Injury Injury news

[tomh009]

That Dryden curve (more or less a straight line) really says it all. Wow.

[hab29RETIRED]

4 hours ago, GHT120 said:

 

Dryden comparison is IMO irrelevant as for those 8 years the Habs were likely the greatest, or at very least one of the greatest, 8-year teams of all-time.

 

The first 11 years of Roy/Price's careers (Roy's full career with the Habs) it varies from year-to-year but overall their goal support seems somewhat similar ... Roy won slightly more games as a percentage of starts ( .525 vs .514. ).

 

In those 11 seasons:

• Roy's   Habs made the playoffs 9 times, he won 61.9% of the 113 games he started
  ... 1 first round exit,   4 - 2nds, 1 - 3rd, 2 Cups
• Price's Habs made the playoffs 8 times, he won 43.9% of the 57 games he started
  ... 4 first round exits, 2 - 2nds, 2 - 3rds (although he started only 1 game in the first 3rd round run)

 

What conclusion did you draw from the chart?

 

EDIT: initially reversed some playoff stats

 

 

 

 

First few years of Dryden career, hey weren’t the dynasty team. 

Price was our best player for almost a decade. But in habs all-time great goaltending status, he’s behind Dryden, Plante and Roy. They were they were unquestionably the best of their eras. No shame in slotting in behind those guys.

 

Dryden left before his numbers would have dropped off, and Eoy was pretty solid right to the park end as well - although Roy was challenged/surpassed by Hasek/Brodeur in his later years.

 

As great as Price was, I’d rate him about the same as Lundquist, and their were a few other goalies who had were better seasons during his career. But I think Lundquist and Price were probably the most consistently dominant goalies of their era. Price for sure was the most technically sound goalie - perhaps ever. You can argue he was the best Canadian goalie of his era, but I would rank him behind the other all-time great Canadiens goalies in hab history.

[hab29RETIRED]

33 minutes ago, tomh009 said:

That Dryden curve (more or less a straight line) really says it all. Wow.

He was also a money goalie. Just like Roy. Difference is that with the exception of his last season, Dryden rarely had bad games.

[GHT120]

11 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

First few years of Dryden career, hey weren’t the dynasty team ...

 

The first four years of Dryden's career (full-time) the habs may not have been the dynasty teams but were still amongst the best in the league ... 108 pts (.692), 120 points (.769, won Cup), 99 points (.635) and 113 points (.706).

[tomh009]

4 hours ago, GHT120 said:

The first four years of Dryden's career (full-time) the habs may not have been the dynasty teams but were still amongst the best in the league ... 108 pts (.692), 120 points (.769, won Cup), 99 points (.635) and 113 points (.706).

That GSAA takes the team (mostly) out of the equation, though. And it's damned consistent for Dryden. What might he have been had he not retired? We'll never know.

[Commandant]

A GSAA curve for both Roy and Dryden is not near as accurate as Price though.  For price you have location data on shots.  For roy and dryden you dont.

[DON]

So you feel Price was better than those 2?

[Commandant]

2 minutes ago, DON said:

So you feel Price was better than those 2?

 

No.

 

I just dont think the GSAA curves for them are as stark as they are shown.

 

They have had to fudge numbers on dryden and roy and assume every shot against them is equal because we dont have location data.  Id say that the shots dryden faced early in his career were tougher than those he faced under the 76, 77, 78 teams.  Id say Roys teams got worse after 93 and his shots in those years in montreal were more difficult than his early years.  But without location data we cant say for sure.

 

Price we have location data for so the gsaa curve is more accurate.

 

With location data maybe roy or dryden is even better, maybe they are closer to price.  Its impossible to know.

 

I just think the graphs are a little apples to oranges.

[TurdBurglar]

By the same token, Price’s opposition should have been harder due to the availability of those stats.  Roy and Dryden had people watching the games and replays, so there were grey areas is opinions of their weaknesses.

