Do you believe in Frederik Andersen? Would you re-sign?

[zeke]

How cheap is cheap? You posted recent cup winners, looks like they spent about 6m on average on goalies and back in 2016 the cap was less so ... aren't we spending about that as it is now?

It's gonna be interesting to say the least to see what Dubas does here. If we do start next season with two cheap mediocre goalies then the only thing we can be sure of is that people here will lose their minds.

Note that for many of those cup winners the majority of the hit was spent on the guy who ended up as the backup.

And hey maybe that could be us too if we gave Campbell a legit chance here.

 

[zeke]

The offense deserves blame for not finishing on their chances, but that doesn't excuse Andersen from allowing bad goals at critical times. Game 1, 1-0 goal can't go in. Game 3, you need make a stop to prevent a comeback. Game 5, 2-0 goal is deflating.

0gl Games (2-0-0):

Campbell: 1 (33%) (1-0-0)
Hutchinson: 1 (20%) (1-0-0)
Andersen: 0 (0%) (n/a)

1gl or less (8-0-0):

Campbell: 1 (33%) (1-0-0)
Hutchinson: 2 (40%) (2-0-0)
Andersen: 5 (28%) (5-0-0)

2 goals or less (12-2-0):

Campbell: 3 (100%) (3-0-0)
Hutchinson: 2 (40%) (2-0-0)
Andersen: 9 (50%) (7-2-0)

3 goals or less (17-4-0):

Campbell: 3 (100%) (3-0-0)
Hutchinson: 5 (100%) (3-2-0)
Andersen: 13 (72%) (11-2-0)

More than 3 goals (1-2-2):

Campbell: 0 (0%) (n/a)
Hutchinson: 0 (0%) (n/a)
Andersen: 5 (28%) (1-2-2)

 

[SeaOfBlue]

This line of thinking makes no sense. The goalies dont play against each other. They play against the other teams skaters. I mean a pylon would probably be able to outduel Prime Brodeur if my team has NHL skaters and the other team has toddlers.

The 30M offense laid eggs in that series and somehow the blame is on 1 person for not stopping 6/100 shots is ridiculous.

I still cannot fathom how everyone seems so comfortable that our offense got shutout for 2 seperate games but i guess it is easier to just scapegoat Andersen.

If you watched the Tampa series against Columbus, it was very much the same. It took Tampa 4 OT's to beat Korpisalo in the first game and they never were able to beat Columbus by more than 1 goal despite having games where they had literally twice as many shots. They could only score 1 goal in the 2nd game and lost by 2.

They were stifled a lot by Columbus as well, especially early on. But Vasilevsky outplayed Korpisalo and Merzilkins in the end. Andersen did not. In the first and last game, where we were shut out, Andersen gave up weak goals and then Columbus just sat back on their lead and tried to clog up our offense instead of having to push us. We had to push through 5 bodies consistently, and no matter how good your offensive team is, that is not easy. Especially when at the same time, Korpisalo is making ridiculous point-blank saves and stopping everything that comes his way. Andersen, meanwhile, can't stop a muffin shots from the top of the circle along the board with literally no traffic.

Our offense earned the benefit of the doubt. They were one of the best offensive teams in the league and were still generating a bunch of prime scoring chances that Korpisalo had to stop. Andersen lost that benefit of the doubt by being one of the worst starters in the league that year, despite a much improved defense in front of him, having a tendency to collapse in tense situations even when he was considered a top starter, and always getting outperformed by the goalie at the other end of the ice in the playoffs. Against Columbus, he couldn't even play as well as the defense in front of him, while the goalie on the other end played even better than his defense, which was also quite strong.

This year, it is no different. Outside of a couple of games, he has just played as well as the defense in front of him and Cup winning goalies need to be better than that. Fortunately for us, our defense is playing about as well as our offense right now, so that is good enough for us to be winning most games. It won't be enough in the playoffs unless our offense fires on all cylinders every game, but that has never happened even for the most talented offensive teams. There are games, or even series, where our goalie is going to need to carry us and I don't think Andersen has shown he can do that enough since his second Game 7 collapse against Boston.

I hope Andersen can do it for us this year, but he is by far my biggest concern with this roster right now. There are places we can improve on our offense and maybe even our defense (although I probably wouldn't touch our defense), but the biggest question mark by far will be Andersen and if it were possible to maybe quell those concerns, then the Leafs should probably look at it. For the second straight year, we are getting below average goaltending from Andersen.

