Cam Talbot - Mod warning #251

[AlwaysARanger]

I think I'm more okay with paying an elite goalie top dollar than any other position. It really helps in the playoffs and I think you have less liability than using that same money on top forwards or defenseman, which are more physically intensive positions. Goalies of Hank's ilk usually last until their 40s.

I also think that anyone who's willing to trade Hank is totally taking for granted how good he is, how good he has been, and what he's worth to this squad. He is the identity of this team, he's the one that performs the best when we need him most.

Totally agree, and his consistency is really what stands out.

Miller
Luongo
JS Giguere
Bryzgalov
Cam Ward
T Thomas
Khabibulin
Rinne

all considered "one of the best, if not the best" at some point the years Hank has played. The jury is still out on Price, Quick because of age... (speaking of Quick's season this far... ).

Would u like any of those @ their peak dollars over Hank for the same period of time we had Hank?

What about Bobrovsky? Rask? Nemi? Lehtonen? Schneider? Varlamov? All of them on 6M$-7,5$ multi year contracts.

Of course, we can get a hot year from the Emrys and Leightons of this world, but I don't think any of you want that type of goalie situation.

We are just spoiled.

 

[Miamipuck]

Lundqvist has stopped 1% more shots than MAF by career. 1%. And that 1% is partly due to superior team structure. Playoffs is 1.7% and we know how much better we are in the playoffs than the Pens.

Are you not aware or willfully forgetting the fact that's what separates a hall of fame goalie from one that's not even very good? 1 or 2 goals per 100 shots.

To trade Hank for the prospect of maybe, possibly filling another hole or two if you're lucky, but creating a much larger one because you feel the need to make a career back up the starter to save cap space. It's monumentally stupid. Again you're taking a known quantity and hoping you can fill out a very good roster with the unknown.

Talbot is not a replacement and makes the Rangers decidedly worse the last six games notwithstanding.

 

[haveandare]

Price, Varlamov and Schneider are all better going back to last season until now.

Hank's value is in his consistency. Plenty of goalies go up and down, and their up years are really great. Hank is consistently very good on a level no other goalie is.

 

[OnlyTruth]

Are you not aware or willfully forgetting the fact that's what separates a hall of fame goalie from one that's not even very good? 1 or 2 goals per 100 shots.

I think if you want to compare him to other goalies that are no longer playing, you need to know his numbers during his non-prime years. Obviously we don't know them yet.

 

[free0717]

Hank is terrific every year. Hopefully this is Hanks year. As far as Cam goes, his W/L record is very good but gives up a soft goal almost every game. Two softies against the Islanders

 

[Raspewtin]

Interesting tidbit NBCSN just showed, Talbot is 2nd in the NHL in shorthanded save percentage with .916. Varlamov, the only play above him, has a .931 though .

 

[NYRangers84]

Interesting tidbit NBCSN just showed, Talbot is 2nd in the NHL in shorthanded save percentage with .916. Varlamov, the only play above him, has a .931 though .

LoL that's for this season only I'm guessing?
Varlamov is an underrated goaltender.

 

[Charlie Conway]

Interesting tidbit NBCSN just showed, Talbot is 2nd in the NHL in shorthanded save percentage with .916. Varlamov, the only play above him, has a .931 though .

Saw that as well. There's hope yet!

Varlamov's stats are deceiving. He has what? a 2.51 GAA? Not bad by any means, but if the D in front of him was tighter, his numbers would be better, no question. I think he's definitely up there in terms of quality goaltenders.

 

[NYRangers84]

Just checked the overall adjusted save % for this season which takes into account the quality of the scoring chances to some degree and Lundqvist is 92.23% and Talbot's at 92.16%

Extending that to include last season puts Talbot at 93.20% and Lundy at 92.46%

I don't see how it's fair to say Talbot isn't good enough to be a starter when the stats show otherwise. He may not be ready yet but he is certainly on his way.

I can understand however to say he has played poor in some of his recent starts and needs to wake up on those low quality chances.

 

[CaptainMcD]

Henrik Lundqvist sv% in low medium and high danger situations:

Low: 97.11
Medium: 94.20
High: 84.33

Cam Talbot:
Low: 96.79
Medium: 92.31
High: 82.17

Not bad numbers for Talbot but Henrik saves 2% more of high and medium percentage shots. That ends up being a big deal over the course of a season.

