Prospect Info: 2014 NHL Draft / Pick #118 - Igor Shestyorkin (G) - Part II

[Miamipuck]

I hear you. Though I don't think anyone is trying to bash him or say he's not an all-time great in this conversation. Personally, I even acknowledge that he's taken for granted and a lot of people are going to miss him more than they think when he's retired.

Look he's an all time great. What I said about goalies while trying to be funny is mostly true. They're a prickly lot. So yeah Hank may or may not have rubbed people the wrong way. But when he's done there will be a lot of people crying in their beer.


It's unfortunate that he didn't have the team in front of him to win a cup..... He's won everything else but.

 

[Edge]

Having said that you move geo this summer you definitely draft Spencer knight with a pick if you ask me.

I have a feeling that if the Rangers end up with multiple firsts, let's say 3, Knight will probably be someone they'd consider.

 

[Fvital92]

I have a feeling that if the Rangers end up with multiple firsts, let's say 3, Knight will probably be someone they'd consider.

Then our 2nd round pick of this year would even be worse than already is.

 

[Edge]

Then our 2nd round pick of this year would even be worse than already is.

We'll see.

He wouldn't have been my pick. But I also freely acknowledge that the current NHL draft playbook for goalies is all over the map.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Not playing today

 

[Crease]

Then our 2nd round pick of this year would even be worse than already is.

That pick felt like the Montoya pick.

 

[Kovalev27]

No that pick felt like the Antoine Lafleur pick. Waste a second round pick on a goalie in a horrible year for goalies. Great job.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

You're not insulting me and frankly, you can insult Hank all you want, I know you're not.......I am just saying, professional observers are wrong all the time and multiple posters here isn't really something I would hang my hat on.

You say when he's off, well the numbers say he's not off all that much. If you had just said, "He's Moody". My reply would have been, he's a ****ing goalie. Finding a sane goalie is much like what Capt. Ahab was trying to accomplish, they're all nuts.

You're a poster here so we can all not hang our hats on this particular argument of yours. Boom. Nailed em.

What was that? I didn't address your point? I dont have to, I'm great...also yea hank has had bad stretches. Every goalie has.

 

[The Crypto Guy]

SKA lost 1-0 in OT.

 

[Miamipuck]

You're a poster here so we can all not hang our hats on this particular argument of yours. Boom. Nailed em.

What was that? I didn't address your point? I dont have to, I'm great...also yea hank has had bad stretches. Every goalie has.

Huh? Hump someone else's leg.

 

[SML2]

I am sorry but I don't agree with this narrative in the least. Hank is the single most consistent goalie I have ever seen. His numbers are what they are, stellar. You may recall soft goals and such but his numbers say that narrative is pure bunk.

Sure a goalie can run hot at a .940, it happens. You can flip a coin and it can land on heads 20 times in a row. So yeah he might have gotten outplayed in a series or a season by a hot goalie, it absolutely happened. However, when a goalie is .920 for 10+ years in a row, he doesn't give up a lot of softies, he doesn't give up a lot period.


I say this as someone that doesn't wear Hank underoo's, I just recognize him for what he is or was.

Was.
If you don't think he gives up a ton of soft goals the last 2+ seasons, you need to watch more games. If you did there is no way you can argue that a remarkable amount of goals he gives up now are shots he never would have let in 5 years ago.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Huh? Hump someone else's leg.

Boy did you utterly and completely fail to understand what I was saying Mr. Crankypants

 

[Miamipuck]

Boy did you utterly and completely fail to understand what I was saying Mr. Crankypants

I was at work and was like huh. So if you were f***ing with me as a joke I apologize. My post wasn't meant to blast Edge, I don't agree with him, he's probably one of the last guys around here that deserves that......ah screw it............f*** Edge. lol

As far as Cranky, yeah look at he name under Miamipuck and use your imagination.

Was.
If you don't think he gives up a ton of soft goals the last 2+ seasons, you need to watch more games. If you did there is no way you can argue that a remarkable amount of goals he gives up now are shots he never would have let in 5 years ago.

As opposed to 2007-08 when he had a lower save percentage?or the insane amounts of high danger area shots he received courtesy of AV's system?

Yeah ok I need to watch more hockey. kthanxbai

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

I was at work and was like huh. So if you were ****ing with me as a joke I apologize. My post wasn't meant to blast Edge, I don't agree with him, he's probably one of the last guys around here that deserves that......ah screw it............**** Edge. lol

As far as Cranky, yeah look at he name under Miamipuck and use your imagination.



As opposed to 2007-08 when he had a lower save percentage?or the insane amounts of high danger area shots he received courtesy of AV's system?

Yeah ok I need to watch more hockey. kthanxbai

Yea I figured you were tired or rushed. It was totally a joking post. It was a valid point I was joking about but a point that'd apply to both of you so I wasnt defending or dry jumping anyone's metaphorical leg.

 

[Edge]

I was at work and was like huh. So if you were ****ing with me as a joke I apologize. My post wasn't meant to blast Edge, I don't agree with him, he's probably one of the last guys around here that deserves that......ah screw it............**** Edge. lol

I think that last part should be our board slogan.

