sampy Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 In the 80's and early 90's a GAA of around 3 and Sv% around .900 was common and considered not bad by the standards of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 In the 80's and early 90's a GAA of around 3 and Sv% around .900 was common and considered not bad by the standards of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmotamed Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 I just lost a LOT of respect of Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Healy with another stroke of genius: Crosby is more effective on his feet, Healy tells us. This is why the experts make the big bucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Considering that Healy played most of his playoff games in the pre-dead puck era, his numbers could be considered comparable with Luongo's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodee Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 So, just how many elite goaltenders have worse playoff numbers than regular season numbers? I can think of one offhand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riviera82 Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 I still don't think you're correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 It's not a concrete fact of course. This could be interpreted in different ways but just compare their respective careers. Healy allowed an average of .82 goals per game more than Luongo and on average saved 3.6% fewer shots. Now Healy did play 20+ fewer games but when he did most of his playing, teams were scoring 300+ goals a season with regularity. I do believe Luongo has always been a much better player than Healy ever was, but when you take into account the different variables it seems to me like their playoff stats could be considered around par. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briana Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Our team in 2011 during the playoffs reminds me of the Penguins against Boston this year. Do u see Crosby , Malkin, Iginla shine at all...they are invisible just like our twins...were in 2011. The Penguins are talented but look intimidated..no heart.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salmonberries Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 We're gonna learn about Bobby's true value this summer. We'll finally be able to put an end to all the bickering. I can't wait! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodee Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Our team in 2011 during the playoffs reminds me of the Penguins against Boston this year. Do u see Crosby , Malkin, Iginla shine at all...they are invisible just like our twins...were in 2011. The Penguins are talented but look intimidated..no heart.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudrias Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 I think there is a similarity. However it is not so much that the forwards disappear, the twins didn't by the way. What happened is we hammered away with little luck and good net minding by Thomas, just as the Pens have done. Even more obvious was how superior the Bruins D is compared to the Pens. (they give very few chances from close in) Again that is only similar in as much as our D pinched in all out attack whereas the Pens D is just too shallow in depth. The Pens unfortunately don't have a Luongo.........that is why they are 2 down and we were 2 up on home ice. So what I'm trying to say is the 2011 Canucks had far more ability and willpower than the Pens have shown so far. But it's not over yet and if the Pens can patch in a decent back six, they can still pull it round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot-llat Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 I bet Glen Healy is the hockey analyst that is smoking crack along with Toronto's mayor Rob Ford. Just at look at him, the resemblance to Charlie "crackhead" Sheen is uncanny. Not to mention these stupid crackhead comments like the one just made here. That video of the mayor will probably never be released, as him and Glen Healy have enough money to buy it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We Are All Cynics Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 I'll give you a stats, the 1st 2 rounds are over and 3 games in the Conference Finals have been played(74games), so what his the record of teams when they score 3 goals in a game, 53 - 17. 74 playoffs games 70 times a team scored at least 3 goals in a game 71,6% have been won by a team that scored at least 3 goals so your chance of winning with 1 or 2 goals are at 28,4% 23% of the time you'll lose while scoring 3 goals So how do you win games in this league? By scoring at least 3 goals, does defense win championship in the NHL, no, you have as much chance(5% difference) to win while scoring less than 2 goals than losing with 3 goals or more. How many times did our team gave us a chance to win a game, by scoring 3 goals) and our goalie "blew it" allowing 3 or more goals? Not that much you can be sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We Are All Cynics Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Ok. 3 bad games. That still left 4, and he got a shutout in half of those and got his team to OT for the 3rd win. He carried his team for at least 2 wins and they earned another together. They only needed to carry him for a single win. But congratulations on being psychic enough to somehow know that the Canucks would have rained down the goals and won the games Luo didn't play well in if only Luo hadn't sucked. Good for you for not letting the reality that they never got their scoring going in the Finals even when the goalie was AWESOME get in the way of a good theory. That's a nice theory about Thomas too. Too bad it's not based on reality either because the reality is Thomas didn't have to win a series with only 8 goals for and didn't show any signs that he could. The entire playoffs, Thomas only managed to win ONE game where his team scored only one goal. Maybe he could have, but he didn't have to because even when he was on his team kept playing and scoring. And when their goalie got lit up, they just poured it on more because it's a TEAM sport. Number of games Thomas won by a single goal margin: 5 Number of games Luo won by a single goal margin: 11 Number of games Thomas