is one position where there are significant market inefficiencies to be taken advantage of by a smart GM--most seem to overvalue the goaltender having a breakout year and undervalue those having a down year. Jonathan Quick has one amazing season, and he becomes infallible in the eyes of many...Devan Dubnyk has a below average season, and suddenly he's not an NHL goaltender. Applying this to Enroth, I do not think he's as bad as he has played for the past month and a half or so...but I also don't necessarily believe he's the .915 career goaltender he was prior to this season simply because he didn't get enough shots to even be remotely certain. Hence my comment that I really wish he had RFA years left so we could bridge deal him, rather than needing to make a longer term commitment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted February 4, 2015 Report Share Posted February 4, 2015 This is all correct. Enroth obviously the reason we won. The first was enjoyable but only because Price had a let down period. But we were creating some things that was fun to see but no way Price gives up three goals in seven shots too often is it?That streak needed to end for everyone's sake. Enroth is most of the reason, the other half is how many shots the Habs missed the net on. I haven't checked the line scores, but the Habs looked like they easily missed 25 shots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted February 4, 2015 Report Share Posted February 4, 2015 My defense of this particular criticism of "advanced" stats is always going to be that people (all of us) do the same kind of thing with our eyes. We're going to be looking for certain things and select a subset of plays which illustrate that, and then boom, that's our reality. Even if we're not specifically looking for something, it's a near certainty that a handful of plays are going to stick with us and color what we see going forward, whether it's fair or not. Specifically, I do think Quick is vastly overrated by most fans and talking heads--I don't think he's bad, but I do think his contract is a very inefficient use of cap dollars. Quick is a career .914 goaltender, and I think he'd be that whether playing for the Kings or Sabres. Miller (although I'm somewhat loath to discuss him with you :P ) is a career .915 goaltender who is playing on a team much better than last year's Sabres...yet has a lower sv% than last year (not to mention his significantly lower numbers on St. Louis last year). The Leafs aren't meaningfully worse defensively than they were last season, yet Bernier's sv% is much lower. How do things like this happen if team effects are very strong? With goaltenders, randomness really does rule the day, which is why it's so damn hard to evaluate them without a sufficient sample (~3000 even strength shots...although 5000 would be preferable, it's unrealistic to wait that long before making a judgment). On a more general point, because of the strength of randomness, I think goaltending is one position where there are significant market inefficiencies to be taken advantage of by a smart GM--most seem to overvalue the goaltender having a breakout year and undervalue those having a down year. Jonathan Quick has one amazing season, and he becomes infallible in the eyes of many...Devan Dubnyk has a below average season, and suddenly he's not an NHL goaltender. Applying this to Enroth, I do not think he's as bad as he has played for the past month and a half or so...but I also don't necessarily believe he's the .915 career goaltender he was prior to this season simply because he didn't get enough shots to even be remotely certain. Hence my comment that I really wish he had RFA years left so we could bridge deal him, rather than needing to make a longer term commitment. Well, you have your advanced stats and you stand by them. I can appreciate that, I even think there is room in sports for BASIC advanced stats. I don't agree with everything you said, I'll gladly get into more detail if you wish to take this to another thread, after all this is a GDT thread. Either way you're going to have a tough time convincing me that the reason Enroth's save percentage is 12-18 points lower this year isn't because of the team in front of him. Just as you pointed out Miller's numbers remaining stable, I can just as easily point out Enroth's decline being proportional to the team in front of him. No goaltender in the league would be above .910 on this team. For what it's worth, I'm glad Dubnyk is getting his shot. I think he has a chance to become a #1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattPie Posted February 4, 2015 Report Share Posted February 4, 2015 My defense of this particular criticism of "advanced" stats is always going to be that people (all of us) do the same kind of thing with our eyes. We're going to be looking for certain things and select a subset of plays which illustrate that, and then boom, that's our reality. Even if we're not specifically looking for something, it's a near certainty that a handful of plays are going to stick with us and color what we see going forward, whether it's fair or not. Specifically, I do think Quick is vastly overrated by most fans and talking heads--I don't think he's bad, but I do think his contract is a very inefficient use of cap dollars. Quick is a career .914 goaltender, and I think he'd be that