- Joined:
- May 16, 2010
- Posts:
- 2,745
- Liked Posts:
- 0
Quoted for truth.
Folks want to rip on Crow and he had an average year. Just like the rest of the Hawks. Why is Crawford held to a different standard?
Quoted for truth.
Folks want to rip on Crow and he had an average year. Just like the rest of the Hawks. Why is Crawford held to a different standard?
Rex
Chief Blackcock
- Joined:
- Jul 17, 2010
- Posts:
- 3,447
- Liked Posts:
- 449
- Location:
- Grimson's Sweet Ass
because he's the easier target for most people. Especially people that have never played the position and think everything is stoppable.
- Joined:
- Oct 19, 2013
- Posts:
- 7,956
- Liked Posts:
- 829
- Location:
- Wish You Were Here
R K
Guest
PatrickSharpRules
New member
- Joined:
- May 16, 2010
- Posts:
- 1,986
- Liked Posts:
- 0
- Location:
- Southside, Chicago
- Joined:
- May 16, 2010
- Posts:
- 2,745
- Liked Posts:
- 0
Then I shall bow out claiming the fact that once again, as always, I am right and if you disagree, you must be wrong because i am right.
Campbell Sucks.
Variable
New member
- Joined:
- Jul 24, 2010
- Posts:
- 3,023
- Liked Posts:
- 122
But he didn't have an average year. Do people know what an "average" year for a goalie is? Saying he had an average year is being extremely generous. If he had an average year, the Hawks probably win that series against Phoenix. If he had an average year, people wouldn't be kinda hesitant in whether they'd have Crawford or fucking Ray Emery in net.
- Joined:
- May 16, 2010
- Posts:
- 2,745
- Liked Posts:
- 0
What is an average year to you then? Because obviously the reason Hawks lost a whole series was because of Crawford... That is what you are saying?
If so, I would like to nominate your above post for the Ignorant Post of (at least) the Day, because that is frankly, pretty dumb.
Samurai
Ridiculum Anserini
- Joined:
- Dec 6, 2014
- Posts:
- 1,865
- Liked Posts:
- 872
- Location:
- Out Back Chopping Trees
Variable
New member
- Joined:
- Jul 24, 2010
- Posts:
- 3,023
- Liked Posts:
- 122
An average goalie doesn't let those shots he let in. Multiple times. To lose the game. That's all on him. Yeah Mike Smith played very well in that series, the Hawks out-shot the Coyotes in every single game, some games on a near 2:1 clip, and maybe he would've still outplayed the Hawks even if Crawford wasn't as bad, but it sure as hell would've made a difference in one of the tightest playoff series of all time.
His first full season with the Hawks, that's an example of a slightly above average season for a goalie. His last season, an example of a bad season, no matter which way you want to cut it. Bad PK? Well they the second fewest trips to the PK that entire season. Can't hang it all on that. The Hawks had the edge in almost every supportive phase of the game over the majority of all the teams in the NHL and he STILL struggled.
PatrickShart
New member
- Joined:
- May 17, 2010
- Posts:
- 4,782
- Liked Posts:
- 452
Over the body of the season, there were 43 goalies who's stats qualied to be in the "leaders" statiscally
Best save% - .940% - Elliott
Worst - .886% - Roloson
The league mid point between high/low was - .9135%
Crawford was 35th out of 43 on the list with a .903%
Emery was 39th out of the 43 with a .900%
4 goalies on the list of 43 without a shutout...Emery (27gms), Crawford (55gms), Montoya (26gms), Bobrovsky (25gms)
Hawks were 8th in the league, with shots against - allowing 25.8 shots against per gams
Best save% - .940% - Elliott
Worst - .886% - Roloson
The league mid point between high/low was - .9135%
Crawford was 35th out of 43 on the list with a .903%
Emery was 39th out of the 43 with a .900%
4 goalies on the list of 43 without a shutout...Emery (27gms), Crawford (55gms), Montoya (26gms), Bobrovsky (25gms)
Hawks were 8th in the league, with shots against - allowing 25.8 shots against per gams
PatrickShart
New member
- Joined:
- May 17, 2010
- Posts:
- 4,782
- Liked Posts:
- 452
Personally...I don't expect him to be a Vezina candidate...or a Rinne, Lundqvist, or Luongo..(ha)
But just be average. At the end of the year, if his save percentage is around the .910-.915% mark, I'd be happy with his body of work.
But just be average. At the end of the year, if his save percentage is around the .910-.915% mark, I'd be happy with his body of work.
Variable
New member
- Joined:
- Jul 24, 2010
- Posts:
- 3,023
- Liked Posts:
- 122
Or like in his first season. That was fine, perfect. Be that guy, and they'll be fine. Especially in the playoffs, he was amazing. Faced over 30 shots a game that series, average .927 save percentage? Amazing. I don't expect that every time, that's crazy, but like you said, a middle point, that's all he has to be.
This is telling though, to see just how far out some people are with judging goalies, Dante isn't alone in this. That Phoenix series was maybe the best example in the last playoffs of goal tending being the true deciding factor and there are people that still think he was just "average". Everyone knows, I'm not one to pin the blame on the goalie, but that was an example where it was most appropriate.
