Half-Assed GDT: Blues Kings

[Reality Czech]

The Kings got lucky, they could have a truly bad contract like Kyrou.

You mean Mr. 1-goal-in-12-games-with-that-1-goal-being-a-gift-from-Saad Jordan Kyrou? Did he play last night?

 

[Linkens Mastery]

You mean Mr. 1-goal-in-12-games-with-that-1-goal-being-a-gift-from-Saad Jordan Kyrou? Did he play last night?

The entire 1st line has been struggling the past 12 games.

 

[Fez Whatley]

1) It was just 1 game.

2) Overall he's been good but it's not like he is irreplaceable. He' not in the Vezina conversation. He's barely in the top 10 for votes on NHL.com's Vezina prediction poll (9th).

2b) He's tied for 14th in save percent, 26th in GAA, tied for 14th in GSAA/60, 9th is HD save percent, 17th in Quality start percentage (min 900 minutes). Hofer is tied or better in every category but QS%. Binner probably is playing better than those stats indicate and is used harder than Hofer. But still, we overhype him a good bit as he and Thomas are the best part of a bad team.

3) We are not competing now, and we have good young goalies who should be ready when our window reopens. We can sign a cheap vet to shelter them until they are ready.

4) Because of games like ths and team's need for goalie, we could actually get a rare good value for trading a goalie.

5) Most importantly, he acts like a jerk and I don't want to root for him. I'd rather lose with a lesser goalie than watch a incredibly poor sport be rewarded. But that is just me.

How often have the blues playoff runs been crushed by a goalie that has just shit the bed? We have the only blues cup winning goalie in history. He really competes hard and that's something for the rest of the team to feed off of. I wouldn't be so quick to trade him for what would most likely be the 32nd overall draft pick + spare parts.

 

[BadgersandBlues]

I agree with the sentiments I've seen in this thread re: Bolduc. I've tried to focus in on him as much as possible since his call up, and I've been extremely impressed by his play away from the puck. His forechecking, backchecking and overall hustle has been evident. He is tall, skates well, and has an extremely long stick (Insert immature joke here) that he uses well to disrupt opposing puck carriers. Maybe it's prior experience with the Ty Rattie's of the world, but I was expecting a high scoring Junior player to come in and be pretty ugly defensively. Bolduc is not that. He's clearly still thinking the game a little too much, and that makes him a step slow in certain situations. He has also deferred WAY too much for a guy with a shot like his. These are minor nitpicks though, and something you would expect from every rookie breaking into the NHL. Experience and repetition via practice and games will be good for him. I think he's more then ready to handle Kapenen's top 9 spot next year - after a good summer of eating right and hitting the gym.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I agree with that assessment on Bolduc. The pieces are there, he's got a higher ceiling than Rattie, but I'd challenge him to go work on dominating games even if that means going back to the AHL for part of a season. I want him and all the other prospects to force my hand on putting them on the NHL roster, not put them there when they've been OK elsewhere and hope they grow into the spot.

 

[Brian39]

How often have the blues playoff runs been crushed by a goalie that has just shit the bed? We have the only blues cup winning goalie in history. He really competes hard and that's something for the rest of the team to feed off of. I wouldn't be so quick to trade him for what would most likely be the 32nd overall draft pick + spare parts.

I agree that we shouldn't trade him for a return that literally no one is advocating trading him for.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Schwartz is someone that I kind of look at where he had an underwhelming AHL season before getting called up. He didn't have great production, but he did all the little things right and eventually played with Backes in the playoffs. In the following season, he broke out. I think he's more of the exception than the rule, especially considering his style was always that of doing the little things right, playing good defense, and having offensive skill to go along with it.

I think the big thing for Bolduc, you at least have to sort of follow that Schwartz path, instead of a Rattie or Thompson path. If you are up before your AHL production demands you be up, you have to do those little things right, you have to provide something on the ice, even if it's not goals/assists, you can just be a guy on the ice like Rattie and Thompson were.

In the time that I've been able to watch, he has been doing that, so I'm hopeful that he'll assert himself more as he gets more comfortable and confident.

 

[Majorityof1]

How often have the blues playoff runs been crushed by a goalie that has just shit the bed? We have the only blues cup winning goalie in history. He really competes hard and that's something for the rest of the team to feed off of. I wouldn't be so quick to trade him for what would most likely be the 32nd overall draft pick + spare parts.

