"Clutch" Goaltenders

[Doctor No]

Agreed on CuJo - one of the problems with this analysis is that it's hard to separate the goaltender from the team (for good or for bad).

My recollection as well is that Joseph's typically pushed weaker teams deeper into the playoffs. I do a strength of schedule metric on my site; the numbers presented below would be by how many goals a team would be favored to win, against an average opponent, on neutral ice.

With that said, here is each of Joseph's playoff series (if he wasn't a starter, I marked the series with an asterisk), his team's "strength" and the opponent's "strength":

Series | Result | Joseph Team | Opponent | Upset?
1990 Toronto|L|0.09|-0.31|-
1992 Chicago|L|0.11|0.38|
1993 Chicago|W|0.03|0.45|+
1993 Toronto|L|0.03|0.47|
1994 Dallas|L|-0.24|0.14|
1995 Vancouver|L|0.72|0.07|-
1997 Dallas|W|0.04|0.54|+
1997 Colorado|L|0.04|0.88|
1998 Colorado|W|-0.09|0.19|+
1998 Dallas|L|-0.09|0.79|
1999 Philadelphia|W|0.39|0.41|+
1999 Pittsburgh|W|0.39|0.20|
1999 Buffalo|L|0.39|0.51|
2000 Ottawa|W|0.24|0.19|
2000 New Jersey|L|0.24|0.63|
2001 Ottawa|W|0.33|0.61|+
2001 New Jersey|L|0.33|1.05|
2002 NY Islanders|W|0.32|0.13|
2002 Ottawa|W|0.32|0.44|+
2002 Carolina|L|0.32|0.00|-
2003 Anaheim|L|0.75|0.31|-
2004 Nashville*|W|0.67|-0.06|
2004 Calgary|L|0.67|0.42|-
2008 San Jose*|L|0.11|0.42|

By this metric, Joseph won six series as the underdog and lost five series as the favorite, although there's a pretty good cluster of underdog wins there in his prime.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Agreed on CuJo - one of the problems with this analysis is that it's hard to separate the goaltender from the team (for good or for bad).

My recollection as well is that Joseph's typically pushed weaker teams deeper into the playoffs. I do a strength of schedule metric on my site; the numbers presented below would be by how many goals a team would be favored to win, against an average opponent, on neutral ice.

With that said, here is each of Joseph's playoff series (if he wasn't a starter, I marked the series with an asterisk), his team's "strength" and the opponent's "strength":

Series | Result | Joseph Team | Opponent | Upset?
1990 Toronto|L|0.09|-0.31|-
1992 Chicago|L|0.11|0.38|
1993 Chicago|W|0.03|0.45|+
1993 Toronto|L|0.03|0.47|
1994 Dallas|L|-0.24|0.14|
1995 Vancouver|L|0.72|0.07|-
1997 Dallas|W|0.04|0.54|+
1997 Colorado|L|0.04|0.88|
1998 Colorado|W|-0.09|0.19|+
1998 Dallas|L|-0.09|0.79|
1999 Philadelphia|W|0.39|0.41|+
1999 Pittsburgh|W|0.39|0.20|
1999 Buffalo|L|0.39|0.51|
2000 Ottawa|W|0.24|0.19|
2000 New Jersey|L|0.24|0.63|
2001 Ottawa|W|0.33|0.61|+
2001 New Jersey|L|0.33|1.05|
2002 NY Islanders|W|0.32|0.13|
2002 Ottawa|W|0.32|0.44|+
2002 Carolina|L|0.32|0.00|-
2003 Anaheim|L|0.75|0.31|-
2004 Nashville*|W|0.67|-0.06|
2004 Calgary|L|0.67|0.42|-
2008 San Jose*|L|0.11|0.42|

By this metric, Joseph won six series as the underdog and lost five series as the favorite, although there's a pretty good cluster of underdog wins there in his prime.

Right and even then there is no way I would pin 2002 and 2003 on him.. 1995 is one time I think he really didn't get it done followed by 1999 somewhat too. So tough to separate goaltenders from teams.

Anyways very cool to see how some of these numbers match up with perceptions in the case of Hasek etc.

 

[Luongofan558*]

You should look at what goalies have the best even strength sv percentage in the playoffs

 

[blogofmike]

Would be partially incomplete if missing pre-1983, but how about Fuhr?

