Thursday, April 24, 2008
Reality check
First, my own take: I didn't agree with the decision to pull Kipper in favour of CuJo in the 2nd period of G7 (and then leave him in for the 3rd), but it was defensible. Pace Darryl Sutter and many others, that 2nd goal was horrible: Kipper clearly did see the puck, which is why he moved his stick in anticipation of the deflection that didn't happen and left his 5-hole open. And the fact that the Flames players were "furious" with the move is a point in Keenan's favour, not against him. (When you're down 4-2, furious isn't a bad way to be IMO.)
Anyway, this whole brouhaha is mostly (A) misplaced fan frustration, and (B) relieved told-you-so's re: "Iron Mike" from the media corps, but it is obscuring the broader, more serious issue -- if you want to be stressed about something, this is it, and just because Cosh brought it up simply to be a dick doesn't change the reality of it. These are Kipper's career numbers with the Flames:
I guesss you could look at this and shrug, and say he'll be fine, he's an elite goalie. I'd prefer some sort of explanation, though. Possibilities:
#3 is the hot button topic right now... I'm sure I won't change anyone's mind here, but I have a hell of a time attributing the difference between today's Kipper and the one of 2-3 seasons ago to Head Coaching. If Kipper had had the same EV SV% this season as he did last season (the Playfair season, where, again, I'm pretty certain the D wasn't "tighter" re: quality of shots), he would have allowed 20 fewer goals. Twenty. To me, that's an awful lot of missed saves to put onto Mike Keenan.
Believe me when I say, I hate to sound gloomy about this, but I'm hoping that the answer is #1; I think #1 and #2 are the only explanations that hold up, and #2 is far too horrible to contemplate. (Kipper's contract extension might prove more regrettable than Kevin Lowe's? Say it ain't so!!!)
Anyway, this whole brouhaha is mostly (A) misplaced fan frustration, and (B) relieved told-you-so's re: "Iron Mike" from the media corps, but it is obscuring the broader, more serious issue -- if you want to be stressed about something, this is it, and just because Cosh brought it up simply to be a dick doesn't change the reality of it. These are Kipper's career numbers with the Flames:
I guesss you could look at this and shrug, and say he'll be fine, he's an elite goalie. I'd prefer some sort of explanation, though. Possibilities:
- He had a couple of hot years, and he's settling down to be a quality, if average-ish, NHL goalie
- He is progressively deteriorating, due to age, wear-and-tear, a specific health issue, poor fitness, an unhealthy lifestyle, dwindling desire (pick any or all, and PS, no libel in the comments please)
- He was very comfortable and confident with Sutter as the coach, less so with Playfair, and even less so with Keenan
- The team in front of him is, progressively, allowing better quality scoring chances
- Other
#3 is the hot button topic right now... I'm sure I won't change anyone's mind here, but I have a hell of a time attributing the difference between today's Kipper and the one of 2-3 seasons ago to Head Coaching. If Kipper had had the same EV SV% this season as he did last season (the Playfair season, where, again, I'm pretty certain the D wasn't "tighter" re: quality of shots), he would have allowed 20 fewer goals. Twenty. To me, that's an awful lot of missed saves to put onto Mike Keenan.
Believe me when I say, I hate to sound gloomy about this, but I'm hoping that the answer is #1; I think #1 and #2 are the only explanations that hold up, and #2 is far too horrible to contemplate. (Kipper's contract extension might prove more regrettable than Kevin Lowe's? Say it ain't so!!!)
# posted by Matt @ 11:26 am 
Comments:
#5. Scouting?
Right or wrong, it's been trotted out as the reason for the demise of Felix Potvin, Jim Carrey and the like. Is there a book on Kipper?
We know for sure Kipper has not been in contact with Roman Turek, right?
Not that I know of (though I hadn't heard that about Potvin).
