Player Discussion Tuukka Rask - Part IV

[LSCII]

So far this team stinks on ice, and virtually everyone on the roster has some culpability in that regards. That being said though, Rask cannot win games by himself. The team can't score, and once they fall down 2-0, it's a near lock they're going to lose. That's not on the goalies.

 

[mmk]

He played an excellent game against the Caps. 3 for 3 on clean breakaways I think. The ovechkin laser and Wilson deflection were not stoppable shots. Even the first Wilson goal was damn near unstoppable. Rask was fantastic and gave us a chance to win.

 

[James Walker]

7 mill is outrageous? Not in this league. I "think" only Lundqvist and Bobvrosky are paid more than Tuukka until next year when Price`s newest extension kicks in at an "outrageous" price tag.

Crawford only makes a mill less than Tuukka and has 3 rings, THAT is outrageous, other than him, plenty of goalies on this list below who haven`t done something that Rask has done, win a ring

http://www.spotrac.com/nhl/rankings/average/goaltender/

Crawford has 2 rings. I don't think playing in 1 regular season loss in 2009-10 qualified him for a "ring".

 

[Hali33]

One thing I've liked about his game so far this season is he seems to be able to recover in game. The last couple seasons, its felt like if the Bruins were down early or he let in a iffy goal or two, that was the mindspace he was in and you knew who you were gonna get the rest of the game.

It's nice to see him being an active part of the comeback, even if its not enough some games. Some big 3rd period battling out of him, even if its not enough to get a win in the end. Haven't always gotten that from him and it has a big effect on the momentum in front of him.

 

[What The Puck]

So far this team stinks on ice, and virtually everyone on the roster has some culpability in that regards. That being said though, Rask cannot win games by himself. The team can't score, and once they fall down 2-0, it's a near lock they're going to lose. That's not on the goalies.

We can't analyze Rask because the rest of the team sucks? Do I have that right? So that goal in OT against LA was because of the team in front of him? I just don't understand the rules around when Rask deserves criticism. Apparently the last three years are because of the team in front of him, and if that's the case, how do you justify $7 million per year?

For me, I'm going to judge Rask based on whether he's better than average and whether he's worth his salary. On both counts, he's not. 24th for percentage and 18th for GAA (https://www.foxsports.com/nhl/stats...sort=9&time=0&pos=5&team=0&qual=1&sortOrder=0).

 

[Comedy of Errors]

Everyone still on the Rask bandwagon ought to keep them eyes on his save percentage. If anyone thinks the Bruins defense is any better or worse than other teams in the league should stop that notion in its tracks.

http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?rep...,gte,4&sort=savePctg,wins,goalsAgainstAverage

Rask has been abysmal and it's clear the Bruins have a goaltender problem that stretches back to the Stanley Cup Finals with the Blackhawks and that center ice goal he gave up.

 

[wintersej]

Everyone still on the Rask bandwagon ought to keep them eyes on his save percentage. If anyone thinks the Bruins defense is any better or worse than other teams in the league should stop that notion in its tracks.

http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?rep...,gte,4&sort=savePctg,wins,goalsAgainstAverage

Rask has been abysmal and it's clear the Bruins have a goaltender problem that stretches back to the Stanley Cup Finals with the Blackhawks and that center ice goal he gave up.

Oh man, I have never thought to look at a guys save % before. This was very helpful, thank you. Looking at this gave me a great idea. Why don't we just get the cheapest d-men there are and just spend money on the highest save percentage goalie there is? If we had a goalie with a high save percentage, we don't even need good d-men and we could spend all the cap money on GOALS. I can't believe no one has thought of this strategy before. Do you think we could get Oscar Dansk? His save percentage this year is 0.946. Maybe they would take Bergeron for him? Bergeron is cool and all, but with a high saye percentage goalie, we won't even need his defense.

 

[Seidenbergy]

Everyone still on the Rask bandwagon ought to keep them eyes on his save percentage. If anyone thinks the Bruins defense is any better or worse than other teams in the league should stop that notion in its tracks.

http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?rep...,gte,4&sort=savePctg,wins,goalsAgainstAverage

Rask has been abysmal and it's clear the Bruins have a goaltender problem that stretches back to the Stanley Cup Finals with the Blackhawks and that center ice goal he gave up.

LOL. You do realize it's a joke to look at one particular stat at this point in the season to make a case for anything, don't you? Unless of course you have an agenda like the poster above you.

Goalies that have a worse save percentage than Tuukka today: Lundqvist, Murray, Luongo, Anderson and Price, just to name a few.

 

[wintersej]

We can't analyze Rask because the rest of the team sucks? Do I have that right? So that goal in OT against LA was because of the team in front of him? I just don't understand the rules around when Rask deserves criticism. Apparently the last three years are because of the team in front of him, and if that's the case, how do you justify $7 million per year?

