Sol
Smile
- Jun 30, 2017
- 25,052
- 21,322
Not surprised by the results because it is pretty logical. I'm just curious what gets quantified as high scoring vs low scoring.Kind of the opposite actually. Someone on the history of hockey board wrote a nice thesis on it. The idea was athletic goalie performances are more volatile--see Hasek, Thomas, Quick--whereas butterfly 'percentage' goalies make the 'safe' saves. I forget whether they quantified it but the theory was butterfly goalies will have higher low-danger save percentage but lower high-danger save percentage while the athletic goalies will have the opposite. In other words, if you need a guy to steal a game, gamble on the athletic guy, but if you just need raw stability over time, go with the butterfly guy.
Looking at the last few cup-winning goalies, Quick, Thomas, Crawford fit the athletic bill a bit more, Murray more butterfly I think, though Pens won with Fleury before that too.
Just a thought.
A whopping two shifts.
I'm saying this because I think with our current defense we need more of a technical or hybrid since that makes it more easier for defejseman to read and predict plays better IMO
17 games vs. Nashville, Quick has 5 wins, .890, 2.86 GAA.
Wow that's bad lol. Start kuemper
The Martinez 'hold' as well. Saw that coming. Computer assistance turned on for Dallas. ****ing hate this reffing. Kings controlled literally 80% of the game and are still getting out-penaltied. There is no rhyme or reason for it at this point, just have to roll with it.
Kings are top 5 in PP chances in the NHL no idea why they don't give us calls.
Hmmm i can't believe he played this much
Who's toi