Did Carey Price live up to his 8 year, $84M contract?

[Lafleurs Guy]

If the standard for "was the series an upset?" whether or not the team won, then there are no upsets.

You can't go back and gerrymander results to say "well the prognosticators got it wrong for these obvious reasons that I surely would have caught" because that's behavioral economics 101. Confirmation bias, specifically.

Okay… but I felt it was going to be a tight series before it began. And I had good reason to. The Avalanche had the two best scorers in the league not in Pittsburgh and added Lemieux and Roy. I don’t understand why they were considered such underdogs. The only thing I can think is that it was the standings. And that’s fair enough to favour Detroit but for it to be a lopsided win? I certainly didn’t think so. And Colorado won with Sakic dominating.

 

[Duffy13]

Curious what his next contract will look like

 

[GrumpyKoala]

Career wise? No.

Wait I am confused, I might have misunderstood your point then

Apologies, it happens.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Okay… but I felt it was going to be a tight series before it began. And I had good reason to. The Avalanche had the two best scorers in the league not in Pittsburgh and added Lemieux and Roy. I don’t understand why they were considered such underdogs. The only thing I can think is that it was the standings. And that’s fair enough to favour Detroit but for it to be a lopsided win? I certainly didn’t think so. And Colorado won with Sakic dominating.

Yes, what you’re describing is exactly confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Yes, what you’re describing is exactly confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I don’t understand the basis for their opinion. You have a series where you’ve got a team with Sakic, Lemieux and Forsberg all coming off awesome years and they’ve added Roy. And Colorado won.

I don’t get why they thought Detroit would blow them out. All we have is the odds, not their rationale.

 

[ottawa]

He had some pretty elite stats in the games he played, easy yes from me considering he was LTIR'd after and passed on some cap savings to the team.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I don’t understand the basis for their opinion. You have a series where you’ve got a team with Sakic, Lemieux and Forsberg all coming off awesome years and they’ve added Roy. And Colorado won.

I don’t get why they thought Detroit would blow them out.

You keep saying that the series was expected to be close because Colorado had the top two forwards (plus Claude Lemieux, because I guess having the 45th highest scoring player in the league was going to make a big difference). Three responses:

First, everything you're saying now was known to the bettors at the time. They already knew that Colorado had Sakic, Forsberg and Roy - and they still bet decisively in favour of Detroit.

Second, I'm not sure that I agree with your premise. Was Forsberg even considered better than Fedorov, as of 1996? I'm not sure if that was the case. Fedorov finished higher in Hart trophy voting. I doubt I'd trade Forsberg's 18 extra assists (and zero votes for the Selke) for Fedorov's 9 extra goals and his Selke trophy win.

Third, the outcome of a series depends on more than which team has the best two forwards. The difference in the quality of both teams' bluelines was enormous (this, obviously, was also know to the voters at the time). The Red Wings had three Hall of Fame defensemen, and Colorado had none. (Granted, Fetisov wasn't close to being at his peak by this point - but Konstantinov was runner-up for the Norris trophy - I don't think it's unreasonable to say that Detroit had all three of the best defensemen in this series). Detroit had the better coach. They had the better penalty kill by a wide margin (they could put Lidstrom, Konstantinov and future Selke winner Kris Draper on the same PK unit, and had by far the best PK% in the NHL). And they still had two more HOF forwards upfront (beyond their top two centres) - Colorado didn't have any. My point is - you keep highlighting one of Colorado's advantages (the Sakic/Forsberg duo), while downplaying all of the areas in which Detroit was superior.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

You keep saying that the series was expected to be close because Colorado had the top two forwards (plus Claude Lemieux, because I guess having the 45th highest scoring player in the league was going to make a big difference). Three responses:

First, everything you're saying now was known to the bettors at the time. They already knew that Colorado had Sakic, Forsberg and Roy - and they still bet decisively in favour of Detroit.

Right.

And I don’t get why.

Forget the results - why did they dismiss this or not weight it more heavily?

We don’t know.

Second, I'm not sure that I agree with your premise. Was Forsberg even considered better than Fedorov, as of 1996? I'm not sure if that was the case. Fedorov finished higher in Hart trophy voting. I doubt I'd trade Forsberg's 18 extra assists for Fedorov's 9 extra goals and his Selke trophy.

I said Sakic and Forsberg were the two highest scorers not on Pittsburgh that year. And that’s true.

I said Sakic was the 2nd best player in the league that year - which can be disputed.

Third, the outcome of a series depends on more than which team has the best two forwards. The difference in the quality of both teams' bluelines was enormous (this, obviously, was also know to the voters at the time). The Red Wings had three Hall of Fame defensemen, and Colorado had none. (Granted, Fetisov wasn't close to being at his peak by this point - but Konstantinov was runner-up for the Norris trophy - I don't think it's unreasonable to say that Detroit had all three of the best defensemen in this series). Detroit had the better coach. They had the better penalty kill by a wide margin (they could put Lidstrom, Konstantinov and future Selke winner Kris Draper on the the same PK unit). And they still had two more HOF forwards upfront (beyond their top two centres) - Colorado didn't have any. My point is - you keep highlighting one of Colorado's advantages (the Sakic/Forsberg duo), while downplaying all of the areas in which Detroit was superior.

Sure. Like I said, I get taking Detroit. Better D, better in the standings. I personally see it as pretty even but okay. Lidstrom wasn’t the name we know of today. He was still establishing himself and hadn’t reached superstardom. Still considered very good but the oddsmakers had no idea he’d be what he became.

I don’t get having Colorado as a huge underdog. Not with their roster and top scorers. I’d have made it a pretty even series.

Anyways…. This is way off topic. I already said I’d concede the point. I just find this to be an interesting side topic.

 

[Zalos]

Having watched him play his whole career, he had his ups and downs, but he definitely was a major reason for many of the Habs' deep playoffs runs.

Seeing people compare him to Roy, Brodeur, Hasek, etc. I'd say he was a tier below those guys (although Brodeur is questionable because he played on stacked teams all the time). I will definitely laugh at the person who said Belfour was better than him, though.

As for his final contract, injuries definitely stopped him from fulfilling his full potential. He should be playing still if he didn't f*** up his knees. Still, he got us to the Finals for the first time in ages, so if you asked me if I'd pay that type of money to a goaltender if I was guaranteed to at least make the final round of the playoffs, I'd say yes. His salary didn't hurt us and nowadays it's as if it's not even there.

Thank you, Carey!