ok what's wrong with QUICK!?

[KingKopitar11*]

Quicks playing tonight?

 

[RonSwanson*]

Sure it could. But even if dropped slightly, he wouldn't go 0-6.

He wouldn't have to if some of the wins he DOES have now became losses due to overwork.

 

[kingsfan]

He wouldn't have to if some of the wins he DOES have now became losses due to overwork.

Which may happen. On the flip side that's all speculation.

Keep in mind here that Quick's really not overworking himself. The schedule is compressed, but he's also playing fewer minutes than he has in the past few years. Last year for example he played 82.16% of the minutes during the regular season. This year he's played 71.37% of the minutes. That's a significant drop off in minutes played.

And let's not exclude the fact he played every minute of the Kings Stanley Cup run, all 20 games, including some overtimes. His workload last year was actually more than this year, even with the compressed schedule.

So while his numbers could go down by playing all the games, it could be argued his earlier numbers may have actually gone up as he seems to do better with a heavier workload.

 

[jml87]

All people are arguing is that we wouldn't be in last place. Bernier has been a big help this year which helped us to be up there in a playoff position but without him the worst the Kings would be is just slightly out of the race. Even if it was a different back up and more games for Quick, I still don't see that being 0-6.

If you want to say that the Kings wouldn't be in a playoff spot without Bernier, that makes sense and I agree. But they would not be in last place. If the offense was the way it was in last year's regular season, no doubt they would be in last place. But Bernier isn't the player propping up the whole team, keeping them from being in the basement.

 

[RonSwanson*]

All people are arguing is that we wouldn't be in last place. Bernier has been a big help this year which helped us to be up there in a playoff position but without him the worst the Kings would be is just slightly out of the race. Even if it was a different back up and more games for Quick, I still don't see that being 0-6.

If you want to say that the Kings wouldn't be in a playoff spot without Bernier, that makes sense and I agree. But they would not be in last place. If the offense was the way it was in last year's regular season, no doubt they would be in last place. But Bernier isn't the player propping up the whole team, keeping them from being in the basement.

Have you not read anything I wrote?

Let me repeat it again for you here:

Without the 12 points from Bernier's 6 wins, the Kings would be in last place.

Are you going to argue that? It's simple math.

I'm not taking into account the possibility of a different backup goalie playing those games and getting six wins, or Quick's back magically healing.

All I am saying is that 12 points less puts the Kings at 20 points, 4 pts behind Colorado for last place. You can't argue that.

 

[Winger23]

Have you not read anything I wrote?

Let me repeat it again for you here:

Without the 12 points from Bernier's 6 wins, the Kings would be in last place.

Are you going to argue that? It's simple math.

I'm not taking into account the possibility of a different backup goalie playing those games and getting six wins, or Quick's back magically healing.

All I am saying is that 12 points less puts the Kings at 20 points, 4 pts behind Colorado for last place. You can't argue that.

Lol what a bunch of **** you are posting. 2 can play this stupid game. without quick, the Kings are dead last in The nhl. Simple math is simple math.

 

[jml87]

Have you not read anything I wrote?

Let me repeat it again for you here:

Without the 12 points from Bernier's 6 wins, the Kings would be in last place.

Are you going to argue that? It's simple math.

I'm not taking into account the possibility of a different backup goalie playing those games and getting six wins, or Quick's back magically healing.

All I am saying is that 12 points less puts the Kings at 20 points, 4 pts behind Colorado for last place. You can't argue that.

12 points less puts anyone other than the Blackhawks and Ducks in the same position. You can't just assume those games are all losses because Bernier isn't in net which is what you are doing.

 

[AmadiosAmigos]

That doesn't make any sense. If you are taking out those 6 wins then that means someone else was in net and that someone else would be Quick. And you are saying that we would win none of those 6 games. So Quick would be 0-6 in those games.

You can't just take out 6 wins and say we would be in last place. You do that on any team it will be the same way.

The faulty math goes both ways. It was ASSUMED after that Quick would maintain the same record as Bernier 6-2.. Bernier has let in 15 goals. By the math of save percentage, all things being held equal, Quicks save % would suggest he would have let in 20 goals, or 5 more then Bernier over that span. When or where or how those goals were scored, could dictate a different record then 6-2. So I see neither side as being correct, although both hold slight points of validity.

 

[jml87]

The faulty math goes both ways. It was ASSUMED after that Quick would maintain the same record as Bernier 6-2.. Bernier has let in 15 goals. By the math of save percentage, all things being held equal, Quicks save % would suggest he would have let in 20 goals, or 5 more then Bernier over that span. When or where or how those goals were scored, could dictate a different record then 6-2. So I see neither side as being correct, although both hold slight points of validity.

