Cam Talbot - Mod warning #251

[Khelvan]

Frankly, the difference between an average NHL goaltender and an elite one can simply be timing. At all times, but especially in the playoffs, a single goal coming at the wrong time can mean a loss, or perhaps even elimination.

It is very, very rare to see a team win the Stanley Cup without an elite goaltender or a non-elite one who happens to be playing well above his normal level.

If your goaltender is not elite, or at least playing temporarily at an elite level, you're out of the playoffs. This is doubly true now in the salary cap era, where you can't build a dynasty around an abundance of skaters. There is too much parity in the league now.

If this team had Talbot starting last year, even if his numbers didn't fall off from Lundqvist's I still suggest that the team would be much further down in the standings and likely eliminated from the playoffs long before reaching the finals.

He's a great backup and can likely take over the starting job of an NHL team, but if said team starts and finishes an NHL season with Cam Talbot as the starter and wins the Stanley Cup I will literally eat my shorts. On camera. For your entertainment.

 

[Miamipuck]

Frankly, the difference between an average NHL goaltender and an elite one can simply be timing. At all times, but especially in the playoffs, a single goal coming at the wrong time can mean a loss, or perhaps even elimination.

It is very, very rare to see a team win the Stanley Cup without an elite goaltender or a non-elite one who happens to be playing well above his normal level.

If your goaltender is not elite, or at least playing temporarily at an elite level, you're out of the playoffs. This is doubly true now in the salary cap era, where you can't build a dynasty around an abundance of skaters. There is too much parity in the league now.

If this team had Talbot starting last year, even if his numbers didn't fall off from Lundqvist's I still suggest that the team would be much further down in the standings and likely eliminated from the playoffs long before reaching the finals.

He's a great backup and can likely take over the starting job of an NHL team, but if said team starts and finishes an NHL season with Cam Talbot as the starter and wins the Stanley Cup I will literally eat my shorts. On camera. For your entertainment.

I bolded the pertinent portions of your post.

Yes a single goal per 100 shots can be the difference between Hank and a career back like Talbot has been so far.

 

[silverfish]

Frankly, the difference between an average NHL goaltender and an elite one can simply be timing. At all times, but especially in the playoffs, a single goal coming at the wrong time can mean a loss, or perhaps even elimination.

It is very, very rare to see a team win the Stanley Cup without an elite goaltender or a non-elite one who happens to be playing well above his normal level.

If your goaltender is not elite, or at least playing temporarily at an elite level, you're out of the playoffs. This is doubly true now in the salary cap era, where you can't build a dynasty around an abundance of skaters. There is too much parity in the league now.

If this team had Talbot starting last year, even if his numbers didn't fall off from Lundqvist's I still suggest that the team would be much further down in the standings and likely eliminated from the playoffs long before reaching the finals.

He's a great backup and can likely take over the starting job of an NHL team, but if said team starts and finishes an NHL season with Cam Talbot as the starter and wins the Stanley Cup I will literally eat my shorts. On camera. For your entertainment.

Posted this in the PGT after the Islander game where the discussion went crazy towards the goaltenders.

Yes, but a save percentage of let's say Hanks career of .921 and a save percentage of .915, despite only being .6%, is still pretty monumental...

Last season, Hank faced 1810 shots. He saved .920% of them, giving up 144 goals.

If we had a goalie in net last season that was a "league average goalie" .914% goalie, he'd have given up 156 goals.

The difference between Lundqvist and an average goalie last season was 12 goals over 63 games.

When the difference between a playoff berth and a bubble team is so close in the NHL, those 12 goals over 63 games add up.

The Rangers made the playoffs having a 6 point standings lead over the Capitals. Is it possible, if you randomly spread out those 12 goals over Hank's 63 games that a win or two or three become a loss?

That's why Lundqvist is worth what he is. Now that Cam is starting, his #s are going down, as expected. He's a .915 sv% goalie this season. He's a .900sv% goalie since taking the starting reigns over.

Yes, I understand that there are more factors in a goalie's save percentage than just the play of the goalie. Yes, I understand that Talbot being a starter is a small sample size (so is his sample size as a backup. He's still played less than 40 games at the NHL level), but these are what the numbers say today.

You know how many more goals the Rangers have given up if Talbot had played all of Lundqvist's games this season and kept a steady .900sv%?

