Mrazek "Maturing, could bounce back like Howard"

[kickazz 5,459]

21 minutes ago, Buppy said:

Yeah, that's why I said that part. 

Point was you were doing basically the same thing. Letting factors other than play influence your opinion of his play. "Pretty good" may be a bit of an overstatement, but it's much closer than "trash", at least for the seasons Chaps was referring to. Still doing it too, by framing his performance in the context of his draft position and contract.

It's trash compared to where Dipietro stood in that draft and the amount he made. I alluded to that in my previous post. 

"No they're trash, he mostly hovered around 3.00 GAA or high 2.8. His save % was barely 90% for a 1st pick he was terrible."

 

Edited October 27, 2017 by kickazz

[chaps80 1,591]

2009 was Osgood/Conklin. Conklin helped save that season IMO. Ozzie was not that good until the playoffs, where he would have had Smythe consideration had the Wings finished the job. He got the starting job again in 2010 based on that playoff performance. But honestly, he was just about done. I’m sure losing the Finals in 7 games after being up 2-0 and falling short of the repeat had him pretty deflated  Howard took over the job that season.

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

4 hours ago, chaps80 said:

2009 was Osgood/Conklin. Conklin helped save that season IMO. Ozzie was not that good until the playoffs, where he would have had Smythe consideration had the Wings finished the job. He got the starting job again in 2010 based on that playoff performance. But honestly, he was just about done. I’m sure losing the Finals in 7 games after being up 2-0 and falling short of the repeat had him pretty deflated  Howard took over the job that season.

Yes, 2008-2009 was Osgood/Conklin. 2009-2010 was Osgood/Howard. Same year, different seasons. Yes, Ozzie was pretty much done by the end of 09. Great career, great numbers, underappreciated. Howard=Ozzie 2.0 

[Buppy 1,720]

1 hour ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

Yes, 2008-2009 was Osgood/Conklin. 2009-2010 was Osgood/Howard. Same year, different seasons. Yes, Ozzie was pretty much done by the end of 09. Great career, great numbers, underappreciated. Howard=Ozzie 2.0 

While there are some similarities, and I'd agree there's been some unwarranted criticism of Howard, putting him on the same level as Osgood is going a bit far, IMO.

Osgood was consistently above average from his rookie year in 93-94 up until 07-08. 02-03 was his only bad year. A few more right around average, and like 9 above average seasons. He didn't have any standout "great" seasons, just good or a bit better for most of a decade and a half. 

Howard in 8 years has had 4 very good years, and 4 below average years.

In short, there are valid reasons to criticize Howard. Osgood was criticized mostly for not being Patrick Roy. Not really the same.

[Jacksoni 418]

Roy.. Man I miss him. If he was on this team in his prime (heresy yes I know, don't give a s***) it is my clear belief that he'd get us into the playoffs automatically for 3-4 years despite this defense in front of him.

Need to make me some time to watch another Detroit - Colorado game anno 2000 - 2002. The best hockey I have seen.

[chaps80 1,591]

12 hours ago, Buppy said:

While there are some similarities, and I'd agree there's been some unwarranted criticism of Howard, putting him on the same level as Osgood is going a bit far, IMO.

Osgood was consistently above average from his rookie year in 93-94 up until 07-08. 02-03 was his only bad year. A few more right around average, and like 9 above average seasons. He didn't have any standout "great" seasons, just good or a bit better for most of a decade and a half. 

Howard in 8 years has had 4 very good years, and 4 below average years.

In short, there are valid reasons to criticize Howard. Osgood was criticized mostly for not being Patrick Roy. Not really the same.

This. Osgood also played for lesser teams like NYI and STL and always had a winning record. Helped the Isles to the playoffs in his first season there after they had missed for awhile.  People like to say he benefitted from strong teams in front of him in DET, but he did just as well elsewhere. 

Plus, you know, the three Cups. One he was Vernon’s backup, next season he won as starter. Didn’t have to play out of his mind, but he did his job. The third, he came in cold in Game 4 first round when Hasek faltered and never looked back. Rock solid. Next season he was even better in the playoffs, elite level good.

Only thing he and Howard have in common is not being appreciated by fans. Nothing else lines up.

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

18 hours ago, Buppy said:

While there are some similarities, and I'd agree there's been some unwarranted criticism of Howard, putting him on the same level as Osgood is going a bit far, IMO.

Osgood was consistently above average from his rookie year in 93-94 up until 07-08. 02-03 was his only bad year. A few more right around average, and like 9 above average seasons. He didn't have any standout "great" seasons, just good or a bit better for most of a decade and a half. 

Howard in 8 years has had 4 very good years, and 4 below average years.

In short, there are valid reasons to criticize Howard. Osgood was criticized mostly for not being Patrick Roy. Not really the same.

Not saying that. Did not say that Howard is as good as Ozzie was. Pointing out that the situations that both faced are similar.

Osgood was never quite good enough, underappreciated, undervalued, even though he was a good goalie with good numbers and had proven they could win a cup with him. Wings still went out and got Czech goalie Hasek and hung Ozzie out to dry in waiver draft.

Howard also is viewed as not quite good enough, underappreciated, undervalued, even though he is a good goalie with good numbers and they could win a cup with him if he had the same team in front of him that Ozzie had. Still people wanted to replace him with Czech goalie Mrazek and wanted to hang him out to dry in the expansion draft.

Ergo Howard=Osgood 2.0 in that context.

Also pointed out that Stanley Cups are irrelevant when comparing two individual players. Teams win cups, not goalies. Ozzie won 2 cups as a starter with really good teams. He also had several more seasons where he didn't win cups with really good teams. If "he" won those 2 cups, then who lost the other ones?  Can't have it both ways.

Also pointed out that even individual trophies are often irrelevant. They are based on one individual season and one season does not make a career. Neither won an individual trophy, although each finished 2nd once. Howard-Calder, Osgood-Vezina. But there have been many players who have won those awards that had average careers overall.

If we are talking about actual numbers, then here you go:

https://www.nhl.com/player/jimmy-howard-8470657

https://www.nhl.com/player/chris-osgood-8458568

Even the numbers say Howard is the better goalie. I am not. Just saying that if we are going to make comparisons, use relevant stats and information.

[kickazz 5,459]

Osgood had a better defense in front of him than Howard did. Most of Howard's "early-mid" years was spent with an aging Lidstrom. 

Lost Rafalski, didn't have Konstantinov, Murphy, nor did we have our 00s guy named Schneider. 

Osgood got to play with those guys, Howard either didn't or only did for a couple of years (Rafalski) but even Raf was declining by the time Howard came around . 

Not really that easy to compare the two goalies, they had completely different defense in front of