My own eye, which let me stress I don't trust, tells me that he has let in more bad goals from the wings (i.e. ~ the outer hashmarks) than he used to. Example would be Pavelski's 1-0 goal (eventual winner) in G2. He let in a whack of those against the Canucks this year too.
If there's a book on Kipper, I would have to assume that it's *in response to* his more recent struggles, not the cause of them.
Is there a book on Kipper?
There certainly appeared to be one on shootouts: feint right, go left, lift it high over Kipper's stick. I saw that move WAY too much, before I thought Kipper started acting just wacky, just to change his mojo, he started trying to poke check, and coming out of his net much more aggressively.
I don't think it's libelous to suggest Kiprusoff has been allowing more bad goals than he once did. In the series, some of the BIG, MOMENTUM-TURNING goals were mighty soft. Besides Pavelski's winner in Game 2 that Matt mentioned, in Game 4 Cheechoo's late tying goal from the goal line found a hole that simply shouldn't have existed, and ditto for Roenick's first goal in Game 7 that found that "mouse hole" where Kipper's stick should have been. Both times the Flames never regained the lead or the momentum while San Jose came on and took over the game. BIG goals. Series-turners, both of 'em.
Can't remember the specific goals from Game 5, which I didn't see, but as in Game 7 the Flames put a "3" on the board and it still wasn't enough for their "elite" stopper.
Interesting to see the ongoing drop of Kipper's Sv% holds on the PK as well as ES and overall as were highlighted on Matt's table. He's just dropping off right across the board.
Meanwhile this year's playoff result of .908 was superfically decent but by far the worst of his career. Kipper faced 59 fewer shots than he did against the Wings in '07, yet allowed 18 goals in both series. Probably would have allowed more this time if Keenan hadn't yanked him early on two different occasions.
Kiprusoff's playoff GAA as a Flame:
2004: 1.85
2006: 2.24
2007: 2.81
2008: 3.21
That's what I call heading south in a hurry. Did Sutter really re-up this guy for 6 years? And is he really making $8 MM for each of the first three of those years? That's a lot o' dough for the next coming of Tommy Salo.
Kipper's play is obviously a concern for Flame fans, and if Matt is right and its a combination of #1 and #2, plus the weight of his contract, it may force the Flames to adjust their play and the makeup of the rest of their team. A grinding, low-scoring style isn't going to be as effective if you don't have top ten goaltending. It'll be interesting to see how Sutter reacts this summer.
I think part of his problem has been the lack of a good backup. When he was really on his game the first couple years, he was still establishing himself. The lack of competition has allowed him to get comfortable and likely lose a bit of his edge.
Believing it's 1/2 isn't particularily useful. Item 1/2 aren't changable, so if it is that, then the Flames are f'ed either way. If we assume it's any one of items 3-5 we not only potentially solve the problem, we can determine if in fact it is 1 or 2.
I will agree with you though when you say pulling Kipper was at least defensible.
I don't think it's libelous to suggest Kiprusoff has been allowing more bad goals than he once did. In the series, some of the BIG, MOMENTUM-TURNING goals were mighty soft. Besides Pavelski's winner in Game 2 that Matt mentioned, in Game 4 Cheechoo's late tying goal from the goal line found a hole that simply shouldn't have existed, and ditto for Roenick's first goal in Game 7 that found that "mouse hole" where Kipper's stick should have been. Both times the Flames never regained the lead or the momentum while San Jose came on and took over the game. BIG goals. Series-turners, both of 'em.
No offense, but what about all the 'momentum' turning goals he stopped? Kipper saw a shot every 1.71 minutes while Nabokov only saw a shot every 2.56 minutes, and Kipper let in, what, a goal more?? What about the multiple breakaways he stopped?
I'm not arguing Kipper is perfect or even the best, but the goalie is always an easy target.
Kiprusoff has been around awhile and players have learned how to score on him: screens, swarming net, etc. He is still a great goalie and without him the Flames would have missed the playoffs or been swept four straight by S.J. Flames fans: don't panic.