2 of the 4 years in the Binnington era our playoff dreams were crushed by truly awful goaltending. Compare these 3 goalies stats with the Blues in playoffs. One is playoff master Jordan Binnington, and the other is Journeyman Brian Elliott and run out of town Jake Allen

.500 win percentage, .910, 2.73 GAA
.452 win percentage, .917, 2.32 GAA
.478 win%, .924, 2.06 GAA

Not much difference, and Allen and Elliott consistently faced really good cup teams in Chicago and LA. Binner had one magical playoff run, and now has a reputation of being money. But aside from win percentage he is the worst of those stats. We have not seen 2019 Binner since 2019.

 

[bleedblue1223]

I mean, we can add context to those numbers. I don't think there should be any dispute on his quality of play in the Cup run. He wasn't Conn Smythe level, as IMO, we really didn't have any 1 specific player far and above the others, but he was in that conversation with ROR, and for me along with Petro. Schwartz dominated in the earlier portion of the playoffs, Tarasenko I believe got hot later. Binnington stole a handful of games, and earned a reputation.

The COVID bubble we were horrific as a team. From what I remember, it wasn't really Binnington, we sucked in the bubble and we sucked against Vancouver. Against Colorado we weren't that great of a team in the regular season, and after we lost Faulk, all hope was lost.

In 21/22 playoffs, he might've been the best we've ever seen.

To say that 2 of the years were crushed by horrific goaltending is implying that we had any hope in those series' based on the play in front of him. We were getting destroyed even if we had an actual brick wall in net. Binnington in the playoffs is clearly superior to Elliott and Allen in the playoffs.

 

[TheDizee]

Jake Allen stole that series vs Minnesota in 2017. He also played well be Trashville outside of game 1.

Brian Elliott always shit the bed when it mattered. His numbers are good on paper for the most part but he let in leaky garbage at the worst times and was not reliable to count on when you needed him the most.

 

[BlueOil]

5) Most importantly, he acts like a jerk and I don't want to root for him. I'd rather lose with a lesser goalie than watch a incredibly poor sport be rewarded. But that is just me.

you'd rather the whole team lose than see him succeed?

if you're serious about this, how are you not being an "incredibly poor sport" about it yourself?

 

[Fez Whatley]

I agree that we shouldn't trade him for a return that literally no one is advocating trading him for.

It definitely was tongue in cheek, but realistically what would the return be?

 

[Ted Hoffman]

It definitely was tongue in cheek, but realistically what would the return be?

It depends on the team involved, how that team views Binnington and how much that team thinks Binnington is "the key" to pushing them over the top. And I realize that's a non-answer, but it's like asking how much I'd pay for a glass of lemonade. A lot of things go into getting a good answer.

 

[bleedblue1223]

It's why for me, everything with Binnington is mental. When he's locked in and focused, there aren't too many others that are better than him. Too many times in the past we'd run him into the ground and I'm not sure if it was more physical or mental, but it clearly tooks it toll on him. Or he'd think we'd need a spark, so he'd do something stupid, but then mentally he'd lose it, he wouldn't be locked in, and he'd start letting in softies. This season he's reminded me much more of 2019, where he still has an edge to him, but when he's on the ice, he's locked in and in control.

 

[Majorityof1]

you'd rather the whole team lose than see him succeed?

if you're serious about this, how are you not being an "incredibly poor sport" about it yourself?

Someone has to lose in sports. You root for teams to lose all the time because they are not <insert whatever random reason you cheer for the Blues>. As a fan, I am free to choose who I cheer for for any reason I want. Cheering against a team because one of their main players swings a stick at people's faces is much less a poor sport than swinging your stick at someone's face because they are beating you in a game. How is my reason any worse than wishing I'll on the Avs because a fan was born near St. Louis?

 

[Reality Czech]

The entire 1st line has been struggling the past 12 games.

This is true. As a key part of that first line, Kyrou deserves his share of the blame. Can't blame Krug and Schenn for everything.