Price on the other hand has a book of his hot and cold zones for shooting, like every other goalie in the NHL these days.  Sure they all were scouted and analyzed, but there’s a way more accurate book on Price and other goalie of the current era.

[DON]

Would be great to see Maillioux get healthy sooner than later, he has missed alot of game time over past couple years.

[hab29RETIRED]

9 hours ago, TurdBurglar said:

By the same token, Price’s opposition should have been harder due to the availability of those stats.  Roy and Dryden had people watching the games and replays, so there were grey areas is opinions of their weaknesses.

Price on the other hand has a book of his hot and cold zones for shooting, like every other goalie in the NHL these days.  Sure they all were scouted and analyzed, but there’s a way more accurate book on Price and other goalie of the current era.

Price also has the benefit of having a book and being able to watch video of shooters and player tendencies, which Dryden and Roy didn’t. He has better, lighter equipment. You can go on all day about the pros and cons of different eras. Bottom line is that those Roy and Dryden one a hell of a lot more individual and team awards over a longer sustained period, and we’re clearly better than their peers more consistently and for a longer duration.

 

For the bulk of Dryden and Roy’s career they were the best at their job.

 

Dryden had no equal. Parent was dominant the year Dryden took off, and his first year back, but that was it. 
 

Roynwas the best money goalie from the late 80’s to early 2000 period, with hasek and Brodeur being more dominant  for a period in between Roy’s career.

 

You can’t say the same about price, he had 2 or 3 really dominant years and could make similar arguments about Lundquist, Quick, Rinne. I think price was definitely better than the latter two, and in his best years was better than them. I’m not sure I could unequivocally say he was better than Lundquist.

[Prime Minister Koivu]

3 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

Price also has the benefit of having a book and being able to watch video of shooters and player tendencies, which Dryden and Roy didn’t. He has better, lighter equipment. You can go on all day about the pros and cons of different eras. Bottom line is that those Roy and Dryden one a hell of a lot more individual and team awards over a longer sustained period, and we’re clearly better than their peers more consistently and for a longer duration.

 

For the bulk of Dryden and Roy’s career they were the best at their job.

 

Dryden had no equal. Parent was dominant the year Dryden took off, and his first year back, but that was it. 
 

Roynwas the best money goalie from the late 80’s to early 2000 period, with hasek and Brodeur being more dominant  for a period in between Roy’s career.

 

You can’t say the same about price, he had 2 or 3 really dominant years and could make similar arguments about Lundquist, Quick, Rinne. I think price was definitely better than the latter two, and in his best years was better than them. I’m not sure I could unequivocally say he was better than Lundquist.

Your analysis is why I don’t believe Price should add his number to the greats in the rafters. 
 

[alfredoh2009]

11 minutes ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:

Your analysis is why I don’t believe Price should add his number to the greats in the rafters. 
 

I agree, @hab29RETIRED 's analysis is bang on

[TurdBurglar]

3 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

Price also has the benefit of having a book and being able to watch video of shooters and player tendencies, which Dryden and Roy didn’t. He has better, lighter equipment. You can go on all day about the pros and cons of different eras. Bottom line is that those Roy and Dryden one a hell of a lot more individual and team awards over a longer sustained period, and we’re clearly better than their peers more consistently and for a longer duration.

 

For the bulk of Dryden and Roy’s career they were the best at their job.

 

Dryden had no equal. Parent was dominant the year Dryden took off, and his first year back, but that was it. 
 

Roynwas the best money goalie from the late 80’s to early 2000 period, with hasek and Brodeur being more dominant  for a period in between Roy’s career.

 

You can’t say the same about price, he had 2 or 3 really dominant years and could make similar arguments about Lundquist, Quick, Rinne. I think price was definitely better than the latter two, and in his best years was better than them. I’m not sure I could unequivocally say he was better than Lundquist.

Price has better, lighter and SMALLER equipment due to rule changes.  Forget the catching mitt of Dominik Hasek being a running joke that it was so big he swatted pucks out of the air instead of catching them?  This lead to equipment rule changes in the late 90's(1999), past when Roy went to Colorado.  Goalies were smaller. but their equipment was bigger than equipment now.