Believing it's 1/2 isn't particularily useful.
True. I suppose being useful wasn't my aim here.
Item 1/2 aren't changeable, so if it is that, then the Flames are f'ed either way.
If it's #2, they're in huge trouble alright... not only is 10% of the cap being scattered to the winds for the next 6 (actually 4) years, but they'll burn (at least) a season finding out.
#1, not so bad. Just means you're overpaying him, but at least he's helping you win games. There are plenty of teams that get by without heroic goaltending. In fact, most do.
Hey here's a question for y'all: Would you rather have Kipper at 8mil or Ray Emery at 2mil?
Much as I'd love to see Kipper tank, it might be a bit premature. From December on, he was pretty good: .915 save percentage, by my math (incidentally, his career sv%), which would give reason 1 some weight.
He's also played 70+ games each of the last three seasons. The Flames might do well to insure their $8 million with a backup they trust for 20 games or so a season.
As a Canucks fan, I some what have the same thoughts about Luongo. I wonder what ails him also.
Regarding Kipper, I think that he is finding his niche still. He was average in San Jose, and his first year in Calgary was awesome. After that, he has went a little downhill, and I think he will end up as top 10 material in the league. He had a terrible series, and I cant remember even one spectacular save that he made. Nabby had that one on Sarich and then the absurd Nolan stop, and that might have been the difference in uplifting the Sharks to the series win.
Kipper will be ok for years, but I dont think that his mystique will scare anyone anymore. My Nucks have owned him, and its happening more and more with other teams.
Ps. In Finland he is not held with much respect, cause of his denying the Finns in the Olympics of 06. With Kipper, they would have won the gold and beaten there nemesis the Swedes. Instead they lost in the final, and its still blamed on Kipper not showing up...
No offense, but what about all the 'momentum' turning goals he stopped? Kipper saw a shot every 1.71 minutes while Nabokov only saw a shot every 2.56 minutes, and Kipper let in, what, a goal more??
Kiprusoff let in a goal more in 80 fewer minutes. His GAA was 3.21 to Nabokov's 2.45 (Joseph was 0.79, .970). Kipper did have a superior Sv% at .908, as Nabokov was a very run-of-the-mill .895. Flames scored enough goals that they could have won the series with transcendent goaltending in Game 4, 5 or 7. Kipper made lots of good saves to be sure, but he didn't make quite enough "routine" saves to pull off the upset. In this case "good" wasn't "good enough".
The other issue was that goals came in bunches. Kipper gave in 3 goals in the first 3:33 of Game 3; then 2 in the last 5 minutes of Game 4; then 4 within 18 minutes in Game 5 (when Calgary outshot San Jose 36-26); and finally 3 in 12 minutes in Game 7 (with Joseph allowing a fourth immediately thereafter). That's a lot of lapses in a short series. Moreover, some of those bunches were triggered by those soft goals. That's really the time Kiprusoff needed to come up big and slam the door for awhile, and it just didn't happen. It almost seemed as if the bad goals rattled him as well as his teammates.
He is still a great goalie and without him the Flames would have missed the playoffs or been swept four straight by S.J. Flames fans: don't panic.
To paraphrase: don't panic Flames fans, your goaltending is solid, it's just your team that sucks. :D
(Sorry, can't read that any other way.)
hey, niittymaki was great that tournament. and dont forget that lundquist save on jokinen in the last minute
The other issue was that goals came in bunches.
this can be attributed to goalie focus, sure. or TEAM (read: defensive) focus. are the soft goals let in because kipps thinks the D will take their man, and then the opponent gets a shot off ??
i think the calgary D (regehr aside) was absurdly inconsistant this year and believe that hugely contributed to kippsy's bad season.
From December on, he was pretty good: .915 save percentage, by my math (incidentally, his career sv%), which would give reason 1 some weight.
It might, although I will note that on about Nov.15, his EVSv% was .916 and his PKSv% was .792. From then, his EVSv% went from meh to meh, while his PKSv% went from unsustainably bad to meh.
He's also played 70+ games each of the last three seasons. The Flames might do well to insure their $8 million with a backup they trust for 20 games or so a season.
In a sane world, I would be able to respond to that with a big DUH... however, the hockey establishment seems to have gotten it in its collective head that Marty Brodeur and his fitness (or whatever you want to call it, ability to play every game) is the rule rather than the exception.
Once again, folks: from age 30 on, Patrick Roy never once played more than 65 games in a season, and I think there's general agreement about that dude that he was (A) pretty competitive, and (B) preferred playing to sitting.
OT, but any word on Iginla and Quasimodo joining Team Canada? And Matt, did you see that Giordano is on the roster?
I'd love to see Ovechkin play for the Russians.
Matt, if Javageek's SQN% (shot quality neutral) is what you're after, I just went for a spin through his archives. Kiprusoff's SQN% for 06-07 was .914. This year it was .894
Kiprusoff let in a goal more in 80 fewer minutes.
Which is exactly the sort of misleading point I was avoiding by pointing out shots against/time. If Kipper hadn't been hooked in game 3 and the Flames had gotten their act together then 40 minutes of that 80 would disappear. Was Joseph heroic in that effort? No, he only had to be very average because the team played better.
I believe it now and unless someone can prove me otherwise I'll believe it until I die.
Good teams make average goalies look great, and bad teams make great goalies look average.
Ask yourself: Is Calgary a good team?
That's rhetorical of course.
True. I suppose being useful wasn't my aim here.
I'm speaking from the position of being hypothetically able to do something about your quandry.
If Sutter believes 1 or 2 then we're already screwed.
//Kiprusoff let in a goal more in 80 fewer minutes.//
Which is exactly the sort of misleading point I was avoiding by pointing out shots against/time.
What I find misleading is you pointing out shots against/time but raw goals against, not goals against/time. You picked two completely different types of stats, both of which happened to cast Kiprusoff in the best possible light.
If Kipper hadn't been hooked in game 3
... Calgary might have lost 50-4, given Kiprusoff's offical GAA of 50.70 in that game. In a related story, if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.
I believe it now and unless someone can prove me otherwise I'll believe it until I die.
Prove it? Of course not. Who the hell knows what would've happened if Kipper hadn't have got pulled in Game 3? My guess is Calgary would have lost in five, but what do I know? You just go ahead and believe what you want to believe.
the hockey establishment seems to have gotten it in its collective head that Marty Brodeur and his fitness (or whatever you want to call it, ability to play every game) is the rule rather than the exception.
It's also worth noting that, save the last two season, Brodeur was pretty average/good: .906, .910, .906, .906, .914, .917, .911 from 98/99 to 05/06.
All that is to say that, like you, I think this marathon goalie thing is kind of stupid. I guess maybe you could argue that if you're paying a guy $8 mil, he should be able to handle a huge workload, but it's worth pointing out that even the king of never sitting only handles it so well.
OT, but any word on Iginla and Quasimodo joining Team Canada? And Matt, did you see that Giordano is on the roster?
Dion is out.
What I find misleading is you pointing out shots against/time but raw goals against, not goals against/time. You picked two completely different types of stats, both of which happened to cast Kiprusoff in the best possible light.
I'm looking at workload. If you don't think that affects GAA then more power to you.
And like WI says, if goals come in bunches, is that the goalie or the team?
My point about game three was that the team adjusted their play, the goaltending stayed about the same. A good team makes a goalie look good. Again, if you don't want to believe that, more power to you.
I'm looking at workload. If you don't think that affects GAA then more power to you.
Game 3 workload:
Kiprusoff 5 shots
Joseph 22 shots.
Game 3 results:
Kiprusoff 3 GA, 50.70 GAA, .400 Sv%
Joseph 0 GA, 0.00 GAA, 1.000 Sv%.
My point about game three was that the team adjusted their play, the goaltending stayed about the same.
See: above.
And like WI says, if goals come in bunches, is that the goalie or the team?
It's both. My point was that some of those bunches started with a soft goal, after which both the goalie and the team didn't respond well.
A good team makes a goalie look good.
And a good goalie makes a team look good. Unfortunately, at times neither the Flames nor their goalie looked particularly stellar against the Sharks.
Listen, I'm not trying to crucify Kiprusoff or say he cost Calgary the series. I'm just saying he didn't play well enough to steal the series, which is what the Flames needed against a superior opponent. As I recall, that's what he did do in 2004; the Flames had (by far) the better goalie against the Canucks, Wings and Sharks. Whereas this year when they needed a monster game from him, he delivered in Game 6 but not in 3, 4, 5, or 7. His Sv% over those last five games was just .877, which is not my idea of a (positive) difference maker.
Any one else hear the yukon Jake joke:
If mini kipper imitates everything that Kipper does. Do you think he’s playing mini golf right now?
Yukon Jack is on the morning show for an edmonton radio station...mini kipper is that kid from the tsn top 10...
That whole little goalie shtick just cracked me up. Mini Kipper the Mimic Keeper is a microsecond behind but otherwise is the spitting image of Miikka the Elder. The only difference is the little guy is maybe a tad more focussed.
Post a Comment
<< Home
#5. Scouting?
Right or wrong, it's been trotted out as the reason for the demise of Felix Potvin, Jim Carrey and the like. Is there a book on Kipper?
We know for sure Kipper has not been in contact with Roman Turek, right?
# posted by 
: April 24, 2008 11:57 am
: April 24, 2008 11:57 am Not that I know of (though I hadn't heard that about Potvin).
My own eye, which let me stress I don't trust, tells me that he has let in more bad goals from the wings (i.e. ~ the outer hashmarks) than he used to. Example would be Pavelski's 1-0 goal (eventual winner) in G2. He let in a whack of those against the Canucks this year too.
If there's a book on Kipper, I would have to assume that it's *in response to* his more recent struggles, not the cause of them.
Is there a book on Kipper?
There certainly appeared to be one on shootouts: feint right, go left, lift it high over Kipper's stick. I saw that move WAY too much, before I thought Kipper started acting just wacky, just to change his mojo, he started trying to poke check, and coming out of his net much more aggressively.
# posted by : April 24, 2008 12:03 pm
: April 24, 2008 12:03 pm I don't think it's libelous to suggest Kiprusoff has been allowing more bad goals than he once did. In the series, some of the BIG, MOMENTUM-TURNING goals were mighty soft. Besides Pavelski's winner in Game 2 that Matt mentioned, in Game 4 Cheechoo's late tying goal from the goal line found a hole that simply shouldn't have existed, and ditto for Roenick's first goal in Game 7 that found that "mouse hole" where Kipper's stick should have been. Both times the Flames never regained the lead or the momentum while San Jose came on and took over the game. BIG goals. Series-turners, both of 'em.
Can't remember the specific goals from Game 5, which I didn't see, but as in Game 7 the Flames put a "3" on the board and it still wasn't enough for their "elite" stopper.
Interesting to see the ongoing drop of Kipper's Sv% holds on the PK as well as ES and overall as were highlighted on Matt's table. He's just dropping off right across the board.
Meanwhile this year's playoff result of .908 was superfically decent but by far the worst of his career. Kipper faced 59 fewer shots than he did against the Wings in '07, yet allowed 18 goals in both series. Probably would have allowed more this time if Keenan hadn't yanked him early on two different occasions.
Kiprusoff's playoff GAA as a Flame:
2004: 1.85
2006: 2.24
2007: 2.81
2008: 3.21
That's what I call heading south in a hurry. Did Sutter really re-up this guy for 6 years? And is he really making $8 MM for each of the first three of those years? That's a lot o' dough for the next coming of Tommy Salo.