whether playing for the Kings or Sabres. Miller (although I'm somewhat loath to discuss him with you :P ) is a career .915 goaltender who is playing on a team much better than last year's Sabres...yet has a lower sv% than last year (not to mention his significantly lower numbers on St. Louis last year). The Leafs aren't meaningfully worse defensively than they were last season, yet Bernier's sv% is much lower. How do things like this happen if team effects are very strong? With goaltenders, randomness really does rule the day, which is why it's so damn hard to evaluate them without a sufficient sample (~3000 even strength shots...although 5000 would be preferable, it's unrealistic to wait that long before making a judgment). On a more general point, because of the strength of randomness, I think goaltending is one position where there are significant market inefficiencies to be taken advantage of by a smart GM--most seem to overvalue the goaltender having a breakout year and undervalue those having a down year. Jonathan Quick has one amazing season, and he becomes infallible in the eyes of many...Devan Dubnyk has a below average season, and suddenly he's not an NHL goaltender. Applying this to Enroth, I do not think he's as bad as he has played for the past month and a half or so...but I also don't necessarily believe he's the .915 career goaltender he was prior to this season simply because he didn't get enough shots to even be remotely certain. Hence my comment that I really wish he had RFA years left so we could bridge deal him, rather than needing to make a longer term commitment. Well, you have your advanced stats and you stand by them. I can appreciate that, I even think there is room in sports for BASIC advanced stats. I don't agree with everything you said, I'll gladly get into more detail if you wish to take this to another thread, after all this is a GDT thread. Either way you're going to have a tough time convincing me that the reason Enroth's save percentage is 12-18 points lower this year isn't because of the team in front of him. Just as you pointed out Miller's numbers remaining stable, I can just as easily point out Enroth's decline being proportional to the team in front of him. No goaltender in the league would be above .910 on this team. For what it's worth, I'm glad Dubnyk is getting his shot. I think he has a chance to become a #1. One of the two of us is reading that wrong, because I think he's saying Miller's numbers are lower this year than last. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted February 4, 2015 Report Share Posted February 4, 2015 One of the two of us is reading that wrong, because I think he's saying Miller's numbers are lower this year than last. Perhaps 'stable' was a bad choice. I don't really think the Blues should count, because...........well............. there's that 'sample size' thing again. :P He is right, Miller's numbers with the Canucks were lower than his average. However his numbers have gone back up to .915 which is right at his career average. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerme1 Posted February 4, 2015 Report Share Posted February 4, 2015 Enroth is most of the reason, the other half is how many shots the Habs missed the net on. I haven't checked the line scores, but the Habs looked like they easily missed 25 shots. But they made over 30 so my goalie is on the good side of me. All fancy stats guys can figure that out. I've had one goalie stat I've used my whole life. If a goalie lets in one goal for every ten shots I think he has done well. Some nights that means 3 goals on 30 shots and win or lose I don't blame my goalie. Some nights it means my goalie gives up 3 goals on 39 shots and you certainly expect to win but if you don't you sure don't blame him. But if he gives up three goals in 29 shots or less, he is suspect. How that translates in to the advanced stats of today, I don't have any idea. But I know as a rule, it works for me. I am a simple man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted February 4, 2015 Report Share Posted February 4, 2015 Believe it or not, there hasn't been found to be much of any relationship between team quality and a goaltender's sv%. Whether his down year is due to the randomness of goaltending, that maybe his previous seasons were only good due to randomness, or because the rigors of starting really are making a difference from being a backup...I cannot say. But I'm very confident that he hasn't proven to be a capable starter with his performance this season, and I would not want to invest even a 4 year $16MM contract in him. If making saves is not the measure of a goalie, what, pray tell, is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted February 4, 2015 Report Share Posted February 4, 2015 Perhaps 'stable' was a bad choice. I don't really think the Blues should count, because...........well............. there's that 'sample size' thing again. :P He is right, Miller's numbers with the Canucks were lower than his average. However his numbers have gone back up to .915 which is right at his career average. The point I was trying (and clearly failing) to make was that Miller's numbers with the Canucks this year are worse than his numbers with the Sabres last year, despite the fact that the Canucks are a much better team and he isn't getting peppered like he was while in blue