For me, I'm going to judge Rask based on whether he's better than average and whether he's worth his salary. On both counts, he's not. 24th for percentage and 18th for GAA (https://www.foxsports.com/nhl/stats...sort=9&time=0&pos=5&team=0&qual=1&sortOrder=0).

A mediocre starting goalie in the NHL makes 5 million a year. Rask makes 7. Rask has proven that he can be Vezina good in front of a good team. He has proven he can't be Vezina good in front of a bad team. So, he isn't Hasek or Price (from a few years ago at least, seems like that star is getting less bright). Is being a guy who can take advantage of a good team in front of him worth an extra two million over Anderson, Niemi, Howard and Smith?

 

[LSCII]

We can't analyze Rask because the rest of the team sucks? Do I have that right? So that goal in OT against LA was because of the team in front of him? I just don't understand the rules around when Rask deserves criticism. Apparently the last three years are because of the team in front of him, and if that's the case, how do you justify $7 million per year?

For me, I'm going to judge Rask based on whether he's better than average and whether he's worth his salary. On both counts, he's not. 24th for percentage and 18th for GAA (https://www.foxsports.com/nhl/stats...sort=9&time=0&pos=5&team=0&qual=1&sortOrder=0).

No, you can literally judge whatever you want, and I'd never stop anyone from that.

What I will say is that when you watch the team have the same kind of defensive breakdowns game after game, you come off as ignorant taking the easiest way out by blaming the play in net if and when those breakdowns lead to bad goals.

 

[What The Puck]

No, you can literally judge whatever you want, and I'd never stop anyone from that.

What I will say is that when you watch the team have the same kind of defensive breakdowns game after game, you come off as ignorant taking the easiest way out by blaming the play in net if and when those breakdowns lead to bad goals.

Bylsma just now on nhl network mentioning not getting the goaltending from Rask. I guess we are both "ignorant." Also, I'm looking at the last three years, not just the beginning of this year.

 

[Comedy of Errors]

LOL. You do realize it's a joke to look at one particular stat at this point in the season to make a case for anything, don't you? Unless of course you have an agenda like the poster above you.

Goalies that have a worse save percentage than Tuukka today: Lundqvist, Murray, Luongo, Anderson and Price, just to name a few.

Sarcasm doesn't increase save percentage.

I am sick and tired of these Rask apologists. Go and watch that goal he gave up from center ice during the cup finals. THATS RASK! They gave him a huge payday for that. WTF is going on with the Bruins questions starts with Rask being nowhere near anything special.

 

[Comedy of Errors]

Oh man, I have never thought to look at a guys save % before. This was very helpful, thank you. Looking at this gave me a great idea. Why don't we just get the cheapest d-men there are and just spend money on the highest save percentage goalie there is? If we had a goalie with a high save percentage, we don't even need good d-men and we could spend all the cap money on GOALS. I can't believe no one has thought of this strategy before. Do you think we could get Oscar Dansk? His save percentage this year is 0.946. Maybe they would take Bergeron for him? Bergeron is cool and all, but with a high saye percentage goalie, we won't even need his defense.

Sarcasm doesn't increase save percentage.

I am sick and tired of these Rask apologists. Go and watch that goal he gave up from center ice during the cup finals. THATS RASK! They gave him a huge payday for that. WTF is going on with the Bruins questions starts with Rask being nowhere near anything special.

 

[LSCII]

Bylsma just now on nhl network mentioning not getting the goaltending from Rask. I guess we are both "ignorant." Also, I'm looking at the last three years, not just the beginning of this year.

Okay, great. You agree with Bylsma. Good for both of you. It doesn't change my view of this situation though. You could take George Vezina himself and have him play net here and they'd still lose most games 3-1.

In case you haven't cracked the code, they can't f***ing score goals because they're a one line offensive team with a collective bag of suck on the other 3 lines. No goalie is going to fix that problem. You and Dan Bylsma, suggesting that means you fully expect Tuukka Rask to play Vezina caliber net for 82 games, because that's what they'd need from him just to stay close in most games. And this isn't about just this year either. It was the same way last year. People pissed and moaned about a lack of quality starts from the backup goalie spot, but it wasn't on Dobby, Subban, or McIntyre. It was on the team. If they didn't get (and I may be off slightly because it was a year ago when I crunched these numbers) something like a .920 save percentage in any given game, they lost. So to me, the expectation that you get that kind of play from your goalie all the time is the problem. Not the guy in net. In other words, it ain't him. It's you.

 

[LSCII]

Sarcasm doesn't increase save percentage.

I am sick and tired of these Rask apologists. Go and watch that goal he gave up from center ice during the cup finals. THATS RASK! They gave him a huge payday for that. WTF is going on with the Bruins questions starts with Rask being nowhere near anything special.

So wait, you're telling me that a goalie let in a marginal goal once during the playoffs? Color me shocked. First time in the history of this sport that this has happened, no?

And for the record, I'm not a Rask apologist. I preferred Tim Thomas over him every day of the week, and I also would have kept Martin Jones and traded Rask when they got him in the Lucic trade.

 

[What The Puck]

So wait, you're telling me that a goalie let in a marginal goal once during the playoffs? Color me shocked. First time in the history of this sport that this has happened, no?

And for the record, I'm not a Rask apologist. I preferred Tim Thomas over him every day of the week, and I also would have kept Martin Jones and traded Rask when they got him in the Lucic trade.

He let in one from the blue line against Washington. And then there was that face-off goal where he was out of position in OT against LA. It's not just one or two games. It's a pattern of letting in softies.
I expect Rask to make the saves that he should make, especially in pressure situations. Also, I agree with you about Martin Jones. I called that at the time.

 

[LSCII]

He let in one from the blue line against Washington. And then there was that face-off goal where he was out of position in OT against LA. It's not just one or two games. It's a pattern of letting in softies.
I expect Rask to make the saves that he should make, especially in pressure situations. Also, I agree with you about Martin Jones. I called that at the time.

You're talking anecdotally, which means you don't have any actual numbers to back up your claim that this is on him. You have one off stories of a bad goal here and there. I get it, but I guarantee you it's right in line with most goalies on all the other teams. Goalies sometimes let in a bad goal. It happens.

Here's some for you though: They score less goals for than the league average. They also give up less goals than the league average. So the problem isn't defense and net play. It's goal scoring. If they can manage to score more than a couple of goals in a game, they can maybe win one.

 

[NDiesel]

You're talking anecdotally, which means you don't have any actual numbers to back up your claim that this is on him. You have one off stories of a bad goal here and there. I get it, but I guarantee you it's right in line with most goalies on all the other teams. Goalies sometimes let in a bad goal. It happens.

Here's some for you though: They score less goals for than the league average. They also give up less goals than the league average. So the problem isn't defense and net play. It's goal scoring. If they can manage to score more than a couple of goals in a game, they can maybe win one.

But have you seen his save percentage?

 

[Glove Malfunction]

But have you seen his save percentage?

I heard save percentage is really the only thing you should need to look at.

 

[BruinsNetwork]

He let in one from the blue line against Washington. And then there was that face-off goal where he was out of position in OT against LA. It's not just one or two games. It's a pattern of letting in softies.
I expect Rask to make the saves that he should make, especially in pressure situations. Also, I agree with you about Martin Jones. I called that at the time.

With all due respect, if you think Rask was "out of position" for that LA goal, you really shouldn't be posting on a hockey forum.

 

[Hali33]

Yeah what a ****ing mushroom Rask is for being in position for the play that happens 99% of the time off the faceoff with 1 second left instead of anticipating they'd pull off a shockingly perfect play. Some real experts on this board, how lucky we are.

There are some legit reasons to have concerns with Rask, you don't need to keep talking about a goal from 4 years ago. My god. Did you see some of the junk that went in on the top goalies this past playoffs? At least he got a team to the finals.

 

[LSCII]

But have you seen his save percentage?

For this year? Sure. It's .903. But WhatThePuck said over the last 3 years, so a small 9 game sample size from this year would be statistically irrelevant in this discussion.

 

[NDiesel]

For this year? Sure. It's .903. But WhatThePuck said over the last 3 years, so a small 9 game sample size from this year would be statistically irrelevant in this discussion.

I should've put the sarcasm smiley...last game was the perfect example. Rask made a huge penalty shot save followed by being totally left out to dry multiple times.

When his save percentage was good previously people complained he never made big saves. All I have seen is huge saves this year to bail guys out, but now it's all about save %...

 

[whatsbruin]

We can't analyze Rask because the rest of the team sucks? Do I have that right? So that goal in OT against LA was because of the team in front of him? I just don't understand the rules around when Rask deserves criticism. Apparently the last three years are because of the team in front of him, and if that's the case, how do you justify $7 million per year?

For me, I'm going to judge Rask based on whether he's better than average and whether he's worth his salary. On both counts, he's not. 24th for percentage and 18th for GAA (https://www.foxsports.com/nhl/stats...sort=9&time=0&pos=5&team=0&qual=1&sortOrder=0).

I never played goal, but I see no issues with the LAK ot goal .
Tuuka is square to the faceoff dot, unbelievably clean faceoff win by LAK, perfectly placed for a one-timer laser by the defensemen.

 

[ODAAT]

So far this team stinks on ice, and virtually everyone on the roster has some culpability in that regards. That being said though, Rask cannot win games by himself. The team can't score, and once they fall down 2-0, it's a near lock they're going to lose. That's not on the goalies.

agreed and man o` man, how many breakaways has this team given up this year?