Habs vs. Avalanche | Game Thread

[jackp]

Just watched the goal another few times. Square to the shooter and paddle down. Shifted left and would have had it. Then the second deflection. Vis-a-vis the first shift left: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, for him to rapidly fire out his left pad to stop the deflection, something had to go to the right or he's on his right side flailing his pads. Only viable choice? Right arm, which he shifts out WHILE keeping his paddle on the ice. Puck goes around the stick and through the wickets.

I suppose if he were Tretiak with the fabled bionic knee, he would have had that.

DAMN YOU CAREY PRICE FOR NOT BEING FABLED VLADISLAV TRETIAK!

Edit: spelling

Of for god's sake, just check his save percentage. Numbers don't lie. The *average* NHL goalie is around the .910 mark. Oh yeah, I forgot, we give away *better* scoring chances than most teams - NOT!

[jackp]

Agreed. The issue right now is that until the team in front gels, it appears we only win when the goalie is on top of his game (see Price's first and second starts). Price absolutely should have had the first goal, but that might not have be enough for a win. We had long periods of domination in the other teams end, but unless we bury our chances we will be at the whim of the bounces.

Sure, we'll win a lot of games with him... as long as we score at least 4 goals per game and don't allow more than 25 shots. Again, numbers don't lie.

[jackp]

I haven't read through all the posts BUT we shouldn't have had that 2nd goal. Clearly touched the netting, and the officials missed it....so water under a bridge.

This is a fair comment. Some of the AVS actually stopped skating on our 2nd goal, expecting a whistle.

This is gonna be a long, LONG season {sigh}. Go Impact go! Go Als go!

[Habsy]

Sure, we'll win a lot of games with him... as long as we score at least 4 goals per game and don't allow more than 25 shots. Again, numbers don't lie.

It's way too early in the season to be looking at numbers. Please give us all a break with numbers don't lie comments. Carey Price currently has a better save percentage than Luongo and Brodeur, two mega stars.

[Colin]

Of for god's sake, just check his save percentage. Numbers don't lie. The *average* NHL goalie is around the .910 mark. Oh yeah, I forgot, we give away *better* scoring chances than most teams - NOT!

I bow down to your obvious superiority, my Worshipfulness.

I submit, though, that the *average* goalie had 18 other skaters on the ice for all of their games. In Vancouver, Price may have had three. I know, I know, those aren't the numbers you're looking for, but I offer them up for your perusal.

Take away that one game where he was deserted by his team and what do you have? Now, take away the two goals the Habs scored on him last game (forget, for the moment, that he OBVIOUSLY should have saved them, him being the FABLED VLADISLAV TRETIAK and all) and his numbers are looking remarkably better, aren't they.

You must also be a strong proponent of the plus/minus stat. You know, the one that gives you a minus if you jump off the bench because the previous guy gave up on the play and left his team drooping for the opposition to score?

I submit that the save percentage at this stage of the season is about as moot as plus/minus is overall. I submit that over the course of a season the save percentage stat is the best *guide* for understanding a goalie, but even then, it's just a guide and doesn't take into consideration the fact that Komisarek and Beauchemin haven't been able to mark a paper in Toronto. (Not saying that TO goaltending is anything to shout about, but the numbers there would be better if the defense weren't so atrocious.)

Numbers are wonderful things and can be manipulated into making any kind of argument, but I (respectfully) submit that a player's actual play is more important. You know, there were games that Gretzky, Richard, Lemieux and other superstars played where they were dominant but never got a point? Did the numbers lie then too? Did they just suck because they didn't pick up a point?

Maybe THIS is one of the problems the Habs have. Maybe they're looking at the NUMBERS of the draftees instead of the players themselves. While I don't think that's true, at least it would make things a little more understandable from a prospect point of view. That, of course, is utter speculation.

I have no numbers to prove anything.

[habs rule]

hey jackp here's some numbers for you

25952 shots in nhl career 2546 goals against 2.54 gaa save percentage 25952-2546=23406/25952=.901

career avg. Just an average goalie cause numbers don't lie. But I always thought patrick was one of the greatest goaltenders to ever play in the nhl. I still do but maybe numbers ain't everything especially after 5 or 6 games give it rest already.

