Post-Game Talk: Rangers @ Bruins

[NYR Sting]

A soft goal means the goalie isn't doing his job. To me a soft goal is no worse than a defenseman turning the puck over and it resulting in a goal. If the same defenseman did it every game, they'd get tarred and feathered here. 2.15 goals per game in 18 games? That's great, but he has had 2 seasons of better than that in far more than 18 games. It's not like 2.15 GAA in 18 games is something ridiculous in this day and age in the NHL.

It's like talking to a wall.

When a goaltender gives up about 2 goals per game, that means he is doing exactly what his job is, because it is very, very difficult (not to mention rare) for a goaltender to give up significantly less than 2 goals per game. In fact, Lundqvist has never done better than 1.96 GAA per game in a season. So if you take away the dreadful start to this season, he is .2 goals per game worse than his CAREER BEST. If he finishes the season at the 2.15 rate he has sustained over the last 18 games, it will be the 3rd best GAA of his career. He's never been the leader in any of these statistical categories. There are guys every season that are higher on the list than him, but he's always among the leaders, and most of the other guys aren't. He's consistently one of the best, and since he's consistently been one of the best more often during his time in the league than anyone else, that makes him the best.

It doesn't matter how soft the goals he gives up are, because he simply isn't giving up that many of them. What makes a FAR greater difference is the fact that the rest of the team isn't doing THEIR job. How this is lost on you, I don't know.

The difference between winning and losing in the NHL is just about 1 goal. If you score close to or more than 3 goals per game, you're going to win a lot more than you lose. If you score 2-2.5 goals per game, the opposite is true. The Rangers are 11th in the league in goals against, 27th in the league in goals for. This is a ridiculous argument. Lundqvist can't score goals, he can only stop them, and over the last month, he's been doing a pretty good job of it. Believe it or not, players go through ups and downs during seasons. I'd venture to guess that he has had 18 game stretches before where he probably played worse than he's playing now.

 

[haohmaru]

There is a very real conversation going on about whether or not to pay this guy 9mil per season, but he can't be expected to routinely handle 90mph slap shots from 30ft away with no traffic in front?

I guess I was mistaken for holding one of the top goalies in the world up to the standards of an ECHL goaltender.

Hank had more than enough time and information to know roughly where that pick was going, and failed to make a routine stop.

Is that the reason we lost the game? No, but it's the reason that goal was scored.

Have you played goal? What do you mean he had "time and information to know roughly where the puck was going"? He has no idea where the slap shot is going. Like I said, his job, and any goalie's job there is to cover as much of the net as possible and hope the puck hits him. Period. Wrist shot or snap shot and he's got more of a chance. He did get a piece of it, but it went off the inside of his left skate. He didn't even have enough time to get in the butterfly position. The thing that should really be bothering NYR fans about this goal is the lazy ass turnover by Staal with his weak behind the back backhand clear. THAT'S why a goal was scored.

 

[mulli25]

Have you played goal? What do you mean he had "time and information to know roughly where the puck was going"? He has no idea where the slap shot is going. Like I said, his job, and any goalie's job there is to cover as much of the net as possible and hope the puck hits him. Period. Wrist shot or snap shot and he's got more of a chance. He did get a piece of it, but it went off the inside of his left skate. He didn't even have enough time to get in the butterfly position. The thing that should really be bothering NYR fans about this goal is the lazy ass turnover by Staal with his weak behind the back backhand clear. THAT'S why a goal was scored.

So goalies don't know where slap shots are going? They basically just close their eyes and hope for the best?

I haven't played goalie, but I've played enough hockey and been around the game enough to know that's a load of crap.

Based on the situation, location of other skaters, the angle from shooter to the net, the shooters body position relative to the net, as well as the wind up and follow through motions, an experienced goalie has a pretty damn good idea where that puck is going to go. I'm not saying he can track it with radar precision but he's got a damn good idea whether it's going bottom left, top right, etc.

Staal's bad play is why the scoring opportunity happened, Hanks failure to make a routine save is why the goal happened. There's a difference. It doesn't matter how the situation comes about, a goalie of Hank's caliber should be expected to make that type of save.

 

[haohmaru]

So goalies don't know where slap shots are going? They basically just close their eyes and hope for the best?

When it comes to 90+ MPH slap shot? Pretty much.

I haven't played goalie, but I've played enough hockey and been around the game enough to know that's a load of crap.

Jump in goal and have a look at a major league slap shot then talk to me some more.

Based on the situation, location of other skaters, the angle from shooter to the net, the shooters body position relative to the net, as well as the wind up and follow through motions, an experienced goalie has a pretty damn good idea where that puck is going to go. I'm not saying he can track it with radar precision but he's got a damn good idea whether it's going bottom left, top right, etc.