 

[BlueOil]

Someone has to lose in sports. You root for teams to lose all the time because they are not <insert whatever random reason you cheer for the Blues>. As a fan, I am free to choose who I cheer for for any reason I want. Cheering against a team because one of their main players swings a stick at people's faces is much less a poor sport than swinging your stick at someone's face because they are beating you in a game. How is my reason any worse than wishing I'll on the Avs because a fan was born near St. Louis?

you're reasoning seems worse to me than the example posed because it's throwing the baby out with the bathwater logic. a fan born near st. louis that wishes ill on the avs and cheers for the blues is rooting against the opposition to support the home team, you're doubling down on rooting against the home team because you dislike one player. putting the desire to punish binnington ahead of team success just seems unnecessarily harsh. why does it have to spill over to everyone because you have a problem with one?

 

[Majorityof1]

you're reasoning seems worse to me than the example posed because it's throwing the baby out with the bathwater logic. a fan born near st. louis that wishes ill on the avs and cheers for the blues is rooting against the opposition to support the home team, you're doubling down on rooting against the home team because you dislike one player. putting the desire to punish binnington ahead of team success just seems unnecessarily harsh. why does it have to spill over to everyone because you have a problem with one?

First, I am not rooting against the team. Well, I am, but that's because I want a better draft pick and think it's for the good of the team. Saying I'd rather have a 90 point team without Binnington than a 100 point team with him us not rooting against them. But even so, let's role with that.

Second, the Blues aren't my home or local team. I lived closer to Chicago or Columbus in Indiana when I started watching hockey. I went to Wash U for grad school, but that was later.

Third, what if the Blues had a child molester on the team or s confirmed unrepentant seeial killer? Yes, we are going with the most extreme option. Would you cheer for the Blues if they had a guy who was a confirmed Child molester? I would hope not. So you can see not rooting for the team over one player. It's just a matter of degree. And it's my damn right to set that degree.

I think you are the unreasonable one if you think me cheering for a sports team to lose is worse than swinging a heavy stick inches from someone's face. That is insane, rah-rah brainwashed by sports Fandom BS. "My team is beyond reproach cause they are my team" It's the reason I could never root for a home team that was actually the most popular team in my area. Local fans are insufferable

 

[Ted Hoffman]

It's why for me, everything with Binnington is mental. When he's locked in and focused, there aren't too many others that are better than him. Too many times in the past we'd run him into the ground and I'm not sure if it was more physical or mental, but it clearly tooks it toll on him. Or he'd think we'd need a spark, so he'd do something stupid, but then mentally he'd lose it, he wouldn't be locked in, and he'd start letting in softies. This season he's reminded me much more of 2019, where he still has an edge to him, but when he's on the ice, he's locked in and in control.

Everything with a goalie is mental. Some just handle it better than others.

The thing that made Binnington fantastic in 2019: he made the stops he needed to. He wasn't utterly fantastic, he wasn't Hasek "standing on his head" spectacular. But he didn't have huge ups and downs. You didn't put him in and wonder are we getting 1993 Patrick Roy tonight, or are we getting 2005 Patrick Lalime? And that showed with the players: they went out and played their game with loads of confidence, they didn't have to worry about playing perfect defense knowing the goalie was going to be a question mark. Or that he'd give up some mind-numbing, soul-crushing goal and then glare at everyone else for it.

That's all we needed. We just needed someone to be steady, let everyone else go play their game, make critical saves when necessary. When you find someone like that, you don't just fling them to the wind and say oh, that was easy, we can find that anywhere. We went through a number of goalies with more skill who couldn't do that.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Everything with a goalie is mental. Some just handle it better than others.

The thing that made Binnington fantastic in 2019: he made the stops he needed to. He wasn't utterly fantastic, he wasn't Hasek "standing on his head" spectacular. But he didn't have huge ups and downs. You didn't put him in and wonder are we getting 1993 Patrick Roy tonight, or are we getting 2005 Patrick Lalime? And that showed with the players: they went out and played their game with loads of confidence, they didn't have to worry about playing perfect defense knowing the goalie was going to be a question mark. Or that he'd give up some mind-numbing, soul-crushing goal and then glare at everyone else for it.

That's all we needed. We just needed someone to be steady, let everyone else go play their game, make critical saves when necessary. When you find someone like that, you don't just fling them to the wind and say oh, that was easy, we can find that anywhere. We went through a number of goalies with more skill who couldn't do that.