 

Let's not count Dryden with Roy and Price when comparing as Dryden for his 8 year career had some of the best teams to ever play hockey in front of him.  Everybody knows how easy it is to play goalie when the puck spends most of it's time in the other zone on your team's sticks.  Not taking away how good of a goalie Dryden was, but his stats do reflect the 18 players in front of him as well.  This conversation is very different if Price and/or Roy had those teams in front of him.  Nobody can deny this.

 

As for Roy's dominance, Roy's dominance was from 89-92, 4 years.  As opposed to Price from 14-17, again 4 years.  After Roy's dominate 4 season, he's consistently behind Hasek and Brodeur in nearly every stat column.  Again, factor in the Colorado team he had in front of him during this period as well and he still wasn't topping the league.  There's a reason Roy has the NHL record for playoff wins, he's played in nearly 25% more playoff games than any other goalie, but his individual stats aren't that impressive, SV% he's ranked 18th and GAA he's ranked 16th.  Ed Belfour beat Roy in individual stats during the same era, Roy wasn't the dominant force in the NHL during his career, there's 3 goalies who were statistically better in nearly every metric except wins, which is a team metric.  Price's individual playoff statistics are on par with, or better than Roy's.

 

I also read another stat somewhere that Price only every had one season with an 80 point player on his team, which was Kovalev.  Roy had a bunch, he had 4 the year he won the cup with the Canadiens, also at least 1 every season with Colorado, usually 2 or more.  Also look at the team Price had when he won the Vezna, compare it to any of the teams Roy had when he won the Vezna.  Price's team missed the playoff the next year they were so bad. 

 

I'm not looking all of this up and typing it all out to say Roy is a crap goalie, stop praising him.  In fact Roy was a great goalie.  Price is also a great goalie with the disability of bad management, Gainey did all he could to screw the Canadiens before he left.  So there's no way you can accurately say Price is worse than Roy by looking at awards and Cup wins.  Price had to carry nearly every team he had to the playoffs.  Roy almost always had a competent team in from of him.  Dryden could of napped in his net and still made the playoffs. 

[Habs Fan in Edmonton]

No question that the goalie position is probably the toughest one to compare because the team playing in front of you has a lot do with your success. No doubt that Dryden had phenomenal teams in front of him but he also was instrumental in the Habs stealing the cup the year he came into the league. Roy was phenomenal in many playoff runs. Roy and Dryden did have better teams in front of them but I feel that when it came to the playoffs they were able to step up their game more than Price. It's a tough one. 

[tomh009]

5 hours ago, TurdBurglar said:

Price has better, lighter and SMALLER equipment due to rule changes.  Forget the catching mitt of Dominik Hasek being a running joke that it was so big he swatted pucks out of the air instead of catching them?  This lead to equipment rule changes in the late 90's(1999), past when Roy went to Colorado.  Goalies were smaller. but their equipment was bigger than equipment now.

If we start looking at equipment, yes, the gear improved continuously and got smaller in the 90s.

 

But today's goalie gear is a massive step forward from anything that was in existence in the 60s or 70s, regardless of what the size regulations were back then. Look at this photo ... the pads are taller than allowed today (though no one played butterfly back then) but there is way less coverage from the equipment than there is today. Not to mention the weight of the gear, especially as it gets wet.

 

[Commandant]

3 hours ago, tomh009 said:

If we start looking at equipment, yes, the gear improved continuously and got smaller in the 90s.

 

But today's goalie gear is a massive step forward from anything that was in existence in the 60s or 70s, regardless of what the size regulations were back then. Look at this photo ... the pads are taller than allowed today (though no one played butterfly back then) but there is way less coverage from the equipment than there is today. Not to mention the weight of the gear, especially as it gets wet.

 

 

Thats all true but the stat that started all this was GSAA goals saved above average.

