Jake Allen

[TruBlu]

Just figured I'd pop in to say Jake has been doing a good job.

 

[Evocable Manager]

I think he plays too much.

But Hutton is also injured at the moment so it is what it is I guess.

 

[TruBlu]

It took a bad stretch of games to get a "Jake Allen" thread started: then he went 9 games and gave up 19 goals, then he gave up 1 goal in 3 games...what does it take to get someone to say something good?

 

[Vincenzo Arelliti]

Jake sux

 

[Mike Liut]

He’s been in beast mode lately

 

[Falco Lombardi]

It took a bad stretch of games to get a "Jake Allen" thread started: then he went 9 games and gave up 19 goals, then he gave up 1 goal in 3 games...what does it take to get someone to say something good?

Changing his name from Snake to Moose

 

[Majorityof1]

It took a bad stretch of games to get a "Jake Allen" thread started: then he went 9 games and gave up 19 goals, then he gave up 1 goal in 3 games...what does it take to get someone to say something good?

Didn't "/thread" (ie end thread because Jake is back and we don't need to talk about him struggling)kind of sum up everything good you need to say about his recent performance? That was posted immediately after the first of the 3 game "resurgence".

I personally am not going to say anything, because this is par for the course and part of the problem. He looks good, he looks terrible, looks good again, then he will look terrible again. Every goalie has ups and downs, but Allen has to stop Jekyll and Hyde-ing it to such extremes. I would much rather not get such solid highs if it meant he could smooth out how bad the lows are. He is either Dr. Brickwall or Mr. Sieve, and the stretches run several games. Just because he turned it around now, does not mean we have seen the last of Mr. Sieve. Just because Dr. Brickwall showed up last playoffs, doesn't mean he will every playoffs. If we get Mr. Sieve for even one playoff series, we are toast that year, no matter how great Dr. Brickwall was throughout the regular season. Its going to take a long run without any extended bouts of terrible play and a few playoffs before I fully trust Allen. It will definitely take more than 3 games.

 

[Mike Liut]

I don’t think Jake looks terrible very often. He may let in a questionable goal occasionally, but so does every goalie. I don’t think Jakes been great this year, but I think he’s been very good. I also think he’s heating up and is taking it to the next level like we have seen him do.

 

[Brian39]

Didn't "/thread" (ie end thread because Jake is back and we don't need to talk about him struggling)kind of sum up everything good you need to say about his recent performance? That was posted immediately after the first of the 3 game "resurgence".

I personally am not going to say anything, because this is par for the course and part of the problem. He looks good, he looks terrible, looks good again, then he will look terrible again. Every goalie has ups and downs, but Allen has to stop Jekyll and Hyde-ing it to such extremes. I would much rather not get such solid highs if it meant he could smooth out how bad the lows are. He is either Dr. Brickwall or Mr. Sieve, and the stretches run several games. Just because he turned it around now, does not mean we have seen the last of Mr. Sieve. Just because Dr. Brickwall showed up last playoffs, doesn't mean he will every playoffs. If we get Mr. Sieve for even one playoff series, we are toast that year, no matter how great Dr. Brickwall was throughout the regular season. Its going to take a long run without any extended bouts of terrible play and a few playoffs before I fully trust Allen. It will definitely take more than 3 games.

I don't think you're giving him enough credit at this point. He dug himself out of his most recent slump much quicker than he has in the past and his most recent slump wasn't nearly as bad as his December skid last year. I certainly would not describe him as 'terrible' for any extended stretch this season. He wasn't very good, but he wasn't terrible outside of a couple games. I would have agreed with you in the past, because his slumps were atrocious. However, just about every goalie in the league goes through a rough patch on par with what Jake did a couple weeks ago.

I'm not convinced that he won't have a terrible slump at some point this year. Until he shows me a full season without one, that worry will be there. However, what we have seen so far has been leaps and bounds better than the inconsistency we have seen from him in the past. It is completely fair to still have doubts, but nothing this season should increase that doubt. He went through a completely normal slump that all goalies go through and got himself back on track much better than he has in the past.

