GDT: Hawks vs Flyers: 1PM CT on NBCSCH, NHLN, SN360 - Saader-man: Far From Home edition

[BK]

Geeeeez, yes. I thought I was going to like JC as HC but I'm already having doubts. The PP and PK don't look any better than they were under Q and Keith is still on the PP. They still lose most board battles and just don't seem to have the intensity. They need a spark plug from somewhere. Dach?

Our PP is better.

 

[featherhawk]

Say what you wish but Maata - Seabs tandem has been fine so far. I know many think that the ideal defence is having 4 or 5 Erik Karlssons on your team.... well that ain't gonna happen.

I bolded and itlicized the key words for you.

Do you remember last year at the beginning of the season when "skinny Seabrook" came into camp and was FINE for about a dozen games or so?

Nobody is saying the ideal defence is having 4 or 5 EK's, having said that if you have not noticed the trend in the NHL is to have multiple smooth skating quick D that add to the rush and the offensive production of the team.

At this point in time we have 1 of them and that is Gus, adding one more like Boqvist would be completely within reason.

Fact of the matter is that 7 is so slow and very poor at positioning and gets blown by likely 20 times a game, the guy is toast, there are a few Forwards on our club that would be more effective on D than Seabrook is.

Now if Maatta is going to be a Seabrook Saviour than I would be happier than a pig in shit having said that check in with that after game 12 and see how Seabrook is doing as the year progresses into late 2019 and into 2020. My guess is 7 will be the same anchor he was last year from November on regardless of who is playing partner is.

 

[featherhawk]

Come on, we all see Seabrook being overpaid for what he does but he is still a serviceable bottom pairing d in this league. Those young kids not only have no experience but most of them would be physically outmatched every single night. I dont care what they bring offensively, that would still ruin most of our games. Even Gilbert, our most NHL ready prospect gets overwhelmed a few times in the games, imagine the other guys.

those young kids don't have to be worried so much about being physically overmatched as a result of being able to skate and being in the correct position to defend.

the ONLY thing that Seabrook has going for him is not being physically outmatched WHEN he finds himself to be in a position to be physically engaged with an opponent, the problem is that the majority of the time that is in front of the net because that and behind the goal line and the real funny thing is that the opponent finds 7 most of the time and not the other way around.

Holm is 27, he is no prospect, he is a man, he can skate circles around Seabrook, he is in good position defensively and can contribute offensively. It does not have to be Boqvist....

 

[BK]

This team is just slow, I just went and watched bits and pieces of other games since I have NHL live and it’s just night and day how much faster other teams are than the Hawks, this is rarely discussed here, speed is not foot speed only, it’s how you think the game, it’s about hustling to get to the puck, it’s about anticipation of where the puck or a teammate will be, how fast you release a pass or a shot, their game is just very slow overall, it’s embarrassing, their foot speed is nothing to be proud about either.

I am not sure if you heard the commentary during the game but they talked about the ice being really bad (the rink was fogging). This really slows down the game. I know it seems crazy but bad ice kills pace of play.

This is why you hear teams always praising the ice in Edmonton and Calgary.

 

[BK]

it is almost definitionally true that every shot is savable. the point i'm making is that calling a shot "savable" doesn't really mean much in any objective sense besides "could have been saved" which trivially applies to all shots.

This is a common hockey term and have you never heard it around the rink? You are treating it as a black and white situation when it is a gray one.

A shot from the top of the dots without a screen is considered savable while a backdoor goal on a 2 on 0 is not considered savable.

There is no exact science to track if a puck is savable so you have to rely on the eye test and HDSA.

you are too focused on crow's individual performance. league average saves/game last year was 28.7. if you need your goalie to go out there and make at least seven, if not more, saves above average every night, that's a recipe for trouble unless you have a truly elite guy.

The Hawks averaged 34.8 shots against last season and the lowest shots against was 28.1. Looking at saves is just weird. Shots against and save percentage is the best way of looking at it then you add in high danger chances.

We are talking about Crow's individual so yes I am focused on it. It is what we are specifically talking about. 3 of the goals he let in are ones that he should have saved. Plain and simple, he needs to be better. Is he the only one? No but we are talking about him specifically.