[jackp]

hey jackp here's some numbers for you

25952 shots in nhl career 2546 goals against 2.54 gaa save percentage 25952-2546=23406/25952=.901

career avg. Just an average goalie cause numbers don't lie. But I always thought patrick was one of the greatest goaltenders to ever play in the nhl. I still do but maybe numbers ain't everything especially after 5 or 6 games give it rest already.

That's kind of funny because I have his career *NHL* average at .909 (http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=4688)

(That's not counting his junior record.)

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/r/roypa01.html has him at .910

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/hockey/nhl/players/440/ also has him .910

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/players/profile?playerId=804 once again has him at .910

Maybe numbers DO tell the story...

(Also don't forget that Roy played half of his career in an NHL where scoring was up from what it is today. His average in his last 2 years in the close checking NHL was over .920)

I really don't understand you Price supporters. Your devotion to this guy despite his numbers and performance leaves me utterly perplexed. You see great potential; I see a guy who had a good half year until the NHL shooters "got the book" on him. Even Theodore was way better than that. (He gave us the greatest year from a goaltender that I've ever seen... and then he went south after that.)

It's hard playing goal in Montreal. I saw people giving Plante a hard time for god's sake. And it might just be that Price needs to play some place where the pressure's not so great. I dunno. But he's not doing the job here and it's blatantly obvious to me (and Red Fisher, btw).

You think I *want* this kid to play poorly?!! No way! No one would be happier to see him succeed than me. But I'm not willing to sacrifice a season or two for that to happen. He already cost us what I thought was a legitimate shot at the Cup 2 years ago. Enough already!!!

Edited October 17, 2009 by jackp

[JoeLassister]

That's kind of funny because I have his career *NHL* average at .909 (http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=4688)

(That's not counting his junior record.)

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/r/roypa01.html has him at .910

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/hockey/nhl/players/440/ also has him .910

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/players/profile?playerId=804 once again has him at .910

Maybe numbers DO tell the story...

(Also don't forget that Roy played half of his career in an NHL where scoring was up from what it is today. His average in his last 2 years in the close checking NHL was over .920)

I really don't understand you Price supporters. Your devotion to this guy despite his numbers and performance leaves me utterly perplexed. You see great potential; I see a guy who had a good half year until the NHL shooters "got the book" on him. Even Theodore was way better than that. (He gave us the greatest year from a goaltender that I've ever seen... and then he went south after that.)

It's hard playing goal in Montreal. I saw people giving Plante a hard time for god's sake. And it might just be that Price needs to play some place where the pressure's not so great. I dunno. But he's not doing the job here and it's blatantly obvious to me (and Red Fisher, btw).

You think I *want* this kid to play poorly?!! No way! No one would be happier to see him succeed than me. But I'm not willing to sacrifice a season or two for that to happen. He already cost us what I thought was a legitimate shot at the Cup 2 years ago. Enough already!!!

I, for my part, would easily stand 2 more years of south for 10 years of North....

[Wamsley01]

I bow down to your obvious superiority, my Worshipfulness.

I submit, though, that the *average* goalie had 18 other skaters on the ice for all of their games. In Vancouver, Price may have had three. I know, I know, those aren't the numbers you're looking for, but I offer them up for your perusal.

Take away that one game where he was deserted by his team and what do you have? Now, take away the two goals the Habs scored on him last game (forget, for the moment, that he OBVIOUSLY should have saved them, him being the FABLED VLADISLAV TRETIAK and all) and his numbers are looking remarkably better, aren't they.

You must also be a strong proponent of the plus/minus stat. You know, the one that gives you a minus if you jump off the bench because the previous guy gave up on the play and left his team drooping for the opposition to score?

I submit that the save percentage at this stage of the season is about as moot as plus/minus is overall. I submit that over the course of a season the save percentage stat is the best *guide* for understanding a goalie, but even then, it's just a guide and doesn't take into consideration the fact that Komisarek and Beauchemin haven't been able to mark a paper in Toronto. (Not saying that TO goaltending is anything to shout about, but the numbers there would be better if the defense weren't so atrocious.)

Numbers are wonderful things and can be manipulated into making any kind of argument, but I (respectfully) submit that a player's actual play is more important. You know, there were games that Gretzky, Richard, Lemieux and other superstars played where they were dominant but never got a point? Did the numbers lie then too? Did they just suck because they didn't pick up a point?