I think he has done exactly what you want so far. His lows haven't been as low but we also haven't seen the high that we saw from mid February onward last year. I has played very well the last 3 games, but we have also played damn well in front of him. This isn't like the Wild series last year where he was just inhuman.

 

[MissouriMook]

I don’t think Jake looks terrible very often. He may let in a questionable goal occasionally, but so does every goalie. I don’t think Jakes been great this year, but I think he’s been very good. I also think he’s heating up and is taking it to the next level like we have seen him do.

I agree, but the bad ones he gives up just seem so unnecessary. Please allow me to use a little hyperbole to explain.

If your team's starting goalie had a 2.00 GAA and a .950 SP it would be really hard to say he needs to be better, right? Well what if the reason he gave up two goals a game was because twice a game he skated behind the net and hid until the other team scored?!? That would just be ridiculous given that, in this scenario, he is literally stopping every shot he tries to. Why is he putting himself in a position where he has no hope of being able to stop a shot and doing so on purpose?

Well, frankly, I don't feel much differently when I see Allen over-slide well beyond the blue paint and give up a bad goal because he's left himself hopelessly out of position. Again, it is just so unnecessary. I honestly don't know how you coach this out of him, or if that is even possible at this point. If he could break himself of this habit, something that I see as making the job harder than it has to be because he has confidence in his athleticism, he could be a truly elite goalie.

 

[Mike Liut]

I think the reason he seems to be out of position is because hes an aggressive type of goalie. Him being so aggressive is the reason he’s so good too. I just think it’s one of those things where you have to take the good with the bad and accept it. Kind of like a HR hitter in baseball who hits 50 Hr’s but strikes out 175 times. We have an excellent goalie in Jake Allen and we need to accept it and move on. Is he perfect? No.

 

[2 Minute Minor]

I wonder if people would say the same thing about prime age Quick as they say about Allen regarding aggressive play taking him out of position. But just with Quick he won the big games enough times that he was given the benefit of the doubt with that style. I don't mind Allen's aggressive play. Its the times when he lets in weak goals for poor initial positioning that bother me. But that's less and less often. I think he's a pretty average starter who has shown he has a higher gear. Access that at the right time, and I think we're all happy with that.

 

[Grimlore]

I think he's a pretty average starter who has shown he has a higher gear.

I mean just randomly in the middle of the season he was picked as last week's second start in the league. I really don't know what the guy has to do so people don't shit on him. Every single goalie in the league lets in soft goals. Not directed at you 2MM, just crazy reading through some of the posts in this thread.

 

[Ranksu]

I wonder if people would say the same thing about prime age Quick as they say about Allen regarding aggressive play taking him out of position. But just with Quick he won the big games enough times that he was given the benefit of the doubt with that style. I don't mind Allen's aggressive play. Its the times when he lets in weak goals for poor initial positioning that bother me. But that's less and less often. I think he's a pretty average starter who has shown he has a higher gear. Access that at the right time, and I think we're all happy with that.

Aren't Kings defending bit differently then Blues. Let Quick see the puck and not block the shot that often? When Blues players all block the shots and if goaltender is playing aggressive he'll be out of position when there is rebound or half blocked shot.

Blues style of defend will fit perfectly on Husso. He's well sounded and not doind snow angels all the time. Good poised goaltender and great rebound control.

 

[carter333167]

The book is a bit incomplete on Allen. If he is able to duplicate his performance from last year's playoffs, I think we can say that he is transforming into an elite level goaltender.

My breakdown of last year's playoffs without checking the numbers is that he was absolutely fantastic in the Wild series and dropped a level against the Preds (still good but not dominant--had a bit of trouble with the copious point shots from the Preds).

