Packer487

Suggestion to The Oz: At the start of next period, flip Gaborik...need some of that intimidation in there! Plenty of time to get a W tonight. And what a fricken goal by Flip. That was ridiculous!

That isn't what I said at all. I said that in this supposed awful start, he was only truly bad on three occasions and that even on those nights, the defense didn't help him out a whole lot, which they didn't. And you know that, since you watched the games. The point was that if stats are so friggin' important (and they *must* be since we're deciding our playoff goalie solely based on them) then it wasn't really "a few bad months" of play, it was more like 3 truly bad games. Did he have any great games in there? No. He was very un-Dominator-like for awhile there, but I think it's completely and utterly wrong to say that he had a "few bad months" or even that he was *bad* for that entire stretch. He wasn't. He was very, very average, with 3 really bad games mixed in. And now he's back to being great again. And I've said it myself numerous times. But people are also saying/implying that he was awful for a solid month and a half (or more, for some reason) and it's just not true. Like I said, he was very very average on most nights, with 3 bad games mixed in. And now it's taken care of. Those games were pretty clearly a blip on the radar. He said himself that he needed to play better, now he is, and there's no reason to suspect it won't continue. And come April, it's not going to mean a damn thing.

Honestly though, let's break down Dom's "awful first few months". I mean, how many games are we REALLY talking about here? Osgood's worst start of the year--save percentage wise--was an .864 against Calgary where he gave up 3 goals on 22 shots, so let's use that as the standard for "bad". In Dom's "awful first few months" he was below an .864 3 times, and it's the three games that you'd expect: The loss to Anaheim, the game against Chicago where we kept giving up short-handed breakaways, and the game against St. Louis where he got pulled (and which only one of the goals he gave up was truly bad). Take out those three games--and I'm asking that you do that not to ignore them, but to show how it's really not even a handful of games we're talking about here with Dom being awful, let alone "a few months", and also that I don't have to forgive half his season to this point to make his numbers look really darn good--and you get the following: More than 3 goals allowed: Hasek: 0 Osgood: 1 More than 2 goals allowed: Hasek: 5 Osgood: 4 Even just taking those three games out of the equation (not a full month and a half's worth) you get Dom's stats to be: Record: 14-3-2 Goals Against Average: 1.71 Save Percentage: .919 I know, I know...still not as good as what Osgood has put up this year. But he's also clearly been playing much better hockey over the past month and a half than he did at the start of the season and I expect it to continue. It's really only 3 games, not even a whole month and a half, and certainly not "a few months" that submarined his statistics--and I believe most everyone's view of his season thusfar. And in 2 of those games, he didn't exactly get a lot of help. I'd like to see them add as well and you make a lot of the same points I would make. Kronwall is still a question mark even though he's playing great hockey right now. And as much as I like what Huds and Flip are doing right now, we don't know if we can count on those guys in the playoffs--hell, it wasn't even a year ago that Babcock was scared to play Hudler on the road. I'll even go you one better: Zetterberg's health worries me. I wouldn't call him "injury prone" or anything, but it's alarming to me that he keeps having back troubles, and you never know if his wrist will flare up again. This regular season has been incredible, but there's a lot of time left for teams to get better and for Detroit to cool off. I don't think it's close to a given that this team wins the Cup. I think they're going to have a great shot--even if we go into the playoffs as-is, and no matter which goalie we start--but there are questions I'd like to see answered and holes I'd like to see filled.