 

[Doctor No]

I've been trying to hold off on Fuhr, since I'm this close to completing my 1980-81 and 1981-82 game logs (which will make Fuhr's record - and his tandem-mate, Andy Moog's record, complete). Here's what I have so far:

Situation | GP | W | L | Actual SV% | Expected SV% | S+/30
All Games|145|90|47|0.900|0.881|+0.55
Can Eliminate|33|19|11|0.891|0.875|+0.46
Can be Eliminated|15|8|7|0.905|0.894|+0.32
Mutual Elimination|6|4|2|0.906|0.882|+0.71

(Unlike the above table, these results form do not form a partition. Mutual Elimination games are included in all three "elimination" categories)

All I really see here is that Fuhr was a great playoff goaltender. Here are his mutual elimination games (it's missing one, the last game of the Miracle on Manchester series):

Game | Result | Score | Shots | Exp Saves | Actual Saves
4/22/1984 vs. Calgary|W|7-4|14|12.3|13
4/30/1986 vs. Calgary|L|2-3|21|18.4|18
5/30/1987 vs. Philadelphia|W|3-1|20|17.6|19
4/15/1989 at Los Angeles|L|3-6|29|24.9|24
4/16/1991 at Calgary|W|5-4 OT|30|26.2|26
5/4/1999 at Phoenix|W|1-0 OT|35|32.1|35

Fuhr replaced Andy Moog in the first of those above.

 

[Filatov2Kovalev2Bonk]

Can you do Tuukka Rask and, because I'm a Senators fan and thus a masochist, Patrick Lalime? Thanks!

 

[BraveCanadian]

All I really see here is that Fuhr was a great playoff goaltender.

No surprises here but it is nice to see another more objective way of looking at it.

 

[King Mapes]

Right now Quick is a playoff warrior. IIRC Turco was typically very good under pressure

Just looked it up, he had a couple good runs..

 

[Statto]

What a great thread and analysis. I tip my hat to you sir!

 

[Doctor No]

Here's Tuukka Rask, who is actually borderline statistically significant on the bad end of things.

Situation | GP | W | L | Actual SV% | Expected SV% | S+/30
All Games|47|28|19|0.930|0.908|+0.65
Can Eliminate|14|5|9|0.900|0.908|-0.26
Can be Eliminated|5|1|4|0.877|0.903|-0.78
Mutual Elimination|3|1|2|0.849|0.903|-1.62

(Unlike the above table, these results form do not form a partition. Mutual Elimination games are included in all three "elimination" categories)

Yikes. Not sure what needs to be said, other than Rask's certainly going to have some more playoff games to acquit himself. p-values above (in order) are 0.9%, 1.0%, and 0.4% (even with the sample of three games).

Here's the evidence for mutual elimination:

Game | Result | Score | Shots | Exp Saves | Actual Saves
5/14/2010 vs. Philadelphia|L|3-4|27|24.5|23
5/13/2013 vs. Toronto|W|5-4 OT|28|25.0|24
5/14/2014 vs. Montreal|L|1-3|18|16.4|15

 

[Doctor No]

Patrick Lalime, one of my favorites in the 1990s back to his super start with the Penguins, is somewhat comparable to Rask in this regard.

Situation | GP | W | L | Actual SV% | Expected SV% | S+/30
All Games|41|21|20|0.926|0.909|+0.52
Can Eliminate|7|3|4|0.901|0.910|-0.28
Can be Eliminated|7|3|4|0.911|0.908|+0.09
Mutual Elimination|3|0|3|0.862|0.908|-1.39

(Unlike the above table, these results form do not form a partition. Mutual Elimination games are included in all three "elimination" categories)

Like I said, similar to Rask without the magnitude (albeit without the chance to balance the scales in the future).

Lalime's game sevens:

Game | Result | Score | Shots | Exp Saves | Actual Saves
5/14/2002 at Toronto|L|0-3|27|24.3|24
5/23/2003 vs. New Jersey|L|2-3|27|24.8|24
4/20/2004 at Toronto|L|1-4|11|9.9|8

Good guy Martin Prusek finished that last one.

 

[Doctor No]

Carey Price is the third of the trifecta being debated elsewhere, and since I've written up Quick and Rask, I thought I'd close the loop here.