 

[Critical13]

If you watched the Tampa series against Columbus, it was very much the same. It took Tampa 4 OT's to beat Korpisalo in the first game and they never were able to beat Columbus by more than 1 goal despite having games where they had literally twice as many shots. They could only score 1 goal in the 2nd game and lost by 2.

They were stifled a lot by Columbus as well, especially early on. But Vasilevsky outplayed Korpisalo and Merzilkins in the end. Andersen did not. In the first and last game, where we were shut out, Andersen gave up weak goals and then Columbus just sat back on their lead and tried to clog up our offense instead of having to push us. We had to push through 5 bodies consistently, and no matter how good your offensive team is, that is not easy. Especially when at the same time, Korpisalo is making ridiculous point-blank saves and stopping everything that comes his way. Andersen, meanwhile, can't stop a muffin shots from the top of the circle along the board with literally no traffic.

Our offense earned the benefit of the doubt. They were one of the best offensive teams in the league and were still generating a bunch of prime scoring chances that Korpisalo had to stop. Andersen lost that benefit of the doubt by being one of the worst starters in the league that year, despite a much improved defense in front of him, having a tendency to collapse in tense situations even when he was considered a top starter, and always getting outperformed by the goalie at the other end of the ice in the playoffs. Against Columbus, he couldn't even play as well as the defense in front of him, while the goalie on the other end played even better than his defense, which was also quite strong.

This year, it is no different. Outside of a couple of games, he has just played as well as the defense in front of him and Cup winning goalies need to be better than that. Fortunately for us, our defense is playing about as well as our offense right now, so that is good enough for us to be winning most games. It won't be enough in the playoffs unless our offense fires on all cylinders every game, but that has never happened even for the most talented offensive teams. There are games, or even series, where our goalie is going to need to carry us and I don't think Andersen has shown he can do that enough since his second Game 7 collapse against Boston.

I hope Andersen can do it for us this year, but he is by far my biggest concern with this roster right now. There are places we can improve on our offense and maybe even our defense (although I probably wouldn't touch our defense), but the biggest question mark by far will be Andersen and if it were possible to maybe quell those concerns, then the Leafs should probably look at it. For the second straight year, we are getting below average goaltending from Andersen.

Great post Sea, you said what many of us felt but couldn't articulate about the CLB series.

People say you can't judge goalies by how the opposing goalie plays, but I disagree. I think if you consistently have the worse goalie in the game/series, that's a problem. Freddie does save us occasionally, but We've really tightened up in xGA/60 and HDCA/60 and he's still losing these duels, even when the ice is tilted.

I think that's where Andersen supporters get caught up - they see Andersen make a few good saves and they think he was good enough, but the other goalie often makes twice as many great saves, and does so every game.

 

[SeaOfBlue]

Note that for many of those cup winners the majority of the hit was spent on the guy who ended up as the backup.

And hey maybe that could be us too if we gave Campbell a legit chance here.

There are instances where those goalies get hot, but for the most part it wasn't cheap guys.

Binnington and Murray are the main instances of cheap goalies making it far and winning. Khudobin was able to take Dallas to the finals himself. Otherwise you are looking at the likes of Vasilevsky, Rask, Quick, Crawford, Holtby, Fleury, etc. who were not cheap goalies. That being said, all of them had more proven track records of success than Andersen before and after they won their Cups or made good runs.

I don't think it is wise to cheap out on goaltending, but at the same time you shouldn't be spending more than like 6 or 7 mill on it either unless you are at least getting a consistent Vezina candidate like Vasilevsky.

If Andersen wants to come back, he is getting closer to a Holtby deal from us and he needs to show he has more in the tank than he has shown the past two years.

 

[ToneDog]

Great post Sea, you said what many of us felt but couldn't articulate about the CLB series.

People say you can't judge goalies by how the opposing goalie plays, but I disagree. I think if you consistently have the worse goalie in the game/series, that's a problem. Freddie does save us occasionally, but We've really tightened up in xGA/60 and HDCA/60 and he's still losing these duels, even when the ice is tilted.

I think that's where Andersen supporters get caught up - they see Andersen make a few good saves and they think he was good enough, but the other goalie often makes twice as many great saves, and does so every game.

I guess Dubas gets caught up as well because he did not go in a different direction in the off season. May as well get used to it, Andy is here until he walks because odds are Dubas does not make a move to replace him.

 

[zeke]

There are instances where those goalies get hot, but for the most part it wasn't cheap guys.

Binnington and Murray are the main instances of cheap goalies making it far and winning. Khudobin was able to take Dallas to the finals himself. Otherwise you are looking at the likes of Vasilevsky, Rask, Quick, Crawford, Holtby, Fleury, etc. who were not cheap goalies. That being said, all of them had more proven track records of success than Andersen before and after they won their Cups or made good runs.

Vasilevsky $3.50 ----- (McElhinney $1.30)
Binnington $0.65 ---- (Allen $4.35)
Holtby $6.10 ---------- (Grubauer $1.50)
Murray $0.63 --------- (Fleury $5.75)
Murray $0.63 --------- (Fleury $5.75)
Crawford $6.00 ------- (Darling $0.57)
Quick $5.80 ------------ (Jones $0.55)
Crawford $2.67 --------- (Emery $1.15)
Quick $1.80 ------------- (Bernier $1.25)
Thomas $5.00 ---------- (Rask $1.25)
Niemi $0.83 ------------- (Huet $5.63)
Fleury $5.00 ------------- (Garon $1.10)
Osgood $0.80 ------------ (Hasek $2.05)
Giguere $3.99 ------------ (Bryzgalov $1.18)
Ward $0.68 -------------- (Gerber $1.06)

A number of interesting observations to make here:

1. Most cup winners under the cap win with cheap starting goalies, period.

2. This is not exactly a list of perennial Vezina candidates here. Most cup winners' goalies aren't even actually "dependably good", let alone "dependable elite". For the most part they are just inconsistent mediocre goalies that are just as likely to become quickly unplayable as they are to continue being quality starters.

3. A surprisingly large amount of cup winners won the cup in no small part because THEY WERE WLLING TO SIT THEIR EXPENSIVE GOALIE in favor of playing the unproven hot goalie - even though those unproven hot goalies weren't great prospects and weren't even very young and didn't go on to become dependable starters afterwords - they were just decent goalies that got hot, and their team played them, and won with them.

 

[Gary Nylund]

0gl Games (2-0-0):

Campbell: 1 (33%) (1-0-0)
Hutchinson: 1 (20%) (1-0-0)
Andersen: 0 (0%) (n/a)

1gl or less (8-0-0):

Campbell: 1 (33%) (1-0-0)
Hutchinson: 2 (40%) (2-0-0)
Andersen: 5 (28%) (5-0-0)

2 goals or less (12-2-0):

Campbell: 3 (100%) (3-0-0)
Hutchinson: 2 (40%) (2-0-0)
Andersen: 9 (50%) (7-2-0)

3 goals or less (17-4-0):

Campbell: 3 (100%) (3-0-0)
Hutchinson: 5 (100%) (3-2-0)
Andersen: 13 (72%) (11-2-0)

More than 3 goals (1-2-2):

Campbell: 0 (0%) (n/a)
Hutchinson: 0 (0%) (n/a)
Andersen: 5 (28%) (1-2-2)

I think you know enough about sample sizes to know that this doesn't mean anything.

Great post Sea, you said what many of us felt but couldn't articulate about the CLB series.

People say you can't judge goalies by how the opposing goalie plays, but I disagree. I think if you consistently have the worse goalie in the game/series, that's a problem. Freddie does save us occasionally, but We've really tightened up in xGA/60 and HDCA/60 and he's still losing these duels, even when the ice is tilted.

I think that's where Andersen supporters get caught up - they see Andersen make a few good saves and they think he was good enough, but the other goalie often makes twice as many great saves, and does so every game.

I disagree.

I think that's where the Andersen haters get caught up - when he plays great putting up a .936 SV% which would enough to win a huge majority of the time, they see that the opposing goalie had even better numbers and from that, they pivot to the erroneous conclusion that Andersen is to blame for the loss.

I don't think it is wise to cheap out on goaltending, but at the same time you shouldn't be spending more than like 6 or 7 mill on it either unless you are at least getting a consistent Vezina candidate like Vasilevsky.

If Andersen wants to come back, he is getting closer to a Holtby deal from us and he needs to show he has more in the tank than he has shown the past two years.

I agree.

 

[JT AM da real deal]

There are instances where those goalies get hot, but for the most part it wasn't cheap guys.

