He's having a bad year, huh? just a bad YEAR? Try bad two years.
.911 is his save percentage over the last 3 years? That's because his first year he had an amazing .932 save percentage.
Now add up the last two seasons only, he has a dreadful .896 save percentage. That might even be a league worst for goalies that have started nearly as many games as he has in that time frame. Ray Emery's save percentage in his last 3 seasons combined probably look respectable, thanks to that .922 lockout season in Chicago. That might make the numbers look about average or at least respectable when also calculating in his .903 and .894 over the next two seasons.
And Stalock has now surpassed the amount of games he played in his rookie season, with the last two seasons of play combined. The 13-14 season is looking like the outlier..
Yeah no doubt, I've already said that he's got the benefit of a hot start, which helps his overall numbers. Same with jones. So why does he get a pass? Has he proven anything in this league any more than stalock did? They both had great rookie years, followed by down sophomore years, and now this year their paths have changed, and jones has had the luxury of about 40 more starts to fix some atrocious goaltending stats after his hot start.
Also stalock has not been bad for two years. He was perfectly good his first 8 starts last year, then "bad" for a five game stretch after he officially lost the starting job, turned it around late last year, then sucked this year.
In fact if you take out just the bad 5 game stretch I'm talking about, last year Stalock was .921 and 2.12gaa in his other 14 starts. This once again illustrates how playing less games can screw you over as a goalie, because any small (and five games is small) stretch of poor play can ruin what would otherwise be a statistically good year.
Also as you may have missed it I can point out how the majority of stalocks starts this year came when the team, including jones, we're playing poor hockey, and as bad a stalocks numbers were, jones were only a hairs width better. On top of that I picked out a 13 games sample from just this year where jones was absolutely as terrible as Stalock, which once again goes to my point that looking a small numbers, especially for goalies, can paint wildly different pictures.
Jones stats look better because he's a good goalie who had many more games, during the single best stretch of hockey this team has played to get his numbers back up. Stalock, or any other backup doesn't get this luxury. I do argue that if stalock played 40+ games this year like jones, and specifically during our latest stretch, he too could have better numbers, not as good as jones as I do think he's the obvious better goalie, but better none the less.
So no he hasn't been bad for two years, he's been bad for really just his 9 starts this year, plus 5 last year. Anyways, it seems this conversation has run its course, so I'll just drop it for now.