Kipper's play is obviously a concern for Flame fans, and if Matt is right and its a combination of #1 and #2, plus the weight of his contract, it may force the Flames to adjust their play and the makeup of the rest of their team. A grinding, low-scoring style isn't going to be as effective if you don't have top ten goaltending. It'll be interesting to see how Sutter reacts this summer.
# posted by : April 24, 2008 1:35 pm
: April 24, 2008 1:35 pm I think part of his problem has been the lack of a good backup. When he was really on his game the first couple years, he was still establishing himself. The lack of competition has allowed him to get comfortable and likely lose a bit of his edge.
Believing it's 1/2 isn't particularily useful. Item 1/2 aren't changable, so if it is that, then the Flames are f'ed either way. If we assume it's any one of items 3-5 we not only potentially solve the problem, we can determine if in fact it is 1 or 2.
I will agree with you though when you say pulling Kipper was at least defensible.
I don't think it's libelous to suggest Kiprusoff has been allowing more bad goals than he once did. In the series, some of the BIG, MOMENTUM-TURNING goals were mighty soft. Besides Pavelski's winner in Game 2 that Matt mentioned, in Game 4 Cheechoo's late tying goal from the goal line found a hole that simply shouldn't have existed, and ditto for Roenick's first goal in Game 7 that found that "mouse hole" where Kipper's stick should have been. Both times the Flames never regained the lead or the momentum while San Jose came on and took over the game. BIG goals. Series-turners, both of 'em.
No offense, but what about all the 'momentum' turning goals he stopped? Kipper saw a shot every 1.71 minutes while Nabokov only saw a shot every 2.56 minutes, and Kipper let in, what, a goal more?? What about the multiple breakaways he stopped?
I'm not arguing Kipper is perfect or even the best, but the goalie is always an easy target.
Kiprusoff has been around awhile and players have learned how to score on him: screens, swarming net, etc. He is still a great goalie and without him the Flames would have missed the playoffs or been swept four straight by S.J. Flames fans: don't panic.
# posted by : April 24, 2008 2:50 pm
: April 24, 2008 2:50 pm Believing it's 1/2 isn't particularily useful.
True. I suppose being useful wasn't my aim here.
Item 1/2 aren't changeable, so if it is that, then the Flames are f'ed either way.
If it's #2, they're in huge trouble alright... not only is 10% of the cap being scattered to the winds for the next 6 (actually 4) years, but they'll burn (at least) a season finding out.
#1, not so bad. Just means you're overpaying him, but at least he's helping you win games. There are plenty of teams that get by without heroic goaltending. In fact, most do.
Hey here's a question for y'all: Would you rather have Kipper at 8mil or Ray Emery at 2mil?
# posted by : April 24, 2008 3:21 pm
: April 24, 2008 3:21 pm Much as I'd love to see Kipper tank, it might be a bit premature. From December on, he was pretty good: .915 save percentage, by my math (incidentally, his career sv%), which would give reason 1 some weight.
He's also played 70+ games each of the last three seasons. The Flames might do well to insure their $8 million with a backup they trust for 20 games or so a season.
As a Canucks fan, I some what have the same thoughts about Luongo. I wonder what ails him also.
Regarding Kipper, I think that he is finding his niche still. He was average in San Jose, and his first year in Calgary was awesome. After that, he has went a little downhill, and I think he will end up as top 10 material in the league. He had a terrible series, and I cant remember even one spectacular save that he made. Nabby had that one on Sarich and then the absurd Nolan stop, and that might have been the difference in uplifting the Sharks to the series win.
Kipper will be ok for years, but I dont think that his mystique will scare anyone anymore. My Nucks have owned him, and its happening more and more with other teams.
