Is Darling playing himself into a starting position with a team somewhere?

[Probie2429]

Goalies with a Stanley Cup on their resume don't become available often so if the Hawks did make Crow available in a trade, there would be plenty of suitors.

 

[Rex]

I have come to the conclusion that the sophomore slump is an old wive's tale and bullshit. Goalies have down years. Sometimes it is their second year in the NHL, sometimes it is their 4th, sometimes it is their 7th. Sometimes they have down years because the team in front of them has a down year. The sophomore slump is not a quantifiable "thing". Rask, Niemi, Lundquist, Rinne, Quick? Where was the "sophomore slump" for those guys?

How does a sophomore slump even work? The goalie has a down year in their second season because the NHL figured them out, but they forget what they figured out about the goalie in the third season? :lol:

Did Crawford have a "sophomore slump" or did the Hawks as a whole just suck that season?

as I mentioned before, the goalies have to adapt after their second season, or they're gone.

Goalies with a Sophomore Slump....sorry decrease in production in their sophomore season

Pekka Rinne
Corey Crawford
Carey Price
Ben Bishop
Johnathon Quick
Tukka Rask (lost his spot to Tim Thomas after winning it the year before)
Henrik Lundqvist
Steve Mason

I'm sure there's more active goalies than those too

 

[Shantz My Pants]

That doesn't answer the question though. Why would teams all of a sudden now think they shouldn't pay that type of money to goalies IF the Hawks were to win, or go far, with Darling? They themselves won the Cup with an "unknown" and still ended up being a team that gave a stupid contract to a goalie. Why would it become this league wide change this time?

The league typically follows suit with what the champion team has been doing, at least many teams try to duplicate it.

My theory is maybe (and that's a strong maybe) if the Hawks win with Darling, and end up giving away Crawford and there is some success, maybe it will reevaluate the thought of paying so much for a goaltender.

Just a theory.


Sent from my Texas Instrument Calculator

 

[Shantz My Pants]

Double post.

 

[Pez68]

as I mentioned before, the goalies have to adapt after their second season, or they're gone.

Goalies with a Sophomore Slump....sorry decrease in production in their sophomore season

Pekka Rinne
Corey Crawford
Carey Price
Ben Bishop
Johnathon Quick
Tukka Rask (lost his spot to Tim Thomas after winning it the year before)
Henrik Lundqvist
Steve Mason

I'm sure there's more active goalies than those too

Rinne went from .917 and 2.38 to .911 and 2.53. Stats were worse in 2013-2014
Crawford from .917 and 2.30 to .903 and 2.72. Worst season.
Price from .920 and 2.56 to .905 and 2.83. Tied for worst season in save percentage. Worst GAA.
Bishop from .924 and 2.23 to .916 and 2.32. Only started two seasons, so who knows. Not much variance here...
Quick from .914 and 2.48 to .907 and 2.54. Save percentage was worse in 2012-2013. Worst GAA. Again, not much variance..
Rask from .931 and 1.97 to .918 and 2.67. Worst season.
Lundqvist from .922 and 2.24 to .917 and 2.34. He has had a higher GAA and lower save percentage twice...
Mason from .916 and 2.29 to .901 and 3.06. Worst season.

How much of this is just normal variance in their play from season to season? How many of those slumps are attributed to the team not being as good in their second season? Crawford in his second season is a great example. Emery posted .900 and 2.83. Crawford posted .903 and 2.72. The next season, same goalies, Crawford with .926 and 1.94. Emery with .922 and 1.94. Their stats were nearly identical in both seasons. Seems to me that down season can be attributed almost entirely to the difference in the team.....

Out of the 8 goalies you listed, only 3 of them definitively had their worst season in the NHL in their second season. The others posted very similar numbers throughout their career.

For every goalie you find that had a worse season their 2nd season, I bet you can find just as many that had a better season... Halak? MAF? Lehtonen? Niemi? Luongo? Schneider? Ward? It is a myth that has been statistically debunked several times, in several sports.

