Speculation: The first in a Fleury of posts about how the Pens aren't in a Murray to move a goalie

[Scandale du Jour]

That's the thing, though. If you go 20 games, it's too short sighted. If you go 100 games, it's too far. It's like people will do anything to defend this guy. It's amazing. Inevitably we are just going to have to ask the supporters which specific games they want to use in their assessment.

What is short-sighted, IMO, isn't the sample size, it is the use of a single stat, save %. I am not defending Fleury here, just suggesting to expand the analysis.

 

[Shady Machine]

Let me ask people this then. What's more important? The sample size of 19 playoff starts for Fleury since Bales was hired or his whole playoff career? Which one tells us more about the goalie he will be?

If it's the 19 games, then why are Murray's 21 games less telling of the goalie he will be?

 

[Scandale du Jour]

Let me ask people this then. What's more important? The sample size of 19 playoff starts for Fleury since Bales was hired or his whole playoff career? Which one tells us more about the goalie he will be?

If it's the 19 games, then why are Murray's 21 games less telling of the goalie he will be?

19 games with a new goalie coach show that having a new goalie coach has had a positive impact on Fleury's game. 19 playoffs game is large enough of a sample to say that it was "sustained" improvement. Does it erase his entire body of work and makes him a good playoff performer? No. It only shows that, lately, he has been better. Doesn't indicate he will be good in the future and that we shouldn't move him.

If we consider Bales's influence, I think we also have to consider MJ's more conservatice system (which only cover 5 of the 19 games). That will influence the numbers, in Fleury's favor in this case, as well.

 

[Shady Machine]

19 games with a new goalie coach show that having a new goalie coach has had a positive impact on Fleury's game. 19 playoffs game is large enough of a sample to say that it was "sustained" improvement. Does it erase his entire body of work and makes him a good playoff performer? No. It only shows that, lately, he has been better. Doesn't indicate he will be good in the future and that we shouldn't move him.

If we consider Bales's influence, I think we also have to consider MJ's more conservatice system (which only cover 5 of the 19 games). That will influence the numbers, in Fleury's favor in this case, as well.

I agree. So if I can use those 19 games to predict who I think Fleury is going to be, why can't I also use Murray's 21 games to predict who he is going to be?

I'm not really addressing you, but everyone who suggests Murray might be a flash in the pan. Sure, he might be, but we just won a Cup and he played 21 games and put up a 0.923 sv%, which is consistent with the 13 games he played in the regular season AND his play in the AHL. I think it's totally fair to suggest he might get worn out over a full NHL season of 60+ starts, but keeping Fleury isn't the only resolution to that potential problem.

 

[radapex]

MAF is not a top 10 goalie man. I'm sorry. That's just not realistic. I also hate top 10 lists. I feel a tier category is much better for MAF. He's not a top 10 goalie in this league.

FWIW:

Of the 25 goalies to play at least 7560 minutes over the past 3 seasons (that averages out to 42 games per season), Fleury ranks 11th in SV% @ .919. However, there is very little spread from 3rd (Bishop/Rask @ .922) to 17th (Dubnyk/Anderson/Miller @ .916) -- that +/- .003 either way is pretty insignificant statistically. He also ranks 7th in GAA @ 2.33, 3rd in wins @ 108, and 1st in shutouts @ 20.

Narrowing that down to 5040 minutes over the past 2 seasons, Fleury ranks T-9th of 24 in SV% @ .920, 6th in GAA @ 2.30, 5th in wins @ 69, and 1st in shutouts @ 15.

Narrowing even further to 2520 minutes over the past season, Fleury ranks T-6th of 23 in SV% @ .921, 6th in GAA @ 2.29, T-5th in shutouts @ 5, and T-4th in wins @ 35.


So I think we've got enough statistical evidence here to say that Fleury has, over the past 2-3 seasons, actually been a top 10 goalie in the NHL. Some may say "sure, top 10 in the regular season...", but as the numbers I posted a few posts back show, he's actually ranked about the same statistically in the playoffs.

 

[WheresRamziAbid]

Let me ask people this then. What's more important? The sample size of 19 playoff starts for Fleury since Bales was hired or his whole playoff career? Which one tells us more about the goalie he will be?

If it's the 19 games, then why are Murray's 21 games less telling of the goalie he will be?

Cant it be both?

