Is Halak overrated?

[BTH]

How is it he's had 14 starts and only holds a 6 and 6 record? He left 2 games that they came back to win???

Or he twice filled in for a struggling Price without doing enough to get the W or L.

Suppose Price makes 40 of 41 saves and the Habs are up 2-1. In the 59th minute, Price gets injured and Halak comes in. All Halak needs to do is make two stops to steal the W from Price. If the Habs surrender no shots on goal, Price keeps the win and Halak gets a game played but neither a win or a loss. (Of course, if the Habs lose the game, Halak gets the loss). Or...

Price makes 35 of 40 saves and the Habs are down 5-3. Price gets pulled after two and Halak comes in. If the Habs lose 5-4, Halak doesn't get a W or L added to his statistics. If the Habs win the game, Halak gets the win. The only way Halak can get a loss is if the Habs wind up scoring 5+ goals and still lose the game. (The number 5 because that's how many goals the Habs would have needed to tie/win in the SO BEFORE Halak joined the game.)

[Zowpeb]

Or he twice filled in for a struggling Price without doing enough to get the W or L.

Suppose Price makes 40 of 41 saves and the Habs are up 2-1. In the 59th minute, Price gets injured and Halak comes in. All Halak needs to do is make two stops to steal the W from Price. If the Habs surrender no shots on goal, Price keeps the win and Halak gets a game played but neither a win or a loss. (Of course, if the Habs lose the game, Halak gets the loss). Or...

Price makes 35 of 40 saves and the Habs are down 5-3. Price gets pulled after two and Halak comes in. If the Habs lose 5-4, Halak doesn't get a W or L added to his statistics. If the Habs win the game, Halak gets the win. The only way Halak can get a loss is if the Habs wind up scoring 5+ goals and still lose the game. (The number 5 because that's how many goals the Habs would have needed to tie/win in the SO BEFORE Halak joined the game.)

I realise that but he's listed, on yahoo at least, as having had 14 starts...not games played...

[JoeLassister]

I realise that but he's listed, on yahoo at least, as having had 14 starts...not games played...

WHAT AN INTERESTING WAY TO CALCULATE THIS STAT

[CerebusClone]

IMHO Save Percentage is the number one stat you can judge a goalie with...

You can't judge any player based on any statistic. You judge a player by watching him play, statistics are at best mere indications. Simply looking at statistics is the best way to draft the next big flop, trading a great power forward like Rick Tocchet for an overrated bum like Kevin Stevens, wasting money and time on a guy like Mariusz Czerkawski, and making an inconsistent unidimensional bum like Mike Ribeiro the centerpiece of your offense.

[Fanpuck33]

How is it he's had 14 starts and only holds a 6 and 6 record? He left 2 games that they came back to win???

He also has an overtime loss, so his record is actually 6-6-1. The fourteenth start that doesn't show up in the win-loss column was the Anaheim game. Halak gave up 4 goals before getting pulled. Montreal scored 4 goals in the game, so the 1st goal given up by Price was considered the game winner. Thus, Price was hung with the loss.

WHAT AN INTERESTING WAY TO CALCULATE THIS STAT

???

[JoeLassister]

???

héhé HWL goalies debate

[Zowpeb]

You can't judge any player based on any statistic. You judge a player by watching him play, statistics are at best mere indications. Simply looking at statistics is the best way to draft the next big flop, trading a great power forward like Rick Tocchet for an overrated bum like Kevin Stevens, wasting money and time on a guy like Mariusz Czerkawski, and making an inconsistent unidimensional bum like Mike Ribeiro the centerpiece of your offense.

I agree that you need more then statistics to judge any player in any sport...however, if you depend solely on anecdotal evidence without any empirical data to support what you "remember" then you will also have issues analysing any talent. Simply depending on someones ability to "watch a player" is a mistake given that a scout with a couple bad days, combined with 1 or 2 poor performances from the player on another day, and the anecdotal evidence will be full of bias. However, if the stats don't support "what you see" then it indicates that perhaps more scouting needs to be done.

