Is Tuukka Rask a TOP 10 goalie in this league?

[BruinLVGA]

I would find it more excusable had he had a strong start to the season I don't mean to single it out as the only reason Im just suggesting it's not merely been the poor start to the season that causes concern.

Rask hasn't been perfect, but the whole team is playing pretty horrible. As a matter of fact, without him, we would probably be already in the McDavid sweepstakes. He kept us in many, many games we should have been blown out. But the knowledgeable and wise average poster of HF Boards looks at shots vs goals and then makes the unmistakable judgement that Rask is not playing well...

 

[Liferleafer]

I think defensive systems play a much larger role than HF likes to admit most of the time. I'd still say that Rask is a top 10 goalie though.

I like to refer to the phenomina poor defensive play effecting an entire team as "Leafing it".

 

[nbwingsfan]

I guess he's a top 10 goalie, but the bottom part of that top 10 at the most. He hasnt really impressed me this year and I felt that the only reason he put up the numbers he did last year and won the Vezina was because of the team in front of him. When that defense isnt healthy, he looks very average.

I like Rask though, but idk, to me he can be considered a choker as well thanks to blowing a 3-0 series lead in 2010 and letting in 2 goals in 17 seconds the finals.

The whole "2 goals in 17 seconds" thing would be relevant if he allowed terrible goals from centre ice of something like that, but both goals were miss cues from the D which led to goals that were scored from in tight. You can't fault a goalie on that.

Also, Boston's D wasn't healthy last season as they were missing their #2 and #5D most of the season, yet he was still the clear Vezina Winner.

Don't kid yourself, he is easily a top 5 goalie and I don't see how you can make a case against it really. I would trade a lot on Detroit to replace Howard with him.

 

[Pi]

Rask is a top 10 goalie without a doubt but he's not a 7M goalie. Only Pekka Rinne and Lundqvist deserve that kind of money.

Rask hasn't really played much to be in that conversation. He was given a 7M contract with a career high of 45 games and he's never played more than ~55 games.

IMO Lundqvist is the only real .920 goalie. His stats are ridiculously consistent no matter what team is in front of him.

 

[Ragamuffin Gunner]

Pretty un-good shortside goal to give up right there.

 

[Kitchener Boy]

Rask is a top 10 goalie without a doubt but he's not a 7M goalie. Only Pekka Rinne and Lundqvist deserve that kind of money.

Rask hasn't really played much to be in that conversation. He was given a 7M contract with a career high of 45 games and he's never played more than ~55 games.

IMO Lundqvist is the only real .920 goalie. His stats are ridiculously consistent no matter what team is in front of him.

Lundqvist is over payed too at 8.5 mil.

 

[BreakingGood]

Yes, let's count Price's performance at 21, but ignore his performances at 26 and 27. That's what you're doing -- giving more value to his early developing years than his current developed years. It's not 'luck' that Price is now an elite goalie, it's called 'entering his prime'.

As for Quick, ignoring playoff heroics and two Cups and looking only at regular-season stats misses the point of what a top-five goalie is. Quick steps up in the exact way and at the exact time a team needs it most. He did what Rask and Lundqvist couldn't (and what Price didn't get the chance to do last year).

In both these goalies' cases, your aim is off. You're looking at Price's past over his present, and you're looking at Quick's regular-season SV% over his Stanley Cup saves.

I'm looking at his entire career, which comes with .918 save percentage. Goalies don't really get better as they age. Here's a good thing about this idea - http://www.macleans.ca/authors/colby-cosh/why-goalies-cant-save-themselves/ and here's another good one http://hockey-graphs.com/2014/03/21/how-well-do-goalies-age-a-look-at-a-goalie-aging-curve/

And I hate to break it to you but save percentage is subject to a lot of variance and you're not better because your saves happened to come in May. Quick had a .911 save percentage in the playoffs last year, which is, ahem, not good. **** happens sometimes. Over the larger sample of his career, Jonathan Quick is an average-ish goalie, maybe a tick below.

 

[The Sweetness]

Pretty un-good shortside goal to give up right there.

Agree but Rask played a very strong game IMO with some great saves. He had no chance on the 2nd or 3rd goal. This game kind of sums up the season he's had so far.

 

[BreakingGood]

I think defensive systems play a much larger role than HF likes to admit most of the time. I'd still say that Rask is a top 10 goalie though.