 

[Muffinalt]

those young kids don't have to be worried so much about being physically overmatched as a result of being able to skate and being in the correct position to defend.

the ONLY thing that Seabrook has going for him is not being physically outmatched WHEN he finds himself to be in a position to be physically engaged with an opponent, the problem is that the majority of the time that is in front of the net because that and behind the goal line and the real funny thing is that the opponent finds 7 most of the time and not the other way around.

Holm is 27, he is no prospect, he is a man, he can skate circles around Seabrook, he is in good position defensively and can contribute offensively. It does not have to be Boqvist....

True that Holm is probably fine from a physical standpoint, but the staff seemed to decide something was not up to par with him and he was sent down relatively early. I didn't see him enough to see for myself how his defensive game is but if he's a worse Gus that wouldn't help us.

The staff has many more chances to evaluate the players correctly than our limited preseason and scrimmage viewings so I would be hesitant to make hasty conclusions. One guy can look good a game or two and then turn out to be mistake prone and not actually good. I know Seabrook has bad moments but doesn't mean there are clear better options.

And for the record if we are to choose between Seabrook and an only marginally better alternative I still take the vet who is an important part of our locker room. If there was a clear uprgade he would be on the roster now, especially with Murphy out.

 

[featherhawk]

True that Holm is probably fine from a physical standpoint, but the staff seemed to decide something was not up to par with him and he was sent down relatively early. I didn't see him enough to see for myself how his defensive game is but if he's a worse Gus that wouldn't help us.

The staff has many more chances to evaluate the players correctly than our limited preseason and scrimmage viewings so I would be hesitant to make hasty conclusions. One guy can look good a game or two and then turn out to be mistake prone and not actually good. I know Seabrook has bad moments but doesn't mean there are clear better options.

And for the record if we are to choose between Seabrook and an only marginally better alternative I still take the vet who is an important part of our locker room. If there was a clear uprgade he would be on the roster now, especially with Murphy out.

the problem with that is that people are judging Holm and the kids for every single little thing they do wrong and not what the do well and people are not judging Seabrook the same way, they are in fact ignoring relevant, constant and significant shortcomings of Seabrook and just fluff them off and they allow themselves to be blinded by what he has done in the past and that he is "important" to the locker room which in my opinion has some merit however that should never be weighted as more important than what the player does on the ice.

 

[Marotte Marauder]

I am not sure if you heard the commentary during the game but they talked about the ice being really bad (the rink was fogging). This really slows down the game. I know it seems crazy but bad ice kills pace of play

All the more reason to chip it and get on your horse. No?

 

[Muffinalt]

the problem with that is that people are judging Holm and the kids for every single little thing they do wrong and not what the do well and people are not judging Seabrook the same way, they are in fact ignoring relevant, constant and significant shortcomings of Seabrook and just fluff them off and they allow themselves to be blinded by what he has done in the past and that he is "important" to the locker room which in my opinion has some merit however that should never be weighted as more important than what the player does on the ice.

I actually think 90% here are pretty critical of Seabrook, probably each game. Nobody tries to justify his mistakes, at least not after the last two years he had.

The other options haven't showed they are good enough yet to be relied upon for an 82 game season in my opinion, and certainly in the FO/coaches opinion, otherwise they would be here in some capacity.

At least certainly they haven't showed they're clear upgrades yet. Of course they should be judged on on-ice performance but if a guy is only a miniscule upgrade I prefer to avoid sitting our 'A' on the huge contract for the next 5 years.

But once again, if there is a clear upgrade, yes sit him. If its just a 'well that guy could maybe be better', no.

 

[Melrose Munch]

how long do we have to wait for the seabrook contract to end

 

[BK]

All the more reason to chip it and get on your horse. No?

Yeah it is for sure when you dumb it down and and not over pass.

 

[featherhawk]

I actually think 90% here are pretty critical of Seabrook, probably each game. Nobody tries to justify his mistakes, at least not after the last two years he had.