Cant Fleury's 19 games be a better reflection on future performance (especially since there is also a positive correlation with his regular season stats in that same time period) but also not enough of a sample size to confirm anything much like Murrays 21 games?

 

[Shady Machine]

FWIW:

Of the 25 goalies to play at least 7560 minutes over the past 3 seasons (that averages out to 42 games per season), Fleury ranks 11th in SV% @ .919. However, there is very little spread from 3rd (Bishop/Rask @ .922) to 17th (Dubnyk/Anderson/Miller @ .916) -- that +/- .003 either way is pretty insignificant statistically. He also ranks 7th in GAA @ 2.33, 3rd in wins @ 108, and 1st in shutouts @ 20.

Narrowing that down to 5040 minutes over the past 2 seasons, Fleury ranks T-9th of 24 in SV% @ .920, 6th in GAA @ 2.30, 5th in wins @ 69, and 1st in shutouts @ 15.

Narrowing even further to 2520 minutes over the past season, Fleury ranks T-6th of 23 in SV% @ .921, 6th in GAA @ 2.29, T-5th in shutouts @ 5, and T-4th in wins @ 35.


So I think we've got enough statistical evidence here to say that Fleury has, over the past 2-3 seasons, actually been a top 10 goalie in the NHL. Some may say "sure, top 10 in the regular season...", but as the numbers I posted a few posts back show, he's actually ranked about the same statistically in the playoffs.

Good stuff. That said, his regular season stats didn't change materially over the past 6-7 seasons. His sv% since 10-11 were .918, .913, .916, .915, .920, and .921

If you want to call the .920 and .921 trending upwards or proof of improvement, you'd have to recognize that almost all of those games were under MJ as coach, while the .915 was with Bylsma and Bales.

Honestly, I don't think many here would argue that Fleury hasn't improved over the past few seasons. I feel like this discussion is a tad of a derail from the point of this thread, but it's goalie related, so it's fair game.

 

[Shady Machine]

Cant it be both?

Cant Fleury's 19 games be a better reflection on future performance (especially since there is also a positive correlation with his regular season stats in that same time period) but also not enough of a sample size to confirm anything much like Murrays 21 games?

If you want it to be, sure.

Basically what you are saying is that Fleury's small sample size should carry more weight than Murray's. I suppose goalies get more consistent with age, so that can play into that argument.

My point here is that just like there is no guarantee that Murray doesn't regress next year, there is also no guarantee that Fleury continues at a .920+ sv%. Nearly all of that came in MJ's tenure and he's not the coach anymore. I'm not saying for sure that Fleury's stats will drop but just pointing that out.

 

[radapex]

You don't think Calgary made an offer for Fleury? GM's don't make calls, hear the other team's offer, and then go "okay" and hang up. Plus, IC said an offer was made. Obviously you don't believe him, which is fine, but even logic suggests Calgary would have at least made an offer for Fleury.

I don't. I think they were doing their due diligence. They called GMJR to ask what the price was for Fleury. They called Tampa to ask what the price was for Bishop. They called St Louis to ask what the price was for Elliott. Maybe they simply liked the starting point for Elliott better and decided to pursue him further before going anywhere else?

 

[Shady Machine]

I don't. I think they were doing their due diligence. They called GMJR to ask what the price was for Fleury. They called Tampa to ask what the price was for Bishop. They called St Louis to ask what the price was for Elliott. Maybe they simply liked the starting point for Elliott better and decided to pursue him further before going anywhere else?

I disagree with you that they didn't make an offer but since neither of us know anything for a fact, let's just agree to disagree there.

 

[radapex]

Weird how you can make these statements about interest in Fleury but when others say "Calgary made an offer for Fleury" you go "we don't know that".

I say that because the goalie market, traditionally, isn't a very hot one. You get a few teams looking, and that's about it.

I say "we don't know that" about Calgary making an offer for Fleury because it's been reported, by more than one source, that Calgary didn't make an offer for Fleury. When GMJR said he wanted 6th overall for him, Calgary went elsewhere.

 

[wizmet12]

oh well, lets rank the goalies

 

[Shady Machine]

I say that because the goalie market, traditionally, isn't a very hot one. You get a few teams looking, and that's about it.