Situation | GP | W | L | Actual SV% | Expected SV% | S+/30
All Games|42|17|21|0.909|0.910|-0.02
Can Eliminate|6|3|3|0.895|0.913|-0.52
Can be Eliminated|7|4|3|0.930|0.907|+0.67
Mutual Elimination|3|2|1|0.944|0.912|+0.96

(Unlike the above table, these results form do not form a partition. Mutual Elimination games are included in all three "elimination" categories)

Carey's overall playoff numbers aren't that great (remember from higher in the thread that playoff save percentages are typically better than average). He and the Canadiens don't seem to press the advantage, although his numbers when he can be eliminated are quite nice (although not quite statistically significant).

Price's game sevens (which all have a common theme):

Game | Result | Score | Shots | Exp Saves | Actual Saves
4/21/2008 vs. Boston|W|5-0|25|22.9|25
4/27/2011 at Boston|L|3-4 OT|34|31.0|30
5/14/2014 at Boston|W|3-1|30|27.3|29

 

[KaseMeOutside]

this really is a cool topic, with the advent of more statistical analysis in sports it seems like the term "clutch" is in an interesting state. people in baseball tend to believe it doesn't exist in that sport, whereas in the NBA and possibly now the NHL there is now analysis being done to show it may exist in those sports but sometimes people we think are clutch, really aren't performing that well (see kobe bryant)

 

[jacks*]

Okay, let's have a little bit of fun now, and play with a few goaltenders.

Patrick Roy has a pretty good reputation for clutch play.

Situation | GP | W | L | Actual SV% | Expected SV% | S+/30
All Games|247|151|94|0.918|0.894|+0.73
Can Eliminate|56|30|26|0.918|0.894|+0.70
Can be Eliminated|24|12|12|0.924|0.897|+0.83
Mutual Elimination|13|6|7|0.907|0.897|+0.31

(Unlike the above table, these results form do not form a partition. Mutual Elimination games are included in all three "elimination" categories)

A few conclusions - compared to the numbers above, Roy steps his game up in the playoffs overall. In mutual-elimination games, he doesn't look so hot; this is suggestive of small samples (although there's certainly no evidence to suggest that he's "extra clutch" in game sevens).

A look at his mutual-elimination games may be in order:

Game | Result | Score | Shots | Exp Saves | Actual Saves
4/29/1986 vs. Hartford|W|2-1 OT|25|21.6|24
4/29/1991 at Boston|L|1-2|29|25.7|27
5/1/1992 vs. Hartford|W|3-2 2OT|41|36.7|39
4/29/1994 at Boston|L|3-5|31|28.1|26
5/4/1998 vs. Edmonton|L|0-4|17|15.5|13
6/4/1999 at Dallas|L|1-4|25|22.5|21
5/27/2000 at Dallas|L|2-3|29|26.2|26
5/9/2001 vs. Los Angeles|W|5-1|26|23.3|25
6/9/2001 vs. New Jersey|W|3-1|26|23.2|25
4/29/2002 vs. Los Angeles|W|4-0|23|20.8|23
5/15/2002 vs. San Jose|W|1-0|27|24.1|27
5/31/2002 at Detroit|L|0-7|16|14.5|10
4/22/2003 vs. Minnesota|L|2-3 OT|30|27.3|27

I'm not entirely sure what to make of this, although Roy's overall record in game sevens may be beaten to death at this point.

No one was more clutch in the playoffs than Roy including forwards and D-man.
3 Conn Smythe Trophy is actual proof.

 

[Doctor No]

No one was more clutch in the playoffs than Roy including forwards and D-man.
3 Conn Smythe Trophy is actual proof.

No one's a bigger Roy fan than I am, and I agree that he's a fantastic goaltender.

With that said, did you bother to read the thread before commenting? The phrase "actual proof" is a bit insulting and suggests that you did not.

