Duncan Keith - Norris Trophy Lock?

[Forklift]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="PSR" data-cid="225468" data-time="1397242579">
<div>


Hey I am not saying anything as fact, but the price is right and the chance of him being as good as Crawford behind this team is very probable in my opinion. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


They play behind very different teams. Q changes the team's strategy to minimzing shots against when the Hawks' backup is playing. They did it to great effect last season with Emery, and they've done it this year with Raanta.</p>


 </p>


Here's Rannta's game log for the season:</p>


 </p>


http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/r/raantan01/gamelog/2014/</p>


 </p>


You see 4 games of 30+ shots in 23 games played - 17%. Now look at Crawford:</p>


 </p>


http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/c/crawfco01/gamelog/2014/</p>


 </p>


19 out of 58 - 33%.</p>


 </p>


Part of that is also plugging in Raanta against weaker teams.</p>


 </p>


But adding the difference in shots to the percentage of shots stopped (Crawford is currently .918, Raanta is .900), not to mention how each of them has done lately, Raanta has an awfully long way to go before his replacing Crawford is seamless.</p>


 </p>


And if you want to make the case that Raanta was a stronger goalie when he played regularly, look at the decline in his save percentage the more he played.</p>

 

[puckjim]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="PSR" data-cid="225468" data-time="1397242579">
<div>


Hey I am not saying anything as fact, but the price is right and the chance of him being as good as Crawford behind this team is very probable in my opinion. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>


I just haven't seen one thing from Raanta to support your opinion of him.</p>

 

[PatrickSharpRules]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="puckjim" data-cid="225475" data-time="1397246841">
<div>


I just haven't seen one thing from Raanta to support your opinion of him.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


13-4-4 is all that I need to see. </p>

 

[puckjim]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="PSR" data-cid="225476" data-time="1397247645">
<div>


13-4-4 is all that I need to see. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>


Goalie wins stats are irrelevant </p>

 

[PatrickSharpRules]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="puckjim" data-cid="225477" data-time="1397247750">
<div>


Goalie wins stats are irrelevant </p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


Good to know</p>

 

[LordKOTL]

I think it's *possible* Raanta can wrest the starting job away from Crawford, but likley not for a year or two.  The book on Raanta, much like Crawford in 2011, is being written.  Give him about a year while he tries to learn to compensate (Crawford in 2012) and then after, we'll see what he can't do.</p>


 </p>


Right now though, vs. Ottawa and vs Montreal IMHO tells the story.  Both netminders in both games had to play with our defensive game taking a night off.  Crawford managed to hold us in it enough to *finally* once the rest of the team showed up (except Morin) and was able to exploit Budaj, Raanta couldn't--and Anderson is a much better netminder than Budaj.</p>


 </p>


Goalie wins be damned--right now the team is set up so that the critical stat is scoring.  Crawford and the D on average hold the opposition to less goals per game than Raanta and the D.  Ergo, if the offense takes a powder the chances of winning are greater with Dr. Craw in net.</p>

 

[Shantz My Pants]

lol Raanta will never be a starting goalie in the NHL? I'm sure many said that about Quick, Thomas, Bobrovsky, even Crawford. Raanta is still young enough, and goaltenders take a while to develop.

 

[Variable]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="puckjim" data-cid="225445" data-time="1397231565">
<div>


I can think of exactly zero free agent goalies that would be able to put up the stats Crawford did for a lower price.</p>


 </p>


Even Detroit, who was always the model for not overpaying for goaltending, poneyed up $5.5 million for Jimmy Howard.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


Because you seem to think a goalie's team doesn't have as much to do with how well he performs as it really does. And so what if Detroit paid stupid money for a goalie? They also brought back Dan Cleary in lieu of  keeping a guy like Brunner. No one is beyond reproach. Lots of teams fall into the trap of big money, big contract goalies, when it's probably more important than ever to NOT do that in the NHL these days.</p>

 

[puckjim]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Trev" data-cid="225491" data-time="1397254216">

lol Raanta will never be a starting goalie in the NHL? I'm sure many said that about Quick, Thomas, Bobrovsky, even Crawford. Raanta is still young enough, and goaltenders take a while to develop.</p></blockquote>


Well he won't get the opportunity here.