and gold. If team effects were truly a critical component of goaltender sv%, I don't think you'd see this (it could just be an outlier, but the general concept passes the sniff test when eyeballing other cases and reading some of the work that's been done on the variability of goaltender sv%). That Miller's numbers this season have returned to his career average is exactly what I'm trying to illustrate here: totally different (and some may argue better) team than he's had for most of his career, and certainly a better team than he's had for several years, yet his numbers remain what they've always been. Of course it's just one example, but it doesn't exactly speak to team effects having a major impact on sv%. If making saves is not the measure of a goalie, what, pray tell, is? I honestly don't even know how this is a response to my post. Nowhere did I say stopping the puck wasn't a measure of a goalie. Well, you have your advanced stats and you stand by them. I can appreciate that, I even think there is room in sports for BASIC advanced stats. I don't agree with everything you said, I'll gladly get into more detail if you wish to take this to another thread, after all this is a GDT thread. Either way you're going to have a tough time convincing me that the reason Enroth's save percentage is 12-18 points lower this year isn't because of the team in front of him. Just as you pointed out Miller's numbers remaining stable, I can just as easily point out Enroth's decline being proportional to the team in front of him. No goaltender in the league would be above .910 on this team. For what it's worth, I'm glad Dubnyk is getting his shot. I think he has a chance to become a #1. I'm willing to grant that the team is part of that reason, since they are oh so bad...but it's not like they were world beaters last season when his sv% was much higher--the drop is not proportional to the drop from last year's Sabres to this year's. So we're left needing to figure out what else could be contributing. I see three realistic possibilities: 1) He's just having a down year due to nothing other than luck. It happens to even the best goaltenders. 2) The rigors of being a starter really are different than being a backup, and he simply can't maintain his backup level of play as the lead dog. 3) He was never as good as his previous sv% would indicate, due to everyone's favorite: insufficient sample size. When talking about signing him to a long term deal (I'm very much open to a relatively cheap two year deal, I just don't think he'll be amenable to that), it legitimately worries me that his big drop in sv% has coincided with his first time being a starter for a full season. This could absolutely be a coincidence, but I'm just not confident enough that's the case to bet a four year contract on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted February 4, 2015 Report Share Posted February 4, 2015 (edited) The point I was trying (and clearly failing) to make was that Miller's numbers with the Canucks this year are worse than his numbers with the Sabres last year, despite the fact that the Canucks are a much better team and he isn't getting peppered like he was while in blue and gold. If team effects were truly a critical component of goaltender sv%, I don't think you'd see this (it could just be an outlier, but the general concept passes the sniff test when eyeballing other cases and reading some of the work that's been done on the variability of goaltender sv%). That Miller's numbers this season have returned to his career average is exactly what I'm trying to illustrate here: totally different (and some may argue better) team than he's had for most of his career, and certainly a better team than he's had for several years, yet his numbers remain what they've always been. Of course it's just one example, but it doesn't exactly speak to team effects having a major impact on sv%. I honestly don't even know how this is a response to my post. Nowhere did I say stopping the puck wasn't a measure of a goalie. Should you be comparing Miller from last year on the Sabres, or his previous seasons in which the team in front of him was better than last year.......all while having a lower save percentage? I would compare the norm, not the exception. The fact of the matter is, Enroth is the best thing the Sabers have. He's dependable, healthy and is arguably starter material. At least for the moment. Hackett is unproven with a knee injury. Neuvirth is injury prone, has been all his career; he's soft. The two Swedes coming up aren't close to ready. Assuming Enroth wants to stay, a 3 year contract is optimal for both parties. Terms should be irrelevant at this point. By the way, I know why you brought up Miller's season from last year. The higher save percentage on a worse team. Don't want you to think I overlooked that. I responded before you made the next post. I'll get to that later. ;) Edited February 4, 2015 by JJFIVEOH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted February 4, 2015 Report Share Posted February 4, 2015 Should you be comparing Miller from last year on the Sabres, or his previous seasons in which the team in front of him was better than last year.......all while having a lower save percentage? I would compare the norm, not the exception. The fact of the matter is, Enroth is the best thing the Sabers have. He's dependable, healthy