The slapshot is the fastest, least accurate shot in the sport. That's why many slapshots (MDZ) miss the net - because the shooter doesn't even know where it's going to end up. Goaltending, especially against shots like that, are all about positioning. It's not really about reaction time when you've got .25 seconds to react.

Staal's bad play is why the scoring opportunity happened, Hanks failure to make a routine save is why the goal happened. There's a difference. It doesn't matter how the situation comes about, a goalie of Hank's caliber should be expected to make that type of save.

It wasn't routine, trust me.

I highly recommend you read this: http://www.exploratorium.edu/hockey/save1.html

It's a nice three page article talking about what I've been talking about.

 

[mulli25]

When it comes to 90+ MPH slap shot? Pretty much.

Jump in goal and have a look at a major league slap shot then talk to me some more.

The slapshot is the fastest, least accurate shot in the sport. That's why many slapshots (MDZ) miss the net - because the shooter doesn't even know where it's going to end up. Goaltending, especially against shots like that, are all about positioning. It's not really about reaction time when you've got .25 seconds to react.

It wasn't routine, trust me.

I highly recommend you read this: http://www.exploratorium.edu/hockey/save1.html

It's a nice three page article talking about what I've been talking about.

Listen dude, NHL slap shots are inaccurate in the sense that they don't have the same precision as a wrist shot or that shooters can easily miss the net when trying to pick corners. But it's not like these guys aim bottom left and it ends up top right, barring a deflection or broken stick. The difficult part of defending slap shots from the goalies perspective is rebound control, NOT the initial save. Thats exactly why defensemen are taught to shoot low and hard from a young age. You're taught that your initial shot will NOT go in, but the resulting rebound is will be a good scoring opportunity.

This idea that no one knows where a slap shot is going once it leaves the stick is silly.

Far sillier than the idea that the goalie made a mistake on what should have been a routine stop.

If there was any logic in what your saying there wouldn't be so much effort and focus centered around getting guys in front of the net to obstruct goalies site lines, and guys like chara would be scoring 30, 40, and 50 goals a year. In reality, the unobstructed slap shot from the point is supposed to be the easiest save a goalie can make.

Just face it, Hank should have stopped that one.

 

[rkhum]

We know the Rangers did not show for this game.
But what about the fans?

Used to be the Rangers always brought a large amount of fans to games in Boston.
I remember the Jagr goal record game where we had about 6,000.
Today, nobody here said they went, and it sounded like we may as well have been the Wild in Boston.

I'm wondering if this is a fluke just because it was black friday on the road?
Two years ago I saw the Rangers in Washington on black friday, another place we usually bring fans, and we had maybe 500.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

It's like talking to a wall.

When a goaltender gives up about 2 goals per game, that means he is doing exactly what his job is, because it is very, very difficult (not to mention rare) for a goaltender to give up significantly less than 2 goals per game. In fact, Lundqvist has never done better than 1.96 GAA per game in a season. So if you take away the dreadful start to this season, he is .2 goals per game worse than his CAREER BEST. If he finishes the season at the 2.15 rate he has sustained over the last 18 games, it will be the 3rd best GAA of his career. He's never been the leader in any of these statistical categories. There are guys every season that are higher on the list than him, but he's always among the leaders, and most of the other guys aren't. He's consistently one of the best, and since he's consistently been one of the best more often during his time in the league than anyone else, that makes him the best.

It doesn't matter how soft the goals he gives up are, because he simply isn't giving up that many of them. What makes a FAR greater difference is the fact that the rest of the team isn't doing THEIR job. How this is lost on you, I don't know.

The difference between winning and losing in the NHL is just about 1 goal. If you score close to or more than 3 goals per game, you're going to win a lot more than you lose. If you score 2-2.5 goals per game, the opposite is true. The Rangers are 11th in the league in goals against, 27th in the league in goals for. This is a ridiculous argument. Lundqvist can't score goals, he can only stop them, and over the last month, he's been doing a pretty good job of it. Believe it or not, players go through ups and downs during seasons. I'd venture to guess that he has had 18 game stretches before where he probably played worse than he's playing now.

Except you're comparing an 18 game sample to a season. For 18 games if he allowed significantly less than 2.15 it wouldn't be some miracle of hockey.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

We know the Rangers did not show for this game.
But what about the fans?

Used to be the Rangers always brought a large amount of fans to games in Boston.
I remember the Jagr goal record game where we had about 6,000.
Today, nobody here said they went, and it sounded like we may as well have been the Wild in Boston.

I'm wondering if this is a fluke just because it was black friday on the road?
Two years ago I saw the Rangers in Washington on black friday, another place we usually bring fans, and we had maybe 500.

The Jagr goal record game had us facing a bad Bruins team, not the defending eastern conference champions.