Just how good is Matt Murray in the playoffs?

[Tom Hanks]

I shouldn't have to clarify on a hockey forum that a year implies a season.

This season isn’t over yet, for some anyway. Last playoffs Murray was injured for some of it. So while you were correct with 11 wins it’s misleading not taking into account the injury or that this season isn’t over.

I shouldn’t have to explain that to you. This thread is about Murray in the playoffs so generally that would mean all the games he’s played.

Started 37, won 26. GAA 2.00, SV% .926. I’d say that’s pretty exceptional. In your sample size he wins 69% of his playoff games.

 

[valet]

And Quick is fortunate to play behind a stingy Kings' defense. And Rask is fortunate to play behind a stingy Bruins defense. And Crawford is fortunate to play behind a dominant Chicago team. And Ken Dryden was fortunate to play behind a 5-in a row Cup winning dynasty.

Why is their success not dismissed because of the teams they played on? Everyone else who sees success like that in the playoffs is considered "elite" or "money". But Murray is replaceable with friggin' Scott Darling and a beneficiary of a good offense (no, you didn't say this last part, but it's been brought up in this thread) because he plays on a good team, while those guys aren't punished for the same thing?

I'm not saying Murray's the greatest ever. I'm not saying he's the best goalie in hockey. But for folks in this thread to act like the ONLY reason he's having playoff success is because his team scores 10 goals every time he starts (hyperbole before anyone nitpicks this point) is asinine.

is your point that he's elite?

he really hasn't had the career of an elite goalie. maybe he will, maybe he won't. it's too hard to say and no one should be claiming anything at this point

as a personal aside, your whole argument was hyperbolic, then you disclaimed hyperbole in your last paragraph, which pretty much invalidates your argument as written. it would be wise to change tactics, cause that kind of rhetoric is just plain confusing. hence my initial question

 

[Ms Maggie]

Pretty sure the Pens are happy with him
Keep in mind he's still very young.

 

[Chimpradamus]

He's good enough to give the Pens a chance to win on most nights. That should be enough for Pens fans at least. He's solid, but we'll see exactly how good in a couple of years.

 

[905PENS]

MM is over rated *bases off one game stats*
Says using overall stats picking stats... Seems legit

Last two years penguins won on luck goal tending and reffs
Sofar luck scoring ability and reffs.... Seems legit
Make your mind up hf

 

[CanadianPensFan1]

Overall? Pretty damn good.

Game 6 of the Flyers series? Looked like Brian Elliot.

 

[MartyOwns]

This season isn’t over yet, for some anyway. Last playoffs Murray was injured for some of it. So while you were correct with 11 wins it’s misleading not taking into account the injury or that this season isn’t over.

I shouldn’t have to explain that to you. This thread is about Murray in the playoffs so generally that would mean all the games he’s played.

Started 37, won 26. GAA 2.00, SV% .926. I’d say that’s pretty exceptional. In your sample size he wins 69% of his playoff games.

Nice

 

[FerrisRox]

For all the hype of Patrick Roy, this guy is beating him in all statistics in the playoffs.

I am truly embarrassed for you.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

He certainly doesn't suck,but he most certainly is a product of his team.

Wrong. His individual stats contradict that.

He is a major reason why they won b2b cups. He gave them steady goaltending in the playoffs,something Pittsburgh hasnt had for a long time.

But just like Justin Williams was a major reason why la won in 2014, it didnt make him a top ten player in the league.

The Pens had Fleury playing on the same team, who was and is an established #1 by any standard. And Murray's numbers were significantly better.

Has Justin Williams ever put up stats in the top 2 of all players at his position in the regular season plus playoffs over a 2 year period? Because Murray did between '15-'16 and '16-'17.

Yup. Here we are patting mm on the back for winning games
8-5,
5-0 (such shutout)
5-1,
7-0 (such shutout)
and going back to last season
2-0 (which i admit was a clutch game)
6-0 (such shutout)
4-1
5-3
3-2
7-0 (such shutout)

Meanwhile quick puts on an absolute clinic and doesnt win a game.

But Murray is the reason why the pens score 5+goals a game. He just makes them so damn confident.

52 goals for in his last 10 playoff wins. Money goalie.

He's not a money goalie because of how many goals his team scores. He's a money goalie because of his awesome GAA and SV%. If Quick's individual numbers were as good as Murray's between '15-'16 and '16-'17 I'm sure his team would have won more often, but they weren't. Not even close, actually.

You seem to be confusing Quick's performance last round with overall performance over the last couple years. But you also seem to have a problem processing the whole idea of "sample size" in general, so that shouldn't come as a surprise.

.

 

[Ogrezilla]

How would Murray do without goal support? The guy is not an elite goalie, he’s the beneficiary of a great offense. Gave up 5 today and people are still piling on the praise, hilarious.

After this 8-5 win, Matt Murray has won exactly 4 playoff games when giving up 3 goals or more. The Penguins win when he is great, they rarely win otherwise. He's been great often enough to win two Cups in a row. He bails the team out as often if not more often than they bail him out.

 

[SavedByRoy]

Don't bring my man Patrick Roy into the discusssion until Murray plays a few more seasons.

Or until he answers a reporter's question with "I can't hear what _____ says because I have my two Stanley Cup ring plugging my ear" quip.

But Murray has been fantastic, and the reason they let Fleury go in the expansion draft.