 

[carter333167]

Blues style of defend will fit perfectly on Husso. He's well sounded and not doind snow angels all the time. Good poised goaltender and great rebound control.

Yes, I think that Husso's style could blend very nicely with the Blues. His style is more typical of most goalies today....quieter body, depends on positioning.

 

[Celtic Note]

.913 sv is about what I would have expected. .920 or better is a sweet spot for me. If you get .920 you can’t blame the goalie for losses

 

[Mike Liut]

.913 sv is about what I would have expected. .920 or better is a sweet spot for me. If you get .920 you can’t blame the goalie for losses

I think Jake is just now hitting his rythem for this year.

 

[Brian39]

I mean just randomly in the middle of the season he was picked as last week's second start in the league. I really don't know what the guy has to do so people don't **** on him. Every single goalie in the league lets in soft goals. Not directed at you 2MM, just crazy reading through some of the posts in this thread.

I've been satisfied with Allen, but a hot week doesn't absolve all criticism. Before that week he had a 10 game stretch where his SV% was .870 or lower as many times as it was .900 or higher (3 of each). Everyone agrees that he is capable of playing like a top 5 goalie in the NHL. But he objectively does that less often than other guys who are considered elite. Most NHL starters can put up brief stretches of elite level play. Being a top end starter means you can do that AND limit the valleys. His SV% is 17th in the league among goalies with 15 or more games played. He has a .913 in a league where the average SV% is .911 this year. I hardly think describing him as a 'pretty average starter who has shown he has a higher gear' is anything like **** on him.

 

[Majorityof1]

People are just looking at the aggregate too much in this thread. Oh, he's a .920, so he's good. However, standard deviation matters as well. Let's take 2 totally made up fictitious goalies with the same YTD stat line: 60 gp, 2.0 GAA and .920 save percentage. You would say those goalies are the same. However, one's win loss record is .500 and the others is 1.00 despite getting the exact same goal support. What, why? you ask. Well let's look at their disbursement:

Goalie A: Every game is 2 GA, 23 svs on 25 shots against, 60-0
Goalie B: 30 games at 0 GA, 25/25 sv%; 30 games at 4 GA, 21/25 Sv%, 30-30

The team scores 3 goals every game. Goalie A wins 3-2, Goalie B wins halg 3-0 and loses half 3-4. So even with dead even stats, one goalie is objectively better for the team. Now this example is heavily abstracted to demonstrate a point. In the real world, no team will score 3 goals every game, and no goalie will be that black and white. But it is intended to show in stark terms how wild swings in performance can effect the win loss record vs always playing closer to the mean. For a bad team, the reverse would be true. If a team can't score goals, they may need a goalie to play lights out to get wins at all. But that is not us. This isn't even taking into account the effects on morale and momentum caused by poor goalie play.

Jake has been better this year than last in terms of minimizing the extremes. He did go through a stretch of 10 games with pretty poor stats. That stretch pre-dated our poor stretch of games as a team. So went Jake, so went the team. Jake and the team both pulled themselves out of it without a major intervention, which is great. But that doesn't mean I am done being worried about this trend which has plagued him in the past because he had an extended hot streak last year. No starting goalie on a contender should have ever have a stretch of 10 games with a save percentage sub .875. Jake did, and that is with the team being amongst the best in limited high danger chances. We are defensively and offensively a top 5 team in the league by most statistical measures. Yet our goalie is only middle of the pack due to an extended poor stretch.

I'll admit though, I am not a fan of the super athletic, streaky goaltender and prefer the solid positional goalie. I never liked Hasek, and Brodeur is one of my favorite non-Blues ever. That is a personal preference. There are fewer exciting OMG saves, but also fewer frustrating WTF saves. Maybe preference clouds my judgement, but I think there is something to be said for knowing a goalie will stop the shots he should and knowing you'll consistently get a solid effort in net. For me, it will just take time to know we will get that from Jake. Maybe more time for me due to my biases.

