Hit the post
I have your gold medal Zippy!
Numbers before & after style change suggest otherwise.
Last edited by a moderator:
Canucks Managerial Thread | Part 19 | Maybe we are in on Tallon, maybe not? *Post #61
- Thread starter thepuckmonster
- Start date
- Status
Numbers over a large sample mean nothing if they are at odds with numbers in a tiny sample under a different context! Stats 101.
Last edited by a moderator:
drax0s
Registered User
Did he go back to the previous "not working" style March 26th or something? His sv% dropped down to .828 average for the last 3 games this year.
Hit the post
I have your gold medal Zippy!
drax0s
Registered User
Same deal applies to his "good numbers" then. It was a period of about 8 games with a few mid .800 sv% stinkers too?
Diamonddog01
Diamond in the rough
This idea that Lack's poor numbers were due to him adjusting to a new team, or new style, and that when he reverted back to his old style and his play improved just doesn't pass the sniff test.
If that were true you'd expect his numbers to have gotten progressively better as the season went on. Ie the mid-season blip should've continued. It did not.
From January his sv% looked like this
April 9 - 0.8
Apr 2 - 0.815
Mar 26 - 0.871
Mar 24 - 0.955
Mar 17 - 0.917
Mar 5 - 0.867
Mar 1 - 0.967
Feb 18 - 0.857
Feb 13 - 0.9
Feb 3 - 0.833
Jan 26 - 1.0
Jan 24 -0.943
Jan 22 - 0.875
Jan 21 - 1.0
Jan 17 - 0.844
Jan 14 - 0.958
Jan 6 - 0.857
Jan 2 - 0.905
Of his 18 starts in 2016 - fully half were below 0.9, another 2 were right around 0.9.
That's atrocious.
If that were true you'd expect his numbers to have gotten progressively better as the season went on. Ie the mid-season blip should've continued. It did not.
From January his sv% looked like this
April 9 - 0.8
Apr 2 - 0.815
Mar 26 - 0.871
Mar 24 - 0.955
Mar 17 - 0.917
Mar 5 - 0.867
Mar 1 - 0.967
Feb 18 - 0.857
Feb 13 - 0.9
Feb 3 - 0.833
Jan 26 - 1.0
Jan 24 -0.943
Jan 22 - 0.875
Jan 21 - 1.0
Jan 17 - 0.844
Jan 14 - 0.958
Jan 6 - 0.857
Jan 2 - 0.905
Of his 18 starts in 2016 - fully half were below 0.9, another 2 were right around 0.9.
That's atrocious.
drax0s
Registered User
Agreed. The whole "Eddie Lack was excellent after going back to his style" argument is entirely based around an 8 game sample size in the middle of the season with 2 shutouts in 4 games.
Hit the post
I have your gold medal Zippy!
Granlund was just as crap in Calgary last year in a much larger sample size. If he'd performed there he'd have been given a longer leash.
Moreover, there was no obvious and documented extenuating circumstance with Granlund like there was with Lack. Granlund came in here and was spoonfed top-6 minutes with heaps of PP time right from the start.
But sure, same thing.
Hollywood Burrows
Registered User
Eddie Lack was Rollie's star pupil. The guy made him. No surprise he tanked a bit when they got separated. I expect to see the same thing from Markstrom next season.
He had a poor finish to the season, yep. Have not excluded those from my numbers.
Eddie lack had a 863 save% his first 9 games with Carolina.
He has a 921 save% in the other 107 games in his career. His career save% is now 917.
I happen to believe we can expect him to be closer to his career numbers next season than his disaster start with the new team when the coach was messing with his game.
If you believe otherwise, good for you.
drax0s
Registered User
Great, good for Eddie. I wish him success. I'm kind of done with the whole "I'm going to limit my sample size to a number of games that present my argument in the best light" thing going on here. I mean hell, a 22 game sample size? What the hell?
Thank you. And yeah, no kidding.
And even if he IS just a .908 goalie or something, keeping him over Miller and spending that money elsewhere would still have been the right decision. That's the thing - even if the anti-Lack crowd is completely right about him, keeping Miller over him was still the 100% wrong move.
Hit the post
I have your gold medal Zippy!
Only if it ain't against us (I'd say the same about any former Canuck that I don't dislike).
drax0s
Registered User
Well yeah, I wouldn't want him shutting us out any more than I'd want Weise getting a hat trick against us.
. Still, he seems like a good guy and I don't want to see him crash and burn at all. I just prefer Markstrom.Granlund was just as crap in Calgary last year in a much larger sample size. If he'd performed there he'd have been given a longer leash.