In the regular season, he was. If he did what he did over a full season, he would've been neck and neck for the Vezina. And in the regular season when he started the game, we never had a back to back loss, even more so than just making the stops we needed him to make, his bounceback ability was huge in getting the team back on track and getting that confidence back.

In the playoffs, he didn't have the same sort of numbers that jump off a page, but he did continue his bounceback ability where if there was a game where the opposition scored a lot, he tended to have a good game following it. That's huge in the playoffs. You don't need 7 really good performances in a series, just 4, and those other 3 can be utter dogshit, but if you are better in 4 out of the 7, then you win.

That mentality spread through the team. The typical Blues would've folded against the Sharks after that handpass, but we just straight up dominated them after that moment. I'm not saying Binnington should get credit for how the entire team responded, but that mentality that he brought certainly helped on some level.

 

[Blueston]

First, I am not rooting against the team. Well, I am, but that's because I want a better draft pick and think it's for the good of the team. Saying I'd rather have a 90 point team without Binnington than a 100 point team with him us not rooting against them. But even so, let's role with that.

Second, the Blues aren't my home or local team. I lived closer to Chicago or Columbus in Indiana when I started watching hockey. I went to Wash U for grad school, but that was later.

Third, what if the Blues had a child molester on the team or s confirmed unrepentant seeial killer? Yes, we are going with the most extreme option. Would you cheer for the Blues if they had a guy who was a confirmed Child molester? I would hope not. So you can see not rooting for the team over one player. It's just a matter of degree. And it's my damn right to set that degree.

I think you are the unreasonable one if you think me cheering for a sports team to lose is worse than swinging a heavy stick inches from someone's face. That is insane, rah-rah brainwashed by sports Fandom BS. "My team is beyond reproach cause they are my team" It's the reason I could never root for a home team that was actually the most popular team in my area. Local fans are insufferable

I don’t agree with you on Binny, but I agree with your logic. I felt similarly when Astros had Roger Clemens. I couldn’t root for him. I won’t root for guys I think are a-holes. I don’t feel that way about Binny, although he is a bit of a hothead, but I get where you are coming from.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Brian Elliott always shit the bed when it mattered. His numbers are good on paper for the most part but he let in leaky garbage at the worst times and was not reliable to count on when you needed him the most.

I'm going back to this.

I will go to my deathbed maintaining that Brian Elliott was not the problem for the Blues in the playoffs. Was he stellar? No, he wasn't incredible. Neither were those Blues teams when they lost.

* 2012 - Pietrangelo got run in Game 1 of the Kings series, the team looked night and day different after that. Elliott was playing with an inner-ear infection. Halak was out hurt from Game 2 of the San Jose series, and we weren't throwing Jake Allen and all of his 0.00 games of NHL experience into net during the playoffs. The entire team looked shellshocked as the Kings swarmed in waves. We got blown out. We'd have been blown out with Brent Johnson, Chris Osgood and Grant Fuhr in net at the same time.
* 2013 - 6 games, 10 goals. 0 goals from David Perron and Chris Stewart combined. You could see the series turn when we went up 2-0 early in Game 4 and then everyone on the ice quit playing and the Kings crawled back in quickly. Same thing after we went up 3-2 in the 2nd: the team quit playing, eventually the Kings finally broke through and then everyone on the Blues gave up and the Kings scored the eventual GWG. That goal in Game 6, which I swear to god was deflected off Polak's stick. You can blame Elliott for that series loss, but guys who were supposed to be leading this team flat didn't show up. If you hear your goalie is only giving up 12 goals in 6 games, you probably feel decent about your chances to win; when you hear your team only scored 10 goals, it's really tough to imagine it winning at all - and that lack of scoring had nothing to do with Brian Elliott.
* 2016 - Elliott in the first 2 series was fine. The Blues played dominant hockey at times, Elliott was adequate. No one looks back and thinks "wow, Elliott really stole this game for us." Elliott in the WCF was not good. Neither was Allen, who after an allegdly "good" Game 4 (Blues win 6-3) fell completely apart in Game 5 (Sharks win 6-3, Allen gives up 4 goals on 25 shots and that's overstating how well he played). And then the boys came out in Game 6, playoff lives on the line, and rolled over and played dead. 13 goals for the series, against the Sharks and Martin Jones. Backes had a goal. Steen had none. Berglund had none. Tarasenko had 2! - and they were worthless goals at the end of Game 6 where you thought "holy f***ing shit, why didn't we seen this in the first 350 or so minutes of this series?"