 

[TieClark]

Always loved Ed Belfour, even though he may have cost my Avs a Cup or two in their heyday. I gave away a bit above, but Belfour does appear to step it up when he's got a team on the ropes:

Situation | GP | W | L | Actual SV% | Expected SV% | S+/30
All Games|161|88|68|0.920|0.900|+0.60
Can Eliminate|24|18|5|0.939|0.901|+1.14
Can be Eliminated|21|10|10|0.928|0.901|+0.82
Mutual Elimination|6|5|1|0.921|0.902|+0.58

(Unlike the above table, these results form do not form a partition. Mutual Elimination games are included in all three "elimination" categories)

In mutual-elimination games, Belfour plays about as well as he always does, although the results are quite good:

Game | Result | Score | Shots | Exp Saves | Actual Saves
4/30/1990 vs. St. Louis|W|8-2|28|24.5|26
5/19/1995 vs. Toronto|W|5-2|24|21.9|22
6/4/1999 vs. Colorado|W|4-1|19|17.1|18
5/27/2000 vs. Colorado|W|3-2|33|29.7|31
4/22/2003 at Philadelphia|L|1-6|36|33.0|30
4/20/2004 vs. Ottawa|W|4-1|37|33.4|36

The one stinker may be bringing him down disproportionally (although it was a game seven).

I remember that one stinker... it certainly wasn't Belfour who didn't show up that night.

 

[Doctor No]

During lunch today, I was looking at the Joseph series record (above) and decided to compare it against the acclaimed playoff clutch hero Patrick Roy (yes, Roy's one of my favorite goalies).

In a similar format to the above, here are Roy's playoff series (if he wasn't a starter, I marked the series with an asterisk), his team's "strength" and the opponent's "strength":

Series | Result | Roy Team | Opponent | Upset?
1986 Boston|W|0.77|0.34|
1986 Hartford|W|0.77|0.54|
1986 NY Rangers|W|0.77|0.14|
1986 Calgary|W|0.77|0.46|
1987 Boston|W|0.53|0.22|
1987 Quebec*|W|0.53|0.00|
1987 Philadelphia*|L|0.53|0.73|
1988 Hartford|W|0.61|-0.18|
1988 Boston|L|0.61|0.63|
1989 Hartford|W|1.17|0.09|
1989 Boston|W|1.17|0.40|
1989 Philadelphia|W|1.17|0.28|
1989 Calgary|L|1.17|1.54|
1990 Buffalo|W|0.56|0.36|
1990 Boston|L|0.56|0.58|
1991 Buffalo|W|0.21|0.01|
1991 Boston|L|0.21|0.23|
1992 Hartford|W|0.47|-0.45|
1992 Boston|L|0.47|-0.17|-
1993 Quebec|W|0.57|0.44|
1993 Buffalo|W|0.57|0.42|
1993 NY Islanders|W|0.57|0.51|
1993 Los Angeles|W|0.57|-0.02|
1994 Boston|L|0.33|0.37|
1996 Vancouver|W|1.10|-0.09|
1996 Chicago|W|1.10|0.59|
1996 Detroit|W|1.10|1.47|+
1996 Florida|W|1.10|0.35|
1997 Chicago|W|0.88|0.05|
1997 Edmonton|W|0.88|0.04|
1997 Detroit|L|0.88|0.78|-
1998 Edmonton|L|0.19|-0.09|-
1999 San Jose|W|0.35|0.01|
1999 Detroit|W|0.35|0.45|+
1999 Dallas|L|0.35|0.82|
2000 Phoenix|W|0.54|0.06|
2000 Detroit|W|0.54|0.84|+
2000 Dallas|L|0.54|0.43|-
2001 Vancouver|W|1.10|0.02|
2001 Los Angeles|W|1.10|0.28|
2001 St. Louis|W|1.10|0.70|
2001 New Jersey|W|1.10|1.05|
2002 Los Angeles|W|0.55|0.31|
2002 San Jose|W|0.55|0.59|+
2002 Detroit|L|0.55|0.95|
2003 Minnesota|L|0.70|0.33|-

By this metric, Roy won four series as the underdog, and lost five series as the favorite. Of course, Roy had more opportunities as the favorite than he did as the underdog, but it's an interesting comparison with Joseph above.