 

[ClydeLee]

Rinne went from .917 and 2.38 to .911 and 2.53. Stats were worse in 2013-2014
Crawford from .917 and 2.30 to .903 and 2.72. Worst season.
Price from .920 and 2.56 to .905 and 2.83. Tied for worst season in save percentage. Worst GAA.
Bishop from .924 and 2.23 to .916 and 2.32. Only started two seasons, so who knows. Not much variance here...
Quick from .914 and 2.48 to .907 and 2.54. Save percentage was worse in 2012-2013. Worst GAA. Again, not much variance..
Rask from .931 and 1.97 to .918 and 2.67. Worst season.
Lundqvist from .922 and 2.24 to .917 and 2.34. He has had a higher GAA and lower save percentage twice...
Mason from .916 and 2.29 to .901 and 3.06. Worst season.

How much of this is just normal variance in their play from season to season? How many of those slumps are attributed to the team not being as good in their second season? Crawford in his second season is a great example. Emery posted .900 and 2.83. Crawford posted .903 and 2.72. The next season, same goalies, Crawford with .926 and 1.94. Emery with .922 and 1.94. Their stats were nearly identical in both seasons. Seems to me that down season can be attributed almost entirely to the difference in the team.....

Out of the 8 goalies you listed, only 3 of them definitively had their worst season in the NHL in their second season. The others posted very similar numbers throughout their career.

For every goalie you find that had a worse season their 2nd season, I bet you can find just as many that had a better season... Halak? MAF? Lehtonen? Niemi? Luongo? Schneider? Ward? It is a myth that has been statistically debunked several times, in several sports.

How is it statisically debunked?? In what way.. how is having equal representation of yes, some people struggle and others don't anything Against it?

No sensible stance is ever saying, IT HAPPENS TO EVERYONE. That's not an argument to be made. It's also not one to be debunked because it's not true.

It's sensibly true when talking to some people and seeing HOW some people get exposed in sophomore scenarios in some sports or other situations, because teams can gameplay against a player better spending time having a large body of work against them. Several people even speak about it being a different situation mentally, your state of how you're looking at things being a fresh rookie or not can have an impact if you let that get to you. Not everyone does, but some people do it and it does factor in plenty of times.

 

[Pez68]

It's been debunked because...there is nothing special about a player's second season. There are no statistics that back up players having down years in their second season more than the others... You could probably find an equal number of players that struggle in season 3, or season 5, or season 8. It's the nature of numbers and chance. Guys have down years, and the average length of an NHL career is 5.5 years. Chances are, some guys are going to have down years in their second season... :lol:

If the sophomore slump was actually a real thing, you would see more players struggling in their second season than doing well... It is simply not true.

 

[TCD]

That doesn't answer the question though. Why would teams all of a sudden now think they shouldn't pay that type of money to goalies IF the Hawks were to win, or go far, with Darling? They themselves won the Cup with an "unknown" and still ended up being a team that gave a stupid contract to a goalie. Why would it become this league wide change this time?

Some goalies are very marketable. Never take the business end out of pro sports, thats a mistake some fans make. I agree with you in raw theory and if pro sports wasnt a business but thats not the reality. Teams make a lot of money off merchandise and other things than just gate receipts. It appeared to me after The 2013 cup Crawford quickly became a massive fan favorite. Bet sales of items with his name on them sky rocketed but i dont have the numbers to back that theory up.

If glen hextal was in this league right now and the fighting culture was still a huge thing how much money do you think a team would pay him regardless if he had a cup or not? Why do you think Price got paid 7 mill a year and got that contract well before he had any significant stand out seasons with the habs or on the international stage? Habs paid him for 2 reasons. Out of projection of becoming one of the worlds best on the ice (which he is now) and because Price was a massive brand in Montreal and they put a massive hype machine around him with merchandise etc. Its an investment that has paid off big time for the Habs on the business end and the on ice. They got lucky on both ends and good for them for doing so.

Sometimes in business you gotta take your gambles. Ill agree Craw was paid probably 1.5 - 2.5 mill more than he should have been but i totally understand why they took the gamble from the business and branding end after the cup win and a run Crawford had which drew a lot of fans to him and his personality and character just as much as his game on the ice. The Hawks wouldnt have given him the extra bump on the contract had they not seen the marketability. Heres a question because everyone loves to go back to this comparision. Niemi or Crawford? Who is the more marketable?

