zzZZzz.... Uhh.. Habs won? 2-1

[Nynja*]

Canucks other goalie stats in 2009:
29 y/o Curtis Sanford 7-8-0 .906 2.59
29 y/o Jason LaBarbera 3-2-2 .915 2.66
22 y/o Cory Schneider 2-4-1 .877 3.38

The Canucks went 45-27-10 on the year. Lu missed 25 games from Nov 22 (I'm not gonna count this game cause he played 5 min) till his return Jan 15. The Nucks went 10-12-3 in his absence (key word being absence, not "games he didnt start because he was being rested"), a .460 point percentage. With Lu in the lineup, they went 35-15-7, a .675 point percentage. That's a .215 drop. Yes, its a drop, but its not a drop of .800 to .200 like with the habs, and this is a goaltender who at the time was considered part of the elite 5.

Canucks scoring went from 3.08 goals per game (in reg/OT) with Lu in the lineup to scoring 2.68 goals per game in his absence. A drop, yes...but not a drop of two goals per game difference like with the habs in Price's extended absence.


People can point fingers at Condon/Tokarski/Scriv's sv% all they want, but I'm not buying it. A good chunk of those goals were clearly the product of ECHL caliber defensive play. An elite goaltender like Price would maybe bail the team out on some of those, but expecting the backup goaltender to routinely bail the team out on giveaways in the slot or poorly played 2 on 1's is ridiculous.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Canucks other goalie stats in 2009:
29 y/o Curtis Sanford 7-8-0 .906 2.59
29 y/o Jason LaBarbera 3-2-2 .915 2.66
22 y/o Cory Schneider 2-4-1 .877 3.38

The Canucks went 45-27-10 on the year. Lu missed 25 games from Nov 22 (I'm not gonna count this game cause he played 5 min) till his return Jan 15. The Nucks went 10-12-3 in his absence (key word being absence, not "games he didnt start because he was being rested"), a .460 point percentage. With Lu in the lineup, they went 35-15-7, a .675 point percentage. That's a .215 drop. Yes, its a drop, but its not a drop of .800 to .200 like with the habs, and this is a goaltender who at the time was considered part of the elite 5.

Canucks scoring went from 3.08 goals per game (in reg/OT) with Lu in the lineup to scoring 2.68 goals per game in his absence. A drop, yes...but not a drop of two goals per game difference like with the habs in Price's extended absence.


People can point fingers at Condon/Tokarski/Scriv's sv% all they want, but I'm not buying it. A good chunk of those goals were clearly the product of ECHL caliber defensive play. An elite goaltender like Price would maybe bail the team out on some of those, but expecting the backup goaltender to routinely bail the team out on giveaways in the slot or poorly played 2 on 1's is ridiculous.

We shouldn't go 2-10 or whatever because we lost Price. But we also lost Gallagher at the same time and that was a double whammy.

On the year we're about .500 when Price doesn't start. That's about what I would expect. No doubt though that there are guys (Max esp) who have to step it up.

 

[Nynja*]

On the year we're about .500 when Price doesn't start. That's about what I would expect. No doubt though that there are guys (Max esp) who have to step it up.

I said it before: you cant treat games where Price sits out for rest days equal to games where Price was expected to be out short term equal to games where it was announced that Price would be out "a minimum of 6 weeks".

You said it yourself before that Budaj looked good because he got isolated starts, and when Price went down after the Olympics, he was exposed.


Theres no doubt that losing Price long term will have an effect on team morale, but I'd like to think a good coach (especially one that MT supporters have dubbed as "a great motivator") can find ways to keep morale up.

 

[LastWordArmy]

the other example of a team losing a goalie would be when the Nucks lost Lu for an extended period of time. At the time Lu was considered part of the elite 5, and when he went down the Canucks went from like .750 to .450 (estimating by memory). If we dropped to a .450 team in Prices extended absence, we would still be a much better team right now.

3-12-0 is a LOT worse than 6-9-0 (and thats just .400). those extra 6 points would give us a decent lead in the Atlantic instead of flirting with outside of the playoffs.


@lastword
You cant just consider thay all games that price was rested, price was injured short term and the games after it was announced that price would be out long term to all be equal.

Sorry what? Why are the game during price's first injury not equal to now? That doesn't make any sense.

 

[LastWordArmy]

They are .250 for 40% of the current season. Not a small sample size.

They aren't 250... they are 13-14-3 without price. How is that .250???

 

[LastWordArmy]

I said it before: you cant treat games where Price sits out for rest days equal to games where Price was expected to be out short term equal to games where it was announced that Price would be out "a minimum of 6 weeks".

You said it yourself before that Budaj looked good because he got isolated starts, and when Price went down after the Olympics, he was exposed.


Theres no doubt that losing Price long term will have an effect on team morale, but I'd like to think a good coach (especially one that MT supporters have dubbed as "a great motivator") can find ways to keep morale up.

Ok fine, don't count rest days, there was like 2 of those. But the rest all count.

There was no "isolated starts" in Price's first absence.