and is arguably starter material. At least for the moment. Hackett is unproven with a knee injury. Neuvirth is injury prone, has been all his career; he's soft. The two Swedes coming up aren't close to ready. Assuming Enroth wants to stay, a 3 year contract is optimal for both parties. Terms should be irrelevant at this point. By the way, I know why you brought up Miller's season from last year. The higher save percentage on a worse team. Don't want you to think I overlooked that. I responded before you made the next post. I'll get to that later. ;) Yea, I really only used Miller because of familiarity with the example....aka, it was the lazy way out :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Defecting Posted February 5, 2015 Report Share Posted February 5, 2015 My defense of this particular criticism of "advanced" stats is always going to be that people (all of us) do the same kind of thing with our eyes. We're going to be looking for certain things and select a subset of plays which illustrate that, and then boom, that's our reality. Even if we're not specifically looking for something, it's a near certainty that a handful of plays are going to stick with us and color what we see going forward, whether it's fair or not. Specifically, I do think Quick is vastly overrated by most fans and talking heads--I don't think he's bad, but I do think his contract is a very inefficient use of cap dollars. Quick is a career .914 goaltender, and I think he'd be that whether playing for the Kings or Sabres. Miller (although I'm somewhat loath to discuss him with you :P ) is a career .915 goaltender who is playing on a team much better than last year's Sabres...yet has a lower sv% than last year (not to mention his significantly lower numbers on St. Louis last year). The Leafs aren't meaningfully worse defensively than they were last season, yet Bernier's sv% is much lower. How do things like this happen if team effects are very strong? With goaltenders, randomness really does rule the day, which is why it's so damn hard to evaluate them without a sufficient sample (~3000 even strength shots...although 5000 would be preferable, it's unrealistic to wait that long before making a judgment). On a more general point, because of the strength of randomness, I think goaltending is one position where there are significant market inefficiencies to be taken advantage of by a smart GM--most seem to overvalue the goaltender having a breakout year and undervalue those having a down year. Jonathan Quick has one amazing season, and he becomes infallible in the eyes of many...Devan Dubnyk has a below average season, and suddenly he's not an NHL goaltender. Applying this to Enroth, I do not think he's as bad as he has played for the past month and a half or so...but I also don't necessarily believe he's the .915 career goaltender he was prior to this season simply because he didn't get enough shots to even be remotely certain. Hence my comment that I really wish he had RFA years left so we could bridge deal him, rather than needing to make a longer term commitment. My own criticism of numbers hockey is that it is at best abstract. Numbers are an abtraction, for one. Secondly, I do not find them very illuminating. Thirdly, I do not find them very much fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted February 5, 2015 Report Share Posted February 5, 2015 I'm willing to grant that the team is part of that reason, since they are oh so bad...but it's not like they were world beaters last season when his sv% was much higher--the drop is not proportional to the drop from last year's Sabres to this year's. So we're left needing to figure out what else could be contributing. I see three realistic possibilities: 1) He's just having a down year due to nothing other than luck. It happens to even the best goaltenders. 2) The rigors of being a starter really are different than being a backup, and he simply can't maintain his backup level of play as the lead dog. 3) He was never as good as his previous sv% would indicate, due to everyone's favorite: insufficient sample size. When talking about signing him to a long term deal (I'm very much open to a relatively cheap two year deal, I just don't think he'll be amenable to that), it legitimately worries me that his big drop in sv% has coincided with his first time being a starter for a full season. This could absolutely be a coincidence, but I'm just not confident enough that's the case to bet a four year contract on it. So which one is the fluke, the streak where he carried the team to 10 wins in 13 games, or the one where he played a majority of 14 straight losses? Perhaps he gave up a few times because the rest of the team just didn't give a damn for a while. It's hard not to, Miller did it in the past. I'm just not sure how much more playing time you want out of him. He's working on his 5th full season and over 100+ starts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jsixspd Posted February 5, 2015 Report Share Posted February 5, 2015 (edited) Well, the Sabres had to win eventually, and I'm glad it was against the perennially despised Habs. LOL. There had to be much wailing and gnashing of teeth in the Habs locker room last night after this loss - beat by the lowly Sabres, and at home! Edited February 5, 2015 by Jsixspd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.