There is no doubt in my mind that NHL teams use a host of stats that we don't see or hear about. Stats on players "tools" such as speed forwards/backwards, strength, conditioning, defensive stats that are not published (I doubt +/- is the best they have), hits, blocked shots, minutes played in certain situations, all the peripheral stats over and above the goals/assits/etc...and I'm sure they have a "formula" of reviewing trends and patterns across those stats which yield some indication of which players they want their scouts watching more/less.

If NHL organizations have not adopted the use of statistical data to evaluate players at all levels then they are only 25 years behind every other major sport.

[CerebusClone]

I agree that you need more then statistics to judge any player in any sport...however, if you depend solely on anecdotal evidence without any empirical data to support what you "remember" then you will also have issues analysing any talent. Simply depending on someones ability to "watch a player" is a mistake given that a scout with a couple bad days, combined with 1 or 2 poor performances from the player on another day, and the anecdotal evidence will be full of bias. However, if the stats don't support "what you see" then it indicates that perhaps more scouting needs to be done.

Of course statistics can be a guide, so are comments from people wgho have seen a player play. All I was saying is that in the end what matters is what the player does on the ice. For example at first glance Mike Peca didn't do anything that great in the playoffs with Edmonton afew years ago, however he was really amazing shutting down Joe Thornton, and winning key faceoffs. Similarly people keep criticizing Thornton for shoking in the playoffs when he's played very well for San Jose during his first 2 seasons there (last year he was ordinary). What statistics don't tell is how great a job teams like Nashville and Edmonton (with Peca and Pronger) againsts him, and also just how many great opportunities Jonathan Cheechoo blew away.

If NHL organizations have not adopted the use of statistical data to evaluate players at all levels then they are only 25 years behind every other major sport.

I agree, and the NHL probably still is behing other major sports. This is changing but hockey is still burdened by the old-school Carbonneau-like line of thinking where hockey isn't a strategic sport, and you win by skating and working harder than the other team. If you do you create scoring chances, and cause turnovers. When you watch old hockey games from the 80s and beyond, there was minimal strategy involved and games were filled with turnovers. In fact this is probably why some feel that the games were more exciting, and the the players has more heart when really they were playing like headless chicken, and had to make even more efforts to fix their mistakes.

[huzer]

Or he twice filled in for a struggling Price without doing enough to get the W or L.

Suppose Price makes 40 of 41 saves and the Habs are up 2-1. In the 59th minute, Price gets injured and Halak comes in. All Halak needs to do is make two stops to steal the W from Price. If the Habs surrender no shots on goal, Price keeps the win and Halak gets a game played but neither a win or a loss. (Of course, if the Habs lose the game, Halak gets the loss). Or...

That's incorrect. A goalie gets credit for the win if he is on the ice when the game winning goal is scored. So if the Habs are up 2-1, Price gets pulled for Halak, and the Habs win 2-1 (regardless if Halak makes 2,567 saves), Price gets the win. Same goes for a loss, whatever goalie is on the ice for the game losing goal, he gets saddled with the loss.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

I agree, and the NHL probably still is behing other major sports. This is changing but hockey is still burdened by the old-school Carbonneau-like line of thinking where hockey isn't a strategic sport, and you win by skating and working harder than the other team. If you do you create scoring chances, and cause turnovers. When you watch old hockey games from the 80s and beyond, there was minimal strategy involved and games were filled with turnovers. In fact this is probably why some feel that the games were more exciting, and the the players has more heart when really they were playing like headless chicken, and had to make even more efforts to fix their mistakes.

That seems a little hard on Carbo...considering that the Habs have evolved into a stellar 5-on-5 team much less reliant on sheer high-flying than last season, yet with a better record, I'd say Carbo has brought his charges along in precisely the way they need to be. It's funny how many of the same voices who used to whine that our team was too reliant on the power play and thus not truly a "good team" are strangely silent now that we're winning lots and lots of games purely on the basis of 5-on-5 play. Those who blame Carbo for the anemic PP should logically be crediting him with our excellence an even strength.