Bottom line: Elliott was not a difference maker in net. He also was not Vincent Riendeau or Eddie Johnston, some sole reason we lost any of those playoff series. He was OK.

 

[Blueston]

I'm going back to this.

I will go to my deathbed maintaining that Brian Elliott was not the problem for the Blues in the playoffs. Was he stellar? No, he wasn't incredible. Neither were those Blues teams when they lost.

* 2012 - Pietrangelo got run in Game 1 of the Kings series, the team looked night and day different after that. Elliott was playing with an inner-ear infection. Halak was out hurt from Game 2 of the San Jose series, and we weren't throwing Jake Allen and all of his 0.00 games of NHL experience into net during the playoffs. The entire team looked shellshocked as the Kings swarmed in waves. We got blown out. We'd have been blown out with Brent Johnson, Chris Osgood and Grant Fuhr in net at the same time.
* 2013 - 6 games, 10 goals. 0 goals from David Perron and Chris Stewart combined. You could see the series turn when we went up 2-0 early in Game 4 and then everyone on the ice quit playing and the Kings crawled back in quickly. Same thing after we went up 3-2 in the 2nd: the team quit playing, eventually the Kings finally broke through and then everyone on the Blues gave up and the Kings scored the eventual GWG. That goal in Game 6, which I swear to god was deflected off Polak's stick. You can blame Elliott for that series loss, but guys who were supposed to be leading this team flat didn't show up. If you hear your goalie is only giving up 12 goals in 6 games, you probably feel decent about your chances to win; when you hear your team only scored 10 goals, it's really tough to imagine it winning at all - and that lack of scoring had nothing to do with Brian Elliott.
* 2016 - Elliott in the first 2 series was fine. The Blues played dominant hockey at times, Elliott was adequate. No one looks back and thinks "wow, Elliott really stole this game for us." Elliott in the WCF was not good. Neither was Allen, who after an allegdly "good" Game 4 (Blues win 6-3) fell completely apart in Game 5 (Sharks win 6-3, Allen gives up 4 goals on 25 shots and that's overstating how well he played). And then the boys came out in Game 6, playoff lives on the line, and rolled over and played dead. 13 goals for the series, against the Sharks and Martin Jones. Backes had a goal. Steen had none. Berglund had none. Tarasenko had 2! - and they were worthless goals at the end of Game 6 where you thought "holy f***ing shit, why didn't we seen this in the first 350 or so minutes of this series?"

Bottom line: Elliott was not a difference maker in net. He also was not Vincent Riendeau or Eddie Johnston, some sole reason we lost any of those playoff series. He was OK.

Well said. And many teams have won over last 30 years with guys like him in net. Osgood in Detroit, Kuemper in Colorado, Crawford in Chicago, ward in Carolina, plus hill and.. not every cup winner has Vasi or Roy or hasek. If team is good enough goalie doesn’t have to be hof level.

 

[BlueOil]

First, I am not rooting against the team. Well, I am, but that's because I want a better draft pick and think it's for the good of the team. Saying I'd rather have a 90 point team without Binnington than a 100 point team with him us not rooting against them. But even so, let's role with that.

you stated later in this post you cheer for the team to lose, i fail to see how that doesn't fall under rooting against the team. saying you wish he wasn't on the team is one thing, actively rooting against them all is another.

Second, the Blues aren't my home or local team. I lived closer to Chicago or Columbus in Indiana when I started watching hockey. I went to Wash U for grad school, but that was later.

this is a moot point. the point i was making isn't dependent on you having lived in st. louis or ever having considered them your home team. the point was that what you've explained sounds like more than just the competitive fandom you posed in the scenario.

