Player Discussion Tuukka Rask - V - warning in OP
- Thread starter Gee Wally
- Start date
- Status
BruinDust
Registered User
- Aug 2, 2005
- 25,320
- 24,248
When he's been given the proper workload with a quality back-up in place (as we saw in 2014 and 2017), I have been.
When he was being run into the ground by Claude Julien in 2015 and 2016, I was not satisfied.
My main concern with Rask (and most goalies really)is can he sustain a high level of play through 4 rounds of the playoffs if those series are all long series. I thought the break in-between the Ranger series and Penguin series in 2013 did wonders for Rask.
I also don't think its a coincidence that we saw the best playoff version of Braeden Holtby when he wasn't the main guy down the stretch into the playoffs and he only totalled 54 regular season games.
I thought it was a huge advantage for the Penguins to be able to bring in Matt Murray midway through the playoffs in 2017, and looked far fresher than Pekka Rinne in the finals.
EverettMike
FIRE DON SWEENEY INTO THE SUN
Donnie Shulzhoffer
Rocket Surgery
Your whole point was dismissing an entire article because of a stat you dismiss as well. Then proceeded to back it up with nothing.
Nope. That may be what I primarily cited in responses to specific posts because it was being discussed and my other reasons weren't, but that in no way means it's my ONLY reason for dismissing it.
How about the fact that it ONLY deals with 5 on 5 time?
How about the fact that it claims that the team defense hasn't changed in his time as a starter (which I did bring up earlier, but apparently got glossed over)? If that is what the author's data is telling him, then we KNOW the data he is using is heavily flawed.
Speaking of team defense.....literally just one page ago, a poster here linked the Hockey News study that showed the Bruins were one of the WORST teams at stopping high danger shots. THIS study apparently concludes the opposite. How about that? I'm shocked at how much traction this study is getting compared to that one. I wonder why that is......
How about the fact that the entire article spends paragraphs in the beginning admitting that all goalie stats are flawed......then gives us an entire study based off......you guess it.....more flawed stats.
Just because someone obviously spends a lot of time on something and writes the equivalent of a book, it doesn't automatically give it any real value. Sorry. I see it all the time in my work.
Donnie Shulzhoffer
Rocket Surgery
How about you could of posted all this before and saved all of us the aggravation of reading your dismissal posts.
I stated within one of my posts (that was quoted) that i didn't have the time at that moment to provide examples and further explain myself. I do work occasionally.
Donnie Shulzhoffer
Rocket Surgery
Didn’t seem to stop you from consistently posting that you don’t have the time to post.
DKH
Worst Poster/Awful Takes
- Feb 27, 2002
- 76,691
- 57,754
Analytics, data driven assessments are all the rage and probably just going to get moreso.
Michael Conforto blast off Jon Lester the other night wasn’t just 472 feet but had a launch angle of 25 degrees and 108.9 exit velocity.
I do think there more probable then less probable be a place for folks who watch the game and have an opinion that may not be able to be proven wrong via science or physics or some other profession
It’s interesting because if anyone said ‘boy I like that Tuuka Rask. He’s a really good goalie!’
If I didn’t like Rask I could do a nice little opening on my disapproving opinion he’s actually not and introduce my statistical response in this thread
If we can get 20 of these on all the players we could have something
Michael Conforto blast off Jon Lester the other night wasn’t just 472 feet but had a launch angle of 25 degrees and 108.9 exit velocity.
I do think there more probable then less probable be a place for folks who watch the game and have an opinion that may not be able to be proven wrong via science or physics or some other profession
It’s interesting because if anyone said ‘boy I like that Tuuka Rask. He’s a really good goalie!’
If I didn’t like Rask I could do a nice little opening on my disapproving opinion he’s actually not and introduce my statistical response in this thread
If we can get 20 of these on all the players we could have something
Last edited:
EverettMike
FIRE DON SWEENEY INTO THE SUN
I think the great misnomer of advanced stats is that there is no room for scouts or "the eye test" in player evaluations, and that's not the case at all. The best teams in all sports are integrating both.
So for example the stats here don't support Rask being elite, but I think anyone that has watched him play knows he has elite talent, and when he's at his best he's as good as anyone. So the question becomes why is his overall body of work not up to par? Why does he have bad stretches? Is he trending in the wrong direction, or are the baseline skills still strong enough to think he can rebound? Will he?
I promise the Bruins front office knows all about these numbers anyway, and they factor into how they use Rask over the course of the season and whether they should continue to want him on the team.
Glove Malfunction
Ference is my binky
GloryDaze4877
Barely Irrelevant
Or give up 2 in 17 seconds....
Why am I not surprised that someone mentioned this?
First goal:
Krejci has the puck in the corner, turns it over, trapping Sides down there. Chara does his infamous “I’m going to wait, then fall on the ice rather than actually defend the puck carrier” play. Lucic pauses far too long before attempting to actually cover the wide open Bickell, who has an easy goal.
Second goal:
Rask makes the initial save and steers the puck into the corner (textbook). Again, Krejci is slow to the puck and unable to make the play defensively. The puck is fed to Oduya, whose point shot is deflected by Frolik. Rask tracks the puck to his left and the deflection leaves him out of position. No problem because BOTH Ference and JB55 are in position to defend Bolland. Not so fast, as the two of them stand there and allow Bolland to gain position for another easy tap in goal.
The B’s lost that game and allowed two goals in 17 seconds not due to anything Rask did. They lost because about 4/5 players were standing around with their thumbs up their asses and forgot how to box guys out and play D.
It’s just easier to blame the goalie than to actually break the plays down.
What The Puck
Future GM
Early last year, we saw Rask have trouble. He was in danger of losing his starting job. For this year, it's looking like last year already. Do folks think that they should do alternating starts for the first month? I wonder if it's not just a fatigue issue at the end of the year but a readiness issue at the beginning as well. There are patterns emerging that need to be taken into account.
Bruinfanatic
Registered User
Pia8988
Registered User
- May 26, 2014
- 14,662
- 9,235
How painful was it to not have anything to post about all last season? Tonight must be like Christmas for you.
McGarnagle
Yes.
- Aug 5, 2017
- 30,352
- 41,638
GlenFeatherstone
Registered User
- Feb 15, 2016
- 3,569
- 5,902
Grasshopperking
Registered User
You guys are acting like it's not a legit thing to discuss. I'm not a Rask hater but he sucked last night on game one. It looked like he gave up on goal 5
Pia8988
Registered User
- May 26, 2014
- 14,662
- 9,235
I don't see a need to single people out after last night. Everyone was bad. That particular poster has a track record as well.
JOKER 192
Blow it up
For Rask to suck or for someone to call him out on it?
GloryDaze4877
Barely Irrelevant
You mean like the pattern of you criticizing Rask, even when it’s unwarranted?
That kind of pattern?
GloryDaze4877
Barely Irrelevant
The only goal that Rask “sucked” on was the Kuz short-side goal. When you watch the replay, the reason it went in was because he actually fanned on it (Rask still should have had it). People will say the 2nd goal, but that was just bad luck. Bergeron wins the draw, the puck bounces over Chara’s stick, then over Rask’s stick and lands flat for Kuznetsov.
Other than the second Kuz goal, Rask was extremely sharp. As bad as 7-0 was, it easily could have been 10-0. I haven’t heard from any of the “we should have kept Jones and traded Rask” people this morning. Probably because Jones gave up 4 goals on 14 shots last night?
ON3M4N
Ignores/60 = Elite
I'll never understand why people only look at the goal totals vs the quality of goals allowed. I also laugh that people ignore Halak coming in and having a few go in as well. The team in front of our goalies last night was just bad. I don't know that any goalie in the NHL would have kept us in that game last night.
- Status
