GDT: 11/15 7pm Sharks @ Oilers -- Hoping to keep the shutout streak going

[Pinkfloyd]

Sorry, I just don't see it. You have to be able to put the puck where you want it AND have good timing/decision making, something Nabokov was dreadful at. Yah he had the one goal, and that means something, but no way am I calling him 'good'

Nabokov did that numerous times but he wasn't perfect. Sounds to me like you only acknowledge the great ones and everyone else sucks. lol

 

[hockeyball]

Could he put the puck where he meant to? Yah, in that sense he could handle the puck. Was his decision making good? No, it was terrible. Was he even in Stalock's league, let alone Mike Smith, Turco, Broduer? Hell no. Again, he was 'ok', I wouldn't even call it 'good'.

Nabokov did that numerous times but he wasn't perfect. Sounds to me like you only acknowledge the great ones and everyone else sucks. lol

I said, 'ok' repeatedly, which is decidedly not 'sucks'. You are using hyperbole to try to win an argument.

I am done arguing about it. We are arguing inches here. Debating Nabokov's subjective level of skill is an unwinnable argument. The point was that Stalock is the best puck handler in goal the Sharks have ever had, and he is decidedly better than Nabokov (sounds like you even agree with that). Where Nabokov actually lands on some imaginary chart is a completely pointless discussion.

 

[SJeasy]

I said, 'ok' repeatedly, which is decidedly not 'sucks'. You are using hyperbole to try to win an argument.

I am done arguing about it. We are arguing inches here. Debating Nabokov's subjective level of skill is an unwinnable argument. The point was that Stalock is the best puck handler in goal the Sharks have ever had, and he is decidedly better than Nabokov (sounds like you even agree with that). Where Nabokov actually lands on some imaginary chart is a completely pointless discussion.

All of the guys like Brodeur and Smith make mistakes. It is just easier to remember Nabby's because you saw all of them where you don't see the mistakes of guys for other teams. Roy was a good puckhandler who had some egregious mistakes. The more they handle the puck, the more opportunity for error.

At his best, Nabby was probably at the bottom of the top 5 in handling. To me bottom of the top 5 is definitely good; top 3 is great. In fact, anywhere in the top ten is good. One eye test for handling is watching how often and accurately a goalie hits his own guy at the blueline on direct passes. Nabby did that well and often.

Around the league, Ward, Rinne and Price are definitely top 10. Nemo, Lundqvist and Luongo are bottom 10.

 

[WTFetus]

To me bottom of the top 5 is definitely good; top 3 is great. In fact, anywhere in the top ten is good.

Don't really like rankings like these because they don't have to do with your skill alone, it's skill relative to everyone else. Being in the Top-5 doesn't make you "good" if 6-30 are terrible. It just makes you better than terrible, which looks like what HB is trying to argue for.

 

[do0glas]

Don't really like rankings like these because they don't have to do with your skill alone, it's skill relative to everyone else. Being in the Top-5 doesn't make you "good" if 6-30 are terrible. It just makes you better than terrible, which looks like what HB is trying to argue for.

Not to mention that unless you are the third d man like smith it's likely akin to zone starts. Negligable.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Don't really like rankings like these because they don't have to do with your skill alone, it's skill relative to everyone else. Being in the Top-5 doesn't make you "good" if 6-30 are terrible. It just makes you better than terrible, which looks like what HB is trying to argue for.

And that's fine and dandy if that applied to whether Nabokov was good or not. Did he make mistakes? Of course he did but I think people are letting those mistakes push out the many good passes that he had.

 

[WTFetus]

And that's fine and dandy if that applied to whether Nabokov was good or not. Did he make mistakes? Of course he did but I think people are letting those mistakes push out the many good passes that he had.

Never said it did. I'm just saying that type of reasoning doesn't work in an argument like this.

Arguing over something as subjective as this is dumb too. Is Nabokov bad at handling the puck? No. Is Nabokov as good at it as Stalock? Probably not. That's all HB was saying initially.

 

[SJeasy]

Don't really like rankings like these because they don't have to do with your skill alone, it's skill relative to everyone else. Being in the Top-5 doesn't make you "good" if 6-30 are terrible. It just makes you better than terrible, which looks like what HB is trying to argue for.

That wasn't the only point and you are picking it off as the only reason. I didn't have time to go through all nor do I watch all enough to read all 30. But, I gave the second part as one of the benchmarks I use, passing accurately to the blueline. As far as I can see less than 10 do it and Nabby is one of them. That should address the completeness of the argument. In this case ~5th place is good.

The second part was mistakes. To elaborate, some goalies are so bad that they have to freeze pucks rather than move them. Freezing them creates own-zone face-offs which present a good possibility of a quality opponent scoring chance. Nemo isn't as bad as Luongo there but it is close. It isn't a mistake to freeze, but it is far short of clearing it. I would rather opponent chances come from aggressive play than from conservative play necessitated by lack of skill.

 

[WTFetus]

That wasn't the only point and you are picking it off as the only reason. I didn't have time to go through all nor do I watch all enough to read all 30. But, I gave the second part as one of the benchmarks I use, passing accurately to the blueline. As far as I can see less than 10 do it and Nabby is one of them. That should address the completeness of the argument. In this case ~5th place is good.

I'm not saying your overall argument is wrong, I just don't like part of the way you supported it. I don't see the point in ranking something like this and closing it off going "He's Top-X so he's good". Just looks like a way to superficially make your point look stronger.