No it was assumed that Quick would go at his winning percentage now which was .526, which would give him about a 4-4 record in those games and put the Kings somewhere around 9th or 10th place. No one has argued that Quick would have a 6-2 record. They only thing we are arguing is that it wouldn't be 0-8 with the Kings sitting in the basement.

 

[RonSwanson*]

No it was assumed that Quick would go at his winning percentage now which was .526, which would give him about a 4-4 record in those games and put the Kings somewhere around 9th or 10th place. No one has argued that Quick would have a 6-2 record. They only thing we are arguing is that it wouldn't be 0-8 with the Kings sitting in the basement.

Yet you are attributing that to me, when I never said that.

 

[RonSwanson*]

Lol what a bunch of **** you are posting. 2 can play this stupid game. without quick, the Kings are dead last in The nhl. Simple math is simple math.

I agree with you. Without Quick the Kings would be in dead last. Congrats for figuring it out.

 

[jml87]

Yet you are attributing that to me, when I never said that.

So you're just taking games off the schedule then? Did these six games just not happen? How is that a complement to Bernier's play? I don't have any idea what you are trying to say.

 

[RonSwanson*]

So you're just taking games off the schedule then? Did these six games just not happen? How is that a complement to Bernier's play? I don't have any idea what you are trying to say.

If you have no idea what I'm trying to say, then why are you trying to argue against it?

I'm stating that Bernier has been valuable to the Kings this year. His 6-2-0 record has been a tremendous boost from our backup goalie. This has nothing to do with Quick, despite what you and some others seem to think. I'm trying to give credit to Bernier, and you're arguing with me about that. Why?

 

[MSRinkRat]

Do you read what you write?

I supported my post with actual stats. If Quick has sucked that bad, he wouldn't be 9-8-2. Not a great record, and not a very good save percentage either, but the bottom line is he has won games, and to state this team would be dead last if Quick had played the games Bernier did is factually incorrect.

My goodness its sickening how quickly you, and others, throw a guy under bus around here. Is he playing not so great right now? Yes. Is Bernier deserving more starts? Yes. But that's a far cry from saying Quick is downright terrible, sucks more than Paris, and would have us in the leagues basement if he had played every game.

And you guys call yourselves fans? Shouldn't that embody some level of loyalty, especially to the players who helped you realize a dream of seeing the Kings win a cup?

no no no!

Don't get me wrong, I Love Quick!! WTF man!! Just because I'm calling it as it is, does not mean I am not a Kings Fan. He is HORRIBLE right now. I hope that changes, but until that happens, Bernier is it. For the team bro!

If you switched your stats around, and put Bernier in, I think save % is all its about and we have at the least 4 to 6 more wins. You have to say what Quicks been doing in net, and in retrospect, what Bernier's been doing as well. Bernier's proving right now, that a goalie trade now would be silly. He's making a good play for number one spot on the team.

Just because we don't agree, doesn't mean were not fans. Go easy on poop flinging.

 

[Winger23]

Should just lock this thread now, now its just debating hypotheticals

 

[kingsfan]

The faulty math goes both ways. It was ASSUMED after that Quick would maintain the same record as Bernier 6-2..

No it wasn't. It was assumed that Quick would maintain his winning percentage, which actually would have resulted in two more losses than Bernier.

 

[kingsfan]

no no no!

Don't get me wrong, I Love Quick!! WTF man!! Just because I'm calling it as it is, does not mean I am not a Kings Fan. He is HORRIBLE right now. I hope that changes, but until that happens, Bernier is it. For the team bro!

If you switched your stats around, and put Bernier in, I think save % is all its about and we have at the least 4 to 6 more wins. You have to say what Quicks been doing in net, and in retrospect, what Bernier's been doing as well. Bernier's proving right now, that a goalie trade now would be silly. He's making a good play for number one spot on the team.

Just because we don't agree, doesn't mean were not fans. Go easy on poop flinging.

You'd have a few more wins. You are correct. All I was doing was pointing out that by winning percentage we wouldn't have lost all six of the games Bernier had won for us if Quick was in net. You in turn proceeded to rip Quick apart, and having zero to do with my post really.

 

[MSRinkRat]

Oh and I'm just saying here... Winning percent is about the worst measure on a goalie I can think of. It's the SAVE Percent or at least GAA. Go do the math, if math is what you guys need. Put Bernier in all the games Quicks been in, add in his save percent and see what the scored are.

Look at the stats...

Quick GAA : 2.69 Save% .891 Quick is ranked 62 of 79 goalies in the league at save percent. His GAA is a comfortable 40th.
Bernier GAA : 1.94 Save% .916 Bernier is ranked 27th in save percent and 9th in GAA.

