(Article)NHL goalie rankings: Is Luongo still elite?

[poetica]

You can believe what you want to believe but that stats are infront of you, and you also have no idea who wrote that blog and neither do I. So you're assuming again.

Umm, you mean the stats I pointed out that show we were an offensive team?

And if you have no idea who wrote the blog, why are you taking their opinion so seriously? What makes you think they actually know what they're talking about? But being that he has a blog devoted exclusively to the NYR, assuming he's a fan of theirs is probably a safe bet.

What does leaving your 1 dmen back? Wtf are you talking about? Who said leaving your dmen back is how you score goals??

Are you kidding me? From the blog YOU quoted: Well, Alain Vigneault ran a 1-2-2 forecheck and would drop guys back to trap up the neutral zone with a lead. This strategy is actually what gave man birth to the term “defense first,” not shot blocking.

Leaving that Dman back is the reason the blogger defined AV's style of coaching as "defense first." And you said, "defense transforms into offense," impling that that defensive style was how we were the best offensive team in the league. It's your argument and you don't even understand it?!

Both you and the blogger seem to have missed that that defensive style was employed "with a lead." That means offense was necessary first.

Being top in faceoffs look who we had Sedin,Kesler,Pahlsson,Malhothra,Lapierre. Of course we were going to win faceoffs, and how does faceoff relate to anything? You make no sense in what you just posted, i'm talking about how we play a defensive style of game.

Faceoff wins = puck possession = more opportunity to shoot = more opportunity to score

It's rather straight forward. (It's also an example of how being offensive can help the defense.)

And Pahlsson only played 19 regular season games for us in 11/12 (when we dropped to 3rd in faceoffs.) He wasn't part of our 10/11 Cup run and had nothing to do with the fact that we were the best in the faceoffs that year in the regular season.

And the PP, AV wasn't in control of the PP, Newell Brown was so you are wrong again. And how does our mindset change when we are on the PP, we still try to score on the PP like every other offensive chance.

Obviously, I was pointing out the offensive measures in which we excelled while we did not excel nearly as much in defensive measures, including shots against, in response to your (apparently badly understood) secondhand argument was that the team played a "defense first" style game based on AV's coaching. I never said AV fired the entire coaching staff and did it all single-handedly. Obviously!

Shots, anybody could take a weak wrister and hit Lu's pads. So I guess we were not defensive first because we let shots through. Anybody could take a weak wrister that doesn't matter. If you let a guy in a breakway and Lu saves a shot that's different.

Number of shots allowed is a pretty standard measure of defense. And common sense. If you're allowing them to take shots, even bad ones, you don't have control of the puck or the opposing players. No shots means no goals. Some shots might mean a goal. The more shots, the more chances the other team has to score.

But don't take my word for it. Why not check out the work of people far smarter at analytical analysis than I am? I'd suggest you check out the HockeyAnalytics.com analysis of 2010/11. [PDF - 90 pages] It, like the stats I offered previously, show that in most defense measures we were in the middle of the pack at best. On some measures we were even worse, including shot quality. (Only 3 teams were worse in the quality shots given up.) But, we were better than all but one team in shooting percentage....because we were offensive.

Put more plainly: (from pg 16 of the above linked PDF and fully supported by numerous measurements throughout):

"Vancouver had the NHL's best offense but below average defense."

If we were a defensive team, I guess we weren't very good at it. Instead, I prefer the reality -- that we were good at being offensive.

[Plum]

Umm, you mean the stats I pointed out that show we were an offensive team?

And if you have no idea who wrote the blog, why are you taking their opinion so seriously? What makes you think they actually know what they're talking about? But being that he has a blog devoted exclusively to the NYR, assuming he's a fan of theirs is probably a safe bet.

Are you kidding me? From the blog YOU quoted: Well, Alain Vigneault ran a 1-2-2 forecheck and would drop guys back to trap up the neutral zone with a lead. This strategy is actually what gave man birth to the term “defense first,” not shot blocking.

Leaving that Dman back is the reason the blogger defined AV's style of coaching as "defense first." And you said, "defense transforms into offense," impling that that defensive style was how we were the best offensive team in the league. It's your argument and you don't even understand it?!

Both you and the blogger seem to have missed that that defensive style was employed "with a lead." That means offense was necessary first.

Faceoff wins = puck possession = more opportunity to shoot = more opportunity to score

It's rather straight forward. (It's also an example of how being offensive can help the defense.)

And Pahlsson only played 19 regular season games for us in 11/12 (when we dropped to 3rd in faceoffs.) He wasn't part of our 10/11 Cup run and had nothing to do with the fact that we were the best in the faceoffs that year in the regular season.

Obviously, I was pointing out the offensive measures in which we excelled while we did not excel nearly as much in defensive measures, including shots against, in response to your (apparently badly understood) secondhand argument was that the team played a "defense first" style game based on AV's coaching. I never said AV fired the entire coaching staff and did it all single-handedly. Obviously!