 

[Doctor No]

Okay, okay, okay - I'll do Brodeur and Hasek. Here's Brodeur:

Series | Result | Brodeur Team | Opponent | Upset?
1994 Buffalo|W|0.95|0.70|
1994 Boston*|W|0.95|0.37|
1994 NY Rangers|L|0.95|0.97|
1995 Boston|W|0.74|0.27|
1995 Pittsburgh|W|0.74|0.28|
1995 Philadelphia|W|0.74|0.42|
1995 Detroit|W|0.74|1.22|+
1997 Montreal|W|0.54|-0.44|
1997 NY Rangers|L|0.54|0.34|-
1998 Ottawa|L|0.57|-0.14|-
1999 Pittsburgh|L|0.52|0.20|-
2000 Florida|W|0.63|0.20|
2000 Toronto|W|0.63|0.24|
2000 Philadelphia|W|0.63|0.55|
2000 Dallas|W|0.63|0.43|
2001 Carolina|W|1.05|-0.32|
2001 Toronto|W|1.05|0.33|
2001 Pittsburgh|W|1.05|0.18|
2001 Colorado|L|1.05|1.10|
2002 Carolina|L|0.13|0.00|-
2003 Boston|W|0.63|-0.04|
2003 Tampa Bay|W|0.63|-0.08|
2003 Ottawa|W|0.63|0.84|+
2003 Anaheim|W|0.63|0.31|
2004 Philadelphia|L|0.45|0.52|
2006 NY Rangers|W|0.11|0.20|+
2006 Carolina|L|0.11|0.38|
2007 Tampa Bay|W|0.02|-0.33|
2007 Ottawa|L|0.02|0.67|
2008 NY Rangers|L|-0.09|0.08|
2009 Carolina|L|0.31|0.07|-
2010 Philadelphia|L|0.22|0.23|
2012 Florida|W|0.21|-0.32|
2012 Philadelphia|W|0.21|0.34|+
2012 NY Rangers|W|0.21|0.38|+
2012 Los Angeles|L|0.21|0.46|

Five wins as the underdog, and five losses as the favorite.

 

[Doctor No]

And Hasek...

Series | Result | Hasek Team | Opponent | Upset?
1991 Minnesota*|L|0.70|0.06|N/A
1992 Pittsburgh*|L|0.38|0.70|
1993 Boston*|W|0.42|0.62|N/A
1994 New Jersey|L|0.70|0.95|
1995 Philadelphia|L|0.06|0.42|
1997 Ottawa*|W|0.20|-0.13|
1998 Philadelphia|W|0.41|0.39|
1998 Montreal|W|0.41|0.27|
1998 Washington|L|0.41|0.26|-
1999 Ottawa|W|0.51|0.62|+
1999 Boston|W|0.51|0.39|
1999 Toronto|W|0.51|0.39|
1999 Dallas|L|0.51|0.82|
2000 Philadelphia|L|-0.05|0.55|
2001 Philadelphia|W|0.37|0.20|
2001 Pittsburgh|L|0.37|0.18|-
2002 Vancouver|W|0.95|0.52|
2002 St. Louis|W|0.95|0.57|
2002 Colorado|W|0.95|0.55|
2002 Carolina|W|0.95|0.00|
2007 Calgary|W|0.82|0.42|
2007 San Jose|W|0.82|0.74|
2007 Anaheim|L|0.82|0.76|-
2008 Nashville*|W|1.08|0.13|

First - lotta asterisks here; I didn't feel like Hasek should get credit for winning the 1997 Ottawa series or for winning the 2008 Nashville series. With that said, the totals are here, so if you have another opinion, you now have the data. Hasek's team was favored in both cases, so it really doesn't change my conclusion, which is...

Using my criteria, I see one series win for Hasek as the underdog and three upsets as the favorite.

 

[Doctor No]

I do find it neat the the first "real" playoff series for both Hasek and Brodeur - two of the greatest all-time goaltenders - was against one another. And it was a tremendous series, to boot.

If anyone's looking for a great historical book premise, there you go.

 

[Caeldan]

Question - when it comes to comparing strength of schedule, is there any metric as far as comparing differences between years?

Also, while you're doing a simple upset/underdog calculation... .
I'd think there'd be some value in determining an 'equal' or 'tossup' range and looking at win/loss in those series... because if someone is significantly coming out with wins in matches that are considered to be a coin toss - on the surface they could be that 'clutch' difference maker.

For example... I'm going to arbitrarily decide that anything +/- 0.1 is considered to be a 'tossup':
In Brodeur's case... there are 6 series and he has a 2-4 record.
In Hasek's case... there are 3 series and he has a 2-1 record.
Not a lot to draw from that, but perhaps it's a matter of finding the right range?

PS - your Team column name for Hasek is mislabeled. (feel free to edit this statement out when you get around to fixing it).