Maybe THIS is one of the problems the Habs have. Maybe they're looking at the NUMBERS of the draftees instead of the players themselves. While I don't think that's true, at least it would make things a little more understandable from a prospect point of view. That, of course, is utter speculation.

I have no numbers to prove anything.

Numbers for a goaltender are not a proper comparable.

Puck Prospectus is attempting to create a number standard like they have with baseball and compare individuals through their statistics.

It is a fools game. In baseball, a pitcher is compensated for his defense through errors. If a team makes 3 errors the pitcher is NOT penalized.

So it is of no importance how poor his team is to determine if he is effective, it is why a player like Zach Greinke can remain among the leaders

even though his team is utterly incompetent. Even then there can be fluctuations for defensive range etc that will not properly represent the numbers.

But the comparables are reasonable. Over 162 games, most players will have the same settings for success, a hitter is not going to benefit from

an All-Star in the lineup to the extent that a Rob Brown did playing on Mario Lemieux's wing. Alex Rodriguez is not going to help Melky Cabrera

when he is facing a pitcher one on one. That is up to him individually. Same goes for a pitcher.

Now in hockey. What possible comparable is there between Tim Thomas and Carey Price last season? Is it really plausible to make the leap and

assume that they are facing the same conditions? Is it plausible to think that Chris Osgood's statistics would remain static if he had played his whole

career with the Atlanta Thrashers? Of course not. It is why you have seasons like Bob Froese in 1985, or Byron Dafoe in 1998, or Roman Cechmanek

in 2002. 15 different players every night make for a million variables that are unaccounted for. In baseball if the defense makes six errors and the pitcher

give up 12 runs on those errors, his statline read 0.00. In hockey if your defense make six errors that account for 3 breakaways, two empty net tap ins

and an unimpeded slap shot from the slot the goaltenders average reads 6.00. Look at Luongo last night, is he all of a sudden crap? Brodeur? The best goaltender

in the world may whittle the six breakdowns to a 4.00 GAA.

So statistical analysis of Price is only of any relevance to that of Jaroslav Halak and Cristobal Huet in 2007. You think it is a coincidence that Roy won

his three Vezina trophies while playing for Pat Burns? Tim Thomas goes from career retread to Vezina winner at the age of 35 and the assumption is

he improved after his prime? Come on. The whole concept is ridiculous. If Carey Price played last season on the Bruins he would have had monster

numbers as well.

Statistics are as intelligent as the individual presenting them and if you do not provide an air tight explanation of how they are relevant, they are open

to holes being blown through them. Saying Goalie A is better than Goalie B because of stats alone is essentially the laziest statement you can possibly

make. That's a bitch slap of truth right there.

As for the nonsensical excuse of Carey Price having a drinking problem. Guy Lafleur was a legendary drunk and is a Hall of Famer. Theo Fleury was

also a legendary drunk and may well make the Hall of Fame. Those are EXCUSES, and explanations offered up from inside info from a friend of a friend

are a waste of time. I am surprised the post didn't make some sort of racial slur about Carey Price being native and their historical weakness to the

proximity of alcohol.

Edited October 17, 2009 by Wamsley01

[habs rule]

That's kind of funny because I have his career *NHL* average at .909 (http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=4688)

(That's not counting his junior record.)

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/r/roypa01.html has him at .910

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/hockey/nhl/players/440/ also has him .910

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/players/profile?playerId=804 once again has him at .910

Maybe numbers DO tell the story...

(Also don't forget that Roy played half of his career in an NHL where scoring was up from what it is today. His average in his last 2 years in the close checking NHL was over .920)

I really don't understand you Price supporters. Your devotion to this guy despite his numbers and performance leaves me utterly perplexed. You see great potential; I see a guy who had a good half year until the NHL shooters "got the book" on him. Even Theodore was way better than that. (He gave us the greatest year from a goaltender that I've ever seen... and then he went south after that.)

It's hard playing goal in Montreal. I saw people giving Plante a hard time for god's sake. And it might just be that Price needs to play some place where the pressure's not so great. I dunno. But he's not doing the job here and it's blatantly obvious to me (and Red Fisher, btw).