 

[TruBlu]

People are just looking at the aggregate too much in this thread. Oh, he's a .920, so he's good. However, standard deviation matters as well. Let's take 2 totally made up fictitious goalies with the same YTD stat line: 60 gp, 2.0 GAA and .920 save percentage. You would say those goalies are the same. However, one's win loss record is .500 and the others is 1.00 despite getting the exact same goal support. What, why? you ask. Well let's look at their disbursement:

Goalie A: Every game is 2 GA, 23 svs on 25 shots against, 60-0
Goalie B: 30 games at 0 GA, 25/25 sv%; 30 games at 4 GA, 21/25 Sv%, 30-30

The team scores 3 goals every game. Goalie A wins 3-2, Goalie B wins halg 3-0 and loses half 3-4. So even with dead even stats, one goalie is objectively better for the team. Now this example is heavily abstracted to demonstrate a point. In the real world, no team will score 3 goals every game, and no goalie will be that black and white. But it is intended to show in stark terms how wild swings in performance can effect the win loss record vs always playing closer to the mean. For a bad team, the reverse would be true. If a team can't score goals, they may need a goalie to play lights out to get wins at all. But that is not us. This isn't even taking into account the effects on morale and momentum caused by poor goalie play.

Jake has been better this year than last in terms of minimizing the extremes. He did go through a stretch of 10 games with pretty poor stats. That stretch pre-dated our poor stretch of games as a team. So went Jake, so went the team. Jake and the team both pulled themselves out of it without a major intervention, which is great. But that doesn't mean I am done being worried about this trend which has plagued him in the past because he had an extended hot streak last year. No starting goalie on a contender should have ever have a stretch of 10 games with a save percentage sub .875. Jake did, and that is with the team being amongst the best in limited high danger chances. We are defensively and offensively a top 5 team in the league by most statistical measures. Yet our goalie is only middle of the pack due to an extended poor stretch.

I'll admit though, I am not a fan of the super athletic, streaky goaltender and prefer the solid positional goalie. I never liked Hasek, and Brodeur is one of my favorite non-Blues ever. That is a personal preference. There are fewer exciting OMG saves, but also fewer frustrating WTF saves. Maybe preference clouds my judgement, but I think there is something to be said for knowing a goalie will stop the shots he should and knowing you'll consistently get a solid effort in net. For me, it will just take time to know we will get that from Jake. Maybe more time for me due to my biases.

Kudos for realizing that. Jake isn't perfect, but I think you tend to only focus on the bad. It's probably as you say. Due to some of Jake's inconsistency it is going to take some time to lose the stigma of being "shaky Jake," but he's trending up in that the shaky starts seem to get shorter and fewer and far between. Last year was his first shot at being the guy, so I think it is too soon to say that this is just who Jake is. As long as he's trending up we have a lot to be excited about. If he ever is able to find that balance between being a more positional goalie and can supplement that with the athletic play and foresight that he has with the puck, he'll be a top goalie in the league.

 

[Majorityof1]

Kudos for realizing that. Jake isn't perfect, but I think you tend to only focus on the bad. It's probably as you say. Due to some of Jake's inconsistency it is going to take some time to lose the stigma of being "shaky Jake," but he's trending up in that the shaky starts seem to get shorter and fewer and far between. Last year was his first shot at being the guy, so I think it is too soon to say that this is just who Jake is. As long as he's trending up we have a lot to be excited about. If he ever is able to find that balance between being a more positional goalie and can supplement that with the athletic play and foresight that he has with the puck, he'll be a top goalie in the league.

He definitely has it in him to be a top goalie. And that makes it more frustrating when he isn't, especially since its the same issues that plague him during bad stretches.