Fun thing is. Darling is coming off as very marketable also right now. Fans are loving the **** out of the guy. Thats whats going to be interesting and could be the reason the team actually may shop Crawford if Darling also continues to play well. But i also expect we havent seen the last of Crawford this post season.

 

[ClydeLee]

Things are not universally 1 way of the other. Nobody would say things are all universally divided apart.

Nemo had a far better nickname and marketable selling spree. I saw people with NEMO listens plates and people making fake Neimi T-shirts... though there is also the crawford-kane-shaw shirt. I think Neimi had a much larger rise with a catchphrase and all

They also put themselves in a whole with no other options for their depth. It was in September after the off-season when Emery left that they gave Crawford the contract extension. If Emery had stayed on I doubt they would of seen it as an immediate need but they had no other options for securing the future, what I disliked the most about the Bulin signing was that they set themselves up with no alternative future options but Crawford getting a big deal.

But that's false about Price, he had a huge year in 10-11 when he was officially the guy after Halak was traded and that was Price's first year on his bridge 2 year deal; so it was some time after he had that great season the club signed him up with his huge deal.

 

[Variable]

Dude the Habs might as well print money. They'll never have to worry about not making money. The right example would be Nashville and Rinne. Its not a huge market for hockey. Teams like Montreal and to a slightly lesser extent Chicago, are huge markets for hockey. Who's more marketable between Niemi and Craw? Are the Hawks winning? Then it doesn't matter. If you want to that route, who do you think is more marketable between Craw or LOCAL BOY (with an underdog story to boot) Scott Darling?

But again it really doesn't matter as long as they're winning.

 

[TCD]

So what happens when they arent winning? This hawks team isnt going to be around forever. So when the time comes when the hawks are shitty again how do they generate revenue during that period? Its going to be interesting because the hawks havent been shitty in this new league and market yet. Last time they were shitty was when there was no cap and an owner ran the org like a backwards idiot chasing away fans by trading fan favorites and blocking them from even watching games. Team would have been fine without winning but it was ran like a nightmare by an ownership well behind the modern business models in pro sports in a very large market. Never seen empty rinks like that in a hockey market it was a fucking embarrassment. Had nothing to do with winning or losing at that time it had everything to do with one of the most out of touch ownership and marketing groups one could ever see. Was horrible...but cue the five season ticket holders who wish they could go back to those days because tickets were cheaper and it was nice sitting in a quiet rink being able to think about life...lol.

Hawks have yet to be challenged in the modern pro hockey climate when your team isnt winning. I want to see how this fan base and ownership reacts to losing seasons. I think they will do fine because its under an intelligent ownership now that understands the market past just winning and one that understands branding to the future. Unlike the twatty ownership before that dropped the ball.

 

[TCD]

Dude the Habs might as well print money. They'll never have to worry about not making money. The right example would be Nashville and Rinne. Its not a huge market for hockey. Teams like Montreal and to a slightly lesser extent Chicago, are huge markets for hockey. Who's more marketable between Niemi and Craw? Are the Hawks winning? Then it doesn't matter. If you want to that route, who do you think is more marketable between Craw or LOCAL BOY (with an underdog story to boot) Scott Darling?

But again it really doesn't matter as long as they're winning.

I actually think the mid to high mid tier hockey markets are the more interesting ones. Ones like Colorado and St Louis etc. i think those are the markets that need to be focussed on the most. The small market teams can burn and die and it wouldnt effect the league. Its those mid tier teams that are the most important to the leagues growth over the years. The question with the small market teams is how to get them to grow into the mid tier. Some franchises have done well to grow others have not and will continue to struggle to do so without some creative marketing while they arent wining. Step one is to market the players you have that are marketable so yes pekker is a great example. As is revenue sharing.

Winning doesnt do that much to small markets as much as we would like to think. What happened to Florida after they went to the cup final? Not much they didnt grow much from that. What about the Canes after they won the cup? Ziltch.

 

[Rex]

For every goalie you find that had a worse season their 2nd season, I bet you can find just as many that had a better season... Halak? MAF? Lehtonen? Niemi? Luongo? Schneider? Ward? It is a myth that has been statistically debunked several times, in several sports.