 

[Kovalev27]

what will be worse is if they have a chance to draft knight with a multiple first round pick but don't do it because they like lindbom and feel they made the right choice then when they didn't

 

[SA16]

Better idea: Don't consider taking a goalie in the first round.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Hellberg is 5-4. Shestyorkin is 6-0. Shestyorkin's SV% is 45 points higher.

We understand why its distributed like this, but there is such a big discrepancy in the ability of the two goalies that you'd have to figure that SKA will play Shestyorkin in the big games and in the playoffs. Hellberg might not be good enough to be the starting goalie on a Gagarin Cup winner. Koskinen was. He's better than Hellberg. Is SKA going to risk not winning the Gagarin Cup to play the goalie that will be on their team next season? I don't think so.

 

[Crease]

Better idea: Don't consider taking a goalie in the first round.

Goalies are closer to NFL Kickers than they are to MLB Pitchers.

 

[Matt4776]

Goalies are closer to NFL Kickers than they are to MLB Pitchers.

I like to think they're more like a center.

Having an elite one is definitely good for the team. Won't win you a championship.

Having a shit one can definitely lose you one, though.

 

[nyr2k2]

Hellberg had decent opener followed by two rough games. Since then, both Shesterkin and Hellberg have played six games.

Hellberg is 4-0-2 with a 0.99 GAA and .949 SV% and 2 SO.
Shesterkin is 6-0-0 with a .83 GAA and .966 SV% and 3 SO.

If you look past Hellberg's rough start, the production is pretty close--GAA less that 1, SV% in the stratosphere. I mean Shesterkin is obviously still playing at a higher level (he's the better player for certain) but Hellberg has closed the gap considerably in terms of quality of play. Obviously Shesterkin should get the bulk of the starts, but we know it won't happen; that Hellberg is now playing at a very high level himself will just perpetuate the usage trends. If we want more Shesterkin we have to hope Hellberg has more poor games.

 

[The Crypto Guy]

Hellberg had decent opener followed by two rough games. Since then, both Shesterkin and Hellberg have played six games.

Hellberg is 4-0-2 with a 0.99 GAA and .949 SV% and 2 SO.
Shesterkin is 6-0-0 with a .83 GAA and .966 SV% and 3 SO.

If you look past Hellberg's rough start, the production is pretty close--GAA less that 1, SV% in the stratosphere. I mean Shesterkin is obviously still playing at a higher level (he's the better player for certain) but Hellberg has closed the gap considerably in terms of quality of play. Obviously Shesterkin should get the bulk of the starts, but we know it won't happen; that Hellberg is now playing at a very high level himself will just perpetuate the usage trends. If we want more Shesterkin we have to hope Hellberg has more poor games.

But why should we look past his rough start? That's like me saying lets look past Shesterkin's 2nd game of the season, now all of a sudden his stat line is:

5-0-0
.983 save %
.40 GAA
3 SO

Bad games are bad games, you can just ignore them to make someone look better.

 

[nyr2k2]

But why should we look past his rough start? That's like me saying lets look past Shesterkin's 2nd game of the season, now all of a sudden his stat line is:

5-0-0
.983 save %
.40 GAA
3 SO

Bad games are bad games, you can just ignore them to make someone look better.

I'm not saying you should look past bad games, necessarily. But the reality is, if you have have two goalies splitting time, fighting for starts, the team is not likely to focus on two starts that occurred a month ago. PB noted that Shesterkin's SV% is 45 points higher, which is valid, and meaningful to us!--but probably not terribly meaningful to the team in divvying up starts. In the more recent past, the goalies have played at similar levels, and as a result, will probably get similar starts. That was my only point (and it's not part of some "agenda" or "bias" or whatever you think it is). I just try to explain what I see. I didn't think PB's post was an accurate representation of where things stand today; I would have quoted him but he ignores me so there's no point.

 

[Edge]

This and the Kravtsov thread just kind of reinforce my preference to have our kids over here as soon as possible.

I like having a clearer picture of what we're looking at, what we have or don't have, and focus entirely on their development and utilization for the Rangers and no one else.

Obviously that's not always an option, and there are many factors and variables at work, but that's remains my overarching belief.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Hellberg had decent opener followed by two rough games. Since then, both Shesterkin and Hellberg have played six games.

Hellberg is 4-0-2 with a 0.99 GAA and .949 SV% and 2 SO.
Shesterkin is 6-0-0 with a .83 GAA and .966 SV% and 3 SO.

If you look past Hellberg's rough start, the production is pretty close--GAA less that 1, SV% in the stratosphere. I mean Shesterkin is obviously still playing at a higher level (he's the better player for certain) but Hellberg has closed the gap considerably in terms of quality of play. Obviously Shesterkin should get the bulk of the starts, but we know it won't happen; that Hellberg is now playing at a very high level himself will just perpetuate the usage trends. If we want more Shesterkin we have to hope Hellberg has more poor games.

So prime Lundqvists would obviously have -1.00 GAA and 1.156 % with ∞ shutouts