let in 3 or more goals: 9 Number of games Luo let in 3 or more goals: 11 Number of games Boston was kept to 2 or fewer goals: 10 (3 against Vancouver) Number of games Vancouver was kept to 2 or fewer goals: 13 (6 against Boston) Number of games Boston scored 3 or more goals: 15 Number of games Vancouver scored 3 or more goals: 12 Number of goals Boston scored in the first round: 17 (in 7 games) Number of goals Vancouver scored in the first round: 16 (in 7 games) Number of goals Boston scored in the second round: 20 (in just 4 games) Number of goals Vancouver scored in the second round: 14 (in 6 games) Number of goals Boston scored in the third round: 21 (in 7 games) Number of goals Vancouver scored in the third round: 20 (in 5 games) In the only series in which Boston's G/G average was lower than ours it took Thomas 7 games to win. And he still got well over double the number of goals from his team as Luo did from his in the Finals. Likewise, in round 1 Boston got more than double the number of goals we got in the Finals but Thomas still needed 7 games to win. Sure doesn't look like "only 8 goals in 7 games would have been enough for Thomas." And, as someone else pointed out previously, that whole "mind frack" goes both ways. Sure, you can argue the team was deflated in the 2 games in which Luo let in more than 1 goal in the first period. But what about the other two games in which Luo kept Boston to a single goal up to the halfway point of the game? They shouldn't have been deflated then, and yet in neither game did they ever actually get on the scoreboard. You want to blame Luo's performance for that, but the truth is he was doing well half the game and they didn't, so if anything it was probably the other way around. Truthfully, though, none of them should be "mind fracked." You play to win, period. You have to play harder to make up for a failing teammate, you do it. It's the freaking Cup! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 I'm not saying they would've rained down the goals. I'm saying they would've competed harder if they had faith in their netminder which they clearly didn't when it was obvious he was letting everything slip by him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smurf47 Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Oh! Lack of confidence in Luo is why they only scored a single goal in the first game of the series, and needed almost the entire regulation period to do it. And that's why they waited until the 3rd period to score their only goal in Game 5. And why they failed to score at all, even though they were down no more than a single goal through half of the game in both Game 3 & 7. And why our captain got 1 goal, 0 assists, and a -7 for that series. And why he failed to register even a single shot on goal in the first 3 games. Damn, that Luo! When did "elite goaltender" become defined as a goalie who can single-handedly win a game? Seriously, I want to know because we're really having cap issues. I've never seen one of those, but if we can get one we could ditch our entire D squad because an "elite goalie" don't need no stinking D. We could save so much money! So, basically, you'd only defend him if he won. Since his team couldn't score, that means you think he had to get a shutout or he sucked. Well, he could let in 2, but only in the single SCF game his team scored 3. Otherwise, he sucked. (BTW, we managed to win 2 games earlier in the playoffs in which Luo let in 3, once against SJ and once against Chicago. Since Luo only let in 3 in Game 7, if we could have done that again we would have won the Cup. If we had, the team would have still won 1 fewer game in which Luo let in 3 than Luo had shutouts.) We were the best team in the league that year in the regular season. But, you seem to have forgotten what that playoff run was like. Our guys were declining as it went along, picking up aches and pains and injuries. (By the end poor Kesler was held together with stick tape and good wishes.) By the time we got to the SCF they were not the same team. It might make you feel better in your Luo hatred to pretend that the Canucks were the best at everything and that he just sucked and lost it, but it's not true. The truth is that our goals for per game average was the 14th lowest. (Even before the Finals, our G/G would have only put us 8th among playoff teams, which would still have been below 2 of the teams we knocked out and only .03 above the third.) To put that into perspective, Tampa Bay scored 1 more goal than we did in 7 fewer games. And SJ scored only 7 fewer goals in 7 fewer games (and we beat them in 5 games in the Conference Final!) You also seem to forget that we relied rather heavily on the PP to score. We scored 19 PP goals (or 0.76 per game), more than anyone else in the playoffs. In fact, almost twice as many as Boston who had only 10 PP goals. We were not as strong 5-on-5, where we scored only 37 goals (or 1.44 per game) during the entire playoffs. Boston scored 60 5-on-5 goals in the same number of games. Worse still, our PP goal scoring dried up in the Finals. Despite the often suspect reffing, we still had 33 power play opportunities in the Finals. We only scored twice. That's a PP of 6.06%. When PP goals made up 33% of our scoring in the playoffs, that huge drop off in PP% was a major problem. Oh good lord, you're one of those! Where did I say anything about Cory? What does he have to do with why we lost the Cup? Actually, never mind. We'll be having a very similar discussion at some point in the not so distant future about Cory when he fails to be perfect in a few games and that makes you lose confidence in him too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van bc Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Glen Healy is just another PRO Toronto X-player that believes Toronto is the center of the universe. If Luo was a maple leaf healy would consider him a god same if AV was their coach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucks_qc Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 It's the type of goals Luongo gave up that he blew it. And as for defense winning it, the L.A. Kings say hello. So do the New Jersey Devils, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amish Rake Fighter Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 has strombone1 responded at all ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.