MAF's second season was an .898SV% I just didn't want to include him because
A) I don't think he's a good goalie
B) Pittsburgh was awful at the time

Niemi, Halak and Luongo are tough because their second seasons were behind different teams than their rookie seasons. Plus, it could be argued that this is Halak's first full season as a true starter, and not a 1A 1B guy.
This is also Schneider's first full season as a number one guy also.
Cam ward also had an .897SV% the year after winning the Conn Smythe.

But I approve of me naming 8 guys (now 10) and you saying "Well what about these 5 guys! Statistically I'm correct!"

 

[Variable]

So what happens when they arent winning? This hawks team isnt going to be around forever. So when the time comes when the hawks are shitty again how do they generate revenue during that period? Its going to be interesting because the hawks havent been shitty in this new league and market yet. Last time they were shitty was when there was no cap and an owner ran the org like a backwards idiot chasing away fans by trading fan favorites and blocking them from even watching games. Team would have been fine without winning but it was ran like a nightmare by an ownership well behind the modern business models in pro sports in a very large market. Never seen empty rinks like that in a hockey market it was a fucking embarrassment. Had nothing to do with winning or losing at that time it had everything to do with one of the most out of touch ownership and marketing groups one could ever see. Was horrible...but cue the five season ticket holders who wish they could go back to those days because tickets were cheaper and it was nice sitting in a quiet rink being able to think about life...lol.

Hawks have yet to be challenged in the modern pro hockey climate when your team isnt winning. I want to see how this fan base and ownership reacts to losing seasons. I think they will do fine because its under an intelligent ownership now that understands the market past just winning and one that understands branding to the future. Unlike the twatty ownership before that dropped the ball.

You're talking about what's probably post Toews/Kane era, I'm talking about next season lol. It really doesn't matter if the Hawks have a marketable goalie or not. They have almost definite future Hall of Famers in Toews/Kane/Hossa/Keith playing for them for the foreseeable future for them to market. They bought into the idea of paying their goalie top money and that he was a "Cup winning" goalie, not because he was more marketable. And it's not going to be the reason they move Crawford because Darling is more marketable. Or it shouldn't be. If it is, if marketability is the main reason, or even a strong reason why, then Bowman and Co. are fucking stupid. Because it's insane for them to take that into account and for it to make that kind of impact on a decision like that. That's scary stupid.

Again, as long as they're competitive, making the playoffs, it really doesn't matter the marketability of their goalie. This isn't Nashville or Carolina, they don't need that to survive or draw fans. It's just...silly to think that makes that big a deal for a team like the Hawks or Habs or really any of the larger hockey markets in the NHL. Those fans will embrace a winner, no matter what his name is, where he's from or how catchy a nickname he has.

 

[LordKOTL]

The league typically follows suit with what the champion team has been doing, at least many teams try to duplicate it.

My theory is maybe (and that's a strong maybe) if the Hawks win with Darling, and end up giving away Crawford and there is some success, maybe it will reevaluate the thought of paying so much for a goaltender.

Just a theory.


Sent from my Texas Instrument Calculator

It could possibly work that way, but the flipside is that I think the only way the goaltending market corrects itself is if a huge portion (like 90%) of all GM's simply offer netminders less money. I just don't think that "correcting" the netminder market is going to be as simple as monkey see-monkey do when it comes to the team that wins the cup. It's stll very possible that an overachieving, yet merely decent skater core can win it behind a stud netminder as opposed to a team built on puck possesson with merely good goaltending--IMHO it depends on which players overacheive their salaries by what margin and what team is lucky enough to have a critical mass to do so.

In other words, if Darling brings home the cup & Crawford is jettisonned, by the end of Darling's contract he may very well command 8.7% or more of the cap as a hometown discount on our team, especially if before his deal is up another team (much like Boston) wins a cup on the back of their netminder.

 

[The Hawk]

Darling signed a 2-year extension this season, so he's Chicago property through 2017 on a deal worth $1.175 million total.

I think it's way more likely that, should Darling keep this up, it's Crawford's $6 million/year deal that gets sent out of town.