This is telling though, to see just how far out some people are with judging goalies, Dante isn't alone in this. That Phoenix series was maybe the best example in the last playoffs of goal tending being the true deciding factor and there are people that still think he was just "average". Everyone knows, I'm not one to pin the blame on the goalie, but that was an example where it was most appropriate.
daze71
New member
- Joined:
- Jul 10, 2012
- Posts:
- 125
- Liked Posts:
- 0
- Location:
- CT
Hell our defense didn't even play average
Variable
New member
- Joined:
- Jul 24, 2010
- Posts:
- 3,023
- Liked Posts:
- 122
They were above average in shot prevention. That combined with being a team that's as high scoring as the Hawks have been and takes as few penalties as they do, you run out of excuses pretty quickly.
Ton
New member
- Joined:
- May 14, 2010
- Posts:
- 3,991
- Liked Posts:
- 124
- Location:
- Park Ridge, IL
Shot prevention... lol.
Watch the Phoenix series again, who cares if they outshot them (due to puck possession) when all the pucks were going straight into Smith's bread basket. Sharp specifically had many chances to bury the puck and either missed the net or stuffed it straight into Smith. Poor shot allocation by a mile, and it hurt this team as much as the defense and goaltending. Can't excuse the two goals Crawford let in OT, but holy shit shot prevention means nothing when it's the high quality chances that get through (neither of the OT goals were high quality, but there were plenty before OT). I promise if you start actually watching the games instead of looking at the scoresheet you'll start to see the holes on defense and most of those quality shots came in transition due to poor neutral zone turnovers.
Crawford was below average, I'll give you that, but the defense was poor at best all season -- and it wasn't due to the fact that they couldn't play defense, it was due to the fact that they had difficulty penetrating the neutral zone. Many times the D and Craw were left out to dry due to a transition turnover that kept them caught. This is just one example of many.
There is no accurate stat that will explain that portion of the game. If there was I would use it. Just goes to show that hockey is a game that can't rely on stats the way it is currently presented. In that respect, they are light years behind football, but to their credit it is also a much faster paced game.
Can the Hawks improve in goaltending? Yes. Can they improve their team defense? Yes. If both improve, in turn so will their PK. As far as the PP, that is all on the core.
Watch the Phoenix series again, who cares if they outshot them (due to puck possession) when all the pucks were going straight into Smith's bread basket. Sharp specifically had many chances to bury the puck and either missed the net or stuffed it straight into Smith. Poor shot allocation by a mile, and it hurt this team as much as the defense and goaltending. Can't excuse the two goals Crawford let in OT, but holy shit shot prevention means nothing when it's the high quality chances that get through (neither of the OT goals were high quality, but there were plenty before OT). I promise if you start actually watching the games instead of looking at the scoresheet you'll start to see the holes on defense and most of those quality shots came in transition due to poor neutral zone turnovers.
Crawford was below average, I'll give you that, but the defense was poor at best all season -- and it wasn't due to the fact that they couldn't play defense, it was due to the fact that they had difficulty penetrating the neutral zone. Many times the D and Craw were left out to dry due to a transition turnover that kept them caught. This is just one example of many.
There is no accurate stat that will explain that portion of the game. If there was I would use it. Just goes to show that hockey is a game that can't rely on stats the way it is currently presented. In that respect, they are light years behind football, but to their credit it is also a much faster paced game.
Can the Hawks improve in goaltending? Yes. Can they improve their team defense? Yes. If both improve, in turn so will their PK. As far as the PP, that is all on the core.
daze71
New member
- Joined:
- Jul 10, 2012
- Posts:
- 125
- Liked Posts:
- 0
- Location:
- CT
No excuses our defense was a turnover machine and were inconsistent all year and to add to it no PP or PK
Variable
New member
- Joined:
- Jul 24, 2010
- Posts:
- 3,023
- Liked Posts:
- 122
Shot quality doesn't differ from team to team as much as people believe, it's the shot count you look at. And yeah, the bad power play hurts their chances of WINNING for sure,but doesn't really impact a goalie's stats (other than TEAM wins) seeing as they were still top 5 in scoring and their differential in power play time vs time spent on PK was top 5 as well. Add on to the fact they were near top 5 in shots on goal and what you have is a team that is highly possessive of the puck, doesn't put themselves at a disadvantage and compared to the rest of the league spend more time with a man advantage.
All of these are advantages that goalies in most of the NHL don't have. An interesting comparable one that does is Niemi. San Jose and Chicago share nearly identical time differentials on PP/PK, their scoring was merely league average, but their power play was great. Their shots allowed was exactly one less than Chicago and their PK was one of the few that was actually worse than Chicago's. And he finished with slightly above league average numbers because that's what he's always been. A league average goalie who's been put in good playing environments and has benefited from it. Crawford wasn't that last season under comparable (arguably better) conditions with a team who won more than San Jose did IN SPITE of the performance of their goalie(s) and bad PK and bad power play.
All of these are advantages that goalies in most of the NHL don't have. An interesting comparable one that does is Niemi. San Jose and Chicago share nearly identical time differentials on PP/PK, their scoring was merely league average, but their power play was great. Their shots allowed was exactly one less than Chicago and their PK was one of the few that was actually worse than Chicago's. And he finished with slightly above league average numbers because that's what he's always been. A league average goalie who's been put in good playing environments and has benefited from it. Crawford wasn't that last season under comparable (arguably better) conditions with a team who won more than San Jose did IN SPITE of the performance of their goalie(s) and bad PK and bad power play.
Ton
New member
- Joined:
- May 14, 2010
- Posts:
- 3,991
- Liked Posts:
- 124
- Location:
- Park Ridge, IL
And I disagree with that statement entirely. Not only the area of the ice, but the shot selection on net could have a huge impact on those numbers.