Our D isn't as strong as people think and wrong decision got us there!

[goblix]

Well they mostly result in bad pinches like Stanton did right after the goal last game. Just my opinion, our D hasn't looked good since the last Kings game, and can improve. I would also include overall team defense, just noticing a lot of players wide open and uncovered.

Show me a bad pinch that led to an odd man rush and I'll show you a pinch that led to a scoring chance or sometimes a goal...

Pinching has risks to it, Torts has considered the risk / reward on this and determined that he wants to activate the defence to push the play.

Mistakes will happen, odd man rushes will occur, and scoring chances will be generated inevitably for both teams.

[Dogbyte]

They both really depend. Not Lu's fault he doesn't face that many shots when we throw over 30 shots a game at the other goalies. We have had a bunch of games where it has been 2-1 and Lu hasn't let the deficit get larger and we end up up losing 2-1. Yeah we would like Lu to keep a few of those at just 1 goal like last game and can be better at this going forward.

I said before if we had the 2011 offense, we would be perfect right now on this home stand.

Are you sure you understand Save Percentage? It has nothing to do with a low number of shots.

[oldnews]

If forwards want D to pinch to keep a play alive, they also need to be aware that they should fill in for the D man on the point. That was Kass' problem on the first goal of the game against CBJ and its been a bit of a recurrent theme (recall the first goal LA scored last time around where D. Sedin just kind of floated to the front of the net and let the puck go right by).

EDIT: And if our forwards were scoring, dmen wouldn't feel the pressure to pinch as often as they do.

Yes. The expectation is that the blueline will be active and aggressive - they pinch quite a bit and that requires their forwards be aware and prepared to backcheck hard.

The team has actually been very consistent imo in this sense - every team is going to pay once in a while for taking the kinds of risks with the forecheck and the pinch that the Canucks do - but I'm willing to live with it personally. I love that style of hockey - it's more satisfying and imo, the best point at which to play 'defense' is at precisely the first moment that possession is lost in the opposition's territory - before they really get possession or are able to organize in transition. If anything, I'm relieved that it's been such a staple of the team's approach thus far and will be disappointed if they change a thing.

[RonMexico]

As a fan it's just frustrating to not having any say and have an arrogant fool in gillis running our fav team

Fans can only speak with their wallets. Stop selling out the building. Stop buying merchandise. Stop financially supporting the team. This is best way to get a say. You can complain until the cows come home but when you keep throwing your hard earned dollars at a franchise that you think is broken, you aren't helping. Once the money stops rolling in, management WILL listen. They will have no choice.

[Daretodream]

Posted Today, 12:39 PM

First time in Sami Salo years we've had this long without a D-man injured.

*Knock on wood.

Knock on wood

[Daretodream]

Fans can only speak with their wallets. Stop selling out the building. Stop buying merchandise. Stop financially supporting the team. This is best way to get a say. You can complain until the cows come home but when you keep throwing your hard earned dollars at a franchise that you think is broken, you aren't helping. Once the money stops rolling in, management WILL listen. They will have no choice.

It's a process, it's a process argh isn't this so called process lacking in actual success lol. Fire gillis already!

[oldnews]

Funny thing; I was going to raise a near identical thread this morning (its 5 am here).

But my concern isnt over whether we are a "strong" D core; we are!

My concern is whether we are a well rounded D core? Whether we have all the skills and talents, the physical bodies to match up, to be a championship D core on a championship team??? Well our D core is closer to our forward crew in that context, but no we're not icing a championship group IMO!

Its no complaint, individually, with the play of any one guy on our D. Some guys here dislike Edler, other Bieksa and think they should be traded. Garrison, even Hamhuis (our stud) got some hate this year. I'm happy with the play of all versus what I expect. Nor are guys overpaid. But all of our guys are "two way" guys, Edler bending traditionally more offensively, Hamhuis or Tanev defensively. The problem as a whole is that they are too similar without covering all needs.

Garrison is close to the crease cruncher many ask for, he's 220 lbs. It would be good if one of our D guys besides Bieksa (who is the 2knd smallest) had some nasty to go against the big guns.

The real problem is our transition game, and breaking puck pressure once we gain the puck. All our guys have good to very good passing skills, including the important "first pass" out of the zone. So we're still a good bit better than average. And decent team speed to close on pucks getting to point A. But we have NO guy with breakout speed, who can also dangle and handle the puck. A guy who has that gift of making plays. A guy who confounds guys who come to check him, who have to sit back cuz otherwise they always seem to get beat. And a knack for taking plays, and seeing the play, two steps ahead of anyone else. Hank has it up front, Hodgson had it, as does (obviously) Erik Karlsson, OEL, Letang, heck Torey Krug is becoming known for it... These guys can bust pressure against the forecheck and turn it into a break the other way, navigate traps in the neutral zone and to gain the O'zone on the PP. We rely on passing up to fleet forwards who, against good teams, are being covered so ultimately we chip and chase if we don't get turned back.

Our fatal flaw; NONE of our guys can rush the puck!

And people wonder why we have no breakout game / transition game, or why our PP sulks?

PS > I dont care if Edler can score 50 points or Garrison 20 goals, Bieksa and Hamhuis approach 40 points? They can jump into a play some other guy creates, a cpl of guys have big shots... NONE are true puck moving D men!

I don't want to be too hard on you Surfer, but I simply can't believe you use those words and names and then throw Hodgson into that category (or even Hank for that matter).

If ever there was a case of apples to oranges, you've found it here.

I realize you love him and all, but you need to get over it, and get real where he is concerned.

That is as delusional as it gets imo.

If Hank has that puck moving ability, I don't see what the issue is or would be - there is nothing to say that a center can't be used situationally in that role.

The Rangers are using a forward in the puck rushing/moving role - it's somewhat revitalized Brad Richards under AV - but to suggest that Hodgson had or has that ability - isn't at all realistic. You need decent footspeed to fulfill that role.

If we're going to pretend that Hodgson could have been the answer, we might as well consider Bieksa one of the premier 'puck movers' in the NHL.

[Chalky]

cept Lui is 17th in GAA and 24th in SV %

not so good.

Way to use that stat out of context. I can also formulate an opinion and then back track to fit in convenient stats as proof.

[Heretic]

cept Lui is 17th in GAA and 24th in SV %

not so good.

SV% is skewed as we are blocking more shots...

Myself, I agree a bit with the OP, I said myself at the start of the season that our D is just average to above average...compared to other teams...in particular some of those we are looking up at right now in the standings...

[SergioMomesso]

The biggest concern for me is that our D seems too soft. We never make anybody pay the price for parking in front of our net. Never take the body on a pinch. Our forwards get hacked and wacked constantly while our d plays too clean of a game.

[Daretodream]

Funny thing; I was going to raise a near identical thread this morning (its 5 am here).

But my concern isnt over whether we are a "strong" D core; we are!

My concern is whether we are a well rounded D core? Whether we have all the skills and talents, the physical bodies to match up, to be a championship D core on a championship team??? Well our D core is closer to our forward crew in that context, but no we're not icing a championship group IMO!

Its no complaint, individually, with the play of any one guy on our D. Some guys here dislike Edler, other Bieksa and think they should be traded. Garrison, even Hamhuis (our stud) got some hate this year. I'm happy with the play of all versus what I expect. Nor are guys overpaid. But all of our guys are "two way" guys, Edler bending traditionally more offensively, Hamhuis or Tanev defensively. The problem as a whole is that they are too similar without covering all needs.

Garrison is close to the crease cruncher many ask for, he's 220 lbs. It would be good if one of our D guys besides Bieksa (who is the 2knd smallest) had some nasty to go against the big guns.

The real problem is our transition game, and breaking puck pressure once we gain the puck. All our guys have good to very good passing skills, including the important "first pass" out of the zone. So we're still a good bit better than average. And decent team speed to close on pucks getting to point A. But we have NO guy with breakout speed, who can also dangle and handle the puck. A guy who has that gift of making plays. A guy who confounds guys who come to check him, who have to sit back cuz otherwise they always seem to get beat. And a knack for taking plays, and seeing the play, two steps ahead of anyone else. Hank has it up front, Hodgson had it, as does (obviously) Erik Karlsson, OEL, Letang, heck Torey Krug is becoming known for it... These guys can bust pressure against the forecheck and turn it into a break the other way, navigate traps in the neutral zone and to gain the O'zone on the PP. We rely on passing up to fleet forwards who, against good teams, are being covered so ultimately we chip and chase if we don't get turned back.

Our fatal flaw; NONE of our guys can rush the puck!

And people wonder why we have no breakout game / transition game, or why our PP sulks?

PS > I dont care if Edler can score 50 points or Garrison 20 goals, Bieksa and Hamhuis approach 40 points? They can jump into a play some other guy creates, a cpl of guys have big shots... NONE are true puck moving D men!

I agree! We have no true puck moving D men!

[Canuck Surfer]

I don't want to be too hard on you Surfer, but I simply can't believe you use those words and names and then throw Hodgson into that category (or even Hank for that matter).

If ever there was a case of apples to oranges, you've found it here.

I realize you love him and all, but you need to get over it, and get real where he is concerned.

That is as delusional as it gets imo.

If Hank has that puck moving ability, I don't see what the issue is or would be - there is nothing to say that a center can't be used situationally in that role.

The Rangers are using a forward in the puck rushing/moving role - it's somewhat revitalized Brad Richards under AV - but to suggest that Hodgson had or has that ability - isn't at all realistic. You need decent footspeed to fulfill that role.

If we're going to pretend that Hodgson could have been the answer, we might as well consider Bieksa one of the premier 'puck movers' in the NHL.

I'm not delusional. Stats say we're middle of the pack with 65 goals, both for and against.

Hodgson isn't the guy who rushes the puck, pretty bad comparison in that context on my part, but is a guy who has a gift of making plays when the puck is on his stick. I should have stuck to defender / puck mover comparisons. Although Hank is the number one zone entry guy on our team.

I'll keep to topic, with apologies. Our D lacks anyone dynamic as a puck mover.

The net result impacts our transition game, or lack thereof, and power play.

I'm not concerned with a short term downturn in scoring off our D. Edler, possibly (you're a good analysis guy and could probably tell us specifically) is scoring less because a lot more of his play with Garrison is D zone starts? If I'm not mistaken, they are being used as the D pair against the toughest competition? That used to be Bieksa and Hamhuis. Torts may or should revert back to that now Hamhuis is back in form? Edler is our best offensive D and Garrison the best shot. I suppose he is also sheltering young guys Tanev and Stanton with vets rather than use them as a pair. My guess is that as soon as he uses Garrison and Edler together in the O'zone our scores, which are down the last 10 games or so, by D will go up. It's not enough.

We have not had a transition game all year! Forwards like Higgins, Hansen and Booth, probably Santorelli, Raymond last year, are guys who score a lot of their goals in transition is my observation. But guys are being covered and are not getting breakout passes this year (or Torts does not have it in his play book which I don't quite believe?). So we need a D guy who can break past his checker and lug the puck up ice, creating breakout lanes. Or to break the trap, or a heavy fore check. No puck rushing D man is a glaring omission in our team skill set.

And tell me, which guy on our D undresses opposing players routinely? Draws dbl teams cuz he has spun off his man, leaving other guys on our team open, then has the gift to drop dimes on them... We make solid smart plays from good positions, Torts has us pinching, jumping up in the play sometimes so we do and will get some offense from our D. Hamhuis, Edler, Bieksa; they all can contribute. But our D is lacking a truly creative or talented offensive player.

I cant imagine you could argue that?

We have a solid, safe, fundamentally sound, well coached, yes capable, but unexciting D group. With our top 4 locked up (and with NTC's in their pocket), I would swap one of Tanev, Corrado or Stanton, and I would chip in other parts as necessary, to add something offensively dynamic to that core. It will boost the whole team IMO.

Hey; in the off season we debated how good the team was on D. You were of the opinion we were close to an elite squad if I'm not mistaken? And that we were good with current personnel... What is your current evaluation?

[oldnews]

I'm not delusional. Stats say we're middle of the pack with 65 goals, both for and against.

Hodgson isn't the guy who rushes the puck, pretty bad comparison in that context on my part, but is a guy who has a gift of making plays when the puck is on his stick. I should have stuck to defender / puck mover comparisons. Although Hank is the number one zone entry guy on our team.

I'll keep to topic, with apologies. Our D lacks anyone dynamic as a puck mover.

The net result impacts our transition game, or lack thereof, and power play.

I'm not concerned with a short term downturn in scoring off our D. Edler, possibly (you're a good analysis guy and could probably tell us specifically) is scoring less because a lot more of his play with Garrison is D zone starts? If I'm not mistaken, they are being used as the D pair against the toughest competition? That used to be Bieksa and Hamhuis. Torts may or should revert back to that now Hamhuis is back in form? Edler is our best offensive D and Garrison the best shot. I suppose he is also sheltering young guys Tanev and Stanton with vets rather than use them as a pair. My guess is that as soon as he uses Garrison and Edler together in the O'zone our scores, which are down the last 10 games or so, by D will go up. It's not enough.

We have not had a transition game all year! Forwards like Higgins, Hansen and Booth, probably Santorelli, Raymond last year, are guys who score a lot of their goals in transition is my observation. But guys are being covered and are not getting breakout passes this year (or Torts does not have it in his play book which I don't quite believe?). So we need a D guy who can break past his checker and lug the puck up ice, creating breakout lanes. Or to break the trap, or a heavy fore check. No puck rushing D man is a glaring omission in our team skill set.

And tell me, which guy on our D undresses opposing players routinely? Draws dbl teams cuz he has spun off his man, leaving other guys on our team open, then has the gift to drop dimes on them... We make solid smart plays from good positions, Torts has us pinching, jumping up in the play sometimes so we do and will get some offense from our D. Hamhuis, Edler, Bieksa; they all can contribute. But our D is lacking a truly creative or talented offensive player.

I cant imagine you could argue that?

We have a solid, safe, fundamentally sound, well coached, yes capable, but unexciting D group. With our top 4 locked up (and with NTC's in their pocket), I would swap one of Tanev, Corrado or Stanton, and I would chip in other parts as necessary, to add something offensively dynamic to that core. It will boost the whole team IMO.

Hey; in the off season we debated how good the team was on D. You were of the opinion we were close to an elite squad if I'm not mistaken? And that we were good with current personnel... What is your current evaluation?

To be clear - I used the word delusional in the context of putting Hodgson in the category of puck mover - that was odd, pretty odd really.

But I agree that the recent downturn in blueline scoring is not worth getting in a big panic over.

I think you are bang on where Edler is concerned - he is in fact facing the strongest quality of competition on the team, and his offensive zone starts are quite a bit lower than past seasons (presently below 50%). I'm rather thrilled with what I've seen from Edler to be honest.

43 hits

55 blocked shots.

Just under 25 minutes a game.

I think his reputation as a 'turnover machine' is over-stated - he is -4 this season with 8 takeaways and 12 giveaways, but in his defense, he's also a guy who is expected to move the puck, and he converts a lot of nice passes - for someone who has and moves the puck as much as he does, I think it's unrealistic to not expect his share of giveaways. He could probably continue to improve his decision making at times, but where his play without the puck is concerned, I've been very impressed with him this year. Tortorella apparently considers him a guy who can handle the difficult minutes and I'm glad to see a turn in his game in that respect. An Edler who hits, blocks shots, is more difficult to play against and scores 30 or 40 points imo is more valuable than a player who is looked upon to score 50 points but doesn't necessarily bring that two way game. It's hard to say what part having a bad back has played in Edler's game, but it's not hard to imagine it would be signifcant, especially considering how long it appeared to take to heal (if it has entirely).

What I find interesting is that all the defensemen are pretty even in terms of their offensive zone starts with Hamhuis at 50.6% being the highest and Garrison the lowest at 47.5%. I don't agree with the idea that a team must have a stereotypical 'puck mover' - and in that sense, I think the ability of the entire top 6 is understated. No, there is no Karlsson, Keith or Letang in the top 4, but again (we've had this discussion a number of times) how many are there in the league - and how many of those are a net break-even (at best) when you consider the other parts of their game? Truly elite puck movers are as rare as elite power forwards. How often are these types of players moved? Right. So, I think it's the case that you accept that you have a group of guys who are nevertheless better than average - they all actually do a good job of moving the puck - and where their overall games are concerned, an excellent group that pales in comparison to none. A few forwards with Schroeder-like qualities don't hurt either.

It's a grow your own type of position imo. I think the Jake Gardiner example might be a lesson to some - a young, sheltered puck mover may impress people the way a shiny lure does a gilled swimmer, but it's awfully premature to be assuming that Krug is the kind of player that will make or break the Boston Bruins, let alone cut it in a true top 4 role. Gardiner was crowned that type of success long before he proved able - but that was ignoring his actual situational play - something that wasn't lost on Randy Carlyle.. Before Krug is deemed the next 'puck moving' phenom, he might have to graduate the stage of getting 65% offensive zone starts and facing the weakest quality of competition on the Bruins. That's kind of the obvious challenge that most players of that type face - are they able to handle the size and the forecheck of skilled, physical opponents? Will they be durable enough? As I said in the Krug "Calder" thread, I'm not sold on a particular aspect of a player's game necessarily making their team that much better. Stanton's 10 points, facing stronger competition, 47.7% offensive zone starts, with more size and a greater physical element to his game - without the need to shelter him in any way or avoid matchups - imo is every bit as valuable and more versatile than a 'puck mover' who needs situational treatment.

I quite like the state of the blueline. Not needing to rush Corrado in is a very nice situation to be in - and as far as young defensemen, who knows what the young 'puck movers' - Tommernes and Subban - will prove capable of.

The team's biggest challenges have had nothing whatsoever to do with the blueline imo - they have been having enough healthy forwards. The depth of the third and fourth lines has been the biggest challenge - and it makes a big difference imo.

[Del Rio]

Are you sure you understand Save Percentage? It has nothing to do with a low number of shots.

I don't think you do.

If Lu keeps games to a 2 goal average which he is but is only getting 20 shots which results in 18 saves, that is just a .900 SV%. Add 10 more shots on net in this same game giving up 2 goals, you have 28 saves that results in a .933 SV%. An extra 10 weak shots from the perimeter or dump ins on net can bump your SV% a lot.

If you make big saves in a game and stand on your head for 2 periods but the goals they score are a breakaway and a 3 on 1 and you have no chance, you could end up with an average SV% if you don't face a lot of shots. Does this say the goalie had an average game?

It has everything to do with the number of shots.

[The Big Luongo]

I really like our defence its our best asset if you ask me.

The only change i would make is trading Edler for Subban or a North American defenseman who has some good tools but plays with more heart and passion and looks and plays like he gives a $hit.

[TheTruthHurts]

I would say this defensive lineup is one of the best(if not the best) lineup(depth wise) in the league. The problem is luongo not being able to stop a puck shot straight at him or keeping is 5hole open. Once luongo plays like a decent goalie again the canucks will be contenders again.

[Dr. Crossbar]

True but I think part of it is Torts system. Just look at how many odd man rushes we have been giving up and I've been noticing teams looking dangerous on every rush making plays out of nothing. Our defense has looked poor since the last Kings game imo.

Nailed it! Defense has looked poor over the past week or so ... surprisingly so. Can think of a few lapses that led to goals in recent games.

Throw in a lack of goal production and there hasn't been a decent balance. It very well may be a system thing since it looks like the D is trying to generate more offense but getting caught. Hopefully it takes a second Kings game to turn it around.

[BigRedMachine]

Our d is good, can sometimes be great for a few games.

We just don't have that 1 top pairing that can play 25+ mins a minute shutting down top players. Just look at the previous cup winner, Bruins, Hawks, Kings all have that top shutdown big minute d-man with a good puck moving d-man and a solid surrounding core. We seem to just have the surrounding core.

Agreed. We have three good pairings, no shutdown pair. People mistake balance for strength.

[Canuck Surfer]

To be clear - I used the word delusional in the context of putting Hodgson in the category of puck mover - that was odd, pretty odd really.

But I agree that the recent downturn in blueline scoring is not worth getting in a big panic over.

I think you are bang on where Edler is concerned - he is in fact facing the strongest quality of competition on the team, and his offensive zone starts are quite a bit lower than past seasons (presently below 50%). I'm rather thrilled with what I've seen from Edler to be honest.

43 hits

55 blocked shots.

Just under 25 minutes a game.

I think his reputation as a 'turnover machine' is over-stated - he is -4 this season with 8 takeaways and 12 giveaways, but in his defense, he's also a guy who is expected to move the puck, and he converts a lot of nice passes - for someone who has and moves the puck as much as he does, I think it's unrealistic to not expect his share of giveaways. He could probably continue to improve his decision making at times, but where his play without the puck is concerned, I've been very impressed with him this year. Tortorella apparently considers him a guy who can handle the difficult minutes and I'm glad to see a turn in his game in that respect. An Edler who hits, blocks shots, is more difficult to play against and scores 30 or 40 points imo is more valuable than a player who is looked upon to score 50 points but doesn't necessarily bring that two way game. It's hard to say what part having a bad back has played in Edler's game, but it's not hard to imagine it would be signifcant, especially considering how long it appeared to take to heal (if it has entirely).