Third, what if the Blues had a child molester on the team or s confirmed unrepentant seeial killer? Yes, we are going with the most extreme option. Would you cheer for the Blues if they had a guy who was a confirmed Child molester? I would hope not. So you can see not rooting for the team over one player. It's just a matter of degree. And it's my damn right to set that degree.

look, i'm not trying to suggest you can't think this way even though i don't agree. you're referencing your rights like they're being threatened somehow and you need to reinforce them as if i've forgotten to respect them by asking about what you've said. i've asked you to explain a strong stance you took and answered the question you posed to my question. if you think i'm being disrespectful here, we can just stop talking about it because i'm just trying to understand what you're saying, not create a dilemma with your personal rights.

and yes, in the most extreme circumstances possible, i can see how one could root against a team they want to support. however, i do not see how the situation with binnington fits into that category or is even close. again, not liking him and rooting for them all to lose just aren't the same thing.

I think you are the unreasonable one if you think me cheering for a sports team to lose is worse than swinging a heavy stick inches from someone's face. That is insane, rah-rah brainwashed by sports Fandom BS. "My team is beyond reproach cause they are my team" It's the reason I could never root for a home team that was actually the most popular team in my area. Local fans are insufferable

i haven't suggested you rooting against a team is worse than swinging a stick at someone's face. i agree that would be an insane argument to make, but that's not what i've said. obviously binnington's actions outrank a fan rooting against the team on the poor sportsmanship scale. i'm also not suggesting the team is beyond reproach, only that you're using a harsh approach for the whole team because of how you view binnington and that it didn't make sense to me.

 

[bleedblue1223]

I'm going back to this.

I will go to my deathbed maintaining that Brian Elliott was not the problem for the Blues in the playoffs. Was he stellar? No, he wasn't incredible. Neither were those Blues teams when they lost.

* 2012 - Pietrangelo got run in Game 1 of the Kings series, the team looked night and day different after that. Elliott was playing with an inner-ear infection. Halak was out hurt from Game 2 of the San Jose series, and we weren't throwing Jake Allen and all of his 0.00 games of NHL experience into net during the playoffs. The entire team looked shellshocked as the Kings swarmed in waves. We got blown out. We'd have been blown out with Brent Johnson, Chris Osgood and Grant Fuhr in net at the same time.
* 2013 - 6 games, 10 goals. 0 goals from David Perron and Chris Stewart combined. You could see the series turn when we went up 2-0 early in Game 4 and then everyone on the ice quit playing and the Kings crawled back in quickly. Same thing after we went up 3-2 in the 2nd: the team quit playing, eventually the Kings finally broke through and then everyone on the Blues gave up and the Kings scored the eventual GWG. That goal in Game 6, which I swear to god was deflected off Polak's stick. You can blame Elliott for that series loss, but guys who were supposed to be leading this team flat didn't show up. If you hear your goalie is only giving up 12 goals in 6 games, you probably feel decent about your chances to win; when you hear your team only scored 10 goals, it's really tough to imagine it winning at all - and that lack of scoring had nothing to do with Brian Elliott.
* 2016 - Elliott in the first 2 series was fine. The Blues played dominant hockey at times, Elliott was adequate. No one looks back and thinks "wow, Elliott really stole this game for us." Elliott in the WCF was not good. Neither was Allen, who after an allegdly "good" Game 4 (Blues win 6-3) fell completely apart in Game 5 (Sharks win 6-3, Allen gives up 4 goals on 25 shots and that's overstating how well he played). And then the boys came out in Game 6, playoff lives on the line, and rolled over and played dead. 13 goals for the series, against the Sharks and Martin Jones. Backes had a goal. Steen had none. Berglund had none. Tarasenko had 2! - and they were worthless goals at the end of Game 6 where you thought "holy f***ing shit, why didn't we seen this in the first 350 or so minutes of this series?"

Bottom line: Elliott was not a difference maker in net. He also was not Vincent Riendeau or Eddie Johnston, some sole reason we lost any of those playoff series. He was OK.

Well said. And many teams have won over last 30 years with guys like him in net. Osgood in Detroit, Kuemper in Colorado, Crawford in Chicago, ward in Carolina, plus hill and.. not every cup winner has Vasi or Roy or hasek. If team is good enough goalie doesn’t have to be hof level.

Yeah, reality is, those Backes led teams were never good enough to win the Cup. Maybe if Elliott was a HOF level goalie, we could've made a run, but our forward group was also never good enough to get the job done either.