I say "we don't know that" about Calgary making an offer for Fleury because it's been reported, by more than one source, that Calgary didn't make an offer for Fleury. When GMJR said he wanted 6th overall for him, Calgary went elsewhere.

Interesting I didn't read that. I don't want to make you dig it up, but if you know the source, I'd be interested.

 

[Scandale du Jour]

I agree. So if I can use those 19 games to predict who I think Fleury is going to be, why can't I also use Murray's 21 games to predict who he is going to be?

I'm not really addressing you, but everyone who suggests Murray might be a flash in the pan. Sure, he might be, but we just won a Cup and he played 21 games and put up a 0.923 sv%, which is consistent with the 13 games he played in the regular season AND his play in the AHL. I think it's totally fair to suggest he might get worn out over a full NHL season of 60+ starts, but keeping Fleury isn't the only resolution to that potential problem.

I would say that trying to use save percentage to determine future performance isn't a good idea. I am not a fan of using saving percentage to mesure overall performance. It is a good indicator and has a lot of value when combined to other stats, but as an absolute, meh. I am not a stat geek, but I am sure it is possible to do a model that considers GAA, save % (5 on 5 and PK being separated), save % on prime scoring chances (quite subjective... and is it even kept?), quality of opposition, number of rebounds given, save % on second shots, etc.

Such an analysis could help us trully mesure performance.

 

[radapex]

Please tell me how you know the Flames never responded.

Do you have a response to this? I'm really not trying to be rude, but you've said this twice now as if it's fact and provided nothing further.

It was mentioned a few times on Twitter last week that the Flames had started talking to the Blues and Lightning very shortly after getting the asking price on Fleury from GMJR.

Now, maybe they actually opened with something like "we'll give you two seconds for Fleury" and GMJR went "we want 6th overall". That's a situation that fits the timeline and has Calgary making an offer. The more likely scenario (IMO) is that Calgary said "what do you want for Fleury", GMJR went "we want 6th overall", and the Flames went "ha! we'll look elsewhere".

 

[Ragamuffin Gunner]

I agree. So if I can use those 19 games to predict who I think Fleury is going to be, why can't I also use Murray's 21 games to predict who he is going to be?

I'm not really addressing you, but everyone who suggests Murray might be a flash in the pan. Sure, he might be, but we just won a Cup and he played 21 games and put up a 0.923 sv%, which is consistent with the 13 games he played in the regular season AND his play in the AHL. I think it's totally fair to suggest he might get worn out over a full NHL season of 60+ starts, but keeping Fleury isn't the only resolution to that potential problem.

Personally, IMO the stats since Bales show that the MAF of the PHI and NYI series is gone. Since Bales his losses have been mostly normal NHL goalie losses, were before him those weren't normal losses. His regular seasons have also gotten much better under Bales, which is s sign that he's turned a corner.

As for MM, it's less about what he did in the POs and more to do with the fact that many goalies have had sophomore slumps. Goalies get scouted heavily in the NHL, which is why it's common to see guys come up and do well initially before teams scout him, then have a dip while he's fixing his game, then come back up once they adjust to the league.

At this moment I'm 100% behind MM being the goalie of the future and a stud. I am also sure that having MAF on the roster next year gives us a better chance to repeat than a 2016 2nd, 2017 2nd and a hypothetical UFA.

 

[radapex]

Good stuff. That said, his regular season stats didn't change materially over the past 6-7 seasons. His sv% since 10-11 were .918, .913, .916, .915, .920, and .921

If you want to call the .920 and .921 trending upwards or proof of improvement, you'd have to recognize that almost all of those games were under MJ as coach, while the .915 was with Bylsma and Bales.

Honestly, I don't think many here would argue that Fleury hasn't improved over the past few seasons. I feel like this discussion is a tad of a derail from the point of this thread, but it's goalie related, so it's fair game.

Yeah. I mean, the statistics were actually just in response to Cole's post. The data is actually there to back up the notion that Fleury is a top 10 goalie, whether we want to believe it or not. Maybe not firmly planted in the top 10, and could fall out any given season, but he's there for the time being.

 

[radapex]

I disagree with you that they didn't make an offer but since neither of us know anything for a fact, let's just agree to disagree there.

Interesting I didn't read that. I don't want to make you dig it up, but if you know the source, I'd be interested.

