Jaded-Fan said:
Question. I pointed this out before but perhaps not clearly enough. Is your ranking solely based on sv. percentages, won loss, or even if while still pretty damn young you have a bad game or three? Or is it based on the same things that got you picked highly in the first place, a projection of what you should turn into 3 or 4 years down the road? Sure, Fleury can bust, as I said before Crosby could bust. But I am also pretty sure that most hockey people, GM's, scouts, etc. still have MAF pretty much where HF does. Not because he had a good or bad game last year but because he still has the tools and they still project him developing into something. Isn't the argument over this stat or that stat, while interesting and yes relevant to a small degree, pretty insignificant at this point? Or do you disagree that most GM's/scouts would still project Fleury pretty far up there?
Yeah I would disagree with it. The Pens beat writer I quoted ealier pretty much said as much saying people outside the organization question him, and that he needs to start living up to expectations. But that clearly the Pens shouldn't give up on him, which matters.
And no, the stats aren't that insignificant. Used wisely they basically amount to "production". And production surely does matter. And the way you describe "good game or bad game" doesn't actually fit with what I see. He has peers that are out producing him in the same league, some but quit a lot.
If Fleury's glove hand was that much quicker then everyone else's. If his reflexes were just off the chart compared to his peers. If his character and mindset were so superior to everyone elses, I'd expect that to translate into stopping the puck more then he has the last two years. I think "production" is a better way to measure potential then draft rankings a few years back.
If you want to make an arguement that he'd win some type of goalie skills competition, go ahead. I really wouldn't know. But since he was drafted, he's been outplayed/out produced by a few other goalies that are his peers over the last two years.
And yeah, I sure as heck think it would change just how much other GM's in the league think about him.
If you think about it, he was drafted where he was in large part due to his performances on the ice between the ages of 16 and 18. And now you want to say that somehow what he did between 16 and 18 is much more important then what he did between 18 - 20?
Because he's a goalie he does get some slack in development because they do take longer in general. But come on. You'd like to see some kinda sign that he's able to dominate or at least be very good in a league where some of his peers are able to do just that.
That's what I don't follow here with some people and prospects. Prospects are meant to develop. You can make cases outside of the stats/poduction. But when X is clearly playing a level or two below Y (and in this case X, Z and a few others) for a decent length of time (a full season or two for example) and there isn't clear as day justification for that (position change, broken leg, something), I'm just not buying that X is still better then Y just because a few years back X got picked ahead of Y.