Moreover, there was no obvious and documented extenuating circumstance with Granlund like there was with Lack. Granlund came in here and was spoonfed top-6 minutes with heaps of PP time right from the start.
But sure, same thing.
Yea man how could any 22y/o player not pile up the points on a bottom 5 ranked PP unit and on basement teams? He must be a horrible player even though he did better than Backlund's 21 y/o season with the Flames.
Because what's documented and obvious to fans on a message board is all that a player might've had to go through just like Vey.
Hit the post
I have your gold medal Zippy!
I'd prefer both (until one guy fully nails it)...
(but to be fair to Benning, I could see & understand how he'd be EXTREMELY reluctant to go into a season with both of them in net at the time).
If it was a choice between Lack and Miller last summer, I would have preferred to keep Lack.
I rather think they were stuck with Miller. The real choice was between Markstrom and Lack, I think.
And yes, I know Benning said they "could have traded Miller". Without retaining a huge portion of his salary, I doubt it.
I rather think they were stuck with Miller. The real choice was between Markstrom and Lack, I think.
And yes, I know Benning said they "could have traded Miller". Without retaining a huge portion of his salary, I doubt it.
drax0s
Registered User
That was my initial preference too, but Miller is gone end of next season. The season after, IMO a Marky + young and/or cheap backup is more efficient than a Marky Lack 1/2a tandem.
I was responding directly to your claim that he only had good numbers over an 8 game sample. I am not limiting his numbers to 22 games, just contradicting your false claim.
It is clever of you to bait me in this fashion though. Good job.
Coincidentally though, his save% over those 22 games is very close to his career save% over all 116 games in his career, and bang on identical to the 107 games outside the disaster zone. How weird!!
Hit the post
I have your gold medal Zippy!
I've said this before but I actually don't have a problem given Miller a contract extension - provided of course it was a really short-term deal at a greatly reduced salary. Let Markstrom play 50 games & Miller 30 games.
Difference between Lack and Granlund is simple, Eddie actually had a good stretch with solid numbers in the NHL, he even had a great 2 month run at the end of the 14-15 season. There is reason to believe that under the right circumstance he can be a decent NHL goalie.
Granlund on the other hand has yet to arrive as a proven NHL player. At best his production is at 3rd line level during 14-15 and it went even down this year.
I cant really judge him by anything else than what he has done with the Canucks. Seen him before only a couple of times with the Flames but he wasnt really noticeable there. With the Canucks however he maybe had 2-3 kinda solid games the rest was terrible. One could say that might be related to the whole team playing like crap but I would argue that would be a moment where he could at least show that he belongs. As it was mentioned before he pretty much received 2nd line minutes - replacing Horvat on the line with Baertschi and Virtanen only 2 games after he was acquired - and got PowerPlay time like he was Linden Vey ca October-November 2014. At this point is a offense blackhole that cant win a faceoff to save his life, I would argue Cracknell added more to the lineup when he was in than Granlund did after being acquired. He could still improve but time is running out with him being waiver eligible several players fighting for the same spot.
Granlund on the other hand has yet to arrive as a proven NHL player. At best his production is at 3rd line level during 14-15 and it went even down this year.
I cant really judge him by anything else than what he has done with the Canucks. Seen him before only a couple of times with the Flames but he wasnt really noticeable there. With the Canucks however he maybe had 2-3 kinda solid games the rest was terrible. One could say that might be related to the whole team playing like crap but I would argue that would be a moment where he could at least show that he belongs. As it was mentioned before he pretty much received 2nd line minutes - replacing Horvat on the line with Baertschi and Virtanen only 2 games after he was acquired - and got PowerPlay time like he was Linden Vey ca October-November 2014. At this point is a offense blackhole that cant win a faceoff to save his life, I would argue Cracknell added more to the lineup when he was in than Granlund did after being acquired. He could still improve but time is running out with him being waiver eligible several players fighting for the same spot.
It was a massive opportunity of the sort that players with his resume and production simply never get normally, and he stunk.
And again, it wasn't just that he 'didn't produce', it was that he was completely invisible and was so obviously small and slow relative to this level.
Because what's documented and obvious to fans on a message board is all that a player might've had to go through just like Vey.
What happened to Vey's family is sad.
But he had his breakout AHL season (and the season that convinced us to trade for him) AFTER his father was arrested in the summer of 2013.
That it wouldn't have affected him at that point but only affected him after we traded for him is ... suspect at best.
He seems like a good guy and I wish him well, but he failed here because he wasn't good enough to play at this level. End of story.
- Status
