Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

poetica

Members
  • Posts

    5,509
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by poetica

  1. In response to Luo's tweet above:
  2. Well deserved win for Luo. He was spectacular, making 32 saves on 33 shots most of which came in the first 2 periods. And with that win (and Tampa's loss) Florida clinched the division title. Not bad for a guy people said went to Florida to "retire".
  3. Thank goodness the Panthers finally showed up in the 2nd period. They hung Luo out to dry in the 1st. But they did, came back and also set a franchise season win record. They're now also 1 point away from clinching their playoff spot. Not a bad early birthday present for Luo!
  4. Good team win, especially that OT PK. Just sucks for Luo that it was one of those bad stat games in which he actually played well.
  5. Yep, but the joke is genuinely funny.
  6. And that beats Montreal's win streak record for this season, lengthens the franchise win streak record, and I believe matches Luongo's career win streak best (from his time in Vancouver).
  7. Holtby's a good goaltender having a great year and he's definitely in the running, but I think it's far too early to say it's his to lose at this point. As it stands right now, only 6 goalies in the top 20 (of all goalies who've played at least one game) have played in 20 or more games. At this point in the season, we can likely safely eliminate backups and starters with long-term injuries. So, the stats for those 6 goalies: Holtby 31 GP .932 SV% 1.93 GAA Luongo 31 GP .929 SV% 2.09 GAA Greiss 20 GP .928 SV% 2.33 GAA Schneider 32 GP .927 SV% 2.10 GAA Fleury 26 GP .927 SV% 2.28 GAA Allen 31 GP .926 SV% 2.60 GAA Even just outside of the top 20 you have Crawford and Bishop, both with a .925 SV%, and then Quick with a .923 SV%. I wouldn't count any of them out yet either. And then you can consider the teams they're playing behind. For example, Washington has the second highest GF/GP in the league while NJ is 27th, meaning Schneider is getting far less scoring support and likely working more in close games or while behind. And, only 4 teams have been shorthanded fewer times than Washington. Poor Anderson has faced the most PP shots against (169) but also in the top 10 are Schneider (149), Crawford (147), Luongo (139), Bishop (135), and Fluery (134). Compare that to Holtby, who has faced only 106 PP shots against. And that's significant because special teams can really affect a goalie's stats. For example, Luongo actually has the best even-strength SV% in the league (among goalies with 20+ GP), with a .943. Not that Holtby is far behind, with a .941. And Schneider is close as well with his .937 EV SV%. My point is that there are a bunch of good goalies have great years. Even looking at the straight up numbers it's not a runaway for Holtby at this point. And if the voters consider the team play other goalies might actually come out looking better even if Holtby's stats are the best in the league. Either way, the Vezina nominees are far from sorted, much less the winner.
  8. And that set a new team record for 8 wins in a row. Go, Cats!
  9. There are a lot of terms and they're not always easy to understand for sure. I'm not sure I know all of them enough to explain, but I can take a crack. UFA means "unrestricted free agent." It means that a player is currently not under contract by any team and no team currently has the "rights" to him. Basically that just means that any team in the league can talk to and sign him. RFA means "restricted free agent" which, as I understand it, means that though the player is not currently under a valid contract the team that he last had a contract with has "rights" to him, meaning they get priority to talk to the player and try to sign him. It's intended to help protect teams who put a lot of time and effort into developing young players by giving them a certain amount of time after the player enters the league in which they get every chance to keep him on their roster if they want him. NTC means "no trade clause." That means that a player has a clause in their existing contract that prevents or restricts trades. Without one, a player can be traded at any time to any team in the league. That can make players feel insecure, especially those with families. As a result, many top players ask for some version of a NTC so that they can have more control over if trades happen and to where. Some players have full NTC which means they can not be traded at any time to any team unless they agree (known as "waiving their NTC"). Other players have a limited NTC which limits the specific teams that they can be traded to. I don't think there's a specific rule about it but it seems like most players with a limited NTC (as well as those agreeing to waive a full NTC) usually give a list of about 5 teams they are willing to be traded to. It basically gives players more control over where they can be sent, allowing them the chance to pick only good teams so they can have a chance to win a Cup and/or pick areas where their family wouldn't mind living. For example, many players put their home state/province on the list so they could live closer to family. A 2-way contract means the player can be sent down to the team's minor league affiliate. (For the Canucks, that's the Utica Comets.) A 1-way contract means that the player must remain on the NHL team's roster, so the team's choice is to either play them or sit them in the press box. I believe, however, that there is an exception for conditioning stints in the minors for players with 1-way contracts but that can only be to help them get back into game shape and not long-term. I don't know what it is off the top of my head, but I'm sure there's a time limit. Putting a player on waiver means that you are sending them down to the minors at a time when they're not protected from waivers. If you want to know the rules governing waivers you'll have to find someone smarter than me to explain it. Basically all you really need to know is if a player is placed on waivers the team that placed them is taking the risk of losing them as, for a short window, every other team (starting with the bottom team in the league and working upward I believe) has a chance to "claim" them off waivers, meaning that they will take the player and their entire contract as it stands. The intention of the waiver system is to help players who would have otherwise been sent to the minors get a chance to play in the NHL for another team. Unfortunately, as we recently saw when Toronto pick up Corrado off of waivers that's not always the case. Some in fact are clamoring (rightly) for a change in the system to require teams that pick up a player off waivers to play him within a certain amount of time or else pay a penalty or forfeit the player entirely. It's simply against the entire purpose of waivers to pick up a player and not let him play in the NHL. A player that "clears waivers" was not picked up by any other team and is sent to the minor league affiliate of the team that originally placed him on waivers. I hope that helps. And hopefully others can help correct any misinformation or add any important information I left out.
