I also watched our games. He was really bad last season. Do you disagree with that?
You can't have it both ways. Either you apply the same standards to Hank as you do to Staal (and previously Girardi) or you don't apply any standards, and any previous team legend gets a free ride. A late 30's goalie who's struggling to even put up average numbers can not go uncontested for a team thats trying to win. Doesn't matter what you've accomplished, gotta get rid of sentiment when you haven't won a Championship in over 20 years. You have to let results decide your decisions. There's no good option right now, so Hank will have another season to show what he can do, but another season like last season, and his starting job should be every much on the line as Staal's is this season.
Hank had his worst season the NHL last year. However his worst year was still better then about 23 other starting goalies. How am I trying to have anything both ways? The numbers don't lie. You are just using flawed numbers. I explained how they are flawed in the last post and you ignored them.
Using a hero system of last year Dan Girardi was in the bottom 4 defenders in the NHL. I don't mean that as a group. He was literally the worst defender with arguably 3 worse then him.
This is the hero chart for him vs the average 3rd line defenders. Icetime for a player with his other numbres shows how bad AV was at understanding where the talent on his team was. However everything else is garbage. His assist got a buff because he was playing with the best players on our team. He earned those numbers but his shotgen and shotsup are a f***ing joke.
Marc Staal is a 6m dollar below average 3rd liner.
These arnt having it both ways. This is them playing some of the worst hockey in the NHL vs Hank playing the worst of his career behind them but still playing a much more complete and better game of hockey then most Goalies in the NHL. Everyone says Raanta had the better season. Raanta faced far less difficult shots. Most coming from the outside. The rangers blocked almost twice as many shots on ice with Raanta as they did with Hank. AKA they were playing more defensively to protect the goalie. If you measure the OpS% for the season they are the same. Hanks worst season saves are the same as Raanta's best season saves. Thats also with Hank having worse defense in front of him.
Now if you want to look at how stats affect the rest of the team when Raanta was in net the rangers player more defensively and had almost a 24% chance of break out LESS then when Hank was in net. Meaning the rangers got out of the zone faster and more frequently with Hank in net. Because they are able to break out more frequently they were able to score more goals. The rangers score more goals off the break out then almost every other team in the NHL so that is kind of a really important stat don't you think?
Stats don't lie. Your eyes do. You are watching a game and you see someone out of position and get beat easily and a goal is scored. Your eyes tell you the player out of position was at fault on the play. However what the stats see and your eyes almost always miss is the the player out of position that got beat was covering the wrong player because someone else missed their coverage and they had to adjust on the fly but was unable to. Your eyes see a player turn over the puck every game and you label them a turn over machine. What the stats see is they make 200 passes and 20 of them were intercepted meaning they have a 90% success rate and 10% failure rate. Then you have another player who doesnt play an offensive game and makes 1 turnover. You think its no big deal. However they only made 1o passes so its the same success vs failure rate the difference being the first player who gets trashed for being a turn over machine added so many more completed passes. When I say YOUR eyes i don't mean you as a person but YOUR as more of a EVERY hockey fan. I am no different. However I have come to embrace the fact that the way most people look at goalies is extremely flawed.
GAA and Save % are the 2 worst ways to measure a goalie. Difficulty of shot can be measured now. Distance of shot can be measured now. Quality of shooter can be measured now. You rather take 15 shots from crosby and ovi or 15 shots from tanner glass and jasper fast? Every logical person would conclude the goalie facing fast and glass would have the better GAA and save % but does that make them the better goalie?
