TGDT: WCQF - 4/21 Blues (2) @ Blackhawks (0) 7:00PM CNBC/CSN

[Variable]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Tony DeFrancesco" data-cid="226958" data-time="1398214723">
<div>


Experience doesn't matter, sometimes it does, but it's not the main factor here.</p>


 </p>


Mental stability. Crawford has that. Most goaltenders don't. This is why he's paid the big bucks and it's going to be worth every penny.</p>


 </p>


You're right though, goalie analysis is awful. The stats don't do justice to define each goaltender. This is probably why you (and many many other people) think there's not much difference between Mr. Average and Corey Crawford. Well, actually, that's not true, because I know that you know there is a difference. It's just a matter of you thinking that it's not worth it. I can't convince you otherwise. I think it's worth the money.</p>


 </p>


This team is not good enough to win without a great goaltender. I don't know where that "myth" came from.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


Judging one goalie's stats from a team like Buffalo to a team like San Jose doesn't do it justice, no. But when you judge it within their own team and the factors they face in that specific team, that specific system, you can learn a hell of a lot more about a goalie. Terms like "great" or "average" start fading away.  But people don't like to do that, that's not done on a widespread basis, at least not yet. You know why? Too much work. Not easy enough to explain on TV, easier to go with cliched catch phrases and outdated ideas  that push across any kind of clear cut thought/judgement (right, wrong doesn't matter as long as it's short and sweet). Basically, not a whole lot of people care enough, but I do. So this will always be a point of discussion for me because of how lacking real informative data that there is in these type of debates. </p>


 </p>


Saying a goalie "won the Cup" simply isn't enough for me. Saying one goalie is mentally stronger than others   (which is impossible to know of course (and where's the bar graph on that by the way)) just doesn't cut it for me.</p>

 

[Ton]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Variable" data-cid="226963" data-time="1398215262">


Judging one goalie's stats from a team like Buffalo to a team like San Jose doesn't do it justice, no. But when you judge it within their own team and the factors they face in that specific team, that specific system, you can learn a hell of a lot more about a goalie. Terms like "great" or "average" start fading away.  But people don't like to do that, that's not done on a widespread basis, at least not yet. You know why? Too much work. Not easy enough to explain on TV, easier to go with cliched catch phrases and outdated  that push across any kind of thought/judgement (right, wrong doesn't matter as long as it's short and sweet) . Basically, not a whole lot of people care enough, but I do. So this will always be a point of discussion for me.</p>
</blockquote>


 

But I can bring out examples which you can't apply that to, such as Huet on Montreal (7th, 10th, 1st) and Washington (3rd). His save percentage was great, played on some good teams and bad teams. Comes to the Hawks, shits the bed.

 

How can you judge that without making the same mistake again? You can't just take a goaltender on a last place team and plop him on a Cup contender. Look at Miller, and that's a guy who's proven. Who's the better goaltender in this series so far?

 

 </p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">


Saying a goalie "won the Cup" simply isn't enough for me. Saying one goalie is mentally stronger than others   (which is impossible to know of course (and where's the bar graph on that by the way)) just doesn't cut it for me.</p>
</blockquote>


 </p>


Impossible to know right now, since there's really no stat on it. But, take an eye test. Some goaltenders step up their game in big time situations (which can be subjective, which is perhaps why it is impossible to create a stat on mental stability) and I think Crawford is one of them. I think Quick is another, Osgood was obviously. I think Price is, but hasn't had a good enough team. Same with Lundqvist. Brodeur was, but he's too old now, same applies to Giguere.</p>


 </p>


One thing is for sure: Luongo is not.</p>

 

[Chief Walking Stick]

No... it's not a debate.</p>


 </p>


This is the definition of a circular argument.</p>


 </p>


Meaning you all keep rehashing the same thing in a different way.</p>

 

[Variable]

There will always exist outliers, but Huet was done with the NHL after he failed in Chicago. Just like Turco, just like Khabi. Because they were done as NHL caliber goalies. Huet was a big mistake for a lot of reasons though. An example like his is not nearly in the same risk category as it would be with taking on a goalie who played on a horrible team.</p>

 

[Ton]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Variable" data-cid="226967" data-time="1398216006">
<div>


There will always exist outliers, but Huet was done with the NHL after he failed in Chicago. Just like Turco, just like Khabi. Because they were done as NHL caliber goalies. Huet was a big mistake for a lot of reasons though. An example like his is not nearly in the same risk category as it would be with taking on a goalie who played on a horrible team.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


I just disagree. If that's the case, why is Miller, previously on Buffalo, getting outplayed by Crawford?</p>


 </p>


If it's about seeing more rubber on shitty teams, who cares. I want a guy that can win the game. Playing on a crap team doesn't always translate to winning on a good team. I just don't understand that thought process, these are rare scenarios. Hasek is the only one I can think of that went from a terrible team to a Cup contender and won, probably the most extreme scenario, and there's probably a handful more... but still rare IMO. It's pretty clear that a majority of Cup winning goaltenders are either homegrown or they spend significant time in one organization.</p>

 

[Variable]

As I said, there will always exist outliers.  Especially in hockey. Look at this series, I've seen things I thought I'd never see from the Hawks in how they've played. In the last game Miller let in a bad goal last game, but it was just one goal. And the Blues were shutting the Hawks off at pretty much every other opportunity. And Crawford played extremely well in facing what the other team usually has to face when they play the Hawks. We've seen several types of those games going against the Hawks in the past 5+years. For the better part of two games now, it's like the Hawks and Blues switched roles. No one could've predicted that.</p>


 </p>


Look at what you're saying though. If a team is going to consistently play like shit, how the hell do you expect their goalie to consistently win games for them? He can't score for them, he can't play competent defense for them.  Where's the sense in that? You just got done saying how it's because of Crawford that the Hawks have even gotten to the point they did in this series, that without him they'd be down 0-3. So why in an instance where you know the team is bad (being a last place team) would you judge a goalie poorly given his circumstances in that situation?</p>

 

[Ton]

I'm not saying that playing for a bad team should be held against them. Maybe they could be a strong goaltender on a good team, but maybe they won't. It's not a sure thing that they will work out on another team, or even another conference, division, or system. So many variables involved.</p>


 </p>


All I'm saying is, if you have a goaltender that works, keep him. You minimize that risk because there is trust and a track record you can follow. The extra 3-4% of the cap you'll save by trying to find the next diamond in the rough in net isn't worth it as far as I'm concerned.</p>


 </p>


Now, teams that go out and sign a goaltender as a UFA and throw them all this cash to be their starter? Yeah, then I agree with you, not worth it. In Crawford's case, I just can't agree at all. It's worth it, for piece of mind alone.</p>