How is a stretch of 10 games with 7 games .900 Save % and below considered fewer and farther between on shaky starts? 26 games is a successful, albeit hard fought Stanley Cup run. A 10 game stretch with 7 poor games in that run is at least one blown series, and bags packed for home. My standard is whether we can win a cup. Anything less, anywhere on the team is not good enough. Our offense is not so consistent and dominate that we can get by with shaky goaltending. I have seen good regular season teams. I have seen conference finals. I have not see Stanley Cup being paraded down market street. Is this high expectations? Absolutely, but this team is very close, and we need the best out of everyone to get there.

As much as I am admittedly biased, I think others are just as biased in the opposite direction. There have been people who have said with a straight face (well I assume as there was no sarcasm emoji) that we know Jake will raise his level of play come playoffs because he has in the past [one time!?!?!?!]. So if I overly focus on the negative its in part to counterbalance those overly focused on the positive.

 

[Brian39]

He definitely has it in him to be a top goalie. And that makes it more frustrating when he isn't, especially since its the same issues that plague him during bad stretches.

How is a stretch of 10 games with 7 games .900 Save % and below considered fewer and farther between on shaky starts? 26 games is a successful, albeit hard fought Stanley Cup run. A 10 game stretch with 7 poor games in that run is at least one blown series, and bags packed for home. My standard is whether we can win a cup. Anything less, anywhere on the team is not good enough. Our offense is not so consistent and dominate that we can get by with shaky goaltending. I have seen good regular season teams. I have seen conference finals. I have not see Stanley Cup being paraded down market street. Is this high expectations? Absolutely, but this team is very close, and we need the best out of everyone to get there.

As much as I am admittedly biased, I think others are just as biased in the opposite direction. There have been people who have said with a straight face (well I assume as there was no sarcasm emoji) that we know Jake will raise his level of play come playoffs because he has in the past [one time!?!?!?!]. So if I overly focus on the negative its in part to counterbalance those overly focused on the positive.

I know you watched the games. You can't tell me with a straight face that the stretch this season was on par with last year or his November/December in the 2014/15 season. He was letting in significantly more bad goals in those stretches and both of them didn't stop until he was parked on the bench in favor of a different goalie. He played better during this bad stretch and pulled himself out of it instead of having to completely re-set everything. That is objectively better than in the past. It still isn't ideal, but it is certainly progress. I've said a couple times that I think his stats in that 10 game stretch look worse than his actual play. One of those 10 games under .900 was a relief appearance where he allowed 1 goal on 7 shots and he only allowed more than 3 goals twice in that stretch. Again, not great but it is limiting the bleeding more than he had in the past. Low shot totals do cause a greater variance in SV% in limited sample sizes and I think the eye test is important when we are calling 3 goal nights bad nights.

I think the most telling stat is his 'Really Bad Starts' total. Last year he had 11 'really bad starts' in 60 starts, so he put up a sub-.850 performance more than once every 6 games. He only has 2 through 25 starts this year, or 1 every 12.5 starts. Moreover, his quality start percentage is currently .560, up slightly from .550 last year. Like you said, you want to see more consistency instead of peaks and valleys. That's exactly what Allen has improved. His bad stretch this year wasn't as bad as in the past and he pulled himself out of it. His overall SV% is a product of consistently closer to average play as opposed to wild variance from game to game.

I agree that we shouldn't have zero concerns. But so far, he has objectively improved in the area of concern. Unless you aren't willing to change your opinion at all until a year from now, then you should be feeling better about him than in the past.

 

[Majorityof1]

I know you watched the games. You can't tell me with a straight face that the stretch this season was on par with last year or his November/December in the 2014/15 season. He was letting in significantly more bad goals in those stretches and both of them didn't stop until he was parked on the bench in favor of a different goalie. He played better during this bad stretch and pulled himself out of it instead of having to completely re-set everything. That is objectively better than in the past. It still isn't ideal, but it is certainly progress. I've said a couple times that I think his stats in that 10 game stretch look worse than his actual play. One of those 10 games under .900 was a relief appearance where he allowed 1 goal on 7 shots and he only allowed more than 3 goals twice in that stretch. Again, not great but it is limiting the bleeding more than he had in the past. Low shot totals do cause a greater variance in SV% in limited sample sizes and I think the eye test is important when we are calling 3 goal nights bad nights.