Binnington and Murray are the main instances of cheap goalies making it far and winning. Khudobin was able to take Dallas to the finals himself. Otherwise you are looking at the likes of Vasilevsky, Rask, Quick, Crawford, Holtby, Fleury, etc. who were not cheap goalies. That being said, all of them had more proven track records of success than Andersen before and after they won their Cups or made good runs.

I don't think it is wise to cheap out on goaltending, but at the same time you shouldn't be spending more than like 6 or 7 mill on it either unless you are at least getting a consistent Vezina candidate like Vasilevsky.

If Andersen wants to come back, he is getting closer to a Holtby deal from us and he needs to show he has more in the tank than he has shown the past two years.

There is no serious market for Freddy ... we tried to trade him and offers sucked ... he will go to UFA and he will see for himself other GMs see him as backup material ... i bet he gets around 3-3.5M max for a short term deal

 

[Gary Nylund]

There is no serious market for Freddy ... we tried to trade him and offers sucked ... he will go to UFA and he will see for himself other GMs see him as backup material ... i bet he gets around 3-3.5M max for a short term deal

That seems about right (unless his stock goes way up or down between now and then). And if we can't get anyone better then we shouldn't close the door on the idea of bringing him back, the idea of starting next season with Campbell and Hutch is not the least bit appealing.

 

[SeaOfBlue]

Vasilevsky $3.50 ----- (McElhinney $1.30)
Binnington $0.65 ---- (Allen $4.35)
Holtby $6.10 ---------- (Grubauer $1.50)
Murray $0.63 --------- (Fleury $5.75)
Murray $0.63 --------- (Fleury $5.75)
Crawford $6.00 ------- (Darling $0.57)
Quick $5.80 ------------ (Jones $0.55)
Crawford $2.67 --------- (Emery $1.15)
Quick $1.80 ------------- (Bernier $1.25)
Thomas $5.00 ---------- (Rask $1.25)
Niemi $0.83 ------------- (Huet $5.63)
Fleury $5.00 ------------- (Garon $1.10)
Osgood $0.80 ------------ (Hasek $2.05)
Giguere $3.99 ------------ (Bryzgalov $1.18)
Ward $0.68 -------------- (Gerber $1.06)

A number of interesting observations to make here:

1. Most cup winners under the cap win with cheap starting goalies, period.

2. This is not exactly a list of perennial Vezina candidates here. Most cup winners' goalies aren't even actually "dependably good", let alone "dependable elite". For the most part they are just inconsistent mediocre goalies that are just as likely to become quickly unplayable as they are to continue being quality starters.

3. A surprisingly large amount of cup winners won the cup in no small part because THEY WERE WLLING TO SIT THEIR EXPENSIVE GOALIE in favor of playing the unproven hot goalie - even though those unproven hot goalies weren't great prospects and weren't even very young and didn't go on to become dependable starters afterwords - they were just decent goalies that got hot, and their team played them, and won with them.

One of those years Fleury played more games than Murray so it is not really fair to give Murray all of that credit.

I also think it is more important to look at who is a proven starter on that list. Quick, Crawford and Vasilevsky were still on bridge deals, but they were proven starters when they won their Cups and eventually were paid like it. Even Murray the second time around had Fleury playing a ton of games (both in the regular and playoffs) and Murray was not an unknown anymore.

If you can get a proven starter for cheap, then all the power to you, but let's not pretend that many of these guys were anything like Campbell, Driedger, Ullmark, or whatever other tandem starter that people want over a proven starter next year. Not saying that guy should be Andersen, or even anyone super expensive, but the odds are against guys like Campbell winning Cups. Outside of Murray the first time and Binnington, we haven't had a guy who compares to Campbell win a Cup since Niemi. Not much different if you extend that to teams who made it far in the playoffs.

 

[Critical13]

I think you know enough about sample sizes to know that this doesn't mean anything.



I disagree.

I think that's where the Andersen haters get caught up - when he plays great putting up a .936 SV% which would enough to win a huge majority of the time, they see that the opposing goalie had even better numbers and from that, they pivot to the erroneous conclusion that Andersen is to blame for the loss.



I agree.

That .936% is less impressive when you consider how few chances we gave them. I guess congrats to Freddie on stopping 20 shots a night by the worst offensive team in the NHL, the vast majority being from non-goal scoring areas of the ice.

