[PGT] Jensen still on fire

[poetica]

Reality: At the time of the trade, Lack's save percentage was .926 (above average), and Luongo's was .917 (below average).

Reality: Prior to the deadline, Luongo started 10 games in 2014, while Lack started 13. So team's bad play should have affected Eddie's stats MORE.

Reality: In 2012-13, Luongo's former young back-up had a save percentage .020 better than him. In 2011-12, it was .18 better.

I think anyone who looks at the situation objectively can determine who is ignoring reality.

Your concept of reality is flawed.

First, at the time of the trade, Lack's SV% was actually .924.

Second, Luo's numbers were only temporarily that low (which is relative, because even right now a .917 SV% would put Luo 15th among SV% leaders) because of the team's bad play during and after Torts' suspension. Luo played 5 of the 6 games during Torts' suspension and all but 1 game after his suspension prior to the Olympic break. So, no, at the time of the trade Lack's stats weren't as effected by the play the coach described as having "forgotten how to defend." In fact, most of Lack's games came in the first half of January, which was when the team was still playing decently as they were coming off their best month of play.

At the end of January, Lack's season SV% was .919 and Luo's was .920. Both were doing well. In February though, each had only 3 starts. Luo's all came before the Olympic break while 2 of Lack's came after the Olympic break. It was only because of those February games that Lack's stats got temporarily above Luo's. No where else in the NHL is it considered "reality" to trade away an experience goaltender while you're still fighting to make the playoffs because the rookie backup had higher stats for all of a few weeks. The reality is that most teams, like Pittsburgh and LA for examples, stick with their starters even when their backups have better stats over far longer periods than a few weeks, especially when your goaltender in still in the top 20 goalies in the league.

Since the trade, Lack's stats certainly are being more effected by the bad team play that Luo was contending with. And now the reality is Lack has a .915 SV%, or worse than Luo had when he was traded. Lack still has a lower win rate and in his 30 starts (and 34 games played in), Lack has had 13 games in which he's given up 3+ goals (8 of which came before the trade.) In his 42 starts as a Canuck, Luo had 15 games in which he's given up 3+ goals. For someone so intent on "reality" you sure seem to be missing a lot of it.

But the numbers aside, the thing that I don't think the "he stole the job" people get is that if you make this performance based, you are setting Lack up to fail. Since the trade, Lack has a .893 SV%. That's reality. If Lack stole the starter job, then he was ready for it and can/should be expected to hit the ground running and at least not do worse than the guy he stole it from. And if that's the case, he's failed so far. If, however as I contend, he is just a rookie who was thrown into a situation he wasn't completely ready for due to factors beyond him, he's actually doing remarkably well and he doesn't have any outplay anyone, he just has to do the best he can to acclimate himself and grow into the position.

So why try to put it on him that he stole the job? Why set him up to fail? Instead of trying to give him credit for driving out a goalie you personally don't like and inadvertently also saddling him with expectations he may not be ready for yet, why not instead give him credit for what he's actually doing, namely dealing as best he can with the extreme pressure of a situation not of his making?

[poetica]

I think hanks stat meant was more of a pat on the back for the new starter then it was anything else. Lou was traded because he wanted out and the nucks got what they were looking for. I don't think lack think hank or lack for that matter feel the the job was taken by lack. Just my thoughts.

I hope you're right. I actually don't think Lack thinks that and I hope Hank and the rest of the team don't either. It's frankly just better for Lack. He should get credit for how well he's handling this situation, especially being that he doesn't even have a backup he can use, and a little leeway to grow into a reliable starter rather than being told he's expected to play as well or better than the veteran he "stole" the job from.

Honestly, I'm just worried about the kid's confidence at this point. I think he's been put in an uncomfortable, stressful, and probably painful situation. We won't make the playoffs but NOT because of him. Even still, I'm worried that they'll shop around for another starter for next season and he'll think it's his fault, that he was given his chance to be a starter and failed. But that shouldn't be the case. He's not on a pass/fail for me at this point. He's just caught in the middle and doing as well as anyone can reasonably expect. Lack will likely grow into a good, if not great, starter. We need to give him time to do just that. As I've said before, this team needs to start showing a little loyalty and create some stability instead of constantly undercutting our goalies' confidence and our team's confidence in our goalies.

[Nino]

I hope you're right. I actually don't think Lack thinks that and I hope Hank and the rest of the team don't either. It's frankly just better for Lack. He should get credit for how well he's handling this situation, especially being that he doesn't even have a backup he can use, and a little leeway to grow into a reliable starter rather than being told he's expected to play as well or better than the veteran he "stole" the job from.

Honestly, I'm just worried about the kid's confidence at this point. I think he's been put in an uncomfortable, stressful, and probably painful situation. We won't make the playoffs but NOT because of him. Even still, I'm worried that they'll shop around for another starter for next season and he'll think it's his fault, that he was given his chance to be a starter and failed. But that shouldn't be the case. He's not on a pass/fail for me at this point. He's just caught in the middle and doing as well as anyone can reasonably expect. Lack will likely grow into a good, if not great, starter. We need to give him time to do just that. As I've said before, this team needs to start showing a little loyalty and create some stability instead of constantly undercutting our goalies' confidence and our team's confidence in our goalies.

Agreed

[Chalky]

I hope you're right. I actually don't think Lack thinks that and I hope Hank and the rest of the team don't either. It's frankly just better for Lack. He should get credit for how well he's handling this situation, especially being that he doesn't even have a backup he can use, and a little leeway to grow into a reliable starter rather than being told he's expected to play as well or better than the veteran he "stole" the job from.

Honestly, I'm just worried about the kid's confidence at this point. I think he's been put in an uncomfortable, stressful, and probably painful situation. We won't make the playoffs but NOT because of him. Even still, I'm worried that they'll shop around for another starter for next season and he'll think it's his fault, that he was given his chance to be a starter and failed. But that shouldn't be the case. He's not on a pass/fail for me at this point. He's just caught in the middle and doing as well as anyone can reasonably expect. Lack will likely grow into a good, if not great, starter. We need to give him time to do just that. As I've said before, this team needs to start showing a little loyalty and create some stability instead of constantly undercutting our goalies' confidence and our team's confidence in our goalies.

Over analyze much? I think Lack is in his glory and is ecstatic that he is in the starter role with all the pressure of any NHL starter. With Markstrom having a one way, 1.2 mil contract through next season and Eriksson with his entry level 2 way contract, it is far more likely the team is looking for a veteran to back up Lack and trade Markstrom. Perhaps the plan is to have Markstrom back up Lack next season. In any case, I think riding Lack for the rest of the season ids the best course of action and I'm sure he's having the time of his life. Just look at his smile.

[D-Money]

Your concept of reality is flawed.

First, at the time of the trade, Lack's SV% was actually .924.

Second, Luo's numbers were only temporarily that low (which is relative, because even right now a .917 SV% would put Luo 15th among SV% leaders) because of the team's bad play during and after Torts' suspension. Luo played 5 of the 6 games during Torts' suspension and all but 1 game after his suspension prior to the Olympic break. So, no, at the time of the trade Lack's stats weren't as effected by the play the coach described as having "forgotten how to defend." In fact, most of Lack's games came in the first half of January, which was when the team was still playing decently as they were coming off their best month of play.

At the end of January, Lack's season SV% was .919 and Luo's was .920. Both were doing well. In February though, each had only 3 starts. Luo's all came before the Olympic break while 2 of Lack's came after the Olympic break. It was only because of those February games that Lack's stats got temporarily above Luo's. No where else in the NHL is it considered "reality" to trade away an experience goaltender while you're still fighting to make the playoffs because the rookie backup had higher stats for all of a few weeks. The reality is that most teams, like Pittsburgh and LA for examples, stick with their starters even when their backups have better stats over far longer periods than a few weeks, especially when your goaltender in still in the top 20 goalies in the league.

Since the trade, Lack's stats certainly are being more effected by the bad team play that Luo was contending with. And now the reality is Lack has a .915 SV%, or worse than Luo had when he was traded. Lack still has a lower win rate and in his 30 starts (and 34 games played in), Lack has had 13 games in which he's given up 3+ goals (8 of which came before the trade.) In his 42 starts as a Canuck, Luo had 15 games in which he's given up 3+ goals. For someone so intent on "reality" you sure seem to be missing a lot of it.

But the numbers aside, the thing that I don't think the "he stole the job" people get is that if you make this performance based, you are setting Lack up to fail. Since the trade, Lack has a .893 SV%. That's reality. If Lack stole the starter job, then he was ready for it and can/should be expected to hit the ground running and at least not do worse than the guy he stole it from. And if that's the case, he's failed so far. If, however as I contend, he is just a rookie who was thrown into a situation he wasn't completely ready for due to factors beyond him, he's actually doing remarkably well and he doesn't have any outplay anyone, he just has to do the best he can to acclimate himself and grow into the position.

So why try to put it on him that he stole the job? Why set him up to fail? Instead of trying to give him credit for driving out a goalie you personally don't like and inadvertently also saddling him with expectations he may not be ready for yet, why not instead give him credit for what he's actually doing, namely dealing as best he can with the extreme pressure of a situation not of his making?

First, I didn't have Lack's save percentage, so I counted it up myself. Calculated 614 saves on 663 shots, for .926...checked it again, but maybe miscalculated. Still, .924 is a far better a better save percentage than Luongo has had in years.

Secondly, why do you make excuses for Lu's save percentage, and not for the rookie who was in net when the team folded 6-1 to Dallas and 7-3 to the Islanders?

Third, all things considered, their stats right now are nearly identical. So if a rookie comes along and performs basically the same as a veteran making over 5 times more salary, and the team decides to stick with the cheaper, younger option, how is that not 'stealing the job'? Isn't Lack providing more value?

And lastly, this whole argument is a perfect example why getting Luongo out of here was the only move: drama, drama, drama. He's been outplayed for years - or, if you like, simply kept pace with the rookie. And yet, even after he pouted, whined, and tweeted his displeasure until he got exactly what he wanted, our captain can't even offer words of support unless he chooses them carefully? To protect Lu's 'honor'?

What a joke.

[Angry Goose]

And I still feel exactly the same way about Hank's comment. And still do not believe Lack "stole" the starting position based on anything he actually did. If Torts actually believes that because of a handful of bad games largely his own fault, I'm seriously concerned for this team. And even more for Lack.

Yeah. A proven NHL coach who has won a Stanley Cup and has over 10 years of NHL coaching experience doesn't know how to evaluate hockey players.

You're full of crap dude

[poetica]

First, I didn't have Lack's save percentage, so I counted it up myself. Calculated 614 saves on 663 shots, for .926...checked it again, but maybe miscalculated. Still, .924 is a far better a better save percentage than Luongo has had in years.

Secondly, why do you make excuses for Lu's save percentage, and not for the rookie who was in net when the team folded 6-1 to Dallas and 7-3 to the Islanders?

Third, all things considered, their stats right now are nearly identical. So if a rookie comes along and performs basically the same as a veteran making over 5 times more salary, and the team decides to stick with the cheaper, younger option, how is that not 'stealing the job'? Isn't Lack providing more value?

And lastly, this whole argument is a perfect example why getting Luongo out of here was the only move: drama, drama, drama. He's been outplayed for years - or, if you like, simply kept pace with the rookie. And yet, even after he pouted, whined, and tweeted his displeasure until he got exactly what he wanted, our captain can't even offer words of support unless he chooses them carefully? To protect Lu's 'honor'?

What a joke.

Not sure what numbers you were using. According to his ESPN page, up through the Ottawa game Lack had faced 631 shots and made 583 saves, giving him a .924. Either way, yes, that is impressive. It was also temporary. Just 4 games before, he had a .920, which is still good. I'm not arguing that Lack isn't playing well. I'm just pointing out the error of looking at temporary stats through part of a season as a backup and using those as definitive proof that one goalie "outplayed" the other.

Frankly, you're the one trying to have it both ways. Luo was in for most of the worst games before the trade, but you don't want to consider their effects on his stats in any way, but then you want to point to the bad games Lack's been in net for and say that's why his stats haven't been good. You're half right. Bad team play does make the goalie's stats bad. You're just wrong in only seeing it for one of them.

And that's the big problem here. People take small samples to say a goalie isn't good enough, despite still being one of the best in the league, and then toss him out. If only we had a different goalie, we'd be doing better is the almost constant mantra here. Only a different goalie didn't help us when it was Schneider, did it? And it's not helping us now that it's Lack. Why? Because we've been incredibly blessed here with at least 3 good goalies and goaltending hasn't been our issue for years. It's time we stopped blaming the goalies before we actually do run out of good goalies and start fixing the problems that are making our good goalies' stats less than they should be.

[JiffyPB]

How did this thread turn into a Luongo argument???

[aGENT]

How did this thread turn into a Luongo argument???

It's CT.

[Canuckstan]

A lot of people wanted them to tank. A great quote "Winners never quit and quitters never win"- V. Lombardi. I rather want us to fight till the end and build more confidence than give up and tank. BELIEVE.

[viking mama]

I couldn't have had any more respect for Henrik before his comment - so I can't exactly say my respect for him has grown, but he got is precisely right - Lack did come in and steal the job. It might be shocking if it hadn't happened before with a different young goaltender and a different coach, but of course, it's all about a Canucks organization conspiring to underplay Luongo.

Thornton being a douche has nothing to do with his comments about Luongo. Of course Luo is a great goaltender. I have and never would undervalue Luongo as a goaltender - which doesn't change the fact that in competitive sports you have to continue to earn your role - something he didn't do under the pressure of a couple younger stars vying for starts.

He should be ok in Florida now that they moved their top prospect in this deal. Probably something his agent insisted upon.

Oooooooo! That's a shot!

[viking mama]

So he answered a question honestly about always wanting to play an outdoor game. Boohoo, get over it! If you want to get angry about something, why not the fact that Torts told him he wasn't starting before sending him out to address the media scrum and then scampered off into the shadows himself instead of facing them like a professional? It was cowardly.

As for the way people treated Lack during the WC, I wasn't one of them so I don't answer for them. In fact, I was here posting that they needed to stop that because it wasn't his fault Luo wasn't started and Lack deserved our support.

As for Torts saying Luo wasn't benched, that proves that Lack did NOT "steal" the starter position and therefore it wasn't true when Hank (if the tweeted quote is accurate) said it. Rather, it points to the fact that Torts based his opinion of Lack's play on 1 pre- and 2 post-Olympic break games and comparing it to only Luo's pre-Olympic break games, which were marred by Torts' own suspension which he admitted caused the team to play like crap. Rather than taking responsibility for his own actions and how that effected the team, Torts blamed the losses on the goalie by saying that the other goalie who wasn't in net for those games would give the team a better chance to win. In doing so, he knowingly created a huge media storm, put Lack into an uncomfortable position he didn't need to be in, and pissed off what was still his starter and likely still would be if not for that game. That's scapegoating in my book.

Now ur talkin', poetica!

I'm far more comfortable with you dissing Tortorella for his many coaching mis-cues or mis-steps around this team...than tossing a dart at a very stellar humanitarian...& an all-around-good-guy... like Henrik Sedin? It's pretty hard to villify a Sedin...in any context...don't ya think? Don Cherry & Ron MacLean tried to do it during the SCup run. The eastern-media-propaganda-machine coming-out of CHI tried to do it to Danny...after he was Duncan Keith-ed. NONE of it really successful...so - if those pros can't do it...what in heaven's name made you think that you could.

I am SO willing to give Henrik Sedin the benefit of the doubt, in just about ANY context. And - after watching his exemplary & classy conduct through-out a very impressive long-serving career in hockey....representing VAN in the NHL...& Sweden on the world-stage....why shouldn't or wouldn't I?

[viking mama]

I am listening to Dan Russell tonight, he is hoping that Burrows' hand is fractured. What the hell is wrong with that guy?

They are also giving Eddie Lack a hard time for having 'too easy' of a night.

I swear that guy and his cohorts spew venom any chance they get.

That's because they are venom. Do yourself a favor and stop listening to that negative noise. I shut mine off long ago. It's insanity to listen to so much negativity for HOURS each day. Insanity.

Dan Russell vs. Idiots Who Call in to the Team After a Loss? I'll take the idiots.

Dan Russel is a whiny, bitchy sore loser. There, fixed it for you. lol

LOL - I repeat:

I've been tuning Dan Russell out every since he started taking mega-doses of extreme bitter-pills.

More emails were generated opposing his rantings...than any positive feed-back for being a hater. HIS show has now moved on...and to where, I don't care. But - he DID manage to discover a new niche for himself....as the Anti-Canucks' standard bearer....for Leafs, 'Lamers & Oil fans in our midst.

Someday,... when Seattle gets their own NHL franchise ...Dan will attempt to weasel himself into that organization, too...so he can continue to hate on the 'Nucks in perpetuity. Wait for it.

It sometimes helps to put a face to comments like that.

Is this who we're talking about?

Are you insinuating that there's a possession-thing goin' on...by Beelzebub? Or Rasputin?