cygnus47
Registered User
- Sep 14, 2013
- 7,568
- 2,645
I can't stand when people use statistics from a first round loss and try to act as if they reveal more truth about a player than the 82 games before. Thinking that the statistics for a guy who lost two series is really more telling about his ability than the statistics from 200 other games is silly to me. It has all the impact of finding a 5-7 game skid where the team loses at least 4 games and using that and only that as the relevant data for judging a player's talent. Nick Lidstrom had a -4 game. Some 'Perfect Human' he turned out to be rite?
Of course goalies will have bad stats when they lose a hockey series. If the team loses the series and the goalie still has sparkling statistics, it suggests to me the exact opposite of that goalie being elite; it suggests the entire strategy of the team is based on protecting the goalie.
If you have to discount any lost series, how do you figure out when a goalie cost his team a series? The bolded just isn't true most of the time.