I'm good with agreeing to disagree. With the draft over the weekend, it'll be a nightmare trying to sort through NHL and Flames goaltending related tweets

And, like you said, neither of us were there. We don't know of anything for sure, only what was reported. Maybe the Flames were talking to GMJR for a day (or more) before anything was actually reported, throwing the perceived timeline out of whack.

 

[WheresRamziAbid]

If you want it to be, sure.

Basically what you are saying is that Fleury's small sample size should carry more weight than Murray's. I suppose goalies get more consistent with age, so that can play into that argument.

My point here is that just like there is no guarantee that Murray doesn't regress next year, there is also no guarantee that Fleury continues at a .920+ sv%. Nearly all of that came in MJ's tenure and he's not the coach anymore. I'm not saying for sure that Fleury's stats will drop but just pointing that out.

Im not saying the sample size carries more weight at all, im saying they are both inconclusive.

Though I do believe Fleury putting up his best two statistical seasons (yes I know Johnston was involved as well) in the last two years does point to Fleury genuinely improving and can add some backing to his argument.

As well as Murray having a good (albeit small) sample of 13 NHL games and absolutely smashing the AHL last season adds to his argument.

 

[Shady Machine]

It was mentioned a few times on Twitter last week that the Flames had started talking to the Blues and Lightning very shortly after getting the asking price on Fleury from GMJR.

Now, maybe they actually opened with something like "we'll give you two seconds for Fleury" and GMJR went "we want 6th overall". That's a situation that fits the timeline and has Calgary making an offer. The more likely scenario (IMO) is that Calgary said "what do you want for Fleury", GMJR went "we want 6th overall", and the Flames went "ha! we'll look elsewhere".

I think it's more likely that Treliving made an offer, but since neither of us have factual evidence, I say agree to disagree.

 

[UnrealMachine]

FWIW:

Of the 25 goalies to play at least 7560 minutes over the past 3 seasons (that averages out to 42 games per season), Fleury ranks 11th in SV% @ .919. However, there is very little spread from 3rd (Bishop/Rask @ .922) to 17th (Dubnyk/Anderson/Miller @ .916) -- that +/- .003 either way is pretty insignificant statistically. He also ranks 7th in GAA @ 2.33, 3rd in wins @ 108, and 1st in shutouts @ 20.

Narrowing that down to 5040 minutes over the past 2 seasons, Fleury ranks T-9th of 24 in SV% @ .920, 6th in GAA @ 2.30, 5th in wins @ 69, and 1st in shutouts @ 15.

Narrowing even further to 2520 minutes over the past season, Fleury ranks T-6th of 23 in SV% @ .921, 6th in GAA @ 2.29, T-5th in shutouts @ 5, and T-4th in wins @ 35.


So I think we've got enough statistical evidence here to say that Fleury has, over the past 2-3 seasons, actually been a top 10 goalie in the NHL. Some may say "sure, top 10 in the regular season...", but as the numbers I posted a few posts back show, he's actually ranked about the same statistically in the playoffs.

Try running your analysis with 5on5 sv% instead (where special teams effects are eliminated). You'll get a different result.

 

[Peat]

Honestly, I don't think many here would argue that Fleury hasn't improved over the past few seasons. I feel like this discussion is a tad of a derail from the point of this thread, but it's goalie related, so it's fair game.

Discussing whether Fleury is actually terribad at play-offs seems pretty relevant to me. If he is, then we should be looking to get rid of him for the highest price asap regardless. If he isn't, then whether he should be got rid of depends on a lot of other things.

In any case, I think the statistical evidence is inconclusive and I look forwards to collecting more next season as Murray guides us to a repeat over Fleury's new team somewhere in the west #DeludedOptimist.

I don't. I think they were doing their due diligence. They called GMJR to ask what the price was for Fleury. They called Tampa to ask what the price was for Bishop. They called St Louis to ask what the price was for Elliott. Maybe they simply liked the starting point for Elliott better and decided to pursue him further before going anywhere else?

My memory of it was they pursued the Bishop option a long way before switching to Elliot.

I am still very strongly of the opinion they only went for Elliot after getting priced out of Fleury and Bishop.

My memory is also that they were clearly conducting a lot of due diligence - which is clearly Treliving's style if you ask Flames fans here - and I don't think he'd have only called Rutherford once.

 

[vikingGoalie]

First I want to say I'm totally on board the Murray is our future, good luck in your future endeavors Fleury, train.