Number of shots allowed is a pretty standard measure of defense. And common sense. If you're allowing them to take shots, even bad ones, you don't have control of the puck or the opposing players. No shots means no goals. Some shots might mean a goal. The more shots, the more chances the other team has to score.

But don't take my word for it. Why not check out the work of people far smarter at analytical analysis than I am? I'd suggest you check out the HockeyAnalytics.com analysis of 2010/11. [PDF - 90 pages] It, like the stats I offered previously, show that in most defense measures we were in the middle of the pack at best. On some measures we were even worse, including shot quality. (Only 3 teams were worse in the quality shots given up.) But, we were better than all but one team in shooting percentage....because we were offensive.

Put more plainly: (from pg 16 of the above linked PDF and fully supported by numerous measurements throughout):

"Vancouver had the NHL's best offense but below average defense."

If we were a defensive team, I guess we weren't very good at it. Instead, I prefer the reality -- that we were good at being offensive.

A 1-2-2 is one forward deep in their zone creating turnovers to the other 2 forwards around the blue line and the 2 defensemens are at the netural zone. Look at it has if we are going <<<< then it should make more sense for you.

Make sure you know what you're talking about.

[Cyril Sneer]

stats say otherwise is that really so hard to figure out

People get confused between their top 5 goalies and the actual top 5 goalies.

People also think it's perfectly logical to blame the team for the SCF but blame Schnieder for the sharks series.

Going through this thread is actually quite funny.

Another thing I might add is if Luongo was an elite goalie he would have been traded. I don't care what his contract is.

Do you think a deal could be made for weber? Or Crosby?

They have crazy contracts, they are elite players. They could be traded.

Now that teams have bought out most of the really bad contracts around the league I would say Luongo's is now the worst, he is a toxic asset.

[insomniac604]

Luongo is absolutely elite. His entire body of work proves that. There are plenty of not-so-good goalies that have won cups one year and been terrible several others.

You know what you are getting from him every year. That kind of consistency is hard-sought.

You can't brand a guy because of one playoff series.

Luongo having his best year coincided with a lot of our top players having great years. It's about the team around you. And when that team was Florida, he was still good. Can't say the same for a LOT of starting goalies.

Him not being traded was MG's fault. He would have gotten the return he wanted had everyone just shut up. You can't sing his praises and tell everyone you want him gone in the same breath. Who in their right mind wouldn't low ball after that?

[poetica]

A 1-2-2 is one forward deep in their zone creating turnovers to the other 2 forwards around the blue line and the 2 defensemens are at the netural zone. Look at it has if we are going <<<< then it should make more sense for you.

Make sure you know what you're talking about.

Fair point. I obviously got confused. (For some reason I was thinking we kept a forward back with one of our D. Maybe we didn't.)

It still doesn't translate into us being a "defense first" team though, does it? Nor does it negate the fact that AV was known for using that style when we had a lead. So I guess neither of us know what we're talking about. Luckily we fit right in here.

[insomniac604]

They have crazy contracts, they are elite players. They could be traded.

Now that teams have bought out most of the really bad contracts around the league I would say Luongo's is now the worst, he is a toxic asset.

None of those players are signed for 5.3 million until they are 42.

His contract isn't even an argument. Nobody is going to look at a 34yo and say, "yes. he will retain his current value for the next 10 years"

[Cyril Sneer]

None of those players are signed for 5.3 million until they are 42.

His contract isn't even an argument. Nobody is going to look at a 34yo and say, "yes. he will retain his current value for the next 10 years"

You are wrong, if Luongo is as good as the people of British Columbia say he is there woulda been a bidding war similar to a Nash sweepstakes.

He is trending down and everyone outside of the Provence knows it, he is actually kind of a joke to be honest. When people make fun of the Canucks Luongo is usually in the punch line.

[5Fivehole0]

You are wrong, if Luongo is as good as the people of British Columbia say he is there woulda been a bidding war similar to a Nash sweepstakes.

He is trending down and everyone outside of the Provence knows it, he is actually kind of a joke to be honest. When people make fun of the Canucks Luongo is usually in the punch line.

Lol, I can't believe I'm posting in this thread again...

I'll just repost this

so because Lu has a mediocre season after the cup run and then is stuck back-up in a shortened season he is officially an "average" goalie...

WELLLLLLLLLLLLL THEN, if that is so....

Pekke Rinne is no longer an elite goal tender as these are his stats for the llast two years

11-12 .923

12-13 .897

12-13 .910

Uh-oh, looks like someones on the decline!!

Quick

11-12 .929

12-13 .909 OUCH! He's no good, SHIP HIM OUT!!!

Lundqvist

11-12 .93

12-13 .926

By your conclusions of Goaltenders

13-14 .914 Will be his sv% GGGGGGGGET OUT LUND! Bring in Howard/Bob/Rask/Schneider as they are the only ones who are good any more.

You see where I'm going with this? Your logic is so unbelievably flawed.