Actually, the overwhelming evidence shows (and unfortunately I can't provide a link to this because all the links I had were on sites run by people now working in the NHL, who were contractually obligated to take down their archives) that defences don't really impact goalie save percentages. I think a good case to look at it is this - the Leafs are terrible defensively. Just awful. If a team should lower a goalie's save percentage, it's the Leafs. Yet Bernier has a .921 save percentage for the Leafs, which is insane. How much do you think the defences really could have lowered that? Would he normally be a .925 goalie? To suggest that the Leafs lower his save percentage is basically to imply that Bernier is actually one of the best goalies of all time. Most of the best save percentages in history were posted by Dominik Hasek, who played on a garbage team most of his career. Hasek was putting up save percentages than Lundqvist and Rinne back when save percentages were lower. Would a better team have broughten him to .950? Sounds kind of nuts when you think of it that way.

The big thing to remember is most highly quality chances are off of rebounds, not breakaways. There are no teams that allow breakaways every game. So if a goalie is facing more high quality scoring chances, they're probably also facing a lot more point shots, which evens it out as a percentage. The whole "never a bad play to shoot" thing makes sense, because the best shots come as a result of a weak shot.

 

[hersky77]

I'm looking at his entire career, which comes with .918 save percentage. Goalies don't really get better as they age. Here's a good thing about this idea - http://www.macleans.ca/authors/colby-cosh/why-goalies-cant-save-themselves/ and here's another good one http://hockey-graphs.com/2014/03/21/how-well-do-goalies-age-a-look-at-a-goalie-aging-curve/

And I hate to break it to you but save percentage is subject to a lot of variance and you're not better because your saves happened to come in May. Quick had a .911 save percentage in the playoffs last year, which is, ahem, not good. **** happens sometimes. Over the larger sample of his career, Jonathan Quick is an average-ish goalie, maybe a tick below.

Well im guessing price is an outlier to your statement then. Price has gotten better as he has aged. He is finally entering his prime years as a goalie, and I can only see him getting better as he gets older.

 

[BreakingGood]

Well im guessing price is an outlier to your statement then. Price has gotten better as he has aged. He is finally entering his prime years as a goalie, and I can only see him getting better as he gets older.

Oh well if you say so.

EDIT: just gonna point out, Price's career save percentages by season:

.920
.905
.912
.923
.916
.905
.927
.927

So the last two look pretty good, granted this season's far from over. Did he get a lot worse for two years after his rookie year before getting lot better and then declining for two years and then getting way better again? Or are save percentages highly subject to variance?

 

[Zaddy]

This thread gave me some good laughs I'll tell you that much.

Rask is easily a top5 goalie in the league. My personal top3 is Lundqvist, Rask and Quick. Price is just outside of those three. I'll agree some other guys seem to be closing in on them such as Bobrovsky and Bernier but there's really no doubt about which guys you'd want in net come playoff time.

 

[Arthur*]

Rask was doing everything he could to singlehandedly steal that game today, robbing them multiple times on the 5 on 3 before a puck that friggin' deflected flukishly off of a guy's skate away from the net found its way in to tie it, and then Claude Julien put out a ridiculously stupid line combo in OT to seal the loss with a wide open chance in front.

His numbers are the victim of playing behind a garbage team.

 

[alg363636]

He was fantastic today. Completely stood on his head. Chris Kelly absolutely blew it in OT.

Anyone need a goalie? There might be a pretty good one asking to be traded soon. I wouldn't blame him one bit.

 

[jeangauthier]

Rasky boy is a top 5.............

 

[danisonfire]

Oh well if you say so.

EDIT: just gonna point out, Price's career save percentages by season:

.920 - 3rd in the NHL (played great as a rookie, team overachieved)

.905 - 13th in the NHL (hit a wall as Montreal declined back to reality)

.912 - 19th in the NHL (consistency issues)

.923 - 14th in the NHL (was better consistency wise, still not 100% consistent)

.916 - 28th in the NHL (played out of this world, team was selecting #3 overall by the end of the season).

.905 - 4th in NHL, short season (Consistency lapsed slightly. He actually had around a 0.925 save % if you subtract 3-4 terrible games. Still not an excuss as you have to count all the games.)

.927 - 9th in NHL (First; what I would call consistent season)

.927 - 5th in NHL (start of another very consistent season so far)

So the last two look pretty good, granted this season's far from over. Did he get a lot worse for two years after his rookie year before getting lot better and then declining for two years and then getting way better again? Or are save percentages highly subject to variance?

Here is a simplistic answer, subjective in nature. Price to me seems like he has had his up's and down's like other goalies. Nice to see him finally putting his talent together, with a strong mental game. Team Canada has done wonders for Price. He started last season hot, was lights out during the olympics, and has carried this confidence with him ever since. I think winning the gold medal has really helped ease the pressure he has felt his whole life in Montreal. Price finally believes he can live up to the godly expectations that have been (unfairly) placed on his since he was drafted. All-in-al I have to be thankful that Price was so mentally strong. Many people would have cracked when times were rough in Montreal.


As for Rask:

The years of playing on stacked teams has caused a minor blip this season. He is use to receiving great defensive coverage and would have to now make adjustments to his game. He will bounce back in 1-2 years in similar fashion that Price did. Rask is an extremely talented goalie.

 

[BreakingGood]

Here is a simplistic answer, subjective in nature. Price to me seems like he has had his up's and down's like other goalies. Nice to see him finally putting his talent together, with a strong mental game. Team Canada has done wonders for Price. He started last season hot, was lights out during the olympics, and has carried this confidence with him ever since. I think winning the gold medal has really helped ease the pressure he has felt his whole life in Montreal. Price finally believes he can live up to the godly expectations that have been (unfairly) placed on his since he was drafted. All-in-al I have to be thankful that Price was so mentally strong. Many people would have cracked when times were rough in Montreal.


As for Rask:

The years of playing on stacked teams has caused a minor blip this season. He is use to receiving great defensive coverage and would have to now make adjustments to his game. He will bounce back in 1-2 years in similar fashion that Price did. Rask is an extremely talented goalie.

Do you honestly think Carey Price is sometimes a world beating goalie and sometimes he's not very good? It's variance. When he put up .905 seasons, he was having bad luck. The .927 season involves some good luck. His career is .918 guy, which is a tick above average and enough to make you glad he's young and you won't have to worry about a Raycroft year for a long time. And, it's good enough that he's fully capable of getting hot and winning the Cup on just about any above average team. What I'm saying isn't that Price isn't good, and that a "pretty good" goalie doesn't have value. I'm saying he's not Luongo, Rask, Rinne, Lundqvist, or Schneider, who are the real *star* goalies in the NHL.

 

[danisonfire]

Do you honestly think Carey Price is sometimes a world beating goalie and sometimes he's not very good? It's variance. When he put up .905 seasons, he was having bad luck. The .927 season involves some good luck. His career is .918 guy, which is a tick above average and enough to make you glad he's young and you won't have to worry about a Raycroft year for a long time. And, it's good enough that he's fully capable of getting hot and winning the Cup on just about any above average team. What I'm saying isn't that Price isn't good, and that a "pretty good" goalie doesn't have value.

I don't remember saying that at all. I would say it is standard practice for a goalie to have consistency issues at a young age. You just don't usually find them worked out at the NHL level like Price did. Price does have world-breaking talent now that you say it. He just didn't have to head to match it until the last few seasons. No knock on him, montreal can be a crazy place to play.

I'm saying he's not Luongo, Rask, Rinne, Lundqvist, or Schneider, who are the real *star* goalies in the NHL.

I would have to question why Luongo and Schneider are ahead of Carey Price in term of value and or ability. There is no way that Luongo is worth more "value wise" then Carey Price. There is also no real strong arguement either way for who is better currently (both playing great).

For record's sake;

- One could also nitpick Schneider being ahead of Price on any hockey related list.

- One could also nitpick Rask's inclusion on the same list with this seasons play and his low average start per season numbers. (Please see my recent post saying Rask will be just fine boston fans).

The point is; you can leave or include Price on an arbitrary list as you like. It doesn't take away from the reality that he is near the top of every goalie statistic since 2011.

 

[JustAHabFan]

Do you honestly think Carey Price is sometimes a world beating goalie and sometimes he's not very good? It's variance. When he put up .905 seasons, he was having bad luck. The .927 season involves some good luck. His career is .918 guy, which is a tick above average and enough to make you glad he's young and you won't have to worry about a Raycroft year for a long time. And, it's good enough that he's fully capable of getting hot and winning the Cup on just about any above average team. What I'm saying isn't that Price isn't good, and that a "pretty good" goalie doesn't have value. I'm saying he's not Luongo, Rask, Rinne, Lundqvist, or Schneider, who are the real *star* goalies in the NHL.

Must be a good contributor to the Price overrated thread. As a Habs fan, I don't really care if you or other people around here feel Price is just a regular goalie. I am just happy that Price is playing for my team and I will not trade Price for any other elite goalies in the league.

 

[viceroy]

Oh well if you say so.

EDIT: just gonna point out, Price's career save percentages by season:

.920
.905
.912
.923
.916
.905
.927
.927

So the last two look pretty good, granted this season's far from over. Did he get a lot worse for two years after his rookie year before getting lot better and then declining for two years and then getting way better again? Or are save percentages highly subject to variance?

Now the problem with your theory is that you haven't taken age into account. You look at years in league but not so much age. Most of the top end goalies now began as starters late like Rinne, Rask and Lundqvist and previously by guys like Hasek.

Price OTOH began young like Fleury and DiPietro and previously by guys like Brodeur and Roy.

Not taking age into account skews stats towards those that entered the league at a more mature age.

 

[Cult of Hynes]

The whole "2 goals in 17 seconds" thing would be relevant if he allowed terrible goals from centre ice of something like that, but both goals were miss cues from the D which led to goals that were scored from in tight. You can't fault a goalie on that.

Also, Boston's D wasn't healthy last season as they were missing their #2 and #5D most of the season, yet he was still the clear Vezina Winner.

Don't kid yourself, he is easily a top 5 goalie and I don't see how you can make a case against it really. I would trade a lot on Detroit to replace Howard with him.

Yet they had a Norris finalist and a Selke winner. Sorry, try again.

 

[alg363636]

Yet they had a Norris finalist and a Selke winner. Sorry, try again.

Yet Bruins fans actually watched the games, you clearly didn't. Yet were Bergeron and Chara on the ice for every second of every game? Yet everyone had an aneurism over Chara getting nominated for the Norris since he didn't deserve it.

Sorry, watch a couple games from last year and try again. Familiarize yourself with 2013-2014 Matt Bartkowski as a #4 and try again.

 

[Cult of Hynes]

Yet Bruins fans actually watched the games, you clearly didn't. Yet were Bergeron and Chara on the ice for every second of every game? Yet everyone had an aneurism over Chara getting nominated for the Norris since he didn't deserve it.

Sorry, watch a couple games from last year and try again. Familiarize yourself with 2013-2014 Matt Bartkowski as a #4 and try again.

I agree with the that he didnt deserve the nomination, but he still was solid and is a former Norris winner and finalist.

Also, did I say they were on the ice every second of the game? no I didnt. but when they were on the ice they helped obviously.
Actually I watched quite a few games because I had Rask, Chara, and Boychuk on my fantasy team.

Having Boychuk, Hamilton, Bergeron, Chara on the ice helps. Acting like they arent other good defensive players on that team is laughable. Oh, and I know about Bartkowski last year, my friends complained about him constantly. You still had Miller come up who was solid from what I saw last year.

I love how because I think Rask is not as good as everyone thinks because he is sheltered by a good defensive team means that I havent watched games or dont know about Bartkowski lol.

please.

 

[danisonfire]

Yet Bruins fans actually watched the games, you clearly didn't. Yet were Bergeron and Chara on the ice for every second of every game? Yet everyone had an aneurism over Chara getting nominated for the Norris since he didn't deserve it.

Sorry, watch a couple games from last year and try again. Familiarize yourself with 2013-2014 Matt Bartkowski as a #4 and try again.

The Boston Defence in 2013-2014 was still closer to the middle/low top end, then the bottom.

Goals For: 261 (3rd of 30),
Goals Against: 177 (2nd of 30)
Strength of Schedule: -0.11 (30th of 30)

The problem was the D Boston couldn't keep in the offseason; coupled with the young D core not filling the void (they shouldn't be expected to do this). We are currently seeing how important these departures were. Next year, or the following season after that; as the young kids continue developing on D, boston will be fine again.

 

[alg363636]

I agree with the that he didnt deserve the nomination, but he still was solid and is a former Norris winner and finalist.

Also, did I say they were on the ice every second of the game? no I didnt. but when they were on the ice they helped obviously.
Actually I watched quite a few games because I had Rask, Chara, and Boychuk on my fantasy team.

Having Boychuk, Hamilton, Bergeron, Chara on the ice helps. Acting like they arent other good defensive players on that team is laughable. Oh, and I know about Bartkowski last year, my friends complained about him constantly. You still had Miller come up who was solid from what I saw last year.

I love how because I think Rask is not as good as everyone thinks because he is sheltered by a good defensive team means that I havent watched games or dont know about Bartkowski lol.

please.

Look, did Rask have better D support last year? Absolutely. Does that have something to do with his stats this year? 100%

But there is this idea that last year Rask was playing behind some amazing defensive system and never faced a hard shot. The 2013-2014 Bruins were not the team they were before. They actually were much better offensively than defensively. Rask had, in my opinion, the most to do with their PT season of any player. Maybe Bergeron.

I might have overreacted to your post and I'm sorry if I did; but Rask's exceptional play was not a result of incredible defense.