Since becoming the starter Talbot's numbers:

Low: 94.87
Medium: 87.18
High: 84.75

These are unacceptable low and medium numbers.

Since becoming a starter, Cam's adjusted save percentage number is the 2nd LOWEST in the league. UNACCEPTABLE

I'm not saying he'll never be a starter, but he's not even in the same conversation as Hank and to say we should have let Hank walk or traded him is absolutely egregious. Its utterly ridiculous and based in no fact. The idea that we're even having this conversation pisses me off.

 

[GOAT AINEC]

Henrik Lundqvist sv% in low medium and high danger situations:

Low: 97.11
Medium: 94.20
High: 84.33

Cam Talbot:
Low: 96.79
Medium: 92.31
High: 82.17

Not bad numbers for Talbot but Henrik saves 2% more of high and medium percentage shots. That ends up being a big deal over the course of a season.

Since becoming the starter Talbot's numbers:

Low: 94.87
Medium: 87.18
High: 84.75

These are unacceptable low and medium numbers.

Since becoming a starter, Cam's adjusted save percentage number is the 2nd LOWEST in the league. UNACCEPTABLE

I'm not saying he'll never be a starter, but he's not even in the same conversation as Hank and to say we should have let Hank walk or traded him is absolutely egregious. Its utterly ridiculous and based in no fact. The idea that we're even having this conversation pisses me off.

It's more likely Talbot will be a career backup than a starter. He is 28 years old and has yet to prove he can be good more than once a month.

 

[nyr2k2]

Lundqvist has stopped 1% more shots than MAF by career. 1%. And that 1% is partly due to superior team structure. Playoffs is 1.7% and we know how much better we are in the playoffs than the Pens.

Keep these numbers in context though. Do you understand that for a goaltender who plays as much as Lundqvist, a 1% differential in save percentage would account for between 17 and 20 goals each season? Had we given up an extra 20 goals last season, we go from an elite defensive team to a team that's 12th in the league. Our goal differential as a team goes from +24 to +4. How many wins do you think an extra 20 goals allowed costs us? 5? 10? 20 extra goals allowed and we almost certainly miss the playoffs.

1% might sound relatively insignificant but is is far, far from it. It's huge. Particularly when it's on a consistent basis.

Just checked the overall adjusted save % for this season which takes into account the quality of the scoring chances to some degree and Lundqvist is 92.23% and Talbot's at 92.16%

Extending that to include last season puts Talbot at 93.20% and Lundy at 92.46%

I don't see how it's fair to say Talbot isn't good enough to be a starter when the stats show otherwise. He may not be ready yet but he is certainly on his way.

I can understand however to say he has played poor in some of his recent starts and needs to wake up on those low quality chances.

Again though, you're just glossing over the fact that Talbot generally gets easier starts on full rest. That's an enormous difference between a starting goaltender and a backup. Lundqvist (and other starting goalies) often have to start three times in a week, and against the top teams. They're not "fresh" and they're facing teams that are better at cashing in on those scoring chances. Talbot has been awesome as a backup, but numbers as a backup can't just be assumed to be representative of what a guy would do as a starter. Starting every night is completely different than starting once every two weeks against (generally) softer competition.

 

[jskramer83]

Just checked the overall adjusted save % for this season which takes into account the quality of the scoring chances to some degree and Lundqvist is 92.23% and Talbot's at 92.16%

Extending that to include last season puts Talbot at 93.20% and Lundy at 92.46%

I don't see how it's fair to say Talbot isn't good enough to be a starter when the stats show otherwise. He may not be ready yet but he is certainly on his way.

I can understand however to say he has played poor in some of his recent starts and needs to wake up on those low quality chances.

It's tough too judge Talbot on stats, as a back up most of his starts are against teams in the bottom 10% of the NHL. Teams that the Rangers brass feel are automatic wins.

We are starting to see the numbers Talbot would put up decent NHL talent and they have not been impressive so far.