 

[puckjim]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Variable" data-cid="225498" data-time="1397260207">

Because you seem to think a goalie's team doesn't have as much to do with how well he performs as it really does. And so what if Detroit paid stupid money for a goalie? They also brought back Dan Cleary in lieu of  keeping a guy like Brunner. No one is beyond reproach. Lots of teams fall into the trap of big money, big contract goalies, when it's probably more important than ever to NOT do that in the NHL these days.</p></blockquote>


Yeah but there are no teams that blow off the goaltender position.


Not one. It is absolutely not a position that can be easily filled.


And while Dan Cleary sucks, so does Damien Brunner.

 

[Variable]

Who's saying blow off the goaltender position? All I'm saying is in a hard capped league like the NHL, it's  not a good idea to give big money and a long contract to a position in which the quality of play greatly pends on the quality of the team you put together around him. And in which a lot of teams find out the hard way ( arguably including the Hawks, though they were able to mostly side step it) committing that much money to that one position hinders their ability to do the other.</p>

 

[puckjim]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Variable" data-cid="225502" data-time="1397261108">

Who's saying blow off the goaltender position? All I'm saying is in a hard capped league like the NHL, it's  not a good idea to give big money and a long contract to a position in which the quality of play greatly pends on the quality of the team you put together around him. And in which a lot of teams find out the hard way ( arguably including the Hawks, though they were able to mostly side step it) committing that much money to that one position hinders their ability to do the other.</p></blockquote>


You're not saying which goalies would be sufficient to backstop a championship team.


Also, which teams are being held back from a Stanley Cup because of a goalie contract?

 

[Spunky Porkstacker]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="puckjim" data-cid="225503" data-time="1397263446">
<div>


You're not saying which goalies would be sufficient to backstop a championship team.


Also, which teams are being held back from a Stanley Cup because of a goalie contract?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


 </p>


Huet could win a cup for a couple of mil per bscene-hanged: . Maybe Peter Budaj, he's getting 1.4 mil per year. :icon-eek: </p>


 </p>


 I would like to hear what on the cheap goalie will make it to and win the final round of the SCPO. </p>

 

[Variable]

For the Hawks? It honestly could be a lot of starting goalies in the league today and some back ups, if you have a team like the Hawks built around him, he'd be good enough. Who was Niemi or Crawford before their Cup runs? </p>


 </p>


Other teams are different though. Some don't spend as much or up to the cap like Chicago does. Or won't be willing to eat big money contracts in order to try to get out of salary cap hell like they did with Huet. So when a team like the Islanders gives someone like Dipietro a contract like they did, even if he had stayed healthy, and the highest cap hit forward they had back a few years ago during that time was Tavares in his rookie season, followed by.....Doug Weight, you're going to have problems. Or Nashville with Rinne. Or Phoenix with Mike Smith. Or Carolina after they signed Cam Ward to his contract. All of a sudden, not as much to go around. You start losing depth.  For teams like that, with their belief in paying that kind of money for a goalie, it directly takes away from their already  limited ability to build a quality team in front of him. </p>


 </p>


For teams like that in order to win championships, you kinda need good timing and a smart front office. It's almost like NFL football teams before they have pay the huge money to their All star franchise QB and the window they know they have before doing that to try to achieve something  before having to start crunching numbers and losing important players. Except in that case, it's a necessary evil. Whereas the goalie position shouldn't hold the same kind of power over a team  to where  they're losing potentially multiple players of importance or losing out on the opportunity to attain players of need in order to keep the one player who, in most all cases, is going to need as good a team in front of him anyway to be seen as "good".  In most cases, it's the team that makes the goalie, not the other way around. The exceptions to that are some of the best goalies of all time, and far and away the best goalie of all time, to me, didn't win a Cup until he, well past his prime, joined a team  stacked with multiple future Hall of Famers.</p>

 

[BiscuitintheBasket]

Team.

 

[Ton]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Forklift" data-cid="225465" data-time="1397242157">

Raanta is not as good a goaltender as Corey Crawford is. He lacks the size, mobility, and assertiveness when people are in his crease.
 
Not to mention, a brick wall is better at controlling rebounds.
 
When he covered for Crawford, he had the "new goalie" advantage, where there was no book on him. There's a book on him now - Shoot low, send bodies to the net.
 
All these things - except size - are fixable. And he's not Darren Pang in the size department. It would have neem nice for him to spend a whole year in Rockford to learn how to play in North America, but Ol' Vodka Tits had other ideas.
 
He'll never be a starting goalie in the NHL. But hopefully next year Q can work them into a 3 for Crawford, 1 for Raanta rotation. That would work, keep both guys pretty sharp, and put them in the best position to win every night.</p></blockquote>
I agree with this. I like Raanta, but he is clearly the #2 goalie in this organization and I like it that way. I don't really think he's had a spectacular year to begin with.