 

The "average" is calculated each season.

 

So Dryden was compared to his peers with the same equipment.

 

Roy was compared to his peers with the same equipment 

 

And 

 

Price was too.

 

So none of this stuff effects that chart at all.

 

The best way to look at anything in the comparison though is how dominant were they against their peers, cause goalie styles and equipment have changed.

 

[alfredoh2009]

1 hour ago, Commandant said:

 

Thats all true but the stat that started all this was GSAA goals saved above average.

 

The "average" is calculated each season.

 

So Dryden was compared to his peers with the same equipment.

 

Roy was compared to his peers with the same equipment 

 

And 

 

Price was too.

 

So none of this stuff effects that chart at all.

 

The best way to look at anything in the comparison though is how dominant were they against their peers, cause goalie styles and equipment have changed.

 

 

by definition, the chart compare goalies to their peers each year: so your point seems true at first glance

 

this moving average cannot be used to compare any/all  goalies in a year to any/all goalies in another year since there is no reference to make that leap... which is the point being made.

 

there are too many uncorrelated variables: team in font of them, arena lighting, physical conditioning, video/scouting, equipment, hockey sticks, crease rules, the red line, overtime, etc.

[dlbalr]

 

That's an odd way of putting it but that doesn't sound promising.  To me, that's saying he's going to try to play but we see a scenario where he isn't going to be able to play through the pain and eventually land on LTIR.

[GHT120]

5 minutes ago, dlbalr said:

 

That's an odd way of putting it but that doesn't sound promising.  To me, that's saying he's going to try to play but we see a scenario where he isn't going to be able to play through the pain and eventually land on LTIR.

 

I tend to agree ... after missing 49 games last season Byron returned for 26 games ... sat out one game out (due to "wear and tear of the season" ???) but then dressed for a game because the team was short of forwards and lasted only one period ... he then missed the final 5 games. 

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Can anyone help me understand the following issue? Price is physically done, but obviously does not want to retire because doing so would leave tens of millions of dollars on the table. Fine. So he goes on LTIR until his contract expires. Fine. But what level of verification is required in order to allow a player to get away with this? Does a player have to show that he is continuing to rehab (even if his playing again is not realistic)? Or is it enough that a doctor sign off periodically saying "yeah, this guy is still injured?" In other words, to what extent does a player have to act like he intends to return even if he doesn't? To what extent is any confirmation required that a player has a realistic chance of returning? Could a guy who has lost an arm or leg continue to be on LTIR like this?

 

And who are the relevant actors here? The insurance companies? If they're paying out, surely they would insist on rigorous verification, rather than get bilked out of millions? Or is it just the owner paying out-of-pocket as part of the cost of doing business? (In this case, I'm surprised the owners don't want a modification to the CBA requiring rigorous verification that a player is rehabbing, or even that a player, in the opinion of doctors, has a realistic chance of returning to the ice).

 

Sorry, I've just been perplexed lately about exactly how this works.

[dlbalr]

I can't find much in the CBA about this unfortunately.  It talks about the process for certifying an injury and forms to file but that's about it.  I think I can fill in some blanks with the bits and pieces I know, however.

 

Teams can ask for a physician to declare the player permanently disabled (unable to return).  We've seen that around the league in recent years - Marian Hossa, Brent Seabrook, and Andrew Shaw are examples.  (My understanding is that the Habs tried to get that sign-off for Weber last year and were denied by the league.  Vegas might have more success if they try that now since he has been gone for a year.)  If everyone's on board, that declaration is made and short of showing up for medicals at camp and failing, the player doesn't have to do anything.

 

If the league isn't agreeing to that declaration, the player then has to make himself available for testing at the league's request at intervals set by the league dependent on the nature of the injury.  This happened with Weber last year who flew in I believe three times, the last of which came late in the year around the time Lafleur died and he made a brief appearance at the Bell Centre in a pregame ceremony.  The physician assesses and sends the relevant paperwork to the league and if it's all in order, the player can remain on LTIR.  For players that have a realistic chance of returning to the ice, this process would continue until either they do return or it's eventually ruled that they can't.

