Wonder how Brodeur got into this discussion? Anyway, I never referred to him as a stiff, a bum or as rubbish. I'm not the one that gives out punishing reviews.
But to me, the Devils were significantly better defensively than the Bruins that we are talking about.
Maybe, maybe not. Boston is certainly a better save pct pumper. And folks live and die by that.
Here's the thing...and don't think I don't get it, I do...but here's the thing: when I love a goalie that people love, it's "this is great analysis" but when I dislike a goalie that maybe some people like it's "what a boob, this guy stinks".
But my process is the same. I'm not asking anyone to adhere, but I'm on the panel, so I state what I see.
But I don't have to worry about "save pct of backups" and other noise. I
can. And sometimes I use it to help illustrate a point so that it resonates with folks that use that type of thing.
We've been at this for a long time...not me or you or Tim Thomas...but this board. You have been watching hockey for longer than me on TV. What percentage of the coverage is legitimately critical? Who is out there writing in THN "this line was the suckiest bunch of sucks that ever sucked"...?
It's rare. So now we have to sit there and go "all right, let's assume that no mention means 'bad'...or neutral...or just that they were overshadowed by someone better..." and then we take almost everything that's written that's good at face value. And folks will keep score on how much positivity there is...primarily from media types with unknown knowledge of the game, specifically goaltending.
Again, it's like media coverage of a draft. How many times have you watched a draft and heard someone picked in the first round and the analysts go, "probably not gonna make it because..."?
Never.
The culture of this sport is nothing but atta-boys...the coverage of it is an extreme version of that. If you go against that, you get what you get and that's fine. But amassing just happy thoughts and hugs just doesn't make sense to me.
