News Article: News & Notes XXXI: What the Fau... Foegele Will Happen This Season?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Boom Boom Apathy

I am the Professor. Deal with it!
Sep 6, 2006
48,375
97,988
So James Reimer is .... fine? Been playing solid lately.

Yep. Reimer is a .914SV% goalie throughout his career. Prior to the 1 bad season last year where he was .900, he put up .918, .920 and .913 SV% the prior 3 seasons. Mrazek is a career .910 SV% goalie throughout his career. He put up .914 last year and .910 (with Detroit, not after the trade to Philly) the year before.

Unless injuries or "wear and tear" hit, their career #s are what I kind of expect from these two by year end. They'll have some ups and downs along the way, but most goalies do.
 

Navin R Slavin

Fifth line center
Jan 1, 2011
16,217
63,682
Durrm NC
Pay the men and not the women (because why would you, they cost you money) and that would ignite quite the firestorm.

You may have changed my mind!

I'm all for Title IX, but not at the expense of the kids who generate all the revenue.

Sports that generate surplus revenue should pay the kids a chunk of that revenue. It's as simple as that, really. If women's basketball starts making money for a school, pay them too.

The only real Title IX issue is equity in non-revenue sports. If non-revenue programs get cut, so be it; cut them across the board. There's no reason to privilege a men's tennis team over a women's basketball team.

And besides, this is conflating issues. No one is seriously arguing that women should be paid the same as men in pro sports when men draw many times the revenue that women do. No one's arguing that Sue Bird should make as much as LeBron James. But pro tennis and the American WWC team are perfect examples of where women should absolutely be paid more, because they generate more money than their male counterparts.
 

The Stranger

Registered User
May 4, 2014
1,233
2,077
Yep. Reimer is a .914SV% goalie throughout his career. Prior to the 1 bad season last year where he was .900, he put up .918, .920 and .913 SV% the prior 3 seasons. Mrazek is a career .910 SV% goalie throughout his career. He put up .914 last year and .910 (with Detroit, not after the trade to Philly) the year before.

Unless injuries or "wear and tear" hit, their career #s are what I kind of expect from these two by year end. They'll have some ups and downs along the way, but most goalies do.

Bobrovsky isn't putting up good stats playing behind that FLA team either.

It's pretty hard to decouple team performance from goalie performance and statistics.

Just looking at Reimer's SV% from last year is not a great way to evaluate his value as a player.
 

Boom Boom Apathy

I am the Professor. Deal with it!
Sep 6, 2006
48,375
97,988
Bobrovsky isn't putting up good stats playing behind that FLA team either.

It's pretty hard to decouple team performance from goalie performance and statistics.

Just looking at Reimer's SV% from last year is not a great way to evaluate his value as a player.

Yep, I agree (if I wasn't clear in my post).
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaveG

A Star is Burns

Formerly Azor Aho
Sponsor
Dec 6, 2011
12,378
39,483
Reimer and Mrazek have both been plenty good for us, no matter what the stats say at any given time. They put us in a position to win on a regular basis, and they are rarely THE reason we lose a game. We've seen these anonymous quotes on our goalies from the beginning of last season in these polls about not trusting our goalies, but they continue to get it done. And it's not just the defense. We've seen goalies that couldn't make the timely save or were absolutely not putting us in a position to win with awful goals even when their numbers were okay to fine. Everyone except Darling this season and last have been making most of the saves they need to.
 

Boom Boom Apathy

I am the Professor. Deal with it!
Sep 6, 2006
48,375
97,988
Reimer and Mrazek have both been plenty good for us, no matter what the stats say at any given time. They put us in a position to win on a regular basis, and they are rarely THE reason we lose a game. We've seen these anonymous quotes on our goalies from the beginning of last season in these polls about not trusting our goalies, but they continue to get it done. And it's not just the defense. We've seen goalies that couldn't make the timely save or were absolutely not putting us in a position to win with awful goals even when their numbers were okay to fine. Everyone except Darling this season and last have been making most of the saves they need to.

Yep, here's how many goals the team has scored in it's 11 losses: 0, 0, 2, 3, 1, 2, 1, 3, 2, 2, 2

In 9 of 11 regulation losses, they have scored 2 or less goals. In 4 of 11 regulation losses, they have scored 0 or 1 goal.

Average scoring in losses: 1.6 goals / game.
Average scoring in total: 3.3 goals / game
Average scoring in wins: 4.2 goals / game (3.8 when removing EN goals).

You'll usually lose more than you win scoring 2 goals or less. If my quick counting is right, even the Islanders have only won 3 games when they score 2 or less goals and lost/OTL 8 games when they scored 2 or under.
 