 

[jskramer83]

Keep these numbers in context though. Do you understand that for a goaltender who plays as much as Lundqvist, a 1% differential in save percentage would account for between 17 and 20 goals each season? Had we given up an extra 20 goals last season, we go from an elite defensive team to a team that's 12th in the league. Our goal differential as a team goes from +24 to +4. How many wins do you think an extra 20 goals allowed costs us? 5? 10? 20 extra goals allowed and we almost certainly miss the playoffs.

1% might sound relatively insignificant but is is far, far from it. It's huge. Particularly when it's on a consistent basis.



Again though, you're just glossing over the fact that Talbot generally gets easier starts on full rest. That's an enormous difference between a starting goaltender and a backup. Lundqvist (and other starting goalies) often have to start three times in a week, and against the top teams. They're not "fresh" and they're facing teams that are better at cashing in on those scoring chances. Talbot has been awesome as a backup, but numbers as a backup can't just be assumed to be representative of what a guy would do as a starter. Starting every night is completely different than starting once every two weeks against (generally) softer competition.

Great minds

 

[NYRangers84]

No point in debating. Once Talbot goes to another team and is a full-time successful starter I'll be the one to say I told you so.

 

[nyr2k2]

No point in debating. Once Talbot goes to another team and is a full-time successful starter I'll be the one to say I told you so.

LOL. I've been a huge proponent of Talbot since his first season in the AHL. I've been one of his most outspoken supporters to this point. I've gone on record many times, before he even made the NHL, in saying that he'll have a successful NHL career. When Biron was cut loose, I said we wouldn't need a veteran to replace him because Talbot would be up to the task. You won't find many people that were on the Talbot bandwagon before I was. Beacon and a few others that watch Hartford regularly, we were saying he was a player three or four years ago.

In no way, shape or form am I arguing that Talbot can't be a successful starting goaltender somewhere. I'm arguing that your extrapolation of his numbers as a backup to projected performance as a starter is a false equivalence. I'm arguing that your statements about us being better off trading Lundqvist and playing Cam are based on nothing other than opinion and are nonsensical.

I just illustrated for you the immense significance of something you downplayed earlier--a one percent difference in SV%--and provided some entirely valid points about the difference between performance as a starter and performance as a backup. And you just say, oh well, I win!

 

[bobbop]

If someone wants to trade for Talbot at the end of the season and make him their starter (Edmonton?) I'm good with that.

 

[Raspewtin]

No point in debating. Once Talbot goes to another team and is a full-time successful starter I'll be the one to say I told you so.

We will still have the best goalie in the world so I know I won't give a ****.

 

[The Gloaming]

We will still have the best goalie in the world so I know I won't give a ****.

Literally this.

Also, Cam Talbot is almost 28 years old. He is what he is at this point. Goalies take longer to develop, yes. But he will never be a bona fida starter. He can start for a team like Edmonton, who just has no one better. Starter/backup tweener is what his ceiling was and remains.

 

[Beacon]

I was on board the Talbot train soon after he joined Hartford even when few here knew his name. I started this very thread. But Talbot over Lundqvist is insane, even when taking money into consideration. Hank is the only reason this franchise didn't turn into a total joke after it went 10 years between winning a single playoff game and would've gone a bunch more out of the playoffs without him. He repeatedly put this team in the playoffs and then carried it once it got there.

Lundqvist is our superstar Hall of Famer, the greatest Rangers goalie ever and if he wins the Cup and stays healthy, probably the greatest Ranger ever in any position. You keep your superstars.

 

[GOAT AINEC]

No point in debating. Once Talbot goes to another team and is a full-time successful starter I'll be the one to say I told you so.

Yeah and he will be 30 years old by the time that does happen (if ever).

Career backup.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

No point in debating. Once Talbot goes to another team and is a full-time successful starter I'll be the one to say I told you so.

Judging by your current definition of a "full-time successful starter," something tells me you'll be strutting quite early in the process -- if hes given a starting job at all.

 

[OnlyTruth]

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.

 

[Raspewtin]

Did you sleep through the first 7 years of Henrik's career where he dragged mediocre teams kicking and screaming to wins routinely? Jesus christ.

 

[OnlyTruth]

Did you sleep through the first 7 years of Henrik's career where he dragged mediocre teams kicking and screaming to wins routinely? Jesus christ.

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