Jack Todd embarrasses himself

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

A lot of these points are perceptions on your part.

"Halak showed he could come up incredibly big when it counts." This is a statement that cannot be quantified.

Is coming up big in the first round "when it counts"? Or is coming up big in the third round "when it counts"? Is coming up big

in the Olympic elimination round "when it counts"? Or is coming up big in the medal round "when it counts"?

If I decide that my perception is anti-Halak bias, then I can say he DIDN'T come up big when it counted. You have shifted your argument

all through here based on perception. If Halak can dominate superior teams in Washington and Pittsburgh, why not Philadelphia?

The Pens were the defending champs, the Caps had the 1st seed and Philly finished ahead of the Habs by 1 point.

Price cost the Habs in 2008 because they played an inferior team, but the Habs scored 2 goals or less in three

of the 5 games against the "inferior" team. Halak did no better in Game 4 when the Habs struggled again to score.

Ultimately my point was that nobody is right about everything. I made minor errors in evaluation and expectation over the last 3 seasons.

One thing I was 100% consistent about was that "HE WAS NOT RUSHED" and that his inconsistency was based on age and experience.

This was based on research in regards to the development arc of every 20-25 year old goaltender.

All of the things in between are petty little arguments to undermine the main message and that is that Gainey was right to bring

him up and hand him the keys when he did and Gauthier/Martin were right when they Subbaned him in favour of Halak.

Price was not ruined and their treatment of him actually accelerated his development.

Yes, this is my perception. I'm just trying to explain why fans think Price blew the 2008 series. Of course, I happen to believe my perception is correct, but then again the idea that there is some objective "reality" that we can identify by somehow punching through "perception" is debatable. All I can say is that based on what I saw it is reasonable to suggest that Price played a big role in costing us the series against Philly and that this is not true of Halak in 2010. And I WILL insist upon is that I have neither an anti-Price nor a pro-Halak bias. I really don't give a rat's ass - I'm about the sweater not the player. So I put forward my opinion on this question as an honest one uninfected by some major axe to grind about this goalie or that goalie.

The danger in your view here, Wamsley, is that it shuts down all discussion. "Nobody really knows." Well, that's true. But as fans we can watch the games and share our impressions about what happened out there, surely. You don't need to reach for some all-silencing subjectivism in order to criticize the sort of axe-grinding irrationalism that has marked much of this Price-halak debate. It's enough to call out people who do have axes to grind.

[Wamsley01]

Yes, this is my perception. I'm just trying to explain why fans think Price blew the 2008 series. Of course, I happen to believe my perception is correct, but then again the idea that there is some objective "reality" that we can identify by somehow punching through "perception" is debatable. All I can say is that based on what I saw it is reasonable to suggest that Price played a big role in costing us the series against Philly and that this is not true of Halak in 2010. And I WILL insist upon is that I have neither an anti-Price nor a pro-Halak bias. I really don't give a rat's ass - I'm about the sweater not the player. So I put forward my opinion on this question as an honest one uninfected by some major axe to grind about this goalie or that goalie.

The danger in your view here, Wamsley, is that it shuts down all discussion. "Nobody really knows." Well, that's true. But as fans we can watch the games and share our impressions about what happened out there, surely. You don't need to reach for some all-silencing subjectivism in order to criticize the sort of axe-grinding irrationalism that has marked much of this Price-halak debate. It's enough to call out people who do have axes to grind.

No, my point is you have created a perception that Halak was responsible for victory and not for defeat.

THAT is a huge leap and one that requires consistency. If Halak was responsible and "stepped up" against two superior teams,

then the consistent logic is he failed to "step up" against the inferior Flyers and hence was responsible for the loss. If he had continued

his performance from the first two rounds then the Habs win? No? That is not the story because people have the reasoning that

we got there because of Halak, so it can't be his fault. I don't buy that Halak just played ordinary against Philly or "the magic ran out",

or the team got tired etc. Washington and Pittsburgh were tailor made for what the Habs did, Philly was not. Result, bye bye Habs.

Same for your perception of "coming up big when it counts". It is the same as the ridiculous argument

about clutch goaltenders making the "big save when it counts".

Goalie A allowed 4 goals, but he made the "big save when it counted" in the third period.

Even though they won the game 5-1 Goalie A made a huge save on that first period breakaway that changed the game, he

made the "big save when it counted".

Well, is it the save in the first period that makes the game or the one in the third?

What if Goalie A who had allowed 4 goals in the first two periods but made the big save in the 3rd, had made the "big save" in the 1st period?

Wouldn't he have not had to make the "big save" in the 3rd period? Did I miss the memo where goaltenders don't try to stop every puck to the

best of their ability? Or are they all so mentally fragile that they collapse and allow 3 more, but then summon the internal resolve to make

the save late in the game to save it?

No, it is analyzing the final score and creating the story that makes Fleury, um, I mean Goalie A a superstar.

So Halak is now the goalie who "comes up big when it counts" because he won 2 rounds in the playoffs? Price who "came up big when

it counts" in the World Juniors and the Calder Cup Finals is not a goaltender who can "come up big when it counts" in the NHL?

The consistency of saying Halak didn't come up big in the medal round or the NHL's "medal rounds" is just as consistent as your perception.

Jon Casey is a goaltender who can? Michael Leighton? Jonas Hiller? Chris Osgood? Steve Penney? Olaf Kolzig? Roberto Luongo?

Where does this consistent reasoning veer? Luongo has been labelled as unclutch, yet the guy had that label placed on him after

he put up a .941 SV% and a 1.77 GAA. What would have been clutch? .975 and a .089 GAA?

Who or what determines the round where a player "comes up big"? If a goaltender is dominant into the Stanley Cup Finals and

then his team gets swept in 4 straight and he plays poorly did he "fail to come up big" in the Finals? If a goaltender has a .945 SV% while being

badly outshot in the first round but loses in Game 7, did he "come up big"?

These sayings are the sacred cows of hockey. They are oversimplifications that are rife with inconsistencies.

Did Halak play great for two rounds and not in the third or did Philly change the script? Why could Philly score 7 times

on 30 shots and the Capitals required 180? To answer it you have to blow holes in the Halak as saviour theory and nobody

wants to do that.

My opinion is not "nobody really knows", my opinion is that Halak has been the beneficiary of media hyperbole just like Carey

Price was in 2007-08 and in December 2010. My opinion is that fans create deities and scapegoats and narrow their focus ignoring

90% of what goes on in the game and analyze things on a game to game level and make inaccurate assessments based on

bias and emotion. My opinion is that there is no consistency in "perception" because it is different with every viewer and is easily

infected by human emotion and bias. My perception can be 180 from yours and paint an entirely different story with the exact same

reasoning.

Which brings me back to Jack Todd. Zero vision. Zero accountability. Zero intelligence. Zero creativity.

Edited December 10, 2010 by Wamsley01

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

No, my point is you have created a perception that Halak was responsible for victory and not for defeat.

THAT is a huge leap and one that requires consistency. If Halak was responsible and "stepped up" against two superior teams,

then the consistent logic is he failed to "step up" against the inferior Flyers and hence was responsible for the loss. If he had continued

his performance from the first two rounds then the Habs win? No? That is not the story because people have the reasoning that

we got there because of Halak, so it can't be his fault. I don't buy that Halak just played ordinary against Philly or "the magic ran out",

or the team got tired etc. Washington and Pittsburgh were tailor made for what the Habs did, Philly was not. Result, bye bye Habs.

Same for your perception of "coming up big when it counts". It is the same as the ridiculous argument

about clutch goaltenders making the "big save when it counts".

Goalie A allowed 4 goals, but he made the "big save when it counted" in the third period.

Even though they won the game 5-1 Goalie A made a huge save on that first period breakaway that changed the game, he

made the "big save when it counted".

Well, is it the save in the first period that makes the game or the one in the third?

What if Goalie A who had allowed 4 goals in the first two periods but made the big save in the 3rd, had made the "big save" in the 1st period?

Wouldn't he have not had to make the "big save" in the 3rd period? Did I miss the memo where goaltenders don't try to stop every puck to the

best of their ability? Or are they all so mentally fragile that they collapse and allow 3 more, but then summon the internal resolve to make

the save late in the game to save it?

No, it is analyzing the final score and creating the story that makes Fleury, um, I mean Goalie A a superstar.

So Halak is now the goalie who "comes up big when it counts" because he won 2 rounds in the playoffs? Price who "came up big when

it counts" in the World Juniors and the Calder Cup Finals is not a goaltender who can "come up big when it counts" in the NHL?

The consistency of saying Halak didn't come up big in the medal round or the NHL's "medal rounds" is just as consistent as your perception.