Beyond that, it seems to me that hockey in the 1990s and beyond has been dominated by coaching strategies and tactics. The result nearly destroyed the sport's entertainment value (although the crackdown on obstruction has led to a "product" that is as exciting, in terms of on-ice action, as ever); but the point is that tactics are all over hockey. Whether or not anal-retentive statistical breakdowns and analysis are on a level with other sports, I don't know.

Edited January 9, 2009 by The Chicoutimi Cucumber

[CerebusClone]

That seems a little hard on Carbo...considering that the Habs have evolved into a stellar 5-on-5 team much less reliant on sheer high-flying than last season, yet with a better record, I'd say Carbo has brought his charges along in precisely the way they need to be. It's funny how many of the same voices who used to whine that our team was too reliant on the power play and thus not truly a "good team" are strangely silent now that we're winning lots and lots of games purely on the basis of 5-on-5 play. Those who blame Carbo for the anemic PP should logically be crediting him with our excellence an even strength.

It depends what you feel is the cause for our sucess on 5-on-5 hockey. If you feel that the team is always well prepared, that our execution is fluent in the offensive zone, that our transition game has been really efficient, then these are signs that point towards to the coaches. However as I mentioned before, I feel our success is in great part due to our depth and talent level, through strong individual efforts where players have taken turns in making a difference. One night Kovalev will have a big game, another it will be Lang, AK46, or Markov. Sometimes Price fixes some big mistakes with a great save, therefore preventing a few "-5s" to our +/- totals.

The fact that we've been playing musical chair and are constantly reworking our lines doesn't indicate to me that everything is well planned and thought of. There just seems to be a whole lot of guessworking going on, sometimes players go from heatlhy scratches to playing 16-18 minutes, including some time on the powerplay (ex. Begin).

Also there are the comments from several players, like Latendresse and Begin recently or Ryder and Samsonov before, who seemed to have no clue of what was expected of them, or why they were getting scratched/benched. Sometimes a player is too dumb or not willing to listen, like Pierre Degenais and perhaps Mikhail Grabovski, but I've heard too many of these comments in the last 2 years to exclude a problem at the coaching level.

I might be completely wrong about all this - I don't know what's going on during practices and team meetings, and perhaps everything Carbonneau does is brilliant, and the players are just not listening - I'm just stating my opinion based on what I see on the ice, and the players/coaches' commets in the media.

Beyond that, it seems to me that hockey in the 1990s and beyond has been dominated by coaching strategies and tactics. The result nearly destroyed the sport's entertainment value (although the crackdown on obstruction has led to a "product" that is as exciting, in terms of on-ice action, as ever); but the point is that tactics are all over hockey. Whether or not anal-retentive statistical breakdowns and analysis are on a level with other sports, I don't know.

I think we're still making the transition from a game that was based mostly on guts and emotions (I think the entertainment value came much more the constant turnovers than from quality play) to a game where strategies and tactics are omnipresent - as in other professional sports - where organizations have specialized teams watching videos and analyzing opposing teams and players, and where team preparation is a huge key to success.

This will require some adjustments for the league, such as the necessary crackdown on obstruction, and possibly larger ice surfaces. However it is not a synonym of boring hockey; the Red Wings has probably been the best tactical team in the NHL over the last decade, yet watching them play is an absolute delight.

[johnnyhasbeen]

There is only one true test of a goalie, do they win and not crack when championships are on line!!

That is why Cujo stank as a goalie, as did/does Lalime. Cujo could not win, Lalime turned to Racicot! ( who never saw a post season game so who knows?) Roy and that guy in jersey are the other side.

The rest of the year, who cares! Just be decent all year and shut them down in March-June. Who cares what your percentages were in Nov-Jan. The cups are awarded in June!