You think I *want* this kid to play poorly?!! No way! No one would be happier to see him succeed than me. But I'm not willing to sacrifice a season or two for that to happen. He already cost us what I thought was a legitimate shot at the Cup 2 years ago. Enough already!!!

ok you got me I misinterpreted one of the numbers as total shots when it was sv however the point remains you believe that any goalie with .910 s% is barely average and I don't think patrick was and neither is carey, he is young and he will improve. You would thrown marc andre fleury out years ago based on you theory, apparently he was average enough to win a cup. And if you don't like the discussion don't make ridiculous comments that are sure to draw fire. Now that's enough.

[bar]

Everyone says "Price cost us this game and that game", and that "Price should have bailed us out". Since when do players get carte blanche (sic) to never bail out their goalie? Even if Price save 5 of the 7 goals in Vancouver we still would have lost, where is the fire and brimstone for the habs plays who ALLOWED 7 goals in Vancouver.

I for the life of me cannot understand the venom over the avs games set of goals. A double deflection dribble, a skate deflection that no goalie except through luck would have, and the third goal, well if you want to say the 2nd goal for the havs the avs stopped skating, then what did the habs do on this goal when Gomez was boarded and Mara started to rough up the player who did it.

For all the 'Price haters' I would say save your hate and anger for games that Price doesn't play well in. Do you know what other young goalies have that we do not in Price? Patience. The fans patience, we jump on every little mistake. If you over reactors keep going like this, you know what we'll have? A worse team, and maybe then you'll be happy with that.

In closing, settle the feck down, relax, negativity isn't going to help anyone feel better, except maybe yourself, and thats very, very sad.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Price is in no way to blame for this loss. In fact he hasn't cost us ANY wins this season as far as I can recall. He's doing his job - albeit not as well as some hot goalies might be doing it. For that, he is accused of being everything from an alocholic to an AHL netminder. This whole debate is ridiculous IMHO.

Edited October 17, 2009 by The Chicoutimi Cucumber

[jackp]

ok you got me I misinterpreted one of the numbers as total shots when it was sv however the point remains you believe that any goalie with .910 s% is barely average and I don't think patrick was and neither is carey, he is young and he will improve. You would thrown marc andre fleury out years ago based on you theory, apparently he was average enough to win a cup. And if you don't like the discussion don't make ridiculous comments that are sure to draw fire. Now that's enough.

You, my friend, are the one making ridiculous comments. *I* documented my numbers. You drew yours out of your a-- and assumed they would be accepted without checking. Plus you persist in making personal comments like the one above and then justify it by saying narrow-minded things like calling a dissenting comment "ridiculous." As if anyone who disagrees with you is of course ridiculous. Stick to the topic please. There is no need to dislike or hate someone who doesn't agree with you. You might want to live in a "vanilla" world where everyone agrees with you, but many of us DON'T.

As to Marc-Andre Fleury... I guess one good year and one incredible game 7 save has you convinced. But to me he will go down in NHL history as a mediocre goalie at best. I'm certainly glad you used him as an example. It reveals a lot about your argument.

As to Walmsley... save percentage is heavily dependent on *number of shots,* not *quality of shots.* Thomas would not have faced as many shots last year but his save percentage number is valid as it is based on the percentage of shots he stopped from the number that he received (as I'm sure you're aware). The only argument you can put forward is that Price faced "higher quality" shots and that would be disingenuous, as I imagine quality of shots evens out over a season among different teams.

(Hmmmm, you've got me thinking here... I suppose it is possible that a team's "system" would encourage more perimeter shots than another's. In this particular case, we'd actually have to have a chart showing where the shots came from in both Boston's and Montreal's cases. Obviously, that's not possible, so the difference in quality of shots between both teams has to remain conjecture. But I acknowledge that it is indeed possible.) The only counter argument I can offer to this possibility is that I've *witnessed* most of the goals Price has allowed and many of them were *not* "high quality shots."

[Habsy]

Nobody cares about your "numbers". It's too early in the season, you can throw them into the mighty St. Lawrence river my friend.

[kenadian]

Here's another number 25.

That's the ONLY number we should be looking for.......................

[BCHabnut]

What he said. Number shmumbers. Watch the game, That's it. Price is mediocre in his last 3 games. Not good, not bad. The team was mediocre in their last three games.Taking off a period and allowing the other team to take over. AS far as Fleury goes...Do you even watch him play? He is a good goalie. He has been for two and a half seasons. He didn't look as great when Gonchar was down or Sidney, and he was being hammered every game. He did when his team played in front of him, and he performed well enough to go deep into the final twice and wear a Stanley cup ring.

[brobin]

Price has been nothing special, but I wonder when Halak is going to get another game. He seems to get thrown in once in 10 and then expected to be in game form... brutal..

If we had a clear top flight goalie, I could see it, but we don't. We have a number 1, but I think Price should be getting at least 20 to 25 games unless Price goes on a tear.

I hope Halak gets the next game (not tonight, they won't give him a Saturday at home).

[Colin]

(Hmmmm, you've got me thinking here... I suppose it is possible that a team's "system" would encourage more perimeter shots than another's. In this particular case, we'd actually have to have a chart showing where the shots came from in both Boston's and Montreal's cases. Obviously, that's not possible, so the difference in quality of shots between both teams has to remain conjecture. But I acknowledge that it is indeed possible.) The only counter argument I can offer to this possibility is that I've *witnessed* most of the goals Price has allowed and many of them were *not* "high quality shots."

Somewhere on NHL.com last season I found a chart listing where all shots came from. One thing about Montreal goalies - at least back then - was that there were tons of shots from everywhere because of the perception that the goalies couldn't handle it. If it's the same this season - i.e. lots of perimeter shots, that certainly should affect how we see Price.

Personally, though, the biggest indicator for me is the quality of the goals - not the shots. If a team has 14 shots in a game and score 5, if the goalie had no chance on all five, then it has nothing to do with him - even if it looks horrid on his stats.

[BCHabnut]

Somewhere on NHL.com last season I found a chart listing where all shots came from. One thing about Montreal goalies - at least back then - was that there were tons of shots from everywhere because of the perception that the goalies couldn't handle it. If it's the same this season - i.e. lots of perimeter shots, that certainly should affect how we see Price.

Personally, though, the biggest indicator for me is the quality of the goals - not the shots. If a team has 14 shots in a game and score 5, if the goalie had no chance on all five, then it has nothing to do with him - even if it looks horrid on his stats.

Go re watch the Montreal Red army game in the top 10 Habs games set for proof of this. Tretiak WAS spectacular, but the shots on Dryden were so perfectly set up, that he had little chance on a few of them.

[jackp]

Go re watch the Montreal Red army game in the top 10 Habs games set for proof of this. Tretiak WAS spectacular, but the shots on Dryden were so perfectly set up, that he had little chance on a few of them.

I was at that game... Dryden never played well against the Russians. I have no idea why. Robinson said in his book that they badly outplayed the Soviets and I agree with him.

[habs rule]

You, my friend, are the one making ridiculous comments. *I* documented my numbers. You drew yours out of your a-- and assumed they would be accepted without checking. Plus you persist in making personal comments like the one above and then justify it by saying narrow-minded things like calling a dissenting comment "ridiculous." As if anyone who disagrees with you is of course ridiculous. Stick to the topic please. There is no need to dislike or hate someone who doesn't agree with you. You might want to live in a "vanilla" world where everyone agrees with you, but many of us DON'T.

As to Marc-Andre Fleury... I guess one good year and one incredible game 7 save has you convinced. But to me he will go down in NHL history as a mediocre goalie at best. I'm certainly glad you used him as an example. It reveals a lot about your argument.

As to Walmsley... save percentage is heavily dependent on *number of shots,* not *quality of shots.* Thomas would not have faced as many shots last year but his save percentage number is valid as it is based on the percentage of shots he stopped from the number that he received (as I'm sure you're aware). The only argument you can put forward is that Price faced "higher quality" shots and that would be disingenuous, as I imagine quality of shots evens out over a season among different teams.

(Hmmmm, you've got me thinking here... I suppose it is possible that a team's "system" would encourage more perimeter shots than another's. In this particular case, we'd actually have to have a chart showing where the shots came from in both Boston's and Montreal's cases. Obviously, that's not possible, so the difference in quality of shots between both teams has to remain conjecture. But I acknowledge that it is indeed possible.) The only counter argument I can offer to this possibility is that I've *witnessed* most of the goals Price has allowed and many of them were *not* "high quality shots."

so sorry you are genius no need for me to respond to you. Talk about personal attacks.