 

[Doctor No]

Question - when it comes to comparing strength of schedule, is there any metric as far as comparing differences between years?

Also, while you're doing a simple upset/underdog calculation... .
I'd think there'd be some value in determining an 'equal' or 'tossup' range and looking at win/loss in those series... because if someone is significantly coming out with wins in matches that are considered to be a coin toss - on the surface they could be that 'clutch' difference maker.

For example... I'm going to arbitrarily decide that anything +/- 0.1 is considered to be a 'tossup':
In Brodeur's case... there are 6 series and he has a 2-4 record.
In Hasek's case... there are 3 series and he has a 2-1 record.
Not a lot to draw from that, but perhaps it's a matter of finding the right range?

PS - your Team column name for Hasek is mislabeled. (feel free to edit this statement out when you get around to fixing it).

Great comments (and nice catch on the header!).

Admittedly, this is a somewhat coarse exercise that I'm looking to explore further. I like the toss-up idea - it seems a bit unfair that, if a goaltender's team has strength 0.40 and loses to a team with strength 0.41, that's not an upset, but is an upset if they lose to a team with strength 0.39.

I've also toyed with the idea of summing the differences (so that an upset where the difference was 0.70 would count a lot more than an upset where the difference was 0.01).

As for your first question, I'm not sure what you mean, so I'll kind of head in that direction and see how well I do. The values are reflective of how much a team would be favored over an "average" opponent on neutral ice. To that end, the denominator is goals, and in a season with more overall goals, the best (and worst) numbers will deviate from zero by a greater degree.

To give an extreme example, if all NHL goals were suddenly worth ten points, then the strength metric values would all be 10 times their current size.

 

[Caeldan]

Great comments (and nice catch on the header!).

Admittedly, this is a somewhat coarse exercise that I'm looking to explore further. I like the toss-up idea - it seems a bit unfair that, if a goaltender's team has strength 0.40 and loses to a team with strength 0.41, that's not an upset, but is an upset if they lose to a team with strength 0.39.

I've also toyed with the idea of summing the differences (so that an upset where the difference was 0.70 would count a lot more than an upset where the difference was 0.01).

As for your first question, I'm not sure what you mean, so I'll kind of head in that direction and see how well I do. The values are reflective of how much a team would be favored over an "average" opponent on neutral ice. To that end, the denominator is goals, and in a season with more overall goals, the best (and worst) numbers will deviate from zero by a greater degree.

To give an extreme example, if all NHL goals were suddenly worth ten points, then the strength metric values would all be 10 times their current size.

I guess the short version of what I was meaning is, does a differential of 0.7 have the same meaning in 1999 as it does in 2010? Because that'd also have an impact I guess in trying to determine the value for the 'tossup' concept because you couldn't apply a static differential to every year.

 

[Doctor No]

Ah, I see what you mean!

My impression is that from a "chance of winning" perspective, they're comparable, and I'll walk through my line of reasoning. In seasons where there is more goal scoring (like the 1980s) the better teams will have higher absolute totals. However, because there is more goal scoring, each team's variance will be higher as well.

Is the increase in standard deviation proportional to the increase in the expected value? Maybe (and maybe more, maybe less). If team abilities are normally distributed, then the standard deviation increases proportionally to the mean.

So if we assume that team abilities are normally distributed, then it doesn't matter if the raw values are scaled differently from year to year (which they would be).

One caveat would be in years where there are really bad (usually expansion) teams. The method I use to assess a schedule strength intends to wipe out the difference if one team plays a disproportionate share of their games against overly bad (or overly good teams) - for those of you who know linear algebra, it's an attempt to find the eigenvector of the schedule and results (although I do it numerically). However, it may not be a perfect representation.

Since my team strength values are just (goal differential + schedule strength), then it's possible that these get inflated disproportionally in these kind of years. I haven't tested it rigorously in either direction.

 

[ShameOnYouZidlicky]

Fantastic thread, I love seeing how these goaltenders differ in the different situations. Just a question, so you're using opposing team shot percentage as your basis for expected saves. Could you also use the goalie's season save percentage as a basis? For example, if Jonathan Quick's season save percentage was 0.95, and he faced 40 shots in a playoff game, you would expect him to make 38 saves. I wonder how this method of determining expected saves would differ from what you're using now. I wonder if it's possible to use a combination of both even.

Also, could you show us Felix Potvin?