Sens of Anarchy
Registered User
- Jul 9, 2013
- 68,117
- 54,350
He was in the bottom half of the league in s% among starters. Yes, he was one of 8 goalies at the all star game, but if you don't see how calling him an all star is loaded language, that's not on me.
Does it it? Was he actually better than Kaprizov, Fiala, or Zuccarello? How about Brodin or Spurgeon? Idk, what I do know is only 9 skaters and Two goalies could be representated from the central division, so building the roster wasn't just about picking the best players at their position, or even the best players from each team.
No, it's a label that invokes a perception of a player rather than show why he's a solid vet, an argument that he's a solid vet would be detailing examples of his performance relative to his peers. That's the whole point about it being misleading, it's not that you were trying to pull the wool over people's eyes by using it, it's that it it's not actually evidence of the perception it involes
Again, the problem isn't what you intent it to represent, it's what the average person would assume having no other information available to them if you told them he was an all star.
saying someone is an all star suggests they were one of the better goalies that year, but he was bottom half of the league in sv% among starters.
You used all star participation as evidence he was having a good season, you said so yourself, my point was he wasn't really having a good season. Average at best, hence why it's misleading, the tag all star inherently suggests more than it actually means thanks to how the all star rosters are built.
This is such a defensive response to someone pointing out, that statistically Talbot wasn't all that great last year.Honestly you have to be pretty stubborn to argue that his all star selection was NOT evidence of him having a good season. You choose to die on the most ridiculous hills sometimes… lol
The irony of your argument is that you talk of nuance and then use box scores of all things as proof.
All I will add is that you’re guilty of stat watching as you judge his all star selection. If you feel like it you can go back and read why he was selected. Read past NHL stats, and perhaps you’ll be able to understand why it’s a little more meaningful than you’re giving him credit for.
In the end never claimed it to be the be all end all, but you’ve dug yourself a pit where your argument is how little it means in the context of a goalie having a good season.
That’s your thing, mine was a reasonable rebuttal with another poster about it being a trade that was evaluated and him chosen based on his play.
Feel free to die alone on your hill now, it’s all yours, always has been.
Lol, ok thenHonestly you have to be pretty stubborn to argue that his all star selection was NOT evidence of him having a good season. You choose to die on the most ridiculous hills sometimes… lol
The irony of your argument is that you talk of nuance and then use box scores of all things as proof.
All I will add is that you’re guilty of stat watching as you judge his all star selection. If you feel like it you can go back and read why he was selected. Read past NHL stats, and perhaps you’ll be able to understand why it’s a little more meaningful than you’re giving him credit for.
In the end never claimed it to be the be all end all, but you’ve dug yourself a pit where your argument is how little it means in the context of a goalie having a good season.
That’s your thing, mine was a reasonable rebuttal with another poster about it being a trade that was evaluated and him chosen based on his play.
Feel free to die alone on your hill now, it’s all yours, always has been.
But he WAS good, he was good for the Wild. That’s all I have said.This is such a defensive response to someone pointing out, that statistically Talbot wasn't all that great last year.
10th in wins, 17th in save percentage, 21st in GAA, and not a single vote for the Vezina, all pretty average numbers for a goalie, but hey, he was selected for an All Star last year, so therefore he's automatically good.
Who else was available that would come here who was better at a price we could afford? Maybe he was the best they could get that was available that would come here that they could afford. And along with Forsberg on paper looked like a pretty decent tandem. But just like the yr before with Murray it just hasn't worked out in net again for Ottawa this yr mostly because of the injuries to so many goaltenders in their system & it doesn't seem to have worked out for Murray in Toronto either. That's pretty amazing really, to go through 7 goalies in Ottawa & 10 goalies in Belleville.Lol, ok then
Talbot wasn't great last year, he just wasn't. Why do you think Guerin traded for then extended Fleury? He played behind a top end defensive group and had below league average stats, whether it be advanced stats, quality start ratios or box scores, everything pointed to him having a pretty pedestrian season, you haven't presented any evidence otherwise... just saying he had a good season doesn't make it so.
I'm not saying he was horrible, he just wasn't a top goalie that year, which is why referring to him as an all star despite being technically true paints a misleading picture
So good for the Wild that they felt they needed to get Fleury. I argued it was knee jerk AND poor evaluation, maybe try including all of my argument.But he WAS good, he was good for the Wild. That’s all I have said.
You argued that it was not evaluated and a knee jerk trade.
I pointed out that they were looking for a vet goalie to platoon with Forsberg, and Talbot had just had a solid year with the wild, including an all star selection after his excellent start where he was 18-8. Refitting your original point, not claiming he was a vezina guy, or that the all star selection was the next coming of Christ.
I’m not defensive, I’m annoyed. A simple point and counter point has blossomed into yet another series of moved goal posts and obfuscation.
Anyways, as usual there is no point in continuing with you.![]()
Lol, misleading picture.Lol, ok then
Talbot wasn't great last year, he just wasn't. Why do you think Guerin traded for then extended Fleury? He played behind a top end defensive group and had below league average stats, whether it be advanced stats, quality start ratios or box scores, everything pointed to him having a pretty pedestrian season, you haven't presented any evidence otherwise... just saying he had a good season doesn't make it so.
I'm not saying he was horrible, he just wasn't a top goalie that year, which is why referring to him as an all star despite being technically true paints a misleading picture
Forsberg was good for us last year and yet we felt we needed to go out and get support. The difference is that they brought in a HOF goalie who is clutch in the playoffs. Poor argument.So good for the Wild that they felt they needed to get Fleury. I argued it was knee jerk AND poor evaluation, maybe try including all of my argument.
I guess we have very different standards as to what constitutes as solid. If you think average=solid, sure keep on defending incompetent management because hey, positivity and the future is bright.
Maybe keep a Forsberg and Gus tandem? No one pointed a gun to Dorion's head and forced him to acquire a goalie. Investing the $3.66 million on D would've better provided an environment for Forsberg to continue his play from last season, and put Gus in a position to succeed.Who else was available that would come here who was better at a price we could afford? Maybe he was the best they could get that was available that would come here that they could afford. And along with Forsberg on paper looked like a pretty decent tandem. But just like the yr before with Murray it just hasn't worked out in net again for Ottawa this yr mostly because of the injuries to so many goaltenders in their system & it doesn't seem to have worked out for Murray in Toronto either. That's pretty amazing really, to go through 7 goalies in Ottawa & 10 goalies in Belleville.
On a positive note I thought the tandem of JBD & Kleven have been good together, Kleven hasn't really looked out of place, he made a whiff or two, but other than that it never cost him, could be seeing the future.
The bolded is my whole point, what management acted on was poor evaluation. I never said Dorion didn't wake up and not evaluated his moves, his evaluation just sucks and he made a short sighted move. Poor evaluation isn't no no evaluation lol.Forsberg was good for us last year and yet we felt we needed to go out and get support. The difference is that they brought in a HOF goalie who is clutch in the playoffs. Poor argument.
I have mentioned knee jerk and no evaluation in every single post, try reading again.
Yes, you hate the management and coach, and I don’t. It’s really that simple.
No you’re using 20/20 hindsight to retroactively bash management.The bolded is my whole point, what management acted on was poor evaluation. I never said Dorion didn't wake up and not evaluated his moves, his evaluation just sucks and he made a short sighted move. Poor evaluation isn't no no evaluation lol.
Fleury is a HoF goalie, and 38, the fact that they were willing to gamble on him despite Fleury having a meh playoffs shows how much faith they had in Talbot. Heck they were willing to gamble on a goalie with <30 games experience over Talbot, tells a lot about Guerin's evaluation skills compared to Dorion.
I actively bash management as well, whenever they make moves I don't disagree with I say them then and there. Nothing retroactive about me saying Dorion has poor pro evaluation.No you’re using 20/20 hindsight to retroactively bash management.
Peace dude.
The Sens being one of the more penalized teams have an direct effect on that number ? as in they spend more time on the PK then the average team therefor would have a higher GA/60 even if the PK is good ?This is an odd conclusion, the PK has the 10th highest xGA/60 in the league suggesting that Ottawa is not really keeping quality chances down.
His PK sv% is good because the Sens have the 2nd highest amount of low danger shots against, and indeed they give up a high number of high danger chances but on the PK thats somewhat expected. The sens for being the 2nd most penalized team they barely turn the puck over , having a near top 5 lowest turnover ratios on the PK so that suggest the high scoring chances he faces aren't of turnovers and having one of the higher totals of rebounds given out on PK they could be very much his own doing. So I do think the players are more behind the success of the PK and with a more consistent goalie would be even better. All that being said this is all just my take on the whole situation and I by no mean feel its the correct analysis or that I am right and everyone else is wrong.Meanwhile, Talbot has the 12 best PK sv% in the league among the 55 goalies with 100+ PK mins, Forsberg is 33rd. So while you don't feel the PK is successful due to him, the seats seem to tell a different story.
I have honestly seen only a few games so I can't say much in regards to that. I do how ever believe the players simply force plays that lead to turnovers because they don't have a lot of confidence in their goalie. I just find it hard to believe that a D group with that much skill would have problems with zone exits. Having shaky goal-tending as the Sens had so far this season it the worst possible scenario when the teams Dman are still very young and learning. Good goaltending can make a day and night difference in how much better the team executes plays and plays in general and bad goaltending the total oppositeOne difference is that our biggest issue defensively at 5v5 is our zone exits, we have one of the worst dz turnover rates in the league, but on the PK you aren't trying to make a pass to start a break out, you just ice it at the first opportunity so that weakness is gone.
Giroux chances of signing with Ottawa would for sure take a hit had he not grew up and play his junior years in the region. I believe his wife is also from around Ottawa. He is also on the back end of his career, he was great this season but I find it hard to believe he would be signing with Ottawa in his prime years.Dorion literally acquired two of the biggest names in trade rumours in the last calendar year. The core issue is who the team is targeting.
Thinking Talbot is good enough to repeat his success in Minnesota despite playing behind an inferior blueline is the issue. Taking a chance on a player who is aging and playing behind a good D just because you fear we can't get anyone better isn't a sustainable recipe for success. In that spot, don't make the move and invest in your player development.
No, the whole point of per 60 is to account for the difference between teams time on the PK.The Sens being one of the more penalized teams have an direct effect on that number ? as in they spend more time on the PK then the average team therefor would have a higher GA/60 even if the PK is good ?
It would help if I knew exactly what stats you are using and where you're pulling them from because I'm not seeing the same thing as you, based on the previous comment though, I suspect you aren't using per 60 which makes it pointless to look at the rankings since being a highly penalized team means we seeore of all types of shots.His PK sv% is good because the Sens have the 2nd highest amount of low danger shots against, and indeed they give up a high number of high danger chances but on the PK thats somewhat expected. The sens for being the 2nd most penalized team they barely turn the puck over , having a near top 5 lowest turnover ratios on the PK so that suggest the high scoring chances he faces aren't of turnovers and having one of the higher totals of rebounds given out on PK they could be very much his own doing. So I do think the players are more behind the success of the PK and with a more consistent goalie would be even better. All that being said this is all just my take on the whole situation and I by no mean feel its the correct analysis or that I am right and everyone else is wrong.
I have honestly seen only a few games so I can't say much in regards to that. I do how ever believe the players simply force plays that lead to turnovers because they don't have a lot of confidence in their goalie. I just find it hard to believe that a D group with that much skill would have problems with zone exits. Having shaky goal-tending as the Sens had so far this season it the worst possible scenario when the teams Dman are still very young and learning. Good goaltending can make a day and night difference in how much better the team executes plays and plays in general and bad goaltending the total opposite
I use MoneyPuck.com -NHL Analytics, Playoff Odds, Power Rankings, Player Stats as my go to for stats ....I believe I was using the numbers for the counts instead of the rates. I see the difference now between the two and unfortunately even more clearly now that the PK s good performance this year was not because of Talbot.No, the whole point of per 60 is to account for the difference between teams time on the PK.
It would help if I knew exactly what stats you are using and where you're pulling them from because I'm not seeing the same thing as you, based on the previous comment though, I suspect you aren't using per 60 which makes it pointless to look at the rankings since being a highly penalized team means we seeore of all types of shots.
In this case, it's the ratio that matters, having the most Low danger shots doesn't mean much if you also have the most medium and high.
On NaturalStatrick on pk, We have the:
16th most HDCA/60
5th most MDSCA/60 and
24th most LDCA/60
So chances skew towards higher quality, not the other way around.
So, there seems to be misunderstanding of the stat here.I use MoneyPuck.com -NHL Analytics, Playoff Odds, Power Rankings, Player Stats as my go to for stats ....I believe I was using the numbers for the counts instead of the rates. I see the difference now between the two and unfortunately even more clearly now that the PK s good performance this year was not because of Talbot.
Simply put being the 2nd most penalized team you'd expect Talbots numbers to be much better. Take for example the medium danger scoring chances against on the PK,
Sens:
- face the 4th highest medium danger chances rate /60
- face the 5th highest medium danger shot rate/60
- the rates of specific chances this team faces should not come as surprise if ranked near the top as the Sens have the 2nd highest PIM total
- allow the 18th fewest amount of shots /60
- have the 16 lowest medium danger goal against rate/60 (15 teams lower then us)
- have the 10th highest SV% for that category
the numbers goalies can direcrtly influence are average at best....SV% is decent but not something that screams at you that hes holding it down , GAA for this subsection (biggest in sample size) is right in the middle....nothing is indicative of the team getting peppered with shots on the PK, majority of the shots on the PK the goalies on the sens face are ranked as a medium danger level threat, at the highest danger level the goalie stats remain in my opinion just OK.
We should just bring everyone back from the past….I think we should bring back Pierre Groulx
Don't forget MacLean's doppelganger along with the Fat SpartanWe should just bring everyone back from the past….
Stone
De Melo
Karlsson
Mann
Gudbranson
Corvo
Paul
Mete
PD’s brother
The tea lady from the back office