  10. Agreed, there needs to be a more nuanced understanding of the position and a change in how the voting works to allow for it. Here's hoping that will come in the not so distant future.
  11. I don't know exactly what they will pay attention to, lacking a time machine or psychic abilities. Maybe they'll factor in some writers' opinions based on who knows what, maybe they won't. Maybe they'll consider (non-writers) fans' opinions (not all of whom are "homers" or else they'd never get voted in...), maybe they won't. I do believe, however, that will likely take into account an athlete's entire playing career and I hope that they would be smart enough to consider context. A goalie with good stats on a crap team is more impressive than a goalie with great stats on a spectacular team. Maybe you're right and they will agree with your "Win a Cup or it doesn't matter" opinion. If so, it's not really a list of the best to ever play the game, just a list of the best of the luckiest. Any definition of "great" that blindly disqualifies the likes of Luongo and Lundqvist simply because they've never had the fortune of playing on a team (at least at this point) that was able to win a Cup is flawed. I expect better.
  12. Oh, right. Hockey writers' opinions matter but fans' don't. Make sense, since they're known to be so fair and unbiased... Your fanboy memories aside, Cujo has lower stats and far fewer international achievements. He wasn't a bad goalie, but he just wasn't as good as Luo.
  13. Weird. You seemed to think the All Star mattered on your list...well, for everyone but Luo. Either way, you are right there are flaws in the system and some good goalies have been overlooked. (Though I absolutely disagree that Cujo was comparable to Luo. Not even close.) We'll just have to wait and see how the committee views Luo's accomplishments when it's all said and done.
  14. No one is arguing that those goalies didn't deserve HHoF induction. You are arguing that Luo doesn't. So for you to actually show a pattern you need to list the goalies who had similar careers to Luo who weren't inducted. Oh, and don't forget to update your information on Luo before finding them. You can start by adding his other NHL awards in addition to the Jennings: NHL YoungStars Game (2002), NHL Second All-Star Team (2004, 2007), Mark Messier Leadership Award (March 2007), and NHL All-Star Game (2004, 2007, 2008*, 2009 - * Named starter but didn't play.). And of course, it is the Hockey Hall of Fame, not the NHL Hall of Fame, so that long list of other awards, including his 2 Olympic gold medals, 2 IIHF World gold medals, and a World Cup championship, might actually factor in. But I look forward to your list of other similarly accomplished goalies snubbed for the HHOF because they lack a Cup.
  15. I did look. What I still haven't seen is an official criteria proving that unless a goalie has a Cup win, which again is a TEAM achievement, that they could never get in no matter how illustrious their career is otherwise. That's just ridiculous. And ignores the modern era of expansion and parity. But it's nice to know that you would think Luo deserves a HHoF nomination if only his TEAM had managed to win Game 7, even if it meant his performance wasn't in the slightest bit different than it actually was. It's entirely pointless to give him additional credit for other people's actions, but nice to know all the same I suppose.
  16. Oh, well since you seem to know, what exactly is the criteria for a goalie's nomination? I'd love the link so I can read them for myself. Though, gotta say, I find it hard to believe that having a Cup would be on the list as that is a TEAM achievement, not an individual goalie achievement. And, of course, it was a lot easier to win a Cup before league expansion and the salary cap. Even after that, the goalie isn't always the determining factor. Unless you actually think Niemi deserves a place in the HHoF just because he was in net for one of Chicago's Cup wins....
  17. You make it seem as if having such a long and strong career is nothing. If it's so easy to achieve, why have so few managed it? According to Quant Hockey, on the all time career stats list Luongo is currently 8th for games played, 8th for wins, 13th for shutouts, and 8th for SV%. (To find another goalie with more than 800 GP on the career SV% list you have to jump all the way down to Brodeur at 28th.)That sure sounds worthy of the HHoF to me. And he's not even done.
  18. Even if those numbers were accurate, I would think they would likely spend all of their profits traveling to the US and Canada for games. And, all of the other teams would suffer from increased travel costs as well, especially those in the same division. As a result, the entire league would see drop in profits. It's simply not financially feasible to have Eurpoean teams in the NHL.