25.

 

[Doctyl]

Bottom line for me is that Hank as good as the team in front of him. Talbot kinda breaks that pattern. Especially the last game, where it should of been 10 goals against. I don't know how he managed to hold it with that D performance. Talbot can be my team's starter any day. In addition he is so cheap for us, that raises the bar even higher in my book.

Wait we are arguing that Talbot is the reason we won against the isles? Holy **** this has gone past insanity

 

[JohnC]

Didn't someone provide statistical evidence that the team played better in front of Talbot than Hank?

(Despite the fact that it's pretty common ideology that most teams play better in front of their backup)

 

[NYRangers84]

Reanny and Torts both played 5 men D. He had a huge advantage if you ask me. But that's just my opinion.

Nobody wants to admit this. He also came in when Kevin Weekes was basically throwing in the towel. Most goalies would have shined in his position given the opportunity.

 

[Doctyl]

Nobody wants to admit this. He also came in when Kevin Weekes was basically throwing in the towel. Most goalies would have shined in his position given the opportunity.

What the **** does this even mean?

 

[NYRangers84]

What the **** does this even mean?

It means Hank isn't superhuman and didn't play much better than a competent goalie would have under Renney and Tortorella's teams.
And Kevin Weekes was not a competent goalie back then.

 

[Inferno]

so beyond disappointed at him. I keep thinking of these kinds of images when I see ppl keep scoring on him.

 

[yarre]

I am amazed that there is still "rangers fans" who can't see how great Lundqvist is and really thinks Talbot is almost as competent... it's laughable

 

[Glen Sathers Cigar]

It means Hank isn't superhuman and didn't play much better than a competent goalie would have under Renney and Tortorella's teams.
And Kevin Weekes was not a competent goalie back then.

Reanny and Torts both played 5 men D. He had a huge advantage if you ask me. But that's just my opinion.

It seems like every thread your only comments pertain to defending Talbot and sometimes demeaning Hank.


Hank was nominated for the Vezina in the first 3 seasons of his career. Including his rookie season when scoring was happening at a crazy rate.

Whatever argument you'd like to make, those teams (especially post Jagr) were wildly mediocre.

The most important part of the Rangers being a good defensive team has always been Lundqvist, ever since the beginning.

He's not a product of the Rangers defense, the Rangers defense is and has always been a product of Hank.

 

[GOAT AINEC]

Cam stinks lately. That's what is true. The defense also stinks lately. Cam isn't the sole reason for the goals given up.

Talbot has sucked since starting more than one game a month because he is not a starter..

 

[BroadwayStorm]

I hope this puts to rest the trade Lundquist horse beep.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Good backup, terrible starter.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

It seems like every thread your only comments pertain to defending Talbot and sometimes demeaning Hank.


Hank was nominated for the Vezina in the first 3 seasons of his career. Including his rookie season when scoring was happening at a crazy rate.

Whatever argument you'd like to make, those teams (especially post Jagr) were wildly mediocre.

The most important part of the Rangers being a good defensive team has always been Lundqvist, ever since the beginning.

He's not a product of the Rangers defense, the Rangers defense is and has always been a product of Hank.

I can't figure it out. Talbot has played here since last season, Lundqvist has played here for almost 10 years. I understand people being sentimental about Lundqvist and defending him, but sentimental about Talbot at the expense of Lundqvist?

 

[Radek27]

Reanny and Torts both played 5 men D. He had a huge advantage if you ask me. But that's just my opinion.

How is having one less defender playing an advantage to a goalie?

 

[SnowblindNYR]

How is having one less defender playing an advantage to a goalie?

I think he means that they played a system where everyone blocked shots. And that's ********, yes they blocked shots but they also spent a time of time in our zone.

 

[GOAT AINEC]

Should have traded him when he had some value.

Probably can only get a half eaten McDonald's burger for him now.

 

[Rick Nash 61]

"The return?"

 

[Siamese Dream]

Since he has taken over he has been letting in far too many goals per game

In the last 7 games:

3 - 2 Loss against Nashville
3 - 2 OT loss against Dallas
5 - 4 win against Toronto
6 - 3 win against Colorado
5 - 1 win against Arizona
6 - 5 win against Islanders
4 - 4 shootout loss against Vancouver

That's only 1 game since he's been the starter where he conceded 2 goals or less, for a starting goalie in the NHL that simply isn't good enough.