 

As for insurance, a lot depends on whether or not the contract is insured in the first place - many aren't and some that are insured aren't at 100%.  I deal a bit with an LTD provider at my job and I know they work with the doctors for the employee on what the proper care plan is and I presume a similar process is done here.  For someone like Byron who should return, that process is more rigorous than someone whose career is known to be over.  There would be regular follow-up assessments getting done and information getting shared all around.  But with Seabrook (for example) getting that permanently out designation, I don't think there's anything they can do.  A permanent injury would qualify as cause to pay out whatever was agreed upon in the policy.

 

Now, can insurance force Price to undergo the required surgery to have a chance at returning?  I have a hard time thinking they can if Montreal's doctors and Price's are both saying quality of life factors have to be taken into consideration.  But that's just a guess on my part.

 

Hopefully that helps a bit.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

3 hours ago, dlbalr said:

I can't find much in the CBA about this unfortunately.  It talks about the process for certifying an injury and forms to file but that's about it.  I think I can fill in some blanks with the bits and pieces I know, however.

 

Teams can ask for a physician to declare the player permanently disabled (unable to return).  We've seen that around the league in recent years - Marian Hossa, Brent Seabrook, and Andrew Shaw are examples.  (My understanding is that the Habs tried to get that sign-off for Weber last year and were denied by the league.  Vegas might have more success if they try that now since he has been gone for a year.)  If everyone's on board, that declaration is made and short of showing up for medicals at camp and failing, the player doesn't have to do anything.

 

If the league isn't agreeing to that declaration, the player then has to make himself available for testing at the league's request at intervals set by the league dependent on the nature of the injury.  This happened with Weber last year who flew in I believe three times, the last of which came late in the year around the time Lafleur died and he made a brief appearance at the Bell Centre in a pregame ceremony.  The physician assesses and sends the relevant paperwork to the league and if it's all in order, the player can remain on LTIR.  For players that have a realistic chance of returning to the ice, this process would continue until either they do return or it's eventually ruled that they can't.

 

As for insurance, a lot depends on whether or not the contract is insured in the first place - many aren't and some that are insured aren't at 100%.  I deal a bit with an LTD provider at my job and I know they work with the doctors for the employee on what the proper care plan is and I presume a similar process is done here.  For someone like Byron who should return, that process is more rigorous than someone whose career is known to be over.  There would be regular follow-up assessments getting done and information getting shared all around.  But with Seabrook (for example) getting that permanently out designation, I don't think there's anything they can do.  A permanent injury would qualify as cause to pay out whatever was agreed upon in the policy.

 

Now, can insurance force Price to undergo the required surgery to have a chance at returning?  I have a hard time thinking they can if Montreal's doctors and Price's are both saying quality of life factors have to be taken into consideration.  But that's just a guess on my part.

 

Hopefully that helps a bit.

 

What an epic post. Brian, you are DA MAN! 

 

[tomh009]

3 hours ago, dlbalr said:

Now, can insurance force Price to undergo the required surgery to have a chance at returning?  I have a hard time thinking they can if Montreal's doctors and Price's are both saying quality of life factors have to be taken into consideration.  But that's just a guess on my part.

I very much doubt they could force a surgery, but what they might be able to do is to refuse the claim if there is a surgery available that addresses the injury. Then it would be up to the team and the player to determine the path forward,

 

In any case, these insurance policies are surely very expensive. If Price's contract is insured, I'd expect an annual premium north of $1M, and something like a 20% deductible on claims.

[GHT120]

29 minutes ago, tomh009 said:

I very much doubt they could force a surgery, but what they might be able to do is to refuse the claim if there is a surgery available that addresses the injury. Then it would be up to the team and the player to determine the path forward ...

 

Fortunately, in salary cap terms, I believe that would be totally distinct from eligibility for LTIR.