We outplayed them in 4/5 games. We got out-goaltended in 5/5 games. Good luck winning a Cup when every single match up you have on the way is a lopsided loss i nthe goalies department.

 

[SeaOfBlue]

That .936% is less impressive when you consider how few chances we gave them.I guess congrats to Freddie on stopping 20 shots a night by the worst offensive team in the NHL, the vast majority being from non-goal scoring areas of the ice.

We outplayed them in 4/5 games. We got out-goaltended in 5/5 games. Good luck winning a Cup when every single match up you have on the way is a lopsided loss i nthe goalies department.

4/5 games. Andersen earned his shutout.

 

[ShaneFalco]

Let's face it he's not going to take a 2-3 year deal for one. Will probably also want raise.
So we have no choice

 

[SeaOfBlue]

Let's face it he's not going to take a 2-3 year deal for one. Will probably also want raise.
So we have no choice

Who says Andersen has a choice in that matter?

He is having a better contract year than Holtby did last year in Washington, but Holtby is also a Vezina and recent Cup winner and has come closer to winning both again than Andersen has come to winning either once. He also signed his deal at a year younger than Andersen would be (they are the same age, but Andersen is signing a year later). Holtby received 2 years x 4.3 mill in Vancouver.

He is not playing anywhere near as well as Markstrom has the past few years (and Markstrom was playing on a much worse team), so he is not going to receive that kind of contract from anyone. Binnington is the only one who can likely come close to that kind of deal, and he is 4 years younger + has a Cup + has played better than Andersen for 2.5 years now.

No team is going to go out on a limb and give Andersen a huge contract after the way he has played.

 

[Gary Nylund]

That .936% is less impressive when you consider how few chances we gave them. I guess congrats to Freddie on stopping 20 shots a night by the worst offensive team in the NHL, the vast majority being from non-goal scoring areas of the ice.

We outplayed them in 4/5 games. We got out-goaltended in 5/5 games. Good luck winning a Cup when every single match up you have on the way is a lopsided loss i nthe goalies department.

SV% is SV% irrespective of the number of chances and .936 IMHO is impressive. Less impressive? OK whatever, all I said was impressive and I stand by my opinion which is that Andersen was one of our best players against CLB. He could have played better sure but most of the blame belongs elsewhere.

Or offence messed up so many scoring chances (Tavares missing the empty net being the most glaring example) that IMHO, the numbers their goalies put up are a bit misleading. They played well but they didn't play THAT well. Our offence was just off, that's all there is to it but I don't see how anyone can say Andersen didn't play well.

I'll take a .936 SV% any day, I'm pretty sure most cup winners don't get close to that when they win.

 

[ToneDog]

There is no serious market for Freddy ... we tried to trade him and offers sucked ... he will go to UFA and he will see for himself other GMs see him as backup material ... i bet he gets around 3-3.5M max for a short term deal

Freddy has not had a Barrie type year to justify that much of a haircut.

I can see Edmonton, Buffalo and Carolina paying more to sign him as their #1G.

 

[Gary Nylund]

One of those years Fleury played more games than Murray so it is not really fair to give Murray all of that credit.

I also think it is more important to look at who is a proven starter on that list. Quick, Crawford and Vasilevsky were still on bridge deals, but they were proven starters when they won their Cups and eventually were paid like it. Even Murray the second time around had Fleury playing a ton of games (both in the regular and playoffs) and Murray was not an unknown anymore.

If you can get a proven starter for cheap, then all the power to you, but let's not pretend that many of these guys were anything like Campbell, Driedger, Ullmark, or whatever other tandem starter that people want over a proven starter next year. Not saying that guy should be Andersen, or even anyone super expensive, but the odds are against guys like Campbell winning Cups. Outside of Murray the first time and Binnington, we haven't had a guy who compares to Campbell win a Cup since Niemi. Not much different if you extend that to teams who made it far in the playoffs.

I think you make some good points here. Zeke's idea of rolling with cheap unproven guys because that's how recent cups were won that seemed fishy from the start and I think this shines a bit of light on what's wrong with that idea.

We'll see what Dubas does but I'd bet a fair bit that we don't start next season with "two unproven guys" in net. I could see it happening but I'm pretty sure it's not plan A, and I don't think it's plan B or C either.

Who says Andersen has a choice in that matter?