What I find interesting is that all the defensemen are pretty even in terms of their offensive zone starts with Hamhuis at 50.6% being the highest and Garrison the lowest at 47.5%. I don't agree with the idea that a team must have a stereotypical 'puck mover' - and in that sense, I think the ability of the entire top 6 is understated. No, there is no Karlsson, Keith or Letang in the top 4, but again (we've had this discussion a number of times) how many are there in the league - and how many of those are a net break-even (at best) when you consider the other parts of their game? Truly elite puck movers are as rare as elite power forwards. How often are these types of players moved? Right. So, I think it's the case that you accept that you have a group of guys who are nevertheless better than average - they all actually do a good job of moving the puck - and where their overall games are concerned, an excellent group that pales in comparison to none. A few forwards with Schroeder-like qualities don't hurt either.

It's a grow your own type of position imo. I think the Jake Gardiner example might be a lesson to some - a young, sheltered puck mover may impress people the way a shiny lure does a gilled swimmer, but it's awfully premature to be assuming that Krug is the kind of player that will make or break the Boston Bruins, let alone cut it in a true top 4 role. Gardiner was crowned that type of success long before he proved able - but that was ignoring his actual situational play - something that wasn't lost on Randy Carlyle.. Before Krug is deemed the next 'puck moving' phenom, he might have to graduate the stage of getting 65% offensive zone starts and facing the weakest quality of competition on the Bruins. That's kind of the obvious challenge that most players of that type face - are they able to handle the size and the forecheck of skilled, physical opponents? Will they be durable enough? As I said in the Krug "Calder" thread, I'm not sold on a particular aspect of a player's game necessarily making their team that much better. Stanton's 10 points, facing stronger competition, 47.7% offensive zone starts, with more size and a greater physical element to his game - without the need to shelter him in any way or avoid matchups - imo is every bit as valuable and more versatile than a 'puck mover' who needs situational treatment.

I quite like the state of the blueline. Not needing to rush Corrado in is a very nice situation to be in - and as far as young defensemen, who knows what the young 'puck movers' - Tommernes and Subban - will prove capable of.

The team's biggest challenges have had nothing whatsoever to do with the blueline imo - they have been having enough healthy forwards. The depth of the third and fourth lines has been the biggest challenge - and it makes a big difference imo.

I agree in general with your statement that Stanton is as valuable as Krug, perhaps more so?

Just we don't have anyone like him offensively... Something Boston is finding a way to make use of and we would as well. Time will tell if he can play a full NHL game. The difference in Toronto is Carlysle has a better option in Rielly so has less incentive not to force upon him defensive accountability to earn minutes. Teams like Phoenix have better offensive D prospects than Krug, but also less incentive with OEL and Yandle in place. Montreal has no place for Beaulieu. There is a trade out there for us.

Erhoff was also only succesfull with us, exposed elsewhere when asked to play a whole game, because he was surrounded by guys like Mitchell, Hamhuis, Salo, Edler... So I would not have paid him $40 mill. But we should replace his offensive talents.

Geez; in the last ten years we have invested two 4th round picks in McNally and Subban, a 7th in Tommerness and Bourdon was a first but really another Edler type offensive player (and Edler and superseded him before he passed away). Edler is of course our stand out home grown guy drafted in the 3rd round in 2004. It really should be no surprise Gillis has had to pull rabbits out of his arse to accomplish what he has with our D core. Or that we don't have the offensive D man I crave.

We'll have to continue to disagree. I would be surprised if we won a cup without adding this component to our D. And we'll have to get lucky for that to be fulfilled by someone like Subban or McNally.

Or make that trade!

[DIBdaQUIB]

I don't think you do.

If Lu keeps games to a 2 goal average which he is but is only getting 20 shots which results in 18 saves, that is just a .900 SV%. Add 10 more shots on net in this same game giving up 2 goals, you have 28 saves that results in a .933 SV%. An extra 10 weak shots from the perimeter or dump ins on net can bump your SV% a lot.

If you make big saves in a game and stand on your head for 2 periods but the goals they score are a breakaway and a 3 on 1 and you have no chance, you could end up with an average SV% if you don't face a lot of shots. Does this say the goalie had an average game?

It has everything to do with the number of shots.

The stat is what it is. You can dress it up, as you have, and try to qualify it but it is the best way to measure a goalie's performance in comparison to other goalies. Two goalies face 2,050 shots in a year (average 25 per game); one goalie stops 95% of those the other goalie 90%. Who is the better goalie? With a sample size that large, the shots quality evens out. Lu is average and does and always has had a tendency to let in a stinker and it puts added pressure on the D knowing they have to play perfect hockey. In the past, Lu could steal games on a regular basis. It has been a long time since Lu stole a game. The team isn't scoring enough, true, but Lu also isn't stopping enough. They both need to elevate their performance.