Crawford might not be the best goaltender in the league, but he is far and away one of the most consistent goaltenders. I realize as I say this he's been letting in swiss cheese goals the last few games, yeah, but still think he's a guy who can keep his team in any game amd I'll take a guy like that over a Bobby "I let in 10 goals one game then 0 the next game" Luongo.

Also, Variable, you talk about the Hawks like any goaltender can win a Cup behind this team. The reason Crawford was paid is because of he's able to keep his head in check. Most $1M goaltenders can't handle that kind of pressure in a big market like Chicago with the expectations this team has. Good luck finding one for a third time on the cheap. For every Niemi and Crawford, there's 1,000 Carter Hutton's, and yes, even Raanta's and Emery's.

 

[Variable]

I said a lot of starting goalies. Hutton isn't a NHL goalie, Nashville having a lot of injuries in net is the only reason he played . With Raanta its too early and too small of a sample size to tell anything and Emery shouldn't be any team's starting goalie at this point in his career.

 

[Tater]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Variable" data-cid="225527" data-time="1397321173">
<div>


I said a lot of starting goalies. Hutton isn't a NHL goalie, Nashville having a lot of injuries in net is the only reason he played . With Raanta its too early and too small of a sample size to tell anything and Emery shouldn't be any team's starting goalie at this point in his career.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


Looking at his stats last year, many people wouldn't think that though.</p>

 

[Ton]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Variable" data-cid="225527" data-time="1397321173">

I said a lot of starting goalies. Hutton isn't a NHL goalie, Nashville having a lot of injuries in net is the only reason he played . With Raanta its too early and too small of a sample size to tell anything and Emery shouldn't be any team's starting goalie at this point in his career.</p></blockquote>
So you want a starting goaltender, but don't want to pay for one... what exactly do you expect? If you're not getting a starter, you're giving guys like that a chance. The Raantas, the Emerys, Lindbacks, Reimers, Berras, Bryzgalovs, Dubnyks... no one reputable is going to sign to be a starting goaltender for under $4M in todays NHL. If you think one of those guys (unproven, 2nd chance guys) can win the Cup with the Hawks, well that's great. I think you'll be playing musical chairs with the goaltender position hoping one of them can handle the pressure at some point.

You mention a handful of teams that pay for goaltenders and missed the playoffs (teams like PHX and NSH, who don't spend up to the cap anyway like the Hawks do), but don't mention LA, Boston, NYR, Pittsburgh, San Jose, Montreal, Dallas, St. Louis, Columbus, Detroit, and Anaheim... all of them playoff teams, and all of them paying a goaltender top 15 money, which means all of them, except Hiller and Niemi (both their contracts expire after this season), make over $5M in a cap hit. FYI, there's 16 teams in the playoffs. You do the math.

Of the teams that aren't paying top dollar for a goaltender, COL, TB, and PHI will after this season, since all their #1 goaltenders are on expiring contracts.

 

[puckjim]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Tony DeFrancesco" data-cid="225534" data-time="1397323407">

So you want a starting goaltender, but don't want to pay for one... what exactly do you expect? If you're not getting a starter, you're giving guys like that a chance. The Raantas, the Emerys, Lindbacks, Reimers, Berras, Bryzgalovs, Dubnyks... no one reputable is going to sign to be a starting goaltender for under $4M in todays NHL. If you think one of those guys (unproven, 2nd chance guys) can win the Cup with the Hawks, well that's great. I think you'll be playing musical chairs with the goaltender position hoping one of them can handle the pressure at some point.You mention a handful of teams that pay for goaltenders and missed the playoffs (teams like PHX and NSH, who don't spend up to the cap anyway like the Hawks do), but don't mention LA, Boston, NYR, Pittsburgh, San Jose, Montreal, Dallas, St. Louis, Columbus, Detroit, and Anaheim... all of them playoff teams, and all of them paying a goaltender top 15 money, which means all of them, except Hiller and Niemi (both their contracts expire after this season), make over $5M in a cap hit. FYI, there's 16 teams in the playoffs. You do the math.Of the teams that aren't paying top dollar for a goaltender, COL, TB, and PHI will after this season, since all their #1 goaltenders are on expiring contracts.</p></blockquote>


That's what I was trying to come up with. Thanks for doing the work.


In summary, the theory that a good defensive team can win a championship with average goaltending is bullshit.