We couldn't cherry pick easy games for the back up goalie to play. Condon had to play every game, whether that was beating the Bruins, Sens, Jets, Penguins, etc... he didn't get to avoid playoff teams or whatever, he played the schedule as put in front of him.

so this idea that only the second injury shows what our record is without price, but the first one doesn't, is utter hogwash. Its cherry picked stats.

 

[Rapala]

They are .250 for 40% of the current season. Not a small sample size.

The odds are we lose the next 4 if we play the same game.

 

[AshyHabs]

I just woke up from that game.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

I said it before: you cant treat games where Price sits out for rest days equal to games where Price was expected to be out short term equal to games where it was announced that Price would be out "a minimum of 6 weeks".

You said it yourself before that Budaj looked good because he got isolated starts, and when Price went down after the Olympics, he was exposed.

Theres no doubt that losing Price long term will have an effect on team morale, but I'd like to think a good coach (especially one that MT supporters have dubbed as "a great motivator") can find ways to keep morale up.

I don't disagree. The team should've done better than it has. I'd say there were some games that we should've won during that streak that we didn't but ultimately there were too many times where we've looked disinterested.

But it's disingenuous to say that Price has nothing to do with the play out there. His loss has an effect for sure.

 

[waffledave]

They aren't 250... they are 13-14-3 without price. How is that .250???

I'm talking about how they were 19-4 at one point, and are now 23-16. That's the slump. That's record since the team started playing horrifically bad.

By the way, the team was 16-4 before Price went down with injury, and went up to 19-4 when they played Columbus.

They are now 23-16. So they went 4-12 after the Columbus game.

 

[Rapala]

I'm talking about how they were 19-4 at one point, and are now 23-16. That's the slump. That's record since the team started playing horrifically bad.

By the way, the team was 16-4 before Price went down with injury, and went up to 19-4 when they played Columbus.

They are now 23-16. So they went 4-12 after the Columbus game.

Why would we want to look at our record from the day we started playing like ****?
Much better that we water down the truth.

 

[Runner77]

So they went 4-12 after the Columbus game.

Yeah but ...

Montreal Canadiens forward Tomas Plekanec believes there's more to his team than just an all-world goaltender in Carey Price.

The suggestion has been repeatedly made over the past couple of seasons that the Canadiens' success as a team relies almost solely on the reigning Hart and Vezina Trophy winner holding down the fort in net, with a lack of scoring talent up front. But Plekanec, who has played his entire career as a teammate of Price's in Montreal, is tired of hearing that narrative.

"You know what? I'm kind of sick of hearing that we're a team that's just about Carey," Plekanec told NHL.com's Arpon Basu. "Obviously he's the best goaltender in the world, we all know that. But should we feel sorry for ourselves that we play in front of him?

"He's a great goalie, but I think we're a better team than that.

http://www.thescore.com/nhl/news/835500

Sure thing, Pleky.

 

[waffledave]

Why would we want to look at our record from the day we started playing like ****?
Much better that we water down the truth.

It's been half the season that the entire team is playing like crap. That's more than just a slump, it points to serious, serious issues.

 

[Tyson]

A win against the Devils last night in that fashion still feels like a loss 24 hours later

 

[Lshap]

It's been half the season that the entire team is playing like crap. That's more than just a slump, it points to serious, serious issues.

After 26 games, Habs were 19-4-3 on Dec. 3. They've gone 3-2 the last five games, since the Dec. 28 win in Tampa.

The actual slump (or whatever you choose to call it) was the three-week span when they went 1-10. Those 11 games were a definite nightmare, but nowhere near half the season.

 

[Nynja*]

Sorry what? Why are the game during price's first injury not equal to now? That doesn't make any sense.

How does it not make sense?

Price is injured, but its expected to be short term. Morale doesnt take a hit because "we can survive a few games without Price, no big deal". Price is injured again, and no one knows the timetable still, whats another few games without Pricer? No big deal. "Carey Price will be sidelined for atleast 6 weeks"...and now morale takes a hit. 6 weeks isnt a few games, its a decent chunk of the season.

 

[habs247]

After 26 games, Habs were 19-4-3 on Dec. 3. They've gone 3-2 the last five games, since the Dec. 28 win in Tampa.

The actual slump (or whatever you choose to call it) was the three-week span when they went 1-10. Those 11 games were a definite nightmare, but nowhere near half the season.

1 of those wins were against the Bruins.

Lately that match up has been the Washington Generals vs. the Globetrotters.

 

[Nynja*]

After 26 games, Habs were 19-4-3 on Dec. 3. They've gone 3-2 the last five games, since the Dec. 28 win in Tampa.

The actual slump (or whatever you choose to call it) was the three-week span when they went 1-10. Those 11 games were a definite nightmare, but nowhere near half the season.

I get its two points all the same, but seriously, barely beating the Devils who are missing their top scorer when theyre probably even more of a popgun offence than the Habs are is pretty bad.

Habs have: 2 players with 30+ points, 2 players with 25+ points, 4 players with 20+ points (one is injured), and another 7 with 10+ points (one was scratched because reasons).
Devils have: 1 player with 35+ points (injured), 1 player with 30+ points, 2 players with 25+ points, 3 players with 10+ points.

