Save percentage over time

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

Right, hindsight is 20-20. The Pens were right to trade him, but Ottawa signed him because he was very young and had already won 2 Stanley cups.

The thinking was that Murray would overcome any problems he had developed and return to form as he matured. It didn't happen, but even Toronto gave us a third and a seventh round pick in hopes of a return to form (we retained 25% salary for two years).

It's kind of a tale as old as time though. Teams pick up names from previous glory all the time that appear a bit washed or had too many injuries and pay them based on that, and hope they still have it. Seems like it works out less than it doesn't. If the warning signs are already there, it's not as easy to call it purely hindsight, it's more like the worst case scenario known at the time was realized.

 

[UglyPuckling]

Might have been mentioned already, but there’s some real irony in the goalie stats this year when it comes to Senator goaltenders or ex-goaltenders.

Korpisalo - .901 sv%, 7 gp, 3 wins
Ullmark - .890 sv%, 10 gp, 4 wins
Guatavsson - .927 sv%, 13 gp, 8 wins
Talbot = .927 sv%, 10 gp, 5 wins.

I expect things will change as the season progresses, but only pointing out the irony. Please don’t read more into this.

 

[Tuna99]

How can you say he’s not elite, when they show during games over the last 2 cumulative seasons he’s first in GAA and save percentage.

I can say it because it’s true. For a 31 year old he has the same amount of playoff starts as Korpisalo

 

[Ouroboros]

Right, hindsight is 20-20. The Pens were right to trade him, but Ottawa signed him because he was very young and had already won 2 Stanley cups.

The thinking was that Murray would overcome any problems he had developed and return to form as he matured. It didn't happen, but even Toronto gave us a third and a seventh round pick in hopes of a return to form (we retained 25% salary for two years).

The picks in that deal went from Ottawa - with Murray - to Toronto.

 

[PlayersLtd]

I wasn't the only one who thought Matt Murray was going to play winning hockey.

"Even if he maintains a .890 save % all season you shouldn't panic" What are you talking about?

Ullmark has had a career of well above .900 goaltending, including winning a Vezina, and I shouldn't panic about a season of .890 goaltending? He is getting paid 8 million a year for the next 4 years.

Actually one great season for a mediocre goalie does make that goalie a star. If Stolarz keeps up his play he will be an all-star.

Swayman's numbers being bad has nothing to do with Ullmark's numbers being bad. Unless you are arguing that both goaltenders were uplifted by the defensive play of the bruins from previous years. In that case both goaltenders are now showing their true colours and were never as good as they appeared to be be.

It's not voodoo my man, it's just logic.

You've missed my point. Goalies have ups and downs, that's the nature of the business and has been true of countless good to great NHL goalies. Stolarz is not all of a sudden elite if he has one good season, Ullmark (or Swayman for that matter) is not all of a sudden a dud if he has a mediocre year.

Bringing up Swayman was to point out that another good to great goalie is playing poorly this year. Does that make Swayman a write off? Of course not and the same goes for Ullmark even if they dip for a whole season. Do you remember Demko from 2 years ago and how Van was ready to give him away? Last year he was a vezina trophy finalist along with another great goalie who had a prolonged dip in Bobrovsky. It happens all the time and its why people have come up with that dumb, yet not entirely incorrect, cliche that goalies are voodoo.

You are panicking based on a really small sample size in goaltending terms. Of course we need Ullmark to be good so it would suck if he doesn't play well this year but if that's the outcome you'll be writing him off indefinitely yet based on his pedigree the smart money is on him bouncing back.