[Batmania]

You are wrong, if Luongo is as good as the people of British Columbia say he is there woulda been a bidding war similar to a Nash sweepstakes.

He is trending down and everyone outside of the Provence knows it, he is actually kind of a joke to be honest. When people make fun of the Canucks Luongo is usually in the punch line.

You are wrong. It would be hard to tell an owner that you're going to pick up a contract they are going to have to pay for after the player is retired likely for several years and oh year it's going to count against our cap as well. Luongo isn't in his prime for sure but to disregard that his contract isn't the major contributing factor to him not being traded is foolish.

[5Fivehole0]

What a lot of people get mixed up is... They don't like Luongo, but they put on these dark tinted sun-glasses of pure hate and ignore anything and everything that may suggest Luongo is no slouch in net.

[Cyril Sneer]

What a lot of people get mixed up is... They don't like Luongo, but they put on these dark tinted sun-glasses of pure hate and ignore anything and everything that may suggest Luongo is no slouch in net.

I don't hate Luongo nor do I think he is a bad goalie I just think people like you go wayyyyyy over the top with the guy.

He is a slightly above average goalie on a great team.

For all of you that say look what Luongo has done for the Canucks, I say look what the Canucks have done for Luongo.

[5Fivehole0]

I don't hate Luongo nor do I think he is a bad goalie I just think people like you go wayyyyyy over the top with the guy.

He is a slightly above average goalie on a great team.

For all of you that say look what Luongo has done for the Canucks, I say look what the Canucks have done for Luongo.

I actually laughed out loud and pretty hard at that!

Since the acquisition of Roberto Luongo the Canucks have missed the play-offs once and obtained division title every year except 07-08. (same season Roberto was injured... Fancy that...)

With Lu in net the Canucks have captured 1 WC Championship, 2 President Trophies and 1 trip to the SCF.

Prior to Luongo (circa 2000) arriving to the Canucks they ...

Had 0 WC Championships 0 President Trophies, 1 Division title, 4 trips to the play-offs, and 0 trips the SCF.

Look not at what you can say bad about Roberto Luongo... Rather what Luongo can say bad about you.

[Cyril Sneer]

I actually laughed out loud and pretty hard at that!

Since the acquisition of Roberto Luongo the Canucks have missed the play-offs once and obtained division title every year except 07-08. (same season Roberto was injured... Fancy that...)

With Lu in net the Canucks have captured 1 WC Championship, 2 President Trophies and 1 trip to the SCF.

Prior to Luongo (circa 2000) arriving to the Canucks they ...

Had 0 WC Championships 0 President Trophies, 1 Division title, 4 trips to the play-offs, and 0 trips the SCF.

Look not at what you can say bad about Roberto Luongo... Rather what Luongo can say bad about you.

Are you Luongo's new agent? Is this why he hired you?

To stick up for him on CDC

[5Fivehole0]

Are you Luongo's new agent? Is this why he hired you?

To stick up for him on CDC

Hmm, can't argue with that... Too much logic and statistics to really form a counter point. Well played sir, well played..

/sarcasm

[beer&meat]

Are you Luongo's new agent? Is this why he hired you?

To stick up for him on CDC

Nice rebuttal.

[Mustapha]

Reread my post, I spiced it up a bit for you haters.

SJS series Luongo WAS the only thing that was consistent.. AND HE WAS THE "BACK-UP"

Luongo hasn't won a playoff game in 2 seasons now..Not exactly elite.

[Nino]

Luongo hasn't won a playoff game in 2 seasons now..Not exactly elite.

To top it off he has lost all of his last six. Elite is truly the wrong word for him, an elite goalie could have stolen one of the last six even if the team didn't show up.

[Papayas]

To top it off he has lost all of his last six. Elite is truly the wrong word for him, an elite goalie could have stolen one of the last six even if the team didn't show up.

i believe you have mistaken the term elite with superhuman

[canucks#01fan]

People always say luongo has never won a vezina but if you look at it, he has been amongst the top 5 goalie almost every year.

Would you rather have a guy like elliot or miller that wins the vezina then has a bad year or a guy that has been top 2-5 each year for the last 7-8 years

[Riviera82]

Luongo is absolutely elite. His entire body of work proves that. There are plenty of not-so-good goalies that have won cups one year and been terrible several others.

You know what you are getting from him every year. That kind of consistency is hard-sought.

You can't brand a guy because of one playoff series.

Luongo having his best year coincided with a lot of our top players having great years. It's about the team around you. And when that team was Florida, he was still good. Can't say the same for a LOT of starting goalies.

Him not being traded was MG's fault. He would have gotten the return he wanted had everyone just shut up. You can't sing his praises and tell everyone you want him gone in the same breath. Who in their right mind wouldn't low ball after that?

Wrong. His entire body of work does not prove that at all. Yes his regular seasons have been mostly very good, but in the 10 playoff series he played between 2007 and 2011, in half of them he posted very ordinary stats. To his credit however, he did post very good stats in the other half.