I think the most telling stat is his 'Really Bad Starts' total. Last year he had 11 'really bad starts' in 60 starts, so he put up a sub-.850 performance more than once every 6 games. He only has 2 through 25 starts this year, or 1 every 12.5 starts. Moreover, his quality start percentage is currently .560, up slightly from .550 last year. Like you said, you want to see more consistency instead of peaks and valleys. That's exactly what Allen has improved. His bad stretch this year wasn't as bad as in the past and he pulled himself out of it. His overall SV% is a product of consistently closer to average play as opposed to wild variance from game to game.

I agree that we shouldn't have zero concerns. But so far, he has objectively improved in the area of concern. Unless you aren't willing to change your opinion at all until a year from now, then you should be feeling better about him than in the past.

No, he is absolutely better than the two worst stretches he has had. However, is "better than Really Bad" going to be our standard? "C'mon guys, I know he was bad, but we can't be upset because he wasn't 'really bad'". My standards are a bit higher. I want zero "really bad" starts, and to minimize the number of simply bad starts as well. Maybe that is wishful thinking, but that's where I am. I am not trying to argue against anybody saying he's improved from his worst stretches. He was so bad last year, people were willing to give up picks to move his contract. He is not anywhere near that bad this year. That goes without saying. Still he hasn't improved far enough, or probably more accurately proven it long enough to have full faith in him at this point , imo. you said it yourself, its not ideal. That is all I am arguing.

 

[stl76]

Well, frankly, I don't feel much differently when I see Allen over-slide well beyond the blue paint and give up a bad goal because he's left himself hopelessly out of position. Again, it is just so unnecessary. I honestly don't know how you coach this out of him, or if that is even possible at this point. If he could break himself of this habit, something that I see as making the job harder than it has to be because he has confidence in his athleticism, he could be a truly elite goalie.

The biggest job for a goalie is to make the first save. If he makes a second save, that's icing on the cake. You can't reasonably expect a goalie to make more than 2 saves with any regularity IMO. After 2 saves, it is almost 100% the job of the goalie's teammates to clear the puck/tie up sticks/block shots/etc. Think of it this way: we can assign the responsibility as 90-100% the goalies for the first save, maybe 50-60% second save, and 0-10% third save and on...these numbers are just intended to illustrate a point, not meant to be taken literally. Point being that making that first save is really the number 1 priority for any goalie.

It seems to me that often times when Allen gets criticized on this board for "over sliding," the blame is misplaced. When a goalie is fully committing to the shot, he is usually expecting his defensemen to take away the pass/the other offensive player(s). When it works, Allen makes a highlight reel save. When it doesn't work, Allen ends up outside the crease while the other team gets an easy tap in and folks around here pile on the Allen criticism. Sure Allen deserves some of the blame, but it's not as simple as "he ended up way out of position, what an idiot!" (Not saying you think or say things like this Mook, but I think there are a lot of Blues fans that do think this way).

I don't view "over sliding" as some sort of bad habit that needs to be coached out of Allen. Rather, his decision making on when to over slide could improve. But that decision making is based on communication with his teammates and how opponents play in a given situation. It's just way more complicated than a lot of posts I've read on this board criticizing Allen make it out to be. Maybe playing goalie for years just makes me less inclined to blame a goalie tho.

Regardless, I think, generally speaking, our fanbase in particular is obnoxiously critical of whoever the starting goalie is. It's been going on for years...maybe some sort of PTSD after the Carey-Yzerman goal?

Side note: It drives me nuts when Allen gets beat by a really good shot and people call it a soft goal. IT'S UNREASONABLE TO EXPECT A GOALIE TO MAKE EVERY SAVE. Sometimes good goalies get beat by a better shot. Shit happens.