If a guy plays 5 1/2 months of hockey giving up 1.33 goals a game and stopping almost 94% of the shots he faces, he's not being given the starting job because of his name. If Dom was going to get the job because of his name and solely based on what he's done in the past, then it wouldn't matter if he kept playing crappy hockey the entire season...he'd be the starter. And Babcock isn't stupid. Starting a goalie because of his name is to say, "That's Dominik Hasek. He's starting regardless of how he plays because he's the best goalie in the history of hockey." And that's not at all what's going on--or what I'm suggesting should happen. If you want to say that without his name, he wouldn't have gotten a chance to play his way out of his slump, I'm fine with that. I've said many times in the past that he's more than earned the right to play through his troubles. His track record bought him a chance to get his problems fixed. But it's not a free pass to starting in the playoffs. His PLAY has to give him that chance. If you've got two goalies playing similarly well, you'd be a fool to ignore how they've done in the postseason in the past. If I've got one goalie who has been hot for 5 1/2 months, and one who has been hot for 7 months, I really don't much care that goalie A wasn't all that great in October. Come playoff time, it just doesn't matter. You're saying that you would put more stock in the fact that he had a bad October than the fact that Dom has had a lot of playoff success in his career and that Osgood hasn't won a playoff series since I was in high school (I'm 25 now FTR)? It doesn't make any sense. Do you think that Corey Perry is a better goal scorer than Datsyuk? How bout Mike Riberio and Patrick Sharp? Because due to Datsyuk's slow start putting pucks in the net, those guys would all finish ahead of him, even if Dats keeps up his pace since the 18th game of the season or so. Would you take any of those guys over Dats if you needed a goal late in a playoff game? I also wonder if any of these "Play Ozzie because he'd be better the ENTIRE SEASON" people were pulling for Osgood to get the nod over Legace back in 2005. There certainly were a lot of them. But Legace's season stats blew Osgood's out of the water, and Legace's late-season stats blew Osgood's out of the water. Whatever... I'm just curious if you'd say the same thing if instead of Osgood, it was a guy who's been chock full of fail in the postseason like Legace. Or if it was a rookie goalie putting up nice numbers that didn't have any playoff experience. Are stats really all that matter to you, even though there are clear limitations about what they say? Like I said, it's not a vacuum. There has to be some element of considering a player's history in there. It doesn't mean you're picking a guy solely based on his name or his track record, but it's stupid to think that it doesn't play some role. And that stuff means a whole helluva lot more than who played better in October. And if that scenario happens, Dom would be getting the nod because he would have played lights out freaking hockey for 5 1/2 months and he's been really solid in the playoffs in the recent past. Not because of his name and the fact that he's got 6 Vezinas and 2 Harts in his trophy case. I don't get what's so tough to understand about this... The funny thing is that these Ozzie lovers are so riled up, and I haven't said one bad thing about his play this season, and have been really complimentary. I like the guy. I think he's played outstanding hockey this year. Whatever, this is all probably going to get decided for us at some point anyway. And if it doesn't get decided for us, then Hasek's going to start, and that'll be awesome.

Heh, the funny thing about David Cone the football player is that he could be a dead ringer for The Shermanator in American Pie. There was a better one during his recruitment but I can't find it right now. Threet will be the starter if we don't get Pryor though. He was an Elite 11 QB the same year as Mallett. They're pretty similar. If we do get Pryor, they could still be the Leak/Tebow combo I guess....

Haha, that makes a lot more sense. I was gonna ask....... You should totally take a picture of yourself wearing it and send it to the "Bad Jersey Blog" That site is great! BTW, now I gotta compare. I think my jersey count is at 36, but there's quite a few I'm looking to add. I'll start a thread up, I"d love to see your list.

My first Wings item (kind of) was a souvenir glow-in-the-dark megaphone that they gave away during my first Wings game. They had a laser light show and it was pretty cool having all those megaphones glowing too. That was sometime in Feb. 1987, when I was 4. My favorite is probably my Steve Yzerman signed photo "To Tim, Best Always, Steve Yzerman". Pretty damn cool. I'm still jealous of my dad's favorite Wings item. He caught a Bobby Orr slapper at the old Olympia, so he's got that puck. He's caught 2. I've been to probably 250 hockey games in my life and still haven't been fortunate enough to nab one. Grr...

Yup. He's almost completely changed my attitude on him. I mean, I still don't think he was all that great when he was on his first go round, and I still wish he'd refrain from throwing his arms out to the side every time a shot goes in that he was screened on, but it's really hard not to like a guy like that who wants to be a Red Wing no matter what. And one who is so damn funny in interviews and in the room. His attitude is pretty impressive, and even if he's just a backup for those 3 years (unlikely), that's still a bargain price. He deserves to end his career here and it's nice he'll probably get a chance to. As long as he keeps playing well, I've got nothing bad to say about the guy. There are a lot of worse people that Howard could learn from. If nothing else, Ozzie can teach him a lesson about playing goal in Detroit.

The reason the dunk competition sucks now is that pretty much everything has been done. Or when guys try to push the envelope it's too hard, so it takes them 15 tries before they get it right. It used to be amazing. This isn't something that will likely be a success long-term, because there's really only so much you can do...but for a couple years, it could be really awesome. If nothing else, it gets some pub for the league. Look how much attention that 9 year old kid got for that goal he scored in the shootout between periods of that one game. Now, some of that is because he was 9, but stations were airing the Rob Hisey goal from the OHL skills competition and he's an adult. And how many people know the name of Mike Legg, who was a pretty good college hockey player, but never did anything after he left Michigan? Crazy goals draw attention. I think it'd be fun to watch.

Fine, if you don't like the "since he got his play back on track he has a 1.36 GAA" stat, how's this one? "Since he got his play back on track, his save percentage is .936". How do you figure? What's super good is that Dom would've needed to make 6 more saves over the course of the season thusfar to be at the same save percentage he had when we won the Cup in 2002. Given that, I think we all could agree he's playing a TON better right now than he did at the start of the year, it's really not unreasonable to think that would've happened if he could play those games again. It was a 10 game blip. He was probably only really bad in 4 of those games. He's past it. He did for sure in October and early November. Since then, Dom's been right there with him, and has actually posted better numbers. He's had quite a bit "awesome sick goaltending" of his own. And Dom's practice habits are legendary. I don't think a whole lot of people best him on work ethic... Yeaaah, 11 years of being a great starting goalie. 4 or 5 bad games this year. 11 awesome games after that. He should totally be judged on those subpar starts. For the record, bad start and all, Dom has a 14-6-0 record which is good for a .700 winning percentage. We've played 44 games, so there are 88 possible points. At a .700 winning percentage, we would have 61.6 points, which would still be good for tops in the league.

I'm not missing it, I'm not ignoring it. If you just want to look at the stats at the end and have them play whoever has better numbers, that's fine. I think it'd be idiotic to be like "Dom, you've been great...really great...for 3/4 of the season, but Ozzie was clearly better than you in October, so we're going to give him the reigns in the playoffs." Do you not see how stupid that is? If the goalies have been playing at a similar level for 5 1/2 months, there are other things to consider when picking the starter that mean a whole lot more than who was better in October. And it remains to be seen that both guys stay this hot for the rest of the season. Like I said somewhere in this thread, we might get this "controversy" answered for us. Hasek has been great his entire career. That ten game blip (and he was only truly BAD in maybe 4 of those games) is a fluke. He's clearly played his way out of his troubles. So unless he gets hurt or gets back into a major slump, those games are completely irrelevant to me. Yup. Based on what? Over the last month and a half they're equal in starts and wins, Dom has the better GAA (not insignificantly either), the better save % by just a tick, and more shutouts. The teams Dom has played combine for 504 points. The teams Osgood played combine for 497 points. The teams Dom played combined for 1,319 goals this year. Osgood's have managed 1,266. The Wings have given both of them 39 goals of support in those 11 games. The deciding factor would probably come down to the fact that Hasek has recently had playoff success and Osgood hasn't. If you want to lump that into "the fact that his name is Hasek" that's fine. I'm mean, we're not in a vacuum. You can't just ignore the past few seasons. But the fact of the matter is that if Hasek's play hadn't improved, there would be no debate to be had. No "tiebreaker" would be needed. You can't call it "solely getting the job based on his name" when a guy would theoretically be playing lights out hockey for that long of a time period. Saying that implies that he didn't get it on his own merits and that wouldn't be true. Like I said, Babcock isn't stupid. He's going to play the guy that gives them the best shot to win a Stanley Cup. And if that guy falters, I'm sure he'll put the other one in. If Osgood is clearly better come playoff time, you have to go with him. I've never said differently. If it's even close, you have to go with Hasek. And I'm really not sure how you could make an argument otherwise.

If you look at TSN's projected stats, the goals against average and the save percentage aren't going to change from the current mark. Even though Dom has improved his save percentage by like .031 in a month and a half's time and his stats are clearly improving from the averages he's put up to this point, the "projected stats" aren't going to take that into account. He has a .900 save percentage right now, so they project him at a .900 for the season. I do think that in real life, their GAAs will be fairly close by the end of the season, but it'll be fairly impossible for Dom to get up to a .930 for the season because of the whole he dug for himself--thus he wouldn't catch Osgood in that category without Osgood slumping. When I was talking about the wins and losses being the only things that change, I was merely referring to the projected stats on TSN. I know that's what he was trying to say. I just don't agree. Assuming both goalies finish the season on an equal level, that means that Dom will have played amazing hockey for what? 5 1/2 months? If he's given the starting nod, how can that not be because of his performance? To say that someone is only given a job because of their name implies that they didn't earn it on any of their own merits. Again, if Dom was playing .870 hockey and they named him the starter in the playoffs anyway, then absolutely I'd agree with the point. But when a guy has gone a month and a half (or longer if we're assuming this continues) stopping almost 94% of the shots he's faced, he'd be more than deserving of starting the playoffs. I just don't buy that the goalies' play in October means a hill of beans come April, if things continue the way they have. I completely agree. Which is why I whole-heartedly disagree that save percentage is all about the goalie. There's a huge element of the defense in there too. I'd agree that Save % is more about the goalie than goals against is, but a team's defense can make a good goalie's save percentage look bad--or they can help it look better than it probably should be. First month and a half of the season. He's been great since mid-November. And I would agree--for the most part--that save percentage is a good stat to compare goalies on the same team, because they're playing behind the same defense, which, for the most part, should be consistent night in and night out. Where it gets murkier is when you start having to translate it over to other teams because the quality of shots faced isn't going to be the same. That stat treats every goal and an equal and every shot on goal as an equal. And they really aren't. I just wish it was possible, because that would be the best way to compare Osgood to Hasek to Tim Thomas to Chris Mason. Save percentage is probably as good of a stat as we've got, but I don't think it comes close to telling the entire story. Then again, shots on goal are standardized and arenas still count them differently--whether to pad their own goalie's stats or to make the team look better. I don't think even something as theoretically simple as shots on goal is an unbiased stat. So maybe it would be possible for a QSC stat. Everyone tracks "Quality scoring chances" for the telecast anyway. I'd just be curious to see those numbers released. It'd be a biased stat as well, moreso than shots on goal, but tell me it wouldn't be interesting to see the numbers league-wide.

If you're naming a playoff starter, do you care how he played in October or do you care how he is playing at the current time? Hasek has given up 15 goals in his last 11 starts. It's pretty irrelevant to consider October at this point--and it will be even less relevant in April. He's clearly worked through whatever issues were plaguing him at the start of the season. If the start of the season means that much in April, then we better find another defenseman, because Kronwall still blows. And we can't really count on Datsyuk to score us any goals since he only had 2 in the first 17 games or so. Never mind how either of them are playing right now.... emphasis mine Do you even realize how much you're contradicting yourself in this thread? If he's playing every bit as well as Osgood at this point (or better, if you look at the numbers) then he wouldn't be getting the starter job because of his effing name. He may have gotten the opportunity to play through his troubles because of his name and his track record in this league (and he's more than earned that right), but if he didn't get his game right, they wouldn't consider starting him in the playoffs. There's no way. Babcock isn't an idiot. If Dom was still only stopping < 87% of the shots he was facing, they wouldn't be like "But that's Dominik Hasek! We should play him in the playoffs." That would be giving the guy the job based on his name. At this point, there's not really any difference in the play of the goalies, and if anything, Hasek has been better as of late. That's why I think you're off your rocker to say that he'd only be starting because of his name. It's not true. Edit: You can clearly make a case for Osgood. It's really not all that difficult. I've never said "Start Hasek because Osgood is a bum". I've been extremely complimentary of Osgood's play. But come playoff time, if both goalies are playing at the same level, I'm taking the guy who has done well in the playoffs recently and who is arguably the best to ever play the game. And if he falters, I've got no problem putting the other guy in. Not sure what else you want me to say.

Gotta ask....is that a Jamie Pushor jersey, or were you the person I saw at the Joe last year with the only Uwe Krupp jersey in existence? My actual guess is Mark Howe. But I'm curious!

Not sure where you're going with that one...don't really care all that much. If it's a lame attempt to call me arrogant or something like that, yawn. Unless you're trying to say "It doesn't surprise me that you went to U of M because that's a strangely coherent argument" it was probably unnecessary. And over the last month and a half Dom's stats have been better than Osgood's. If you were talking about for the season as a whole, I've already admitted that countless times. If both goalies keeps up their performances, Osgood would have played better than Hasek for the season as a whole, yes. Dom would have been better for the last 75% of the season, however. Due to a bad month and a half by Dom, a full five months before the playoffs started. Read: A non-issue. Technically, if you're ignoring October and the first half of November, Dom would have better stats...I expect their GAAs will be pretty close by the end of the season (even counting October and November). Dom dug himself too big of a hole in save percentage to catch up there unless Osgood slumps. Wait, so if you have no problem with Dom starting, why do you think he'd only be starting because of his name? That doesn't even make sense. If he was just getting the job because of his name, I'd expect that you'd have a big time problem with him starting, because he wouldn't be getting the job based on anything but his name. If the playoffs started today, and Dom had gone "down the stretch" posting a 1.34 goals against and a .936, with 3 shutouts in his last 11 starts, could you really say that he only got the job because of his name--even if the other guy has been stellar? It's not like you couldn't make a case for Dom on his own merits... If we were comparing Hasek to Tim Thomas, Khabibulin, or Kolzig I'd kind of agree. But both goalies play behind the same defense, which theoretically should pad both of their GAAs, no? And for the record, Hasek's save % over the past month and a half is better than Osgood's too (though just by the slimmest of margins...it's like .002 difference). It's weird trying to compare goalies on other teams. A team with worse defense probably gives up more shots on goal, but those shots are also probably of the tougher variety. So comparing the percentages isn't always fair either. Projected stats for goalies aren't all that fun because their GAA and save percentage never change. Only the wins and losses do. Dom's stats are clearly on the upswing, but projections won't ever reflect that. It'd be pretty tough for Osgood to play any better than he already has...and I mean that as a compliment. SV% isn't all goalie. If goalie A faces 50 shots but the majority of them are from the perimeter because the defense isn't letting them get in close and goalie B faces 20 shots, but 3 of them are breakaways, 3 are 2 on 1s, and 7 and from the slot, who had the tougher game? If they both give up 2 goals, who had the better game? Whose save % is worse? I guarantee you that Billy Sauer would tell you that the GLI Championship Game, where he faced like 37 shots over 4+ periods was much tougher than the night before against Providence where he faced 50 shots, but all but 2 or 3 were extremely low percentage. Sometimes shots on goal and save percentage aren't everything. Also, what's considered a shot on goal and what isn't can vary from arena to arena. It's not an exact science, and I don't doubt that certain arenas are more liberal about it than others. So a goalie could play the same exact game in two different cities and have a significantly different save percentage. I wish there was a way to standardize the "quality scoring chance" stat, because goals per quality scoring chance would probably be the best way to assess a goalie's performance. Under this system, a dump in that happens to go on net counts just the same as a breakaway or a point blank chance on a 5 on 3. Not all shots on goal are created equal.

Did everyone catch that stat that the last time the Wings had given up this few goals through 43 games (44 now I guess) was 1955-56? That's insane! I think everyone deserves a ton of credit for that one...from Dom and Ozzie to the defense (Lidstrom) and all the way up to the forwards like Datsyuk who are working their asses off on the backcheck. Pretty darn impressive if you ask me. If Ozzie can get a you-know-what in our next game, we'll be giving up exactly 2 goals per game. That's kinda gross.

Woot! That gets Dom's save percentage back over .900 for the year, finally! It was a long, hard road back from .869 or whatever it was. Pretty impressive since we don't really give up that many shots on goal. You almost have to be perfect to improve. Over his last 11 starts, he's 9-1-1 with a 1.34 goals against (!!!!!!) and a .936 save percentage and 3 shutouts. Yikes.

Is anyone else worried that one of these times, Dom's just going to dump the puck right into our net when he comes out into the faceoff circle and then tries to shoot it behind the net? I never fails to scare me. C'mon Wings! Close this one out!

That's what I'm talking about Dom!!!! There when we need him thusfar tonight. The Avs are buzzing...I sure wish we could put in a second goal and get a little breathing room. Hensick has been Colorado's best forward tonight. I'm really impressed, TJ.

Our defense is ridiculous. If some of the haters want to say that Dom hasn't had to do much tonight, I'd be inclined to agree (though I missed the first 5 Avs shots and their first 2 credited scoring chances). He had time to go run and grab some of that deeeelicious Joe Louis Little Caesars pizza in between shots there. They had a lot of pressure right around our net late in the period, but almost nothing came of it. So nice to have Homer back! BTW, I know he's playing well tonight, but did anyone else grin when they mentioned that the Avs are paying Theodore $6 million this year. That's gotta be almost twice what we're paying Ozzie and Dom COMBINED. I'd say we're doing pretty well in terms of value there....

Man Hensick is fast. Sure wish we had drafted him....

This was an exact quote from me in this thread not even 24 hours ago: "[Osgood's numbers don't] do anything for me? Go back and look at the adjectives I've used to describe Osgood in this thread alone. I said even said he belongs in the All-Star game. Hasek hasn't been as good as Osgood this season. But over the last month and a half, he has been." I don't really know what you want me to say. I've said it time and time again: For the season as a whole, Osgood has been better than Hasek. For the season as a whole, Osgood has been outstanding. For the last month and a half, Dom has been every bit as good. Do you understand that? Do you? Do you? Do you? Do you do you do you? Huh? Yes? No? Maybe? Possibly? Only on Wednesdays? Should I say it slower? Huh? Yes? Perhaps? You said yourself that you don't see either goalie cooling off. So it's really your position that if Dom keeps this up for the rest of the regular season (Probably another 20 starts or so) and ends up posting a 29-8-4 record with a 1.86 goals against, and a .913 save percentage (but like 24-3-3, 1.47/.930 over the last 3/4 of the season) that he really wouldn't have any business starting in the playoffs, and that he'd only be given that job because of his name? That makes about as much sense as saying that come April, Babcock should be like "Dom, you've given up .3 goals per game less than Ozzie over the last five and a half months, but you sucked in October, so take a seat buddy." He's putting up as good, if not better, numbers since he "got his game back" after those two starts that had a lot of people wanting to run him out of the city. I've posted the numbers in this thread. It's not factually wrong.