He's been lucky the team can actually score this season to get the W

 

[FATCHAMALA11]

Since he has taken over he has been letting in far too many goals per game

In the last 7 games:

3 - 2 Loss against Nashville
3 - 2 OT loss against Dallas
5 - 4 win against Toronto
6 - 3 win against Colorado
5 - 1 win against Arizona
6 - 5 win against Islanders
4 - 4 shootout loss against Vancouver

That's only 1 game since he's been the starter where he conceded 2 goals or less, for a starting goalie in the NHL that simply isn't good enough.

He's been lucky the team can actually score this season to get the W

There's a reason Talbot wasn't drafted in 2 leagues, and it's been showing. Hurry back Hank.

 

[NYRKindms]

Hes been fine IMHO. There have been a few gift goals and some softies but overall he has battled for the team and they have been in every game. What else can you really ask of your back up goal tender ?

He has made some huge saves at huge times as well. I guess i'm willing to cut him some slack. Hes earned it in my opinion.

 

[nyrleetch]

Since he has taken over he has been letting in far too many goals per game

In the last 7 games:

3 - 2 Loss against Nashville
3 - 2 OT loss against Dallas
5 - 4 win against Toronto
6 - 3 win against Colorado
5 - 1 win against Arizona
6 - 5 win against Islanders
4 - 4 shootout loss against Vancouver

That's only 1 game since he's been the starter where he conceded 2 goals or less, for a starting goalie in the NHL that simply isn't good enough.

He's been lucky the team can actually score this season to get the W

Yep, and for people blaming the defense, this is the same defense Henrik always bails out. Talbot's rebounding control is terrible.

 

[Miamipuck]

If keep hearing this argument in here over and over. It's simply not true. The difference between an all-star goalie and a below average goalie is allowing a goal, on average, on every 9-10th shot, to allowing a goal on every 13-14th shot. Are you telling me that's not a big difference? If not, what does the eye test say? What does the coach say?

Go back and do some more math because this is monumentally wrong. The difference between an all star goalie and a below average goalie is not 60-70 basis points in save percentage. I am sorry that's preposterous.

Here going by this site:
http://www.hockeyabstract.com/goalie-trends

Do the math the league average sv% is .9163 and Hank's is approx. .920.

Mike Smith an average to below goalie has a Sv% of .912. That's .8 of a goal every 100 shots less than Hank.

We can all agree Hank is not an average goalie, he is in fact a Hall of Fame goalie, I don't care what the haters have to say. So yes, the difference is even less than 1 goal per 100 shots.

There's a reason why you keep hearing this argument over and over, because it's correct. The differences between elite and average are razor thin.

 

[Chimpradamus]

Go back and do some more math because this is monumentally wrong. The difference between an all star goalie and a below average goalie is not 60-70 basis points in save percentage. I am sorry that's preposterous.

Here going by this site:
http://www.hockeyabstract.com/goalie-trends

Do the math the league average sv% is .9163 and Hank's is approx. .920.

Mike Smith an average to below goalie has a Sv% of .912. That's .8 of a goal every 100 shots less than Hank.

We can all agree Hank is not an average goalie, he is in fact a Hall of Fame goalie, I don't care what the haters have to say. So yes, the difference is even less than 1 goal per 100 shots.

There's a reason why you keep hearing this argument over and over, because it's correct. The differences between elite and average are razor thin.

Lundqvist: .9223, allowing one goal on every 12.9 shots on average. Talbot: .9117, allowing one goal every 11.3 shots on average. Hank saves, on average, almost 2 more shots than Talbot before allowing one this season. And that's just by the hard numbers, disregarding all other factors.

It takes 15.2 shots to score a goal on Price (MTL) this season, 11.3 to score on Quick (LAK), 10.5 to score on Lehner (OTT). The difference is not insignificant or "razor thin". Counting by "per 100 shots" makes the difference look much smaller than it actually is. Not to mention the real difference between a world class goalie and the average NHL goaltender is both will save the easy shots, but the elite goalie will save alot more of the difficult shots. Both will pad their stats with easy saves, statistically drowning the real difference between them.

I know we're basically on the same page here, but I don't like that way of counting as seems popular these days. Save percentages are not linear in a practical sense, only in theory.