Last edited:

Anton Dubinchuk

aho
Sponsor
Jul 18, 2010
26,181
55,116
Atlanta, GA
Yep, here's how many goals the team has scored in it's 11 losses: 0, 0, 2, 3, 1, 2, 1, 3, 2, 2, 2

In 9 of 11 regulation losses, they have scored 2 or less goals. In 4 of 11 regulation losses, they have scored 0 or 1 goal.

Average scoring in losses: 1.6 goals / game.
Average scoring in total: 3.3 goals / game
Average scoring in wins: 4.2 goals / game

You'll usually lose more than you win scoring 2 goals or less. If my quick counting is right, even the Islanders have only won 3 games when they score 2 or less goals and lost/OTL 8 games when they scored 2 or under.

This is an interesting breakdown, I do wonder how the numbers change when you remove ENG, since that’s basically a “bonus” goal for winning the game (maybe half of wins will get this bonus, and none of the losses). Might be up to .5GPG bias towards wins.
 

Boom Boom Apathy

I am the Professor. Deal with it!
Sep 6, 2006
48,375
97,988
This is an interesting breakdown, I do wonder how the numbers change when you remove ENG, since that’s basically a “bonus” goal for winning the game (maybe half of wins will get this bonus, and none of the losses). Might be up to .5GPG bias towards wins.

Canes have 8 ENG this year and scored 80 goals in wins. Removing the ENG's changes the average scoring in wins to: 3.8 goals / game, so not quite .5, but close.

Good point so I added it to my prior post.
 

My Special Purpose

Registered User
Apr 8, 2008
8,151
21,787
He's providing league average goal tending (or nearly so). I like him as a personality, but I'd shed no tears if we replaced him with John Gibson, for example.

I think Mrazek has earned his role as a fan favorite. In front of the home crowd he is 22-8-1 as a Hurricane. People like seeing wins.

If one playoff series defined a goalies’ stature they would be a bunch more starter goalies in the league over its history.

....and it has been said, indeed begged for here on HFCanes....just give us league average goaltending and we're a playoff team. Petr's missed a few saves he should have had, but by and large most of his efforts have been pretty good and we've lost his games more because of defensive breakdowns.

Mrazek's popularity with fans and in the room is a testament to how badly we've needed a goalie for the past 12 years or so.We got a solidly average guy and everybody loves him.

We finally have a team where (knock on wood), goaltending isn't a major reason when we lose. Mrazek has the 32nd highest cap hit among goalies and I'd say were getting better than 32nd highest paid performance from him.

I said this at the beginning of the season. Goaltending will not be any more of a key for us than any other team -- in the sense that bad goaltending will kill any team.
 

hblueridgegal

Timing is Everything
Sponsor
Sep 13, 2019
7,481
26,403
Old North State
Screen-Shot-2019-12-10-at-10.23.06-AM.png


From The Athletic: Jake Gardiner also made an appearance at #8 in The Top 10 biggest disappointments of the 2019-20 season so far.

Re: Jake they offered quite a bit of pros/cons content about his situation - more so than others in the Top 10
 
Last edited:

TheReelChuckFletcher

Former TheRillestPaulFenton; Harverd Alum
Jun 30, 2011
10,174
22,751
Raleigh and Chapel Hill, NC
still kinda blown away that the Canes got a perfectly acceptable backup for Scott Dang Darling and a 6th round pick or whatever

It's all because Dale Tallon stupidly made Reimer's contract signing-bonus laden. Carolina essentially took advantage of bad GMing and a team panicking for Bobrovsky.
 

emptyNedder

Not seeking rents
Sponsor
Jan 17, 2018
3,809
8,575
Before the season I said that Aho's first three seasons were "eerily similar" to John Tavares' first three seasons. With Aho having significantly more goals this season, I figured that had changed. WELL
Tavares' fourth season was a lockout. He only played 48 games. He went 28/19/47
After last night Aho's pace pro-rated for 48 games is: 28/17/45.

I guess the downside is that Tavares has yet to have a 90-point season.
 

Boom Boom Apathy

I am the Professor. Deal with it!
Sep 6, 2006
48,375
97,988
View attachment 289713

From The Athletic: Jake Gardiner also made an appearance at #8 in The Top 10 biggest disappointments of the 2019-20 season so far.

That's great though. Staal and Gardiner to this point in the season are two of the league's biggest disappointments and the team is in a playoff spot and on pace for 103 points, which would be the 2nd best in team history. Imagine when Nino, Staal and Gardiner all turn it around?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad