• For users coming over from tmlfans.ca your username will remain the same but you will need to use the password reset feature (check your spam folder) on the login page in order to set your password. If you encounter issues, email Rick couchmanrick@gmail.com

Official Ottawa Senators Thread

Nik the Trik said:
Frank E said:
So .920 is a run of hot goaltending?

Yeah.

I see that this point has already been disputed by Carlton, but my point was going to be that I'm not sure that .920 goaltending is considered to be "hot", then or now. 

There are about 15 guys with substantial games played that are putting up .920 YTD. 

I guess we'll disagree on the subjective meaning of "hot goaltending", never mind unsustainably hot. 
 
CarltonTheBear said:
That's not really my premise. I'll try to lay out my argument one final time here. You said that the Kings were a mediocre team that won the Stanley Cup because of Quick. I'll break that into 2 problems.

No, I didn't and the difference isn't just semantic. I said the Kings fit my description as a mediocre team who won "by virtue of" getting a run of "hot goaltending". That emphatically does not mean they won the Stanley cup because of Quick as a single solitary factor. It doesn't even mean it was the most important factor. It just means that, absent Quick getting hot, they almost certainly wouldn't have won. I don't think that's all that controversial, well, except apparently the "mediocre" part but we'll deal with that.

CarltonTheBear said:
First, the Kings weren't a mediocre team, even in the regular season. They finished with 100 points. They were a top-10 league in the team. They were the 4th best possession team, a statistic that better predicts future success than any other statistic out there, in the 10 years that Corsi can be accurately calculated in. They had the lowest goals against in the entire league. They had the 3rd best goals-differential in the entire league. Yes, they were one of the lowest scoring teams, but you can't just ignore all that other stuff because they couldn't score. You're making it seem like they didn't deserve to be in the playoffs. They had an 11-point advantage on the 9th place team, they didn't sneak in.

I'm not ignoring "all that other stuff". I'm factoring it in. They were one of the worst offenses in the league. They had the 27th best PP, the 11th best PK. Rather than say "top 10" which I know is a rhetorical trick you could just say 9th. They finished with the 9th most points in the league by virtue of getting a good number of loser points. They were in a three way tie for 11th in the league for ROW, with Tampa Bay and Columbus. They couldn't score, they got below average goaltending. You're asking to ignore that, all of that data that at best paints them as ok, on the basis of possession numbers and goals against.

But at the end of the day none of that matters because, again remember that what this argument is is my contention that, post lockout, every team is mediocre. The ones at the top of the standings too. So arguing about where they rank among mediocre teams doesn't actually test that notion. That, I think you'd agree, by all conventional metrics they were deeply unexceptional last year I think you'd have to agree that, again given the idea that all teams are mediocre, that they'd qualify. I consider the teams last year that finished just shy of 120 points to be mediocre.

I've used this analogy before but if you took all the teams in this year's March Madness and divided the talent evenly then two things would remain indisputably true:

1. Various Teams would still finish 1st in defense, 1st in offense, etc
2. A Team would win the tournament

Despite those things being true, though, none of the teams would be good. Even if a team finished, in that evenly divided tournament, 1st in Offense and 1st in Defense they wouldn't be as good of a Basketball team as the Kentucky Wildcats.

CarltonTheBear said:
Next, Quick. Yeah he was good for them in the playoffs. But he wasn't great. And he didn't need to be because LA scored at an elite rate due to a very high shooting percentage. If you think that Quick was the driving factor behind LA's Cup win then you're saying that his stats were more impressive than LA's scoring. I made up a chart showing the Stanley Cup finalists in the past 7 years and included their goalies save percentage and their goals per game. I added Quick's "adjusted" save percentage too, even though nobody else had the opportunity to ignore their first 3 games if they weren't flattering to them. Quick's ".920" really isn't all that special in that light.

Well that's just silly. My comment is their  a "run" of hot goaltending. If a player went pointless for 7 games and then scored 20 points over his next seven would you say that you couldn't comment on how hot he'd been for those seven games without taking into account the previous seven games? By its definition a run is meant to divide time between when something was happening and when it wasn't. I'm not arbitrarily slicing out his three worst games. I'm saying his hot streak had a beginning date. That Quick was not as good before he got hot is the entire point.

And again, with regards to your chart, you're establishing my point. All of the teams on your list won a lot of the playoffs and, I think you'd agree, there are some pretty g-d unimpressive goalies and unimpressive teams on that list. But what happened? Their goalies got hot, and a .920 save percentage is good goaltending no matter how you slice it, and they won. That Quick got, comparatively, less hot than some others doesn't make that untrue.
 
Frank E said:
I see that this point has already been disputed by Carlton, but my point was going to be that I'm not sure that .920 goaltending is considered to be "hot", then or now. 

There are about 15 guys with substantial games played that are putting up .920 YTD. 

I guess we'll disagree on the subjective meaning of "hot goaltending", never mind unsustainably hot.

The only person I said was giving unsustainably hot goaltending was Andrew Hammond. Are you really going to disagree with that? Or do you think he's actually the second coming of Dominik Hasek.

And I'd really question anyone who didn't think of "hot" in sports terminology as being a relative term. If Ryan Goins hits .300 for the first few months of the season, he'll be described as being hot and likely to regress. If Mike Trout does it, he'll just be Mike Trout.
 
L K said:
Madferret said:
I'm having Sens / Leafs game 7 levels of anxiety this morning.

Patrick Lalime was seen talking to the Hamburgler before the game.

I'll never forgive Lalime for that. I don't think I spoke for a good 3 days after that game and I still suffer some hockey related PTSD from it.

Not only was it a career killer for Lalime but it also cost him his legacy here - I think he holds or held most of the franchise goaltending benchmarks that were in place before Hammond descended from the skies with wings and a halo...but you would have to look those things up independentatly - the club certainly doesn't celebrate him at all. Harsh but justifiable.
 
They might still win this game, but it seems like a lot of the teams battling for 8th in both Conferences may have run out of gas. A lot of uninspiring performances in must-win games.
 
You can tell Mason and the Flyers aren't trying to hard. After what the Pens players were saying the other day in the Pens/Flyers game I'm sure the Flyers player would like to see the Pens knocked out.
 
You have to give Mark Stone a lot of credit.  15 goals and 38 points in the 36 games after the all-star break.  64 points overall on the season.
 
Significantly Insignificant said:
Congrats to the Ottawa Senators for an amazing turnaround.

January 1st, 2015
Toronto - 45 points in 38 games
Ottawa - 37 points in 36 games

April 11, 2015
Toronto - 67 points in 81 games
Ottawa - 99 points in 82 games

A 40 point swing.
 
Crazy run by the Sens.

Anyone follow Bonk's Mullet on twitter? H?'s cracking me up right now:

[tweet]586973308677160960[/tweet]

[tweet]586975101767196672[/tweet]

[tweet]586977052340785154[/tweet]
 
Thank-you hockey Gods for Mike Hammond - you are righteous and true. Never will I stop believing in you.
By now the Calder should be between Johnny Hockey and obviously I'm biased but I think Stone should win it.
Turris / Stone / Hammond / Karlsson carried this team into the playoffs.
 

About Us

This website is NOT associated with the Toronto Maple Leafs or the NHL.


It is operated by Rick Couchman and Jeff Lewis.
Back
Top