Our top 5 pointleaders that game combined for 141 points, the Devils 116 points. The next 5 for us combined for 80 points, the Devils 41 points.

 

[Lshap]

I get its two points all the same, but seriously, barely beating the Devils who are missing their top scorer when theyre probably even more of a popgun offence than the Habs are is pretty bad.

Habs have: 2 players with 30+ points, 2 players with 25+ points, 4 players with 20+ points (one is injured), and another 7 with 10+ points (one was scratched because reasons).
Devils have: 1 player with 35+ points (injured), 1 player with 30+ points, 2 players with 25+ points, 3 players with 10+ points.

Our top 5 pointleaders that game combined for 141 points, the Devils 116 points. The next 5 for us combined for 80 points, the Devils 41 points.

Should/coulda/woulda works both ways. You think Montreal didn't deserve last night's win? It's equally valid to say the other team didn't deserve to win some of those December games. During that 11-game crap-fest, we outshot the opponents 359-265. Even with weak/perimeter shots, that's impressive.

But the most glaring stat is the fantastically low amount of shots the Habs allowed. During that 1-10 nightmare we allowed only 265 shots -- that's a minuscule 25 shots-per-game. Any other team would love those numbers. We shut down the other teams VERY effectively, yet lost 10 out of 11 games! The biggest reason was our goaltending, which gave up 35 goals during those games, a SV% of way below .900. I realize we couldn't score, but the whole team system is screwed when they have to adjust to such poor support in nets.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Should/coulda/woulda works both ways. You think Montreal didn't deserve last night's win? It's equally valid to say the other team didn't deserve to win some of those December games. During that 11-game crap-fest, we outshot the opponents 359-265. Even with weak/perimeter shots, that's impressive.

But the most glaring stat is the fantastically low amount of shots the Habs allowed. During that 1-10 nightmare we allowed only 265 shots -- that's a minuscule 25 shots-per-game. Any other team would love those numbers. We shut down the other teams VERY effectively, yet lost 10 out of 11 games! The biggest reason was our goaltending, which gave up 35 goals during those games, a SV% of way below .900. I realize we couldn't score, but the whole team system is screwed when they have to adjust to such poor support in nets.

Case in point: No way we should've lost to the Kings. We totally outplayed them.

The slump was bad but there's no one single thing to blame. And we did outplay (or were at least as good as) our opponents in many of those games.

 

[Nynja*]

The biggest reason was our goaltending, which gave up 35 goals during those games, a SV% of way below .900. I realize we couldn't score, but the whole team system is screwed when they have to adjust to such poor support in nets.

Yup, its the goaltendings fault...all the goaltenders fault.

[NHL]2015020421-604-ingame-a[/NHL]
All Condon's fault there

[NHL]2015020417-680-ingame-h[/NHL]
All Condon's fault there too, what a scrub, he should be bailing his team out for ECHL defensive lapses.

[NHL]2015020458-94-ingame-h[/NHL]
Scrub Tokarski, didnt you know the defender is supposed to play the shot and you play the pass?!?


There were like 3 weak goals in that losing stretch. The rest was deflections or garbage defensive play like the ones above that the goaltenders just failed to bail their team out. And yes, they made some really nice saves to bail the team out in that stretch as well.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Yup, its the goaltendings fault...all the goaltenders fault.

Nobody is suggesting it's ALL the goaltenders fault. There's enough blame to go around everywhere. But goaltending certainly didn't help.

- Injuries to the two spots we could least afford it - in goal and on RW.
- Goaltending has been below average. (Which to be fair to the goalies - is what you'd expect from backups)
- Our best players didn't step up
- The coach messed with the lines needlessly and made senseless decisions and exacerbated a bad situation
- Bad luck. How the hell does any team (even one on the permimeter) shoot at 4 percent? It's unheard of.
- The GM can share in some of this because he should've got us a scoring RW a long time ago

It's never just one thing man.

 

[Rosso Scuderia]

Yeah but ...



http://www.thescore.com/nhl/news/835500

Sure thing, Pleky.

Let's be honest here. We all shared Plekanec's thought at the beginning of the season, especially in the thread where Ott said Price is our defensive system. A bunch of Habs fans defended our team talking about how many goals we scored and how good our puck possession was and it had nothing to do with Price.

 

[LastWordArmy]

I'm talking about how they were 19-4 at one point, and are now 23-16. That's the slump. That's record since the team started playing horrifically bad.

By the way, the team was 16-4 before Price went down with injury, and went up to 19-4 when they played Columbus.

They are now 23-16. So they went 4-12 after the Columbus game.

if you want to cherry pick samples, sure....

Lets take out the games they won, and only count when they are losing.

 

[Nynja*]

- Bad luck. How the hell does any team (even one on the permimeter) shoot at 4 percent? It's unheard of.

Obviously not all of our shots are coming from the perimeter, but data from the 2013-14 season shows that perimeter shots have about a 4% chance of going in.

You make your own luck.. See Gallagher, who is constantly in the goalies kitchen where 1 in 5 shots (which will usually be rebounds or what not) go in.