So basically what you're saying is that if Hasek continues to play at the level he's playing at (1.47 goals against, .930 save percentage, 2 shutouts in the last 10 starts) for the rest of the season, he'd only be starting the playoffs because of his name? I'm simply speechless. Let's see if I can come up with an analogy to make this a little easier to understand. Nick Lidstrom has been the best defenseman in the league for years. Say next year starts and he's -15 over the first 10 games or so and clearly not playing well. Maybe he's a little dinged up too. Then he comes back and is +20 over the next 10 games. I'm saying "Hey, maybe those first ten games were a fluke. He's been the best for a long time. He's been nothing but great in his entire career and he's playing really well right now. Maybe we should give him a pass on the way this season started since I don't think it's an issue anymore." You're saying "He's playing really well right now. I don't care how good he has been in the past. But he sucked for those ten games so he's still really not all that good and even if he plays great for the rest of the season, I'm still not forgetting those ten games." When a guy has been outstanding for years, and years, and years, is arguably the best to ever play the game, and had a very solid season as recently as last year, it's really not all that hard to understand why I'm like "Hey, maybe those first ten games don't really matter so much. Especially when we're looking down the road at the playoffs."

He also had what? Like a .928 or something in the postseason last year? It's not like we're talking ancient history here. He won as many playoff series last year as Osgood has won since the Cup in 1998. If their play is even close, there's a reason Hasek should--and will--get the call. For the whole season, Legace had a 2.19, .915 and was 37-8-3. For the last 12 games, he was 11-0-1 with a 2.20 and a .919 save percentage. (March 9 to April 17) For the last 24 games, he was 19-2-3 with a 2.20 and a .917 save percentage. (Jan 24 to April 17) He did have one rough stretch, giving up 3, 5, 3, 5, 3, 4, 3 during Mid February to Mid March but rebounding to give up 17 over his last 9 starts heading into the post-season. To compare: For the whole season, Osgood was 20-6-5 with a 2.76 and an .897 save percentage. From March 9 to April 17, he was 6-1-2 with a 2.72 goals against and a .903 save percentage. He gave up 6 in his last start, which skews things a little I suppose, but he gave up 2 or less in 4 of those starts, and 3 or more in 5. From Jan 24 to April 17, we'd only be including 2 additional starts, a shutout win where he made 24 saves, and a game where he gave up 3 goals on 10 shots over two periods and got a no decision. So he'd have like a 2.60 and a .904 over that period. I never understood the "start Osgood" talk back then. He hadn't played well for much of the season. Granted he had improved from God-awful to passable, but Legace was still playing much better hockey any way you look at it. If Osgood was the legendary goalie and the level of play was close, I'd probably understand if Hasek didn't get the nod. And I've already said that if Osgood is playing clearly at a higher level than Dom, to go ahead and start him. He's not at this point. If Osgood leads the league in goals against and save percentage, but ignoring October, Dom meets or exceeds those numbers, then I don't much care what happened in October. It'd be a distant memory by the time the playoffs roll around. And since the end of November, Dom has been allowing less goals per start, and stopping just 4 out of every 1,000 pucks less than Osgood. Well you, sir, have some pretty darn high standards. If giving up less than a goal and a half per game and stopping 93 out of every 100 shots is only "very good" then I don't know what to tell ya. I can only remember one truly bad goal (that unscreened wrist shot from the blueline) since he got his mojo back. And the last sentence really says it all. There's a lot of time left in the season. Plenty of time for Dom to slump again or Ozzie to cool off. Or one of them could get injured, since they've both had injury problems over the years. Who knows, this may even be answered for us....

I believe the pronunciation of the Super Mutant Goalie's name should be "Hahs-good". Get it? I posted the stats from their last 10 starts earlier in the thread. I started counting right after Dom had those back-to-back starts where people wanted to run him out of the city. Seemed reasonable enough. I think Osgood had one more game since that point, but I didn't count it in the interest of having 10 games for each. Had I put that one in there, and gone "Since November 22nd" or whatever, his numbers would probably be just a tick worse than they were since I think he had a SOL in there. The point I was trying to make is that Dom has elevated his game to the level that Osgood has been at all season. Just look around. It might be a vocal minority, but in this thread alone someone said that if Hasek starts in the playoffs it'll just be because of his name (and not like...having a 1.47/.930 over the last month and change or anything like that...just his name). You've got people in pretty much every "goalie thread" saying that Dom is just stopping shots that anyone could save, but Ozzie is stealing games--but also that the team plays better when Osgood is in net, which seems to conflict. Weird. Then you've got someone who still has a "Hasek Haters" signature--though to his credit he did give Dom a little bit of props in this thread. So where's the effusive praise for a goalie that has allowed like .3 goals per game LESS over the last month and a half (and who has a very similar save percentage and more shutouts in that span)? Are people qualifying the "Datsyuk is unreal" talk by saying "Yeah, but he only scored 2 goals in the first 17"? No. All the talk about how good Kronwall has been lately (which is deserved)...does anyone qualify that by saying "Yeah but he's sucked his whole career and wasn't too good for the first month"? No. So why should Dom's October have anything to do with how he's playing NOW? I get that Ozzie is a fan favorite. He's a great story. Guy gets run outta here a few years back. Probably won't ever play for us again. Then he turns down 46 different NHL starting jobs (to hear people around here tell it) to come back here as a backup. Has one rough year, one pretty good year. Plays his role, is entertaining as hell in the process, good guy in the room. Then he comes out like a gangbuster this year and puts together what's likely an All-Star campaign. It's almost something you couldn't make up. What I don't get is why every compliment toward Hasek has to be taken as a knock against Osgood. Or why a lot of these people who love Osgood seem to despise Dom. People need to learn that it's ok to praise both goalies, and just because I like Hasek a lot doesn't mean I hate Osgood. I mean, in this thread alone, I praised Ozzie 14 ways from Sunday and someone still wanted to know why 19-2-1 doesn't do anything for me--because I defend Hasek. It's really strange. Put it this way. Dom has been outstanding his entire career. He's won 6 Vezinas, 2 Harts, a Cup, took an average team to the Finals, just last year had us on the brink of a trip to the Finals (or a Championship--not that I really want to have that argument again...I still say Ottawa sucked)....when a guy has been that good for that long, and gets off to an .869 save percentage for the first 11 games or so, then rips off 10 games with a .930 save percentage, which one would you view as the fluke? If the playoffs started today, I wouldn't much care what Dom did at the start of the year. I'd care how he was playing right now. And right now, he's playing awesome. It's the same as the people who wanted Osgood to start over Legace in 2005. Did any of them care that he had sucked for pretty much the entire season? No. But he was playing better down the stretch and they wanted him in net. They're both hot though! That's the point I've been trying to make. If you prefer Osgood, that's fine. I can understand not wanting to send an all-star to the bench. But there are a few people here who are trying to say that Dom would only be getting the job based on his name and not his play, and as Mike Gundy would say, "THAT'S NOT TRUE! SO GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!" Dom's been every bit as good for the past month and a half. And he brings some things to the table that Osgood doesn't come playoff time (like having won a series this millennium). There's a perfectly good argument to make in Dom's favor. I'm not sure how I feel about a goalie rotation in the playoffs. Usually it doesn't work (Hello Garth Snow and Ron Hextall!). This might be a unique situation. If both goalies keep playing the way they're playing, it's not crazy to think they could be 1-2 in GAA at the very least by the end of the year. It'd be really hard to tell one of them to take a seat for the postseason. I also don't know that having a quick hook is a good idea. It's a damn nice problem to have though, eh? Why is that an unfortunate reality? If Dom plays really well the rest of the year, why shouldn't he start? He's clearly been the better goalie historically, and if he plays well for the last 85% of the season, it's pretty reasonable that he would get the nod in the playoffs. Even if Osgood has a career year. And FTR a poor finish to the season? Legace didn't lose in regulation in his last 12 starts that year and had an 11-0-1 record heading into the post-season (and had just 2 starts with less than an 88 save percentage in that span). He lost just twice in regulation over his last 24 starts. It's not like he was playing badly heading into the playoffs. No, he didn't play well in the playoffs, but Osgood hadn't really shown anything that season to deserve the starting job. It is fair. If the goalies are close, then you go with the one who has been there recently and who is arguably the best to play the game. If Osgood is clearly better, then I have no problem saying that he should get the start come playoff time. But it doesn't make a bit of sense to use October as that determination.