Toggle sidebar

GDT: GM#76 LA Kings vs Edmonton Oilers @7:00

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
Sol said:
Read Drivesaitls posts about the errors on the goals. And I have, you just don't remember.
Click to expand...

I did, his opinion is full of fallacy, he apparently doesn't know the proper positioning of a goaltender when the puck is behind the net.

Why don't you try it yourself, pick a game where you think Quick lost due to bad goals, post the game, break down the goals, and let's see what you come up with, I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that either A. you won't do it, or B. you will be so far off, it will be at the very least amusing, but at least you would have had the cajones to do it
 
GoldenBearHockey said:
I did, his opinion is full of fallacy, he apparently doesn't know the proper positioning of a goaltender when the puck is behind the net.

Why don't you try it yourself, pick a game where you think Quick lost due to bad goals, post the game, break down the goals, and let's see what you come up with, I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that either A. you won't do it, or B. you will be so far off, it will be at the very least amusing, but at least you would have had the cajones to do it
Click to expand...

Thing is, I have before since this is like the thousandth time you've asked and I've done it. You don't listen since you're already fixed to your position.

His logic is much more sound than yours. You've had some experience before so of course it hits close to home to you when someone talks down about a goalie.


I have nothing to prove to you since you're incapable of listening.

You do nothing to prove that none of the goals yesterday were his fault.
 
Sol said:
All of what you said is accurate, Kings limit a lot of high quality chances, so it inflates his stats for sure, because he hasn't been making big saves and winning games by himself in 2018. Only maybe a couple games in 2018 where he did really good.



The big reason our first periods suck is because he sucks in the first period. I've watched all the games and the Kings aren't getting curb stomped to be always down a couple goals in the 1st. He just sucks in the first this year. Badly.


Unsurprisingly these people who are adamantly defending Quick and speaking about him as if he's 2012 Quick are the same people who were defending Richards nonstop when he was abysmal using similar talking points that are based in the past while failing to differentiate the past to now. How'd that turn out?? The same Dwight King defenders as well. Where are they now ? Players change, it'd help you guys to realize that.


Richards 2.0 the same people.
Click to expand...


Literally no one is talking about him being 2012 Quick, I actually said literally exactly the opposite, but I guess when all else fails, go full strawman.

It's the same as the "Forbort isn't even an NHLer" garbage, I take the time to show why he is, and someone acts like I said he's the second coming of Doughty.

Try to understand context. That's obviously been the big problem here.
 
Sol said:
Thing is, I have before since this is like the thousandth time you've asked and I've done it. You don't listen since you're already fixed to your position.

His logic is much more sound than yours. You've had some experience before so of course it hits close to home to you when someone talks down about a goalie.


I have nothing to prove to you since you're incapable of listening.

You do nothing to prove that none of the goals yesterday were his fault.
Click to expand...

LOL wow, yes, because 20 years ago, I was a goaltender, it incenses me that someone talks bad about a goaltender,

THAT is the logic you are going with,

Not the fact that people like yourself, can't actually break down a play and discuss WHY it was a bad goal or not....no...that, I'm apparently ok with....

Seriously?
 
Raccoon Jesus said:
Literally no one is talking about him being 2012 Quick, I actually said literally exactly the opposite, but I guess when all else fails, go full strawman.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with you. You're somewhat open to the idea of him not being as good as he used to be but you let analytics dominate the eye test in regards to Quick.
 
GoldenBearHockey said:
LOL wow, yes, because 20 years ago, I was a goaltender, it incenses me that someone talks bad about a goaltender,

THAT is the logic you are going with,

Not the fact that people like yourself, can't actually break down a play and discuss WHY it was a bad goal or not....no...that, I'm apparently ok with....

Seriously?
Click to expand...
It's not my fault your memory fails you.
 
Sol said:
It's not my fault your memory fails you.
Click to expand...

Actually, I do remember your stellar breakdown of the Parise goal, it was bad because it was far....

That's literally what you said, and you wonder why people question your knowledge of the game?
 
GoldenBearHockey said:
Actually, I do remember your stellar breakdown of the Parise goal, it was bad because it was far....

That's literally what you said, and you wonder why people question your knowledge of the game?
Click to expand...

Half the board said it was his fault yesterday. You're on the side of the other half. The fact that you think there's no truth in what half the people are saying shows that you're the only one here who's Truly inept. And the fact you do nothing but insult shows that since you are incapable of listening. I can admit that I am very biased and I know there's a case to be made that I could be wrong. But I know there's a strong case to be made that the side I'm on is right as well. So I know I under-sell him and I know that a lot of you guys over sell him, so the answer has to be in the middle somewhere.


People defended Richards adamantly when he was playing on the 4th line doing nothing because of his name. And not his performance.
 
Sol said:
Half the board said it was his fault yesterday. You're on the side of the other half. The fact that you think there's no truth in what half the people are saying shows that you're the only one here who's Truly inept. And the fact you do nothing but insult shows that since you are incapable of listening. I can admit that I am very biased and I know there's a case to be made that I could be wrong. But I know there's a strong case to be made that the side I'm on is right as well. So I know I under-sell him and I know that a lot of you guys over sell him, so the answer has to be in the middle somewhere.


People defended Richards adamantly when he was playing on the 4th line doing nothing because of his name. And not his performance.
Click to expand...

I'm not selling him at all, I am explaining to you what happened, despite video evidence, you either don't understand, or don't want to believe what actually happened.

Watch the Parise goal again, see if you can come back with more than, it's a bad goal because it's far away.

That's not a breakdown of the play, that doesn't explain why it is or is not, a bad goal.