The other options haven't showed they are good enough yet to be relied upon for an 82 game season in my opinion, and certainly in the FO/coaches opinion, otherwise they would be here in some capacity.

At least certainly they haven't showed they're clear upgrades yet. Of course they should be judged on on-ice performance but if a guy is only a miniscule upgrade I prefer to avoid sitting our 'A' on the huge contract for the next 5 years.

But once again, if there is a clear upgrade, yes sit him. If its just a 'well that guy could maybe be better', no.

they have never been given the opportunity besides DAhlstrom and 4K.....

 

[Muffinalt]

they have never been given the opportunity besides DAhlstrom and 4K.....

They all had equal opportunities during training camp and the preseason games.

Reward them only based on their performance, NHL games shouldn't be handed out just coz they have potential.

 

[featherhawk]

They all had equal opportunities during training camp and the preseason games.

Reward them only based on their performance, NHL games shouldn't be handed out just coz they have potential.

likewise NHL games should not be handed out just coz they had skills.

 

[Muffinalt]

likewise NHL games should not be handed out just coz they had skills.

Agree!

 

[featherhawk]

Agree!

so why has 7 been gifted games for 2 seasons now?

 

[Hawsse]

This is a common hockey term and have you never heard it around the rink?

i don't particularly care about the commonality of your terminology. i care about what you are trying to express. if what you mean to express is that crawford let in some goals he should have saved, then i totally agree. i already agreed he didn't have a particularly strong game and, ideally, a goalie shouldn't let in any goals. my point is that, in terms of quantity, it's somewhat unreasonable to expect too much more out of the guy.

The Hawks averaged 34.8 shots against last season and the lowest shots against was 28.1. Looking at saves is just weird.

why is it weird to look at how many saves the average nhl goalie made per game last season and compare that to the number of saves a particular goalie was expected to make? and either way, saves are definitionally related to shot totals, so i don't see what your problem is.

We are talking about Crow's individual so yes I am focused on it. It is what we are specifically talking about. 3 of the goals he let in are ones that he should have saved. Plain and simple, he needs to be better. Is he the only one? No but we are talking about him specifically.

when i say "expecting a goaltender to make seven more saves than average every night is a recipe for trouble", how exactly do you interpret that as a statement exclusively focused on crow's performance? again, i never said that crawford had a good game. what i said was that regardless of how well crawford played, the team's defensive play was obviously not good enough to engender anything but failure without either an above-average goaltending performance, or an above-average offensive performance. hence why i pointed out that crawford already saved an above-average number of shots and still came away with a weak game.

 

[BK]

i don't particularly care about the commonality of your terminology. i care about what you are trying to express. if what you mean to express is that crawford let in some goals he should have saved, then i totally agree. i already agreed he didn't have a particularly strong game and, ideally, a goalie shouldn't let in any goals. my point is that, in terms of quantity, it's somewhat unreasonable to expect too much more out of the guy.

It is not my terminology, it is well know common hockey terminology used by basically everyone around the game.

What I have stated multiple times is that Crow did not play well and let in 3 goals that he should have saved. They were savable shots. Realistic expectations for Crow and Lehner is that that save shots that are savable. Not all shots are realistically savable.

The concept that all shots are savable is not realistic. Hockey is not played in a silo.

why is it weird to look at how many saves the average nhl goalie made per game last season and compare that to the number of saves a particular goalie was expected to make? and either way, saves are definitionally related to shot totals, so i don't see what your problem is.

Because it ignores too many factors. Using shots against with save percentage (then adding HDSA) is a much more detailed and customized way of looking at things. It allows you to have a better view of each team.

when i say "expecting a goaltender to make seven more saves than average every night is a recipe for trouble", how exactly do you interpret that as a statement exclusively focused on crow's performance? again, i never said that crawford had a good game. what i said was that regardless of how well crawford play, the team's defensive play was obviously not good enough to engender anything but failure without either an above-average goaltending performance, or an above-average offensive performance. hence why i pointed out that crawford already saved an above-average number of shots and still came away with a weak game.

It was not 7 more saves though. We are talking about 1 game. He should have made 3 more saves because he let in 3 shots that were savable not 7.

how much better than a 34 save night do the goalies have to be? like i get that .895 is pretty awful, but you can't leave the guy out to dry like that.

This is your original comment where we started this discussion.

You said you watched highlights but not the game right? Crow was not really hung out to dry. All the team needed was him to save the shots that were savable.

Is it safe to assume you have a STEM background? This is not meant in a negative way.[/QUOTE]

 

[Muffinalt]

so why has 7 been gifted games for 2 seasons now?

I don't think he was gifted games at all. He is still better at this point than the kids etc, or at least overall they're all on a similar level with different weaknesses. There is no clear upgrade over him right now, at best only potential but unproven ones, or marginally better guys in specific situations.

But i see you have your mind made up about him and why he's playing, so it's a pointless back and forth.

 

[Bubba88]

Well, he's wrong. There are already too many defensive short comings back there and throughout the line-up to add another liability.

Boqvist should be up. Guy adds something the team is missing. There is no reason 4k or Gilbert made the roster over him.

Don't need his defence. Need his puck and passing abilities. This leads to more offence and puck possession.

Its not like those other D offer good D to keep him off the roster. That's why he says it and why he is right.

 

[Hawsse]

It is not my terminology, it is well know common hockey terminology used by basically everyone around the game.

you used it, so it is yours. obviously i'm not implying that uou invented the term out of mid air.

What I have stated multiple times is that Crow did not play well and let in 3 goals that he should have saved. They were savable shots.

and i already agreed with that, so why are you bothering to restate it?

The concept that all shots are savable is not realistic. Hockey is not played in a silo.

no, it is true by definition. a save is a shot that a goalie stops. so if there is a shot, and if there is a goalie, then that shot is eligible for being called a save should the goaltender get in between the puck and the goal. regardless of whether or not every shot is saved, every shot is, by the very definition of a save, in fact savable. now do you want to continue to argue about misleading, loosley defined cliches, or can we get to something that actually has substance?

Because it ignores too many factors. Using shots against with save percentage (then adding HDSA) is a much more detailed and customized way of looking at things. It allows you to have a better view of each team.

that doesn't mean it's weird, that means you disagree with my methodology. tell me, if my claims are "the team needed more saves from crow than average", "crow still came up with a bad game", and "a team that needs even more saves than that will lose more often than not" which claim is false?

It was not 7 more saves though. We are talking about 1 game. He should have made 3 more saves because he let in 3 shots that were savable not 7.

that's utterly ridiculous. you are saying that we should ignore the factual statement that craeford made more saves than average in favor of your own personal subjective evaluation of whether or not he should have made a save. again, i don't even disagree with your opinion here, but it's still just that, an opinion. it does nothing to counter the point i'm making, and it certainly doesn't take presidence over what can be objectivley shown to occur in reality.

This is your original comment where we started this discussion.

yeah, and i clearly say there that crow had a pretty bad game, but that the team did him no favors.

You said you watched highlights but not the game right? Crow was not really hung out to dry. All the team needed was him to save the shots that were savable.

when i first came into the thread i had only watched highlights, but now i've seen the whole game on a recording i made. i disagree with this assesment, especially looking at the two konecny goals. the team struggled to get the puck out of their own end, and gave up too many chances.

Is it safe to assume you have a STEM background? This is not meant in a negative way.

i'm a philosopher by training, so humanities not stem.

 

[hawksfan50]

The bigger problem is not 4k orxGilbert...it is playing Seabrook and the usduecwith KEITH..

Was this merely a bad game by Keith.?..another don't care attitude problem where he mailed it in (43.5 Corsi ,bad turnover,embarassinglygly gets pantsed for a goal against ,and worst of all the failure to bother checking on the Raffl wrap around goal (sure 4 k should have bailed out Keith by doing a better job as Raffl came around from behid our net..but the point is he he never should have gotten the chance to take the puck around back of the net...Keith just let him go instead of efforting to check him into the boards to stop the puck carryer ....awful watching slack failure to check that every dman on the planet is expected to perform in that situation. Keith did not even try to check..not that he was beaten in a board battle..but that he simply did not think it was worth the effort to check...this should be a benching offense)?

