GDT: 151205 Bolts @ Sharks 7:30pm CSN-CA KFOX -- bring a toy for Marine's Toys for Tots

[OrrNumber4]

You're simply wrong about the first two goals. Goalie has no shot on either. Just because defenses break down to create chances doesn't mean that the goalies should have it. That's not the benchmark for what a goalie should have.

I don't imply anything of the sort regarding whether he'd improve to be a consistent #1 goalie on a starting team. A playoff team is a playoff team regardless of the caliber of goaltender playing behind them. A good defensive team will make crappy goalies look good and good goalies look great. It is very rare to find a goalie to cover up the defensive deficiencies of a team and those ones are elite goalies that aren't available. Plus, those goalies aren't even necessary to win a Cup as none of those elite goalies have won one since the lockout.

As for Stalock's contract status, first it's moot...not mute. Second, he's on a two year contract which is in the second year. The team can go after a veteran backup if they want and that's fine but to expect much better results behind the same team that isn't good defensively right now is unrealistic to say the least.

Ward, Quick, Thomas?

 

[Mattb124]

I am REALLY curious what poster think Stalock's should have done on 5he first 2 goals. One was a deflection/redirection in close and the other was a back door play.

 

[Alwalys]

I am REALLY curious what poster think Stalock's should have done on 5he first 2 goals. One was a deflection/redirection in close and the other was a back door play.

better goalies stop one or maybe both. the only really unsavable goal was the kicked in one, which should not have counted anyway.

 

[DonskoiDonscored]

And even that is unrealistic given the context of this season.

There is no reasoning with you.

Stalock probably would have a .910 SV% if he was 6'2" or 6'3" instead of 5'11", but that doesn't excuse his play.

It sucks that that's the way the league is going but Stalock just isn't good enough.

 

[Mattb124]

better goalies stop one or maybe both. the only really unsavable goal was the kicked in one, which should not have counted anyway.

Better goalies make saves on unsavable shots? That contradiction suggests you are arguing based on an unreasonable standard.

 

[Alwalys]

Better goalies make saves on unsavable shots? That contradiction suggests you are arguing based on an unreasonable standard.

was confused at what you meant by the backdoor goal, the kicked in one wasn't.

 

[Sysreq]

Better goalies make saves on unsavable shots? That contradiction suggests you are arguing based on an unreasonable standard.

Yes. Great goalies routinely make "unreal" saves. Additionally, through things like rebound control and positioning, they can further reduce the number of high-danger saves they are forced to make. You can argue the numbers all you want, but they don't lie. Stalock consistently let's in more goals, of all types, than Jones or Niemi. With regards to high-danger scoring chances specifically, Stalock does not have the same quickness, awareness, or skill that other goalies possess to make these saves.

Example of "impossible" save: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=13FnJwlUCcg

Nabby makes that save. Stalock does not. In the aggregate, Nabby stops significantly more shots because of it.

 

[Barrie22]

Every game it is the same thing with the fans here regarding stalock. It is never his fault for bad games, always the team infront of him and or not enough games.

Sooner or later if these things keep happening to just 1 goalie, then it can no longer be blamed on the team.

 

[Alwalys]

to me stalock has shown nothing even during his "good" streak that tells me that he will ever be much good in the modern NHL. undersized, active goalies are very rare and backups are pretty much never that; that is not what is needed in a backup.

 

[Mattb124]

Yes. Great goalies routinely make "unreal" saves. Additionally, through things like rebound control and positioning, they can further reduce the number of high-danger saves they are forced to make. You can argue the numbers all you want, but they don't lie. Stalock consistently let's in more goals, of all types, than Jones or Niemi. With regards to high-danger scoring chances specifically, Stalock does not have the same quickness, awareness, or skill that other goalies possess to make these saves.

Example of "impossible" save: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=13FnJwlUCcg

Nabby makes that save. Stalock does not. In the aggregate, Nabby stops significantly more shots because of it.

He didn't say "unreal", he said "unsavable". if it is unsaveable, it is not saveable - it's tautalogicaI. And in doing so, he contradicted himself. People who are arguing from a position of contradiction should rethink the position.

I am not arguing Stalock's season or career, I am arguing 2 goals which I think people are being patently unreasonable in expecting he should have saved.

Do you think Nabby would routinely have save the first 2 goals last night? Nope.

 

[Barrie22]

He didn't say "unreal", he said "unsavable". if it is unsaveable, it is not saveable - it's tautalogicaI. And in doing so, he contradicted himself. People who are arguing from a position of contradiction should rethink the position.

I am not arguing Stalock's season or career, I am arguing 2 goals which I think people are being patently unreasonable in expecting he should have saved.

Do you think Nabby would routinely have save the first 2 goals last night? Nope.

And the word unsavable is a word that leaves it open to interpretation of what is and what is not unsavable.