Oh and Bernier's 2nd loss is a lost stat. That game he let in 1 goal, which was a 2 on 0 break vs the sharks. He gave the team a chance to come back and make a game of it. If Bernier started that game, we would have won. Quick was just Horrible. That was Quicks loss if you ask anyone. So the WINNING % talk is WORTHLESS in the real world. This is NOT baseball.

 

[kingsholygrail]

Oh and I'm just saying here... Winning percent is about the worst measure on a goalie I can think of. It's the SAVE Percent or at least GAA. Go do the math, if math is what you guys need. Put Bernier in all the games Quicks been in, add in his save percent and see what the scored are.

Look at the stats...

Quick GAA : 2.69 Save% .891 Quick is ranked 62 of 79 goalies in the league at save percent. His GAA is a comfortable 40th.
Bernier GAA : 1.94 Save% .916 Bernier is ranked 27th in save percent and 9th in GAA.

Oh and Bernier's 2nd loss is a lost stat. That game he let in 1 goal, which was a 2 on 0 break vs the sharks. He gave the team a chance to come back and make a game of it. If Bernier started that game, we would have won. Quick was just Horrible. That was Quicks loss if you ask anyone. So the WINNING % talk is WORTHLESS in the real world. This is NOT baseball.

Save % only matters with the proper context and the quality of shots faced. If Quick faces 10 shots from the slot and lets in 2-3 goals, it's gonna wreck his save %, but why was he facing so many shots from the slot? See what I mean?

 

[tsanuri]

Oh and I'm just saying here... Winning percent is about the worst measure on a goalie I can think of. It's the SAVE Percent or at least GAA. Go do the math, if math is what you guys need. Put Bernier in all the games Quicks been in, add in his save percent and see what the scored are.

Look at the stats...

Quick GAA : 2.69 Save% .891 Quick is ranked 62 of 79 goalies in the league at save percent. His GAA is a comfortable 40th.
Bernier GAA : 1.94 Save% .916 Bernier is ranked 27th in save percent and 9th in GAA.

Oh and Bernier's 2nd loss is a lost stat. That game he let in 1 goal, which was a 2 on 0 break vs the sharks. He gave the team a chance to come back and make a game of it. If Bernier started that game, we would have won. Quick was just Horrible. That was Quicks loss if you ask anyone. So the WINNING % talk is WORTHLESS in the real world. This is NOT baseball.

Yet our coach calls both those numbers team stats.

http://lakingsinsider.com/2013/03/07/march-7-postgame-quotes-darryl-sutter/

On the team needing to raise its save percentage:
“We do. It’s a stat that tells the truth. That’s one stat that doesn’t lie, right? Lehtonen tonight was at about a .940 or so. That’s a stat that always holds true…Goals against, save percentage – it’s a big thing. They’re both tea stats.â€

 

[kingsfan]

Oh and I'm just saying here... Winning percent is about the worst measure on a goalie I can think of.

Not when both goalies are on the same team, behind the same defense, under the same coaching. What's different, other than the two goalies and potentially the caliber of competition?

It's the SAVE Percent or at least GAA. Go do the math, if math is what you guys need. Put Bernier in all the games Quicks been in, add in his save percent and see what the scored are.

Look at the stats...

Quick GAA : 2.69 Save% .891 Quick is ranked 62 of 79 goalies in the league at save percent. His GAA is a comfortable 40th.
Bernier GAA : 1.94 Save% .916 Bernier is ranked 27th in save percent and 9th in GAA.

I already said we'd have fewer wins based on performance with Quick in those games than Bernier. What's your point?

Oh and Bernier's 2nd loss is a lost stat. That game he let in 1 goal, which was a 2 on 0 break vs the sharks. He gave the team a chance to come back and make a game of it. If Bernier started that game, we would have won. Quick was just Horrible. That was Quicks loss if you ask anyone. So the WINNING % talk is WORTHLESS in the real world. This is NOT baseball.

Stat losses happen to all backups. Whether or not we would have won that game isn't a guarantee.

You can debate the validity of winning percentage all you want, and I'll agree it's not the end all, be all, but it is hardly 'worthless.'

 

[Ron*]

Bump!

Where are you, naysayers?

 

[Ron*]

Oh, by the way...where is that poster who called "no shutouts" for Quick this season?

Come out, come out, wherever you are!

 

[RonSwanson*]

I am thrilled that Quick played a great game last night. We definitely need more of that going forward.

 

[Vamos Rafa]

Oh, by the way...where is that poster who called "no shutouts" for Quick this season?

Come out, come out, wherever you are!

I'm not that poster, but this is what I did:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=61936641&postcount=394