Or if not merelyva 1 off bad game...is this further signs of a major fall off tte cliff due to aging in Keith's game?


On for 12 scoung chances against and 6 high danger chances of these 12!!!

Simply unacceptable...poor gap..poor checking or no checking...no intensity or urgency...mailed itvin..unacceptable.

Gilbert made 1 bad turnover error that cost a goal and was unlucky on being on forctge 4K own goal that bounced off 4K into our net.

But otherwise Gilbert was better than Keith.

Mistakes or bad luck will happen.. but no excuse for mailing it in games.

That is what we got from 2 leaders ..mailed it in...Keith and Toews.

Tge question is a 1 off from Keith ir will thisbe hos new norm as he falls off the cliff?

We saw Toews with his great come back year last season..but if he is tevertingvtoVountry Club play again we are on trouble. on that front too.

Simply cannot have 2 Core leaders pkay this badly .

 

[BK]

The is nothing ridiculous in asking Crawford to save 3 more shots. What is ridiculous is you thinking the league average in saves is some standard we should use. Again shots against with save percentage (while looking at HDSA) is a much better way of judging vs using the league average of saves. The point you are making is just wrong, Crawford let in 3 shots he should have saved.

Crawford played both Konecny goals terribley. His angle was off on both. He was down so early on the second that he was getting up as it went past him.

Bottom line is that if Crow plays up to his normal standards those goals don’t go in and the Hawks maybe win the game.

“Savable” is a common hockey term, not mine, this is not really debatable.

it is very clear to me that we will not agree on this so at this point we can just drop it (obviously you can keep it going if you wish but I am over it).

Philosophy major? Interesting but it makes sense. Teacher? I honestly no clue what people with a degree in philosophy do job wise other than teach (not a dig).

 

[Marotte Marauder]

Bottom line is that if Crow plays up to his normal standards those goals don’t go in and the Hawks maybe win the game.

Pretty much

 

[Hawsse]

i think you are misunderstanding me. feel free to leave it there, but i'm going to try and tell you exactly where you've misinterpreted what i've said.

The is nothing ridiculous in asking Crawford to save 3 more shots.

i didn't say it was. i said it was ridiculous to go the extra step and proclaim that my analysis is invalid simply because it paints i different picture than your opinion. once again, i agree with you that crawford let in some bad goals. you haven't acknowledged that even once and seem to be operating under the idea that i think he was utterly blameless.

Crawford played both Konecny goals terribley. His angle was off on both. He was down so early on the second that he was getting up as it went past him.

again, i don't disagree with this. my point wad that those two chances shouldn't have happened to begin with. the defender on each play was clearly out played, and so they gave up two partial breakawayd that ended up in the back of the net.

i want to make this clear once again: crawford had a bad game. but try and think about it like this: in the vast majority of games, a goaltender will let in a goal. i think it's fair to say that most goals are not of the "unsavable" (we will return to that in a moment) variety like a 5 on none break away slipped near post while the goalie is on his ass because of a fake shot. so it follows then that most goals come from "savable" shots. now, if most goals come from "savable" shots, then we can say that the more "savable" shots you give up, the more likely your goaltender is to give up a goal on one.

what's the point of all this? it's to show that while i can agree that crawford did not have a good game, the quantity of shots he faced is still a crucial aspect of the story to my mind. in terms of sheer probability, the team did crawford no favors by giving up a larger amount of shots than average. of course, crawford did the team no favors by failing to stop those chances, but i think that problem is overshadowed by the greater problem of team defense.

“Savable” is a common hockey term, not mine, this is not really debatable.

i'm not debating anything. i said it was your terminology because you used the phrase, not because i think you just made it up. i know people use it. i'm skeptical of its value as a term, and i personally don't use it for the reasons i previously expressed.

Philosophy major? Interesting but it makes sense. Teacher? I honestly no clue what people with a degree in philosophy do job wise other than teach (not a dig).

it would be fair if it was a dig. teaching's the plan, but still working on the degree.