Oh, the Spengler Coupe is not a real championship Mr Joseph!

Edited January 9, 2009 by johnnyhasbeen

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

There is only one true test of a goalie, do they win and not crack when championships are on line!!

That is why Cujo stank as a goalie, as did/does Lalime. Cujo could not win, Lalime turned to Racicot! ( who never saw a post season game so who knows?) Roy and that guy in jersey are the other side.

The rest of the year, who cares! Just be decent all year and shut them down in March-June. Who cares what your percentages were in Nov-Jan. The cups are awarded in June!

Oh, the Spengler Coupe is not a real championship Mr Joseph!

Uh...surely you can be a really terrific NHL goalie and never win a Cup. Cujo spent most of his career on so-so teams which his stellar play elevated, putting them in a position to win playoff rounds. (His tenure in Detroit was a bust, but also marred by injury: let's be fair). Andy Moog was a very fine goalie - fine enough to out-goaltend some guy named Patrick Roy in a few playoff series - but never won anything. On the other hand, Osgood is nobody's idea of a Great Goalie and yet he's got two rings. I'd take Cujo in his prime over Osgood any day of the week; he was simply a better goalie. In a 30-team league you can't just use Cups as proof of a player's excellence.

On the other hand, your main point - that the playoffs are what really count - is obviously valid. Guys like Roy and Fuhr understood that to a "T." Lalime, Jim Carey in Washington, Turco, they've yet to figure it out.

[KoZed]

The fact that we've been playing musical chair and are constantly reworking our lines doesn't indicate to me that everything is well planned and thought of. There just seems to be a whole lot of guessworking going on, sometimes players go from heatlhy scratches to playing 16-18 minutes, including some time on the powerplay (ex. Begin).

That musical chair deal is how Carbo actually got the young players to perform and develop some work ethic and not relly solely on their talent.

[saskhab]

Uh...surely you can be a really terrific NHL goalie and never win a Cup. Cujo spent most of his career on so-so teams which his stellar play elevated, putting them in a position to win playoff rounds. (His tenure in Detroit was a bust, but also marred by injury: let's be fair). Andy Moog was a very fine goalie - fine enough to out-goaltend some guy named Patrick Roy in a few playoff series - but never won anything. On the other hand, Osgood is nobody's idea of a Great Goalie and yet he's got two rings. I'd take Cujo in his prime over Osgood any day of the week; he was simply a better goalie. In a 30-team league you can't just use Cups as proof of a player's excellence.

On the other hand, your main point - that the playoffs are what really count - is obviously valid. Guys like Roy and Fuhr understood that to a "T." Lalime, Jim Carey in Washington, Turco, they've yet to figure it out.

Moog won with Edmonton one year (their first Cup) when he and Fuhr split duties. Moog even played in the clinching game.

Turco was the best goalie in last year's playoffs by my money. They had a murder's row of opponents (Anaheim, San Jose, Detroit) and beat two of them, and started a strong comeback against Detroit that fell short not because of Turco's efforts, but because they were outplayed badly.

[Sir_Boagalott]

That musical chair deal is how Carbo actually got the young players to perform and develop some work ethic and not relly solely on their talent.

I truely beleive that there is method to the madness. The Habs 5 on 5 this year has been the best it has been in a long time. The last few years the Habs have had strong teams that relied on the PP, best in NHL but thats actually a bad thing. They lived and died on it. In the playoffs when they didnt get enough PP and when they faced teams that were top PK they had problems and when both happened they were done.

This year the Habs 5 on 5 is great, near top of the NHL. After Carbo has solved the 5 on 5 issues I'm sure he will start concentrating on fixing the PK or PP until everything is tops by playoffs.

I still beleive Carbo is doing the Pat Quinn thing and just playing mind games so they will drop in the standings a bit. Last year I think the Habs semi played themselves out going so hard to be #1. Its better to be well rested and then really start going in the final weeks, not months. Also if you mix it up a lot Carbo might discover better matchups and other teams wont be able to figure out the Habs A game if they arent seen during regular season much. The alternate lines are doing a pretty damn good job and he will definitely know what lines are plan B, C.