Do more.
 
GoldenBearHockey said:
I'm not selling him at all, I am explaining to you what happened, despite video evidence, you either don't understand, or don't want to believe what actually happened.

Watch the Parise goal again, see if you can come back with more than, it's a bad goal because it's far away.

That's not a breakdown of the play, that doesn't explain why it is or is not, a bad goal.

Do more.
Click to expand...

You don't think you're biased?
 
Sol said:
You don't think you're biased?
Click to expand...

Nope, I've said it before, he has let in bad goals, I will call it a bad goal when it is one, EVERY goalie let's in bad goals, it's the nature of the beast.

My specific problem with you, is you can't differentiate between what a good goal is vs what a bad goal is, so you label EVERY goal a bad goal.

You can't break down the play to understand WHY it happened, and I barely think you register WHAT happened, ie, the Parise goal.

That's the problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Reaper45 and Bandit
GoldenBearHockey said:
Nope, I've said it before, he has let in bad goals, I will call it a bad goal when it is one, EVERY goalie let's in bad goals, it's the nature of the beast.

My specific problem with you, is you can't differentiate between what a good goal is vs what a bad goal is, so you label EVERY goal a bad goal.

You can't break down the play to understand WHY it happened, and I barely think you register WHAT happened, ie, the Parise goal.

That's the problem.
Click to expand...
What was the last bad goal you remember
 
Sol said:
What was the last bad goal you remember
Click to expand...

Without having replays in front of me, clearly the one against Hornquivst to open that SAT game against PIT,

Have their been others since, probably, but that's the one that sticks out, if you want to post up a video of one you think is one, feel free.
 
GoldenBearHockey said:
Without having replays in front of me, clearly the one against Hornquivst to open that SAT game against PIT,

Have their been others since, probably, but that's the one that sticks out, if you want to post up a video of one you think is one, feel free.
Click to expand...
This is very productive and I appreciate you being constructive now. And I can't think of any at the moment Watching the ducks game very intently lol
 
Just for shits n giggles,

I went back to the NJ game,

1st goal, Grabner short handed, while not a soft goal, that's one if he had, probably changes the game, but it was a solid move, soft hands going back against the grain.

2nd goal, Hischier, amazing release, shooting back, from prime area, not much you are going to do there.

3rd goal, 2 on 1, looks like he froze him on the pass, nice shot, but that's one Quick shoulda had, you never get beat short side....

Here 's the difference, your view on these goals,

1st goal - he sucks, he's bad, soft
2nd goal - see, I told you he sucks, it's bad
3rd goal - see, he's always this way, I was right.

That's the biggest complaint with you, if you are going to say it's a bad goal, say why.
 
Drivesaitl said:
First of all I appreciate that the Kings historically have been one of the better defensive clubs in the league. Its not just Quick preventing GA. Its a team that historically doesn't give up a lot and that typically has outshot opponents. So that while Quick has great GAA numbers his Save percentage stats are somewhat more ordinary historically.

Lets do a comparison. Devan Dubnyk, who I don't even particularly like as a goalie, and who has played on some ****ty teams, has an IDENTICAL .916 career save%. That should immediately cause reflection, because Dubnyk played half his career and GP with Edmonton. Reflecting that, his GAA average is much higher than Quicks. 2.55 vs 2.28. For goalies btw a difference this large in career totals is significant. So that Dubnyk maintained the same career save % while facing more work, and more GA. For him to have the same % he has to be seeing more work/game, more shots. Just think about it. Would anybody on the Kings board be defending Dubnyk as much?

Now I see that the more common attribution expressed here is that the Kings start games really poorly. I have a mixed view on that because I've seen Quick give up a lot of weak goals early and that he almost always looks better as a game goes on. Its been my impression. This is anecdotal, but in a recent game the Kings were outshooting their opponent 19-4 in the first period and they were down 2-0. It seemed like I had seen that movie before. That isn't consistent with a team being outplayed to start. Its more about a goalie letting in half the shots he saw. (The Kings of course lost the game)
Click to expand...

No offense but this whole post reeks of a misunderstanding of...well how the stats functionally work. GAA should never be considered for a goalie in comparison between teams. In fact, it's not rare for a goalie with a lower GAA to have lower SV%. Think about it this way; the Kings often gave up a low shots per game (let's say 18-23) for quite a few years. A goalie would have to handle about a 1.90 GA just to get a SV% around .917. That's extremely rare to happen over a full season. On the other hand, a goalie facing 30 shots/game can rock a GAA over 2.40 to have the same save percentage, a full half goal extra per game

Often times the biggest difference between teams giving up low and high totals is outside/low danger shots, because better defensive teams will block those shots or make it harder to get them on net. Most times the difference in scoring chances allowed isn't going to be a big enough difference to explain the difference in shots allowed. Therefore it's honestly harder to rock that .917 with a low shots against per game.

And that 19-4 shot difference is from the Devils game. The Kings had maybe 1-2 scoring chances in the first period because they were all outside shots going right to the glove or stomach or on the ice. The Devils had rush plays and a breakaway. Even if the Kings played 'better' if we just look at shots per game, it's far from the truth. In fact, this whole myth about the Kings dominating just because of shots is infuriating because it shows a lack of paying attention. The Kings often outshot teams because they were firing from literally everywhere and limiting outside shots. The best example is from a few years ago where the Kings lost something like 4-2 to Nashville and people thought the Kings were dominant when the truth was the scoring chances were 12 for Nashville and less for the Kings.

Comparing goalies with GAA and SV% is a faulty argument. Need to look at what actually happened
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom