toby91_ca 620 Report post Posted November 1, 2007 (edited) they've both played 6-7 games each, and the games have not been comparable in terms of penalties and bad bounces/bad luck calls. I don't think this is exactly a definitive statement on who's better, unless one is just determined to be biased. They're both good. If it was the other way around, I'm sure you would have no problem suggesting Hasek has played better. If you disagree, I would tend to think you are lying. Maybe you would think you are telling the truth, but subconsiously, you would be lying. Edited November 1, 2007 by toby91_ca Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
puckloo39 5,686 Report post Posted November 1, 2007 If it was the other way around, I'm sure you would have no problem suggesting Hasek has played better. If you disagree, I would tend to think you are lying. Maybe you would think you are telling the truth, but subconsiously, you would be lying. you really have no idea what I think, trust me. I simply am pointing out how silly it is that people are freaking out over having two winning goalies, and making too much of a big deal over two losses in games which were not as easy as some others have been to win. Different games, different bounces, different... Period. As in not the same. If Dom has been in the winning games, he would probably admit that the last five games have been better officiated and the team has played better as a whole, and therefore not so difficult to win. But then, I wouldn't expect anyone else to recognize that. I bet Chris Osgood knows it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest jaytan Report post Posted November 1, 2007 (edited) Expecting some of you all to understand that a five game streak of wins does not erase 15 years of excellence by explaining it to you one more time is probably a futile exercise. A short win streak might not erase 15 years of excellence, but 42-plus years and multiple serious injuries can sure make a guy less effective NOW. At this point in time, Osgood is better than Hasek. I'm not saying Osgood is (or ever was) better than Hasek when either were in their prime, but Hasek's not a premiere goaltender anymore. He's slower, older, extremely injury-prone and his bizarre goaltending style and clumsy play is now a bigger risk than it ever was before. He should have retired five years ago. Edited November 1, 2007 by jaytan Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Doggy 130 Report post Posted November 1, 2007 And regardless of the past fifteen years, Osgood has outplayed Hasek thus far this season. I would argue that Osgood has been one of the two best goaltenders in the NHL thus far; only he and Boston's Tim Thomas have yet to allow more than two goals in a single game this season. Ease up turbo. Pascal Leclaire has hands down been the best goalie so far this season. If it wasn;t for Zetterberg he'd be the best player. You also couldn't ignore the efforts of Biron and Backstrom before he was injured. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eva unit zero 271 Report post Posted November 2, 2007 Ease up turbo. Pascal Leclaire has hands down been the best goalie so far this season. If it wasn;t for Zetterberg he'd be the best player. You also couldn't ignore the efforts of Biron and Backstrom before he was injured. Consistency counts; Thomas and Osgood have been the ONLY goaltenders who have given up 2 goals or less every game. Leclaire has four shutouts, but he has averaged 2.5 goals against in his other four, including 5 goals against on 26 shots in one game and 3 goals on 18 shots in another. Both of Biron's losses were 4-goal against affairs, albeith both with fairly high shot counts. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Offsides 21 Report post Posted November 2, 2007 (edited) All 3 of the goalies mentioned above have been really good. I just am nervous of what happens to Ozzie when Hasek comes back. Does he go back to backup? Can a top 3/top 5 goalie be our backup? Edited November 2, 2007 by Offsides Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OsGOD 3 Report post Posted November 2, 2007 (edited) ummm YAY OZZIE! Might as well put our All-Star backup back on the shelf until we need another win streak Edited November 2, 2007 by OsGOD Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Doggy 130 Report post Posted November 3, 2007 Consistency counts; Thomas and Osgood have been the ONLY goaltenders who have given up 2 goals or less every game. Leclaire has four shutouts, but he has averaged 2.5 goals against in his other four, including 5 goals against on 26 shots in one game and 3 goals on 18 shots in another. Both of Biron's losses were 4-goal against affairs, albeith both with fairly high shot counts. The reason games like that happen is because they have average teams in front of them. The reason these teams are doing so much better than they were last year and SHOULD be doing this year is because of the stellar play of their goalies. Consistency counts yes, but your argument does not prove Biron and Leclaire haven't been consistent. Leclaire was the second best player in the league in my opinion and I'm sure many other peoples. Osgood been terrific thus far in his few games but to say he's been better than Leclaire is homer talk. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eva unit zero 271 Report post Posted November 3, 2007 The reason games like that happen is because they have average teams in front of them. The reason these teams are doing so much better than they were last year and SHOULD be doing this year is because of the stellar play of their goalies. Consistency counts yes, but your argument does not prove Biron and Leclaire haven't been consistent. Leclaire was the second best player in the league in my opinion and I'm sure many other peoples. Osgood been terrific thus far in his few games but to say he's been better than Leclaire is homer talk. Leclaire gave up 5 goals on 26 shots. Three of his shutouts came on more shots than that. Also, Columbus held San Jose to 17 shots, and Leclaire has averaged 26 shots against to Osgood's 22, so you can't argue that Columbus has been that terrible defensively. I'm not claiming Osgood won't have a bad game the rest of the season. I'm simply saying that I rate Osgood above Leclaire to this point in the young season because Osgood has been great in every game, while Leclaire has had a couple of stinkers. Osgood's worst statistical game was his first game, where he gave up 2 goals on 21 shots and have a .905 save percentage. Leclaire has had two games where he's given up three or more goals and had a save percentage that was .833 or lower. Those were also two of his four LOWEST shot count games. If it were a function of the team having a bad game, he'd have probably seen more shots than normal; he certainly wouldn't have seen less than 20. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Doggy 130 Report post Posted November 3, 2007 Leclaire gave up 5 goals on 26 shots. Three of his shutouts came on more shots than that. Also, Columbus held San Jose to 17 shots, and Leclaire has averaged 26 shots against to Osgood's 22, so you can't argue that Columbus has been that terrible defensively. I'm not claiming Osgood won't have a bad game the rest of the season. I'm simply saying that I rate Osgood above Leclaire to this point in the young season because Osgood has been great in every game, while Leclaire has had a couple of stinkers. Osgood's worst statistical game was his first game, where he gave up 2 goals on 21 shots and have a .905 save percentage. Leclaire has had two games where he's given up three or more goals and had a save percentage that was .833 or lower. Those were also two of his four LOWEST shot count games. If it were a function of the team having a bad game, he'd have probably seen more shots than normal; he certainly wouldn't have seen less than 20. You should watch games more and stats less. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
puckloo39 5,686 Report post Posted November 3, 2007 You should watch games more and stats less. Tell my friend, Mark, who lives in Melbourne, hi for me, willya? j/k Welcome to the forums! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LeftWinger 5,153 Report post Posted November 4, 2007 (edited) He's near the top in every important goaltending category, and he has been ******* phenomenal on the ice. I don't expect him to be there at the game, but he's played well enough that if teams were made today, he'd be there. ...Osgood won't be voted by the fans, but I would be willing to bet that if he continues his success this season, he will be picked as an alternate (especially if Babcock is coach for the WC) Edited November 4, 2007 by LeftWinger Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eva unit zero 271 Report post Posted November 4, 2007 You should watch games more and stats less. The best goalie is the one who most consistently gives his team a good chance to win; in other words, allows 2 or fewer goals. Leclaire has twice failed in this department, while Osgood has yet to fail and until Thursday, Thomas had not failed in that manner either. I would love to watch more games than I have the opportunity to; unfortunately I am currently working an evening shift and have three children and therefore do not get as much opportunity to watch hockey as I would like. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Doggy 130 Report post Posted November 4, 2007 The best goalie is the one who most consistently gives his team a good chance to win; in other words, allows 2 or fewer goals. Leclaire has twice failed in this department, while Osgood has yet to fail and until Thursday, Thomas had not failed in that manner either. I would love to watch more games than I have the opportunity to; unfortunately I am currently working an evening shift and have three children and therefore do not get as much opportunity to watch hockey as I would like. I guess what I'm saying is it's much more a case of Detroit's skaters giving their goalie a great chance to get the W. No-one would ever say that about the BJs. While Columbus are improved, the still have many flaws. Since stats mean more to you - Detroit allows 22.3 shots per game as opposed to Columbus' 28.0. That means a goalie in Det needs to keep a SV% of just above .900 (which is expected in NHL) to allow two or fewer goals. That is not the case anywhere else. The way Babcock has this team playing is a goalie's dream. Well, not the opposing goalie. There can be a fine line between allowing 1 goal and allowing 4 or 5. I know that sounds stupid but I'm serious. Let's be honest, Calgary was very unlucky to not have at least 3 on the board against us the other night. If the puck does NOT bounce our way those few times, does that mean Ozzie had a bad game? Does that make him inconsistent? Who cares if he let in 5 goals or whatever a few times this season? These games happen. No goalie has given his team more of a chance to win games than Pascal Leclaire. Anyway, Osgood has been great and if he continues his play I'll be ecstatic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kp-Wings 3 Report post Posted November 4, 2007 (edited) Eww. Why do you have Kubina on your Eastern Conference team? He's downright terrible. It's too bad that the majority of teams in the east suck, so it's hard to choose who'd go there in his place though. The natural choice would be, for me, Jay Bouwmeester on Florida, but he hasn't looked very good this season. A lot of high profile names haven't, which is surprising. Edited November 4, 2007 by Kp-Wings Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eva unit zero 271 Report post Posted November 4, 2007 Eww. Why do you have Kubina on your Eastern Conference team? He's downright terrible. It's too bad that the majority of teams in the east suck, so it's hard to choose who'd go there in his place though. The natural choice would be, for me, Jay Bouwmeester on Florida, but he hasn't looked very good this season. A lot of high profile names haven't, which is surprising. That's exactly the dilemma that forced me to put him on the team. I can't claim Kubina has looked good, but nobody else has, either, and Kubina at least has put up the numbers...which suggests he hasn't been completely ineffective. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Doggy 130 Report post Posted November 5, 2007 Good work Eva!! Your lack of belief in Leclaire has fired him up even more. Shutout number 5!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eva unit zero 271 Report post Posted December 11, 2007 Thought I would update my list and give the topic a bump. Guys in bold were not named in my original post. WEST: F: Zetterberg, Iginla, Stastny, Holmstrom, Datsyuk, Kane, Nash, Kopitar, Getzlaf, Thornton, Horcoff, Morrow D: Lidstrom, Rafalski, Phaneuf, Zubov, Pronger, Visnovsky G: Osgood, LeClaire, Luongo EAST: F: Sundin, Stillman, Alfredsson, Ovechkin, Crosby, Malkin, Antropov, Heatley, Lecavalier, Kovalchuk, St. Louis, Savard D: Campbell, Markov, Kaberle, Ranger, Gonchar, Chara G: Thomas, Biron, Lundqvist Playrs removed from teams are as follows; guys in bold are 'on the bubble' and very nearly achieved a return to the team: WEST: F: Langkow, Sakic, Cammalleri, Kariya D: Aucoin, Backman G: Backstrom EAST: F: Brind'Amour, Richards, Briere, Spezza D: Kubina, Meszaros G: Gerber So ultimately, 28 of 42 guys I named in my original post still deserve to be named, with six more still in contention for a spot. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