 

[Alwalys]

He didn't say "unreal", he said "unsavable". if it is unsaveable, it is not saveable - it's tautalogicaI. And in doing so, he contradicted himself. People who are arguing from a position of contradiction should rethink the position.

see the clarification, i was confused because of an incorrect description of the goal you used. the only close to backdoor goal last night was the 4th which stalock definitely had a play on.

also, the reason that goal was unsavable was because of the kick. with a legal play he does not get that shot off in that short a time and with that much velocity, which would have made it savable.

bottom line is 3/4 savable goals, any one of which makes for a different outcome. good goalies, let alone greats, make at least one of those saves.

and let's not kid ourselves here. stalock is averaging almost a full goal-against more than jones, which is backed up by a 4% lower sv%, so it's not like it was just unlucky. jones probably makes at least that one extra save that gives us the chance to win the game; stalock does not.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Ward, Quick, Thomas?

I don't know what you're trying to say with this.

There is no reasoning with you.

Stalock probably would have a .910 SV% if he was 6'2" or 6'3" instead of 5'11", but that doesn't excuse his play.

It sucks that that's the way the league is going but Stalock just isn't good enough.

There is plenty reasoning with me. I can make a good argument it's simply a matter of people not understanding the goaltending position. It is absolutely pointless to make a comment about their size. It is meaningless. Stalock would have a better save percentage if this team was a better defensive team. Chances are the defensive issues are the most correctable and most beneficial to worry about for the long term success of this team.

 

[DarrylshutzSydor]

Better goalies make saves on unsavable shots? That contradiction suggests you are arguing based on an unreasonable standard.

It looks like you did not quote him correctly.Go back and re-read.

 

[Captain Creampuff]

Hey guys just stopping by to ask what Vlasic's status is? I noticed he didn't play in last night's game.

 

[DarrylshutzSydor]

I don't know what you're trying to say with this.



There is plenty reasoning with me. I can make a good argument it's simply a matter of people not understanding the goaltending position. It is absolutely pointless to make a comment about their size. It is meaningless. Stalock would have a better save percentage if this team was a better defensive team. Chances are the defensive issues are the most correctable and most beneficial to worry about for the long term success of this team.

A goaltenders size is meaningless? Two somewhat equally talented goaltenders one big, one small, which one do you choose?

 

[Sysreq]

A goaltenders size is meaningless? Two somewhat equally talented goaltenders one big, one small, which one do you choose?

In before someone tries to argue the smaller one, because they are quicker. Changing the parameters of the argument is simply a deferral of the question. All things being equal, would you want a goal-keep with more natural surface area? Irrefutably yes.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

A goaltenders size is meaningless? Two somewhat equally talented goaltenders one big, one small, which one do you choose?

It serves no purpose to point out his size and what his save percentage could be. If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas. It's meaningless to the argument just like your question is meaningless to the argument.

 

[Groo]

Braun really needs to work on his functional strength.

 

[Timo Time]

Good thing the Pacific division is the worst division.

 

[Alwalys]

Good thing the Pacific division is the worst division.

let's call it the most competitive division.

 

[Mattb124]

It looks like you did not quote him correctly.Go back and re-read.

No, it looks like the poster doesn't know which the first and second goals were.

False attributions, confusion, and obfuscation aside, there is not a goalie in the NHL that routinely stops one or both of the first two goals scored on the Sharks last night. Stalock has not been great this year, but using his performance from last night to support that narrative IMO is disingenuous.

 

[Alwalys]

No, it looks like the poster doesn't know which the first and second goals were.

The poster cleared it up so arguing against it at this point is the definition of strawmanning.

False attributions, confusion, and obfuscation aside, there is not a goalie in the NHL that routinely stops one or both of the first two goals scored on the Sharks last night. Stalock has not been great this year, but using his performance from last night to support that narrative IMO is disingenuous.

Stalock is a mediocre goalie and last night backs it up perfectly. Good goalies have to make ALL the routine stops PLUS almost all of the difficult ones. Stalock has serious trouble stopping difficult shots and often doesn't make the routine ones either.

 

[DarrylshutzSydor]

No, it looks like the poster doesn't know which the first and second goals were.

False attributions, confusion, and obfuscation aside, there is not a goalie in the NHL that routinely stops one or both of the first two goals scored on the Sharks last night. Stalock has not been great this year, but using his performance from last night to support that narrative IMO is disingenuous.

The first goal went right between his legs, had he been in position it should have been stopped, regardless that Burns was faked out of pants and looked terrible on the play.

 

[DarrylshutzSydor]

It serves no purpose to point out his size and what his save percentage could be. If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas. It's meaningless to the argument just like your question is meaningless to the argument.

I realize that you are probably reaching back to the original post, but a larger goalie is usually a better option than a smaller one. Unless of course it is an ahl goalie playing in the nhl, which would make him an nhl goalie right?