I dont think Halak is over rated I think he was just not used to playing. Seemed to take him a few games but there arent any real Halak issues so far. Price has let in his share of questionable goals too.

the playoffs are what really count - is obviously valid. Guys like Roy and Fuhr understood that to a "T." Lalime, Jim Carey in Washington, Turco, they've yet to figure it out.

You can add Luongo to that list.

[Habsfan]

This year the Habs 5 on 5 is great, near top of the NHL. After Carbo has solved the 5 on 5 issues I'm sure he will start concentrating on fixing the PK or PP until everything is tops by playoffs.

After being at a low of about 13% the PP is now at 15.2%(as of this morning). It's not very good, but it's better than 13%...at least they are improving!

[simonus]

After being at a low of about 13% the PP is now at 15.2%(as of this morning). It's not very good, but it's better than 13%...at least they are improving!

it doesn't really matter what the season PP% is. As long as going forward they are able to score PPGs as a decent clip, I don't particularly care if they are in the middle of the pack according to the total season stats.

[Habsfan]

it doesn't really matter what the season PP% is. As long as going forward they are able to score PPGs as a decent clip, I don't particularly care if they are in the middle of the pack according to the total season stats.

I wouldn't say that I don't care, but I still thikn the PP should run at about 17-19%. That way, when teams think they can take cheap shots and intimidate your team, you can make them pay with goals on the PP on a regular basis!

[Sir_Boagalott]

After being at a low of about 13% the PP is now at 15.2%(as of this morning). It's not very good, but it's better than 13%...at least they are improving!

Special teams are important but they arent used near as much as 5 on 5 and thats why being really good at 5 on 5 is so much more important. This year the 5 on 5 issues seem to have been solved and that should help for the Habs to move forward in the playoffs.

I wouldn't say that I don't care, but I still thikn the PP should run at about 17-19%. That way, when teams think they can take cheap shots and intimidate your team, you can make them pay with goals on the PP on a regular basis!

Thats another reason why Carbo keeps playing wierd lines. Let teams beleive the Habs PP is at under 20% but really it isnt 20% because he hasnt been playing their true PP lines. The % will shoot up when they start playing the proper PP lines and the other teams wont know what hit them and there wont be much video footage for them to go over and figure out how to stop it.

[JoeLassister]

Thats another reason why Carbo keeps playing wierd lines. Let teams beleive the Habs PP is at under 20% but really it isnt 20% because he hasnt been playing their true PP lines. The % will shoot up when they start playing the proper PP lines and the other teams wont know what hit them and there wont be much video footage for them to go over and figure out how to stop it.

I never thought about that in this way. Not sure if Carbo does it on this purpose though. If he did that since the begining of the season, I'd maybe agree, but Carbo has been playing weird (Laps) line because the PP totally SUCKED for a whole month.

[Athlétique.Canadien]

I have to admit I'm lukewarm on his starting abilities this season. He's been up and down and inconsistent. While all of this is happening he's still delivering on big saves here and there. I'd like to see a better effort. I've noticed his puck controlling skills have improved since Price has been out. I'll give him those pluses. But his worth in trade if that's what Gainey decides - is sinking. Toskala being likely available at the deadline hurts Halak's trade worth. He's doing well but I'd like to see him do better consistently. The games we have won have been 6-5 and 5-4 recently with him. Ouch.

Hopefully the recent improvements in his game translate into a better Halak :hlogo:

[MAK]

he's starting to show that he can play a full game without giving a softy. Kudoz to Carbonneau for let him play through his slump. in the end it could mean alot if Halak continues to improve with confidence.

I do question his rebound control and his trip away from his goal.

while he may never be a full time quality starter, he could become serviceable à la Conklin, Anderson, Lalime and Clemmesen(sp).