Ps. In Finland he is not held with much respect, cause of his denying the Finns in the Olympics of 06. With Kipper, they would have won the gold and beaten there nemesis the Swedes. Instead they lost in the final, and its still blamed on Kipper not showing up...
# posted by : April 24, 2008 3:28 pm
: April 24, 2008 3:28 pm No offense, but what about all the 'momentum' turning goals he stopped? Kipper saw a shot every 1.71 minutes while Nabokov only saw a shot every 2.56 minutes, and Kipper let in, what, a goal more??
Kiprusoff let in a goal more in 80 fewer minutes. His GAA was 3.21 to Nabokov's 2.45 (Joseph was 0.79, .970). Kipper did have a superior Sv% at .908, as Nabokov was a very run-of-the-mill .895. Flames scored enough goals that they could have won the series with transcendent goaltending in Game 4, 5 or 7. Kipper made lots of good saves to be sure, but he didn't make quite enough "routine" saves to pull off the upset. In this case "good" wasn't "good enough".
The other issue was that goals came in bunches. Kipper gave in 3 goals in the first 3:33 of Game 3; then 2 in the last 5 minutes of Game 4; then 4 within 18 minutes in Game 5 (when Calgary outshot San Jose 36-26); and finally 3 in 12 minutes in Game 7 (with Joseph allowing a fourth immediately thereafter). That's a lot of lapses in a short series. Moreover, some of those bunches were triggered by those soft goals. That's really the time Kiprusoff needed to come up big and slam the door for awhile, and it just didn't happen. It almost seemed as if the bad goals rattled him as well as his teammates.
He is still a great goalie and without him the Flames would have missed the playoffs or been swept four straight by S.J. Flames fans: don't panic.
To paraphrase: don't panic Flames fans, your goaltending is solid, it's just your team that sucks. :D
(Sorry, can't read that any other way.)
hey, niittymaki was great that tournament. and dont forget that lundquist save on jokinen in the last minute
# posted by : April 24, 2008 3:46 pm
: April 24, 2008 3:46 pm The other issue was that goals came in bunches.
this can be attributed to goalie focus, sure. or TEAM (read: defensive) focus. are the soft goals let in because kipps thinks the D will take their man, and then the opponent gets a shot off ??
i think the calgary D (regehr aside) was absurdly inconsistant this year and believe that hugely contributed to kippsy's bad season.
From December on, he was pretty good: .915 save percentage, by my math (incidentally, his career sv%), which would give reason 1 some weight.
It might, although I will note that on about Nov.15, his EVSv% was .916 and his PKSv% was .792. From then, his EVSv% went from meh to meh, while his PKSv% went from unsustainably bad to meh.
He's also played 70+ games each of the last three seasons. The Flames might do well to insure their $8 million with a backup they trust for 20 games or so a season.
In a sane world, I would be able to respond to that with a big DUH... however, the hockey establishment seems to have gotten it in its collective head that Marty Brodeur and his fitness (or whatever you want to call it, ability to play every game) is the rule rather than the exception.
Once again, folks: from age 30 on, Patrick Roy never once played more than 65 games in a season, and I think there's general agreement about that dude that he was (A) pretty competitive, and (B) preferred playing to sitting.
OT, but any word on Iginla and Quasimodo joining Team Canada? And Matt, did you see that Giordano is on the roster?
I'd love to see Ovechkin play for the Russians.
Matt, if Javageek's SQN% (shot quality neutral) is what you're after, I just went for a spin through his archives. Kiprusoff's SQN% for 06-07 was .914. This year it was .894
Kiprusoff let in a goal more in 80 fewer minutes.
Which is exactly the sort of misleading point I was avoiding by pointing out shots against/time. If Kipper hadn't been hooked in game 3 and the Flames had gotten their act together then 40 minutes of that 80 would disappear. Was Joseph heroic in that effort? No, he only had to be very average because the team played better.
I believe it now and unless someone can prove me otherwise I'll believe it until I die.
Good teams make average goalies look great, and bad teams make great goalies look average.
Ask yourself: Is Calgary a good team?
That's rhetorical of course.
True. I suppose being useful wasn't my aim here.
I'm speaking from the position of being hypothetically able to do something about your quandry.
If Sutter believes 1 or 2 then we're already screwed.
//Kiprusoff let in a goal more in 80 fewer minutes.//
Which is exactly the sort of misleading point I was avoiding by pointing out shots against/time.
What I find misleading is you pointing out shots against/time but raw goals against, not goals against/time. You picked two completely different types of stats, both of which happened to cast Kiprusoff in the best possible light.
If Kipper hadn't been hooked in game 3
... Calgary might have lost 50-4, given Kiprusoff's offical GAA of 50.70 in that game. In a related story, if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.
I believe it now and unless someone can prove me otherwise I'll believe it until I die.
Prove it? Of course not. Who the hell knows what would've happened if Kipper hadn't have got pulled in Game 3? My guess is Calgary would have lost in five, but what do I know? You just go ahead and believe what you want to believe.
the hockey establishment seems to have gotten it in its collective head that Marty Brodeur and his fitness (or whatever you want to call it, ability to play every game) is the rule rather than the exception.
It's also worth noting that, save the last two season, Brodeur was pretty average/good: .906, .910, .906, .906, .914, .917, .911 from 98/99 to 05/06.
All that is to say that, like you, I think this marathon goalie thing is kind of stupid. I guess maybe you could argue that if you're paying a guy $8 mil, he should be able to handle a huge workload, but it's worth pointing out that even the king of never sitting only handles it so well.
OT, but any word on Iginla and Quasimodo joining Team Canada? And Matt, did you see that Giordano is on the roster?
Dion is out.
What I find misleading is you pointing out shots against/time but raw goals against, not goals against/time. You picked two completely different types of stats, both of which happened to cast Kiprusoff in the best possible light.
I'm looking at workload. If you don't think that affects GAA then more power to you.
And like WI says, if goals come in bunches, is that the goalie or the team?
My point about game three was that the team adjusted their play, the goaltending stayed about the same. A good team makes a goalie look good. Again, if you don't want to believe that, more power to you.
I'm looking at workload. If you don't think that affects GAA then more power to you.
Game 3 workload:
Kiprusoff 5 shots
Joseph 22 shots.
Game 3 results:
Kiprusoff 3 GA, 50.70 GAA, .400 Sv%
Joseph 0 GA, 0.00 GAA, 1.000 Sv%.
My point about game three was that the team adjusted their play, the goaltending stayed about the same.
See: above.
And like WI says, if goals come in bunches, is that the goalie or the team?
It's both. My point was that some of those bunches started with a soft goal, after which both the goalie and the team didn't respond well.
A good team makes a goalie look good.
And a good goalie makes a team look good. Unfortunately, at times neither the Flames nor their goalie looked particularly stellar against the Sharks.
Listen, I'm not trying to crucify Kiprusoff or say he cost Calgary the series. I'm just saying he didn't play well enough to steal the series, which is what the Flames needed against a superior opponent. As I recall, that's what he did do in 2004; the Flames had (by far) the better goalie against the Canucks, Wings and Sharks. Whereas this year when they needed a monster game from him, he delivered in Game 6 but not in 3, 4, 5, or 7. His Sv% over those last five games was just .877, which is not my idea of a (positive) difference maker.
Any one else hear the yukon Jake joke:
If mini kipper imitates everything that Kipper does. Do you think he’s playing mini golf right now?
Yukon Jack is on the morning show for an edmonton radio station...mini kipper is that kid from the tsn top 10...
That whole little goalie shtick just cracked me up. Mini Kipper the Mimic Keeper is a microsecond behind but otherwise is the spitting image of Miikka the Elder. The only difference is the little guy is maybe a tad more focussed.
Post a Comment
<< Home