That said. I firmly believe Fleury at the top of his game is better then Murray at the top of his game. I think this will change, but if Fleury had not been concussed and found his footing against the Rangers I think we would have had the same result. (a stanley cup). The thing that concerns me with Fleury was that after the game 5 vs Tampa loss, he was totally beating himself up and blaming the whole game on himself. Calling the high blocker side goal "Stupid". I think this was a unique pressure situation, Fleury knew he was rusty, he also knew that it was his only shot to remain a Pittsburgh Penguin next season. (no pressure though) Also this was one of the few games where the Penguins did not dominate the game.

Looking at Murray, he gave up 4 "Stupid" goals in the same spot over the course of the playoffs. 3 of them where markedly worse. BUT Murray comes away from almost single handedly losing game 3 (and game 5) against the Sharks and tells reporters that he had a good game, made some good saves, etc.
Thing is that sort of almost delusional self-confidence can serve a goalie really well.

Murray's glove hand is beyond bad, he got beat between his arm and body several times. Hell he gave up a bad 5 hole goal in game 6 (fleury never gives that up). BUT once again the big thing is he shrugs it off, he still believes in himself.

I do think Fleury has psychologically come a long way from the days of the islander series where by all accounts he was literally banging his head on a concrete wall and almost inconsolable.

But lets get real here, this might be the most dominant run to a stanley cup I've seen from any team in the last 8+ years. The final scores, series stats might not show it, but we utterly dominated play in almost every series, in almost every game. Caps where the only team that where close to us. The other teams really couldn't skate with us and where completely flat footed. So just saying, we can't compare Murray's run, (in which he dipped quite significantly prior to Fleury getting a start, i.e. 88% save pct in a 5 game stretch), should be eye'd with this in mind.

Fleury has stolen games for us in the playoffs, big games. Murray could be argued that he stole one against the Caps, otherwise he was outplayed by every single goalie he was up against. Fleury never in his career had a team in front of him that dominated like this.

Sorry long post, I do really think that once Murray gets his glove hand sorted out, stops leaning so far forward when he goes down (watch how upright vasiliskey is when he is down in the butterfly and moving down for comparison) that he is gonna be a wall for us. He also needs to fight to see the puck through screens better.
BUT I think that Murray's demeanor in net is huge. It's a weird dynamic but you can have a confident goalie who is playing worse actually influence the team to play better then a better goalie who starts blaming himself...
Also all the things that I listed about Murray are very fixable.

Life isn't fair, neither is pro sports. No concussions we aren't even talking about this. But they happened, buh-bye Marc Andre...

 

[UnderratedBrooks44]

My memory of it was they pursued the Bishop option a long way before switching to Elliot.

I am still very strongly of the opinion they only went for Elliot after getting priced out of Fleury and Bishop.

My memory is also that they were clearly conducting a lot of due diligence - which is clearly Treliving's style if you ask Flames fans here - and I don't think he'd have only called Rutherford once.

It could also be they had 2nd rounder-based offers for Fleury and Elliott and, regardless of what Pittsburgh or Fleury wanted, discussed amongst the brass who they'd rather have and they decided they'd rather have Elliott and were confident they could re-sign him (or whatever they intend to do with him). Clean, simple, no tin foil hat required.

It could have been a large number of scenarios like the above that don't include Rutherford being a stubborn old crone who all of a sudden doesn't understand market prices in the NHL, while MAF is sitting at home watching the draft with a Joel Otto jersey on.

 

[radapex]

Try running your analysis with 5on5 sv% instead (where special teams effects are eliminated). You'll get a different result.

He slides down to about the middle of the pack, but there's much less separation between goalies -- from 9th to 22nd is only a difference of .006, or about 8 goals per season.

However, if you want to go through war-on-ice.com's data you'll actually find that Fleury has consistently had one of the largest adjustments (adjSV% - unadjSV%) in the league - which suggests that he consistently faces some of the toughest shots in the league.

If you dig around, you'll find dozens of stats that either support the argument for or against. Which is actually why so many NHL goalies are in favour of the changes to the size of equipment: right now, I'd say probably 80% of NHL goalies are statistically indistinguishable. They're hoping that, by reducing the size of gear and bringing more skill back to the position, they'll be able to create more separation between the more and less talented goalies.