He is having a better contract year than Holtby did last year in Washington, but Holtby is also a Vezina and recent Cup winner and has come closer to winning both again than Andersen has come to winning either once. He also signed his deal at a year younger than Andersen would be (they are the same age, but Andersen is signing a year later). Holtby received 2 years x 4.3 mill in Vancouver.

He is not playing anywhere near as well as Markstrom has the past few years (and Markstrom was playing on a much worse team), so he is not going to receive that kind of contract from anyone. Binnington is the only one who can likely come close to that kind of deal, and he is 4 years younger + has a Cup + has played better than Andersen for 2.5 years now.

No team is going to go out on a limb and give Andersen a huge contract after the way he has played.

Exactly.

 

[Judas Tavares]

After seeing a bunch of bumped threads today, I'm just gonna say "in before this board laments Freddie being gone after he goes Rittich on us during a game next season".

 

[zeke]

One of those years Fleury played more games than Murray so it is not really fair to give Murray all of that credit.

I also think it is more important to look at who is a proven starter on that list. Quick, Crawford and Vasilevsky were still on bridge deals, but they were proven starters when they won their Cups and eventually were paid like it. Even Murray the second time around had Fleury playing a ton of games (both in the regular and playoffs) and Murray was not an unknown anymore.

If you can get a proven starter for cheap, then all the power to you, but let's not pretend that many of these guys were anything like Campbell, Driedger, Ullmark, or whatever other tandem starter that people want over a proven starter next year. Not saying that guy should be Andersen, or even anyone super expensive, but the odds are against guys like Campbell winning Cups. Outside of Murray the first time and Binnington, we haven't had a guy who compares to Campbell win a Cup since Niemi. Not much different if you extend that to teams who made it far in the playoffs.

My list speaks loudly and clearly for itself no matter how many excuses and new definitions you come up with to try and distort it.

And how can you even say one word of your post about 'proven starters' when Murray and Binnington have won 3 of the last 5 cups?

 

[ACC1224]

Freddy has not had a Barrie type year to justify that much of a haircut.

I can see Edmonton, Buffalo and Carolina paying more to sign him as their #1G.

He’d be a great fit for any team without playoff aspirations.

 

[Confucius]

He’d be a great fit for any team without playoff aspirations.

Yep put him somewhere in the deep south where nobody would recognize him even if he were wearing a team jersey. No pressure be happy, he'd be a star.

 

[McSnypsky]

Who says Andersen has a choice in that matter?

He is having a better contract year than Holtby did last year in Washington, but Holtby is also a Vezina and recent Cup winner and has come closer to winning both again than Andersen has come to winning either once. He also signed his deal at a year younger than Andersen would be (they are the same age, but Andersen is signing a year later). Holtby received 2 years x 4.3 mill in Vancouver.

He is not playing anywhere near as well as Markstrom has the past few years (and Markstrom was playing on a much worse team), so he is not going to receive that kind of contract from anyone. Binnington is the only one who can likely come close to that kind of deal, and he is 4 years younger + has a Cup + has played better than Andersen for 2.5 years now.

No team is going to go out on a limb and give Andersen a huge contract after the way he has played.

I could see someone giving him 6x5 similar to Markstrom are we willing to do that?

 

[Martin Skoula]

SV% is SV% irrespective of the number of chances and .936 IMHO is impressive. Less impressive? OK whatever, all I said was impressive and I stand by my opinion which is that Andersen was one of our best players against CLB. He could have played better sure but most of the blame belongs elsewhere.

Or offence messed up so many scoring chances (Tavares missing the empty net being the most glaring example) that IMHO, the numbers their goalies put up are a bit misleading. They played well but they didn't play THAT well. Our offence was just off, that's all there is to it but I don't see how anyone can say Andersen didn't play well.

I'll take a .936 SV% any day, I'm pretty sure most cup winners don't get close to that when they win.

Goalie A lets in the first 2 shots of the game 30 seconds in, the opponent then plays a trap game and throws 28 muffins from the blueline on net - he has a .933%.

Goalie B faces 15 shots because his team traps all game and allows 1 goal with 1 second left in the game - he also has a .933%.

You would say these goalies played equally well right? If Team B took an additional 5 unscreened shots from the blueline, you'd say goalie A actually played a better game, right?

 

[napoleon in rags]

I could see someone giving him 6x5 similar to Markstrom are we willing to do that?

I don't think Dave Nonis is a GM for any team any more.