Good point. Don't know his history other than he bounced around a lot in the minor leagues but clearly the guy has got it together right now and the GM was smart to sign him when he did.

I do like the big goal keepers also, especially those guys who play the low stuff well which Darling does well. It was great when he pushed guys out of the crease big time in the OTs of that last game. That is a part of Crawford's game that really doesn't happen.

 

[The Hawk]

You're talking about what's probably post Toews/Kane era, I'm talking about next season lol. It really doesn't matter if the Hawks have a marketable goalie or not. They have almost definite future Hall of Famers in Toews/Kane/Hossa/Keith playing for them for the foreseeable future for them to market. They bought into the idea of paying their goalie top money and that he was a "Cup winning" goalie, not because he was more marketable. And it's not going to be the reason they move Crawford because Darling is more marketable. Or it shouldn't be. If it is, if marketability is the main reason, or even a strong reason why, then Bowman and Co. are fucking stupid. Because it's insane for them to take that into account and for it to make that kind of impact on a decision like that. That's scary stupid.

Again, as long as they're competitive, making the playoffs, it really doesn't matter the marketability of their goalie. This isn't Nashville or Carolina, they don't need that to survive or draw fans. It's just...silly to think that makes that big a deal for a team like the Hawks or Habs or really any of the larger hockey markets in the NHL. Those fans will embrace a winner, no matter what his name is, where he's from or how catchy a nickname he has.

That was one GREAT POST!

 

[Tater]

That was one GREAT POST!

Don't encourage the riff-raff.

 

[Pez68]

MAF's second season was an .898SV% I just didn't want to include him because
A) I don't think he's a good goalie
B) Pittsburgh was awful at the time

Niemi, Halak and Luongo are tough because their second seasons were behind different teams than their rookie seasons. Plus, it could be argued that this is Halak's first full season as a true starter, and not a 1A 1B guy.
This is also Schneider's first full season as a number one guy also.
Cam ward also had an .897SV% the year after winning the Conn Smythe.

But I approve of me naming 8 guys (now 10) and you saying "Well what about these 5 guys! Statistically I'm correct!"

I'm not sure what being good has to do with the discussion about the "sophomore slump". That said, that really wasn't his second season. Unless you count the season he only started 21 games? I was looking at the .898 season as his first, since he played 50 games that season. The next season was drastically better...

So Niemi, Halak, and Luongo's second seasons somehow don't matter, because they were playing with a different team? Or MAF because the Penguins were awful? Kind of like the 2011-2012 Hawks' were an entirely different team from the 2010-2011 team, and pretty awful?

Ward's first full season as a starter was 2006-2007. He started 28 games his rookie season in 2005-2006 and had pretty awful regular season numbers... .882 and 3.68... Where exactly is the "sophomore slump" here? Regardless of which season you consider his "first". The year after the Conn Smythe, the .897 and 2.93 were actually an improvement over his rookie year's regular season numbers... The season after that were even better at .904 and 2.75... Again, where is the slump? Because of his miracle run in those playoffs? I say...sample size. I do enjoy watching you move the goalposts to suit your argument, though.

 

[TCD]

Bottom line is i personally like Craw a lot and think he is more than capable of getting back into the playoffs and probably will. Darling has been great also so he does deserve the starts until he shows cracks.

Off season..if they can deal Crawford while not taking a different heavy contract back? You kind of have to with the cap issues. Its not about Crawford not being a good goalie its about a contract that was 1.5-2 million too high. I dont think anyone has ever justified the contract but there have been far too many people who have judged Crawfords actual talents based on said contract which to me is never fair..but understand why it happens.

Take the chance with Darling i guess if you have to. But the sample pool of games isnt very great right now. He is def winning the what have you done for me lately cliche though as we all know.

I like both goalies so i really dont give a shit and its a good problem to have. Shopping craw isnt going to be easy though but can be done if needed. We will see what plays out in the rest of the playoffs. Darlings going to have a bad game or two if he keeps getting the start. Thats just natural for him as it is for any goalie including crawford who certainly had his already lol. Craws an alcoholic anyways and probably needs counciling. Dont need to have any degrees to notice it. Guys a fucking dirty mess and looks like he never showers now as he sits on the bench.