  19. I'm not sure I agree. We saw them play very badly in front of Luo too. Likewise with Schneider, Lack, Miller, and now Markstrom. At some point we just have to admit that there's a major effort consistency problem with our team that has nothing to do with the netminder. Even if there was a preference for playing well in front of one goalie over another, that's a problem in and of itself. You play with the team you have, you don't whine and give it less than your all because it's not the team you want. If they want to pick the team they need to become the GM. As players, it's just up to them to play. Also, I don't think Mitchell is the better player. It's always hard to compare players on different teams as there are so many factors that can't accurately be accounted for and when looking at their stats they're actually pretty even in most categories. Both play roughly the same amount of time per game and both have 3 points, though Hamhuis has played 1 less game. In terms of hits, Mitchell has 36 (in 1 more game) while Hamhuis has 31. That's not a significant difference, however, when you remember that Mitchell has played one more game and teams with better possession time often have fewer hits. Likewise, while Mitchell has blocked slight more shots (42) than Hamhuis (34), that's really just the result of a necessity due to Florida's higher shots against. Hamhuis is slightly worse is give aways, with 14 compared to Mitchell's 12 but that's so close it's pretty irrelevant. Same with take aways, with Hamhuis having 5 and Mitchell having 3. Despite their similarities, however, there are some major differences. For example, Hamhuis has taken 27 shots compared to only 16 for Mitchell. Also, Hamhuis is a +5 while Mitchell is a -1. The biggest difference is shot attempts while each player is on the ice, which is probably a good indication of a Dman's defensive ability. Hamhuis' SAT is +14, second best on the team. Mitchell is a -152, the worst among Florida D. Worse still, looking at 5-on-5 high danger chance differential (via war-on-ice), Mitchell is the worst of either team at -30, while Hamhuis is -7. (For anyone curious, Bartkowski is Vancouver's worst at -27, followed by Sbisa at -18. Weber is our best, at +2.) Of course, some of that can be attributed to differences in team play, but when Mitchell ranks as the worst among Florida D in several categories you have to recognize that he's a big part of it too. Add that to the fact that Hamhuis is 5 years younger and I think it's pretty clear that he's the better player between the two.
  20. After the Nov 27th game against the NYI that went to a shootout in which 9 of the 10 shooters scored, Luo tweeted:
  21. Cool. Tell them I say, "Hi!" back. I'd love to hear their story of how he single-handedly won them. I love fiction. What team would want Hamhuis over Mitchell? You mean other than Team Canada? Or the Canucks? And if you think Miller's a bigger factor overall than Luo, you ARE drunk. Let's have a little look at the stats, shall we? First team stats, according to NHL.com. G/G - Vancouver: 2.93 (9th), Florida: 2.52 (17th) S/G - Vancouver: 30.9 (5th), Florida: 28.9 (21st) SA/G - Vancouver: 29.5 (15th), Florida: 31.4 (26th) Shot attempts against - Vancouver: 972 (in 24 games), Florida: 978 (in 23 games) Shot attempt differential - Vancouver: -21 (15th), Florida: -103 (27th) Shot attempts by situation (5-on-5) Ahead - Vancouver: -32 (13th), Florida: -45 (17th) Behind - Vancouver: 24 (16th), Florida: 13 (23rd) Close - Vancouver: 17 (11th), Florida: -94 (28th) Unblocked shot attempts - Vancouver: 37 (10th), Florida: -81 (26th) Unblocked shot attempts in close games - Vancouver: 58 (5th), Florida: -83 (29th) And now goalie stats, according to NHL.com, ESPN, and War-On-Ice. Miller - 20 GP, 7 wins, .913 SV%, 572 SA, 50 GA, 458 EV SA, .926 EV SV%, 80 PP Svs, 20 SH SA Luongo - 19 GP, 8 wins, .924 SV%, 594 SA, 45 GA, 489 EV SA, .941 EV SV%, 76 PP Svs, 14 SH SA And a closer look at their SV%: Miller - .953 SV% in wins, .893 SV% in losses, .915 AdSV%, .915 SV% in close games .972 Low danger SV%, .923 Med danger SV%, .820 High danger SV% (with 29 high danger goals & 132 high danger saves) Luongo - .943 SV% in wins, .911 SV% in losses, .925 AdSV%, .936 SV% in close games .958 Low danger SV%, .938 Med danger SV%, .863 High danger SV% (with 24 high danger goals & 151 high danger saves) So no, Miller is NOT a bigger factor for us, in close games or otherwise, than Luo is for Florida. Not even close. There is definitely room for team improvement though...
  22. Mitchell is better than Hamhuis? Are you drunk?! And subjective comparisons is your entire argument? Well, I guess it'd have to be since the stats don't back it up...
×
×
  • Create New...