Good question. Where I'm at is that I've seen even the best goalie we've had in franchise history be made to look bad statistically by the current iteration of our defence. I don't think we can analyze Berra's numbers in a vacuum, but I don't think he's quite at legit starter level yet either. I look at cases like Giguere in Colorado: .908 SV% a year ago on a bad team, .940 SV% this year on a good team.
I think that is a good point. But if Berra's SA% was .908 I would be more supportive.
I was merely pointing out initially that I don't think the Boston game showed us anything. Berra had very little work to do, and then he had two chances against which were of high difficulty. He didn't cost us anything. I think that's all you can ask from your starter. That said, there have been games when he has cost the team. So overall, I'm inclined to agree with you, just not in the context of the Boston game. Recently, Berra's shown improvement, and the ability to improve under coaching is just another asset.
I differ slightly. I think the Boston game was typical of what we have seen from Berra(sometimes Ramo too). I will even give Berra the deflection goal. But he has to stop the second goal to give us a chance. I just watched it again, trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I can't, that was a bad goal.
As you pointed out Berra has been improving and looks to be highly coachable and competitive. I can't stress enough that I don't blame him at all, he is giving us what he has. But as it stands his bad goals are too frequent and extremely deflating. I don't even care about the points, just the effect it has on the guys after playing well and not being able to count on him for the one or two big saves when they falter and the game is hanging in the balance.
If I have a beef it is not with Berra, it is with Hartley who I believe should have started Ramo last night. Ramo looked somewhat inept against Col as well, but he was outstanding against LA and Phoenix.
Thanks again for your thoughts.