Jon Casey is a goaltender who can? Michael Leighton? Jonas Hiller? Chris Osgood? Steve Penney? Olaf Kolzig? Roberto Luongo?

Where does this consistent reasoning veer? Luongo has been labelled as unclutch, yet the guy had that label placed on him after

he put up a .941 SV% and a 1.77 GAA. What would have been clutch? .975 and a .089 GAA?

Who or what determines the round where a player "comes up big"? If a goaltender is dominant into the Stanley Cup Finals and

then his team gets swept in 4 straight and he plays poorly did he "fail to come up big" in the Finals? If a goaltender has a .945 SV% while being

badly outshot in the first round but loses in Game 7, did he "come up big"?

These sayings are the sacred cows of hockey. They are oversimplifications that are rife with inconsistencies.

Did Halak play great for two rounds and not in the third or did Philly change the script? Why could Philly score 7 times

on 30 shots and the Capitals required 180? To answer it you have to blow holes in the Halak as saviour theory and nobody

wants to do that.

My opinion is not "nobody really knows", my opinion is that Halak has been the beneficiary of media hyperbole just like Carey

Price was in 2007-08 and in December 2010. My opinion is that fans create deities and scapegoats and narrow their focus ignoring

90% of what goes on in the game and analyze things on a game to game level and make inaccurate assessments based on

bias and emotion. My opinion is that there is no consistency in "perception" because it is different with every viewer and is easily

infected by human emotion and bias. My perception can be 180 from yours and paint an entirely different story with the exact same

reasoning.

Which brings me back to Jack Todd. Zero vision. Zero accountability. Zero intelligence. Zero creativity.

Well, I think this argument has rather played itself out, but what the heck. No, I do not believe that Halak single-handedly defeated Pittsburgh or Washington, and I said so quite vehemently at the time. But when you produce a 53-save performance in Game 6 against the Capitals, even if many of those shots came from outside, etc., the fact is that you have triumphed in an absolutely clutch situation. Add to that two series of very strong netminding and you have a guy who has delivered all that you could ask of a goalie on an 8th-seeded team at playoff time. Now, the Philly series was a different game; the Flyers dominated a tired and battered Habs defence and a team system that excels against teams that play east-west hockey but struggles against physical north-south teams, and Halak was merely ordinary. This shouldn't subtract from the fact that he excelled in the two previous rounds, which is more than Price has done.

Carey Price has never had a comparable playoff run at the NHL level. Sure, his teams weren't as strong. Nevertheless, an excellent goalie makes his team better; and at no point in Price's career, including that Boston series, have we yet been able to turn to one of his playoff performances and say, 'wow, he really helped to take the team to another level.' Let him beat Pittsburgh and Washington and then he'll have begun building the rep. Until them, has not proven that he can be an integral part of an impact playoff run. This doesn't mean I don't think he can do it. It just means the obvious: that Halak has done it and Price hasn't.

Your response to this seems to be to diminish the importance of goaltending altogether. 'Look at Detroit with Osgood, look at Chicago with Niemi - it's all about team and system, not goaltending.' I agree to an extent, but it seems absurd to deny that netminding IS an independent variable in team success. Ask teams like Vancouver and Ottawa, who had good teams that suffered chronically from goalies who could not be counted on to make the clutch save at the clutch moment. Or Carolina in that series against the Habs where we owned Geber. Or Pittsbrugh last playoff where Fleury couldn't stop a medicine ball. Or ask the 1970s Montreal Canadiens; everyone on that team, and many of the Habs' opponents from that period, will comment on how Dryden typically didn't have much to do, but made the key save when it counted (except in 79 and in the Red Army game, when he frankly sucked). No matter how good the system, you need a goalie who can make the save when it all breaks down. Halak did that in a huge way for two series in which the Habs were massive underdogs and massively outshot, as well as in the Olympics, albeit with diminishing returns. Price hasn't. Period.

You're right, though, that Halak has never won anything. That's why I like the Curtis Joseph analogy - Joseph is another guy who looked really hot for a series or two and then tended to fade. Of course, it's not ALL on the goalie. Joseph would tend to carry a team for as far as they could go until they were overmatched, just like Halak did last season. It's not goalie OR team; it's both.

None of this is to bash Price or to buy into the media spin of 'saviour Halak.' It's to maintain that the playoffs are a special situation, that not all good players come up to their very best in that situation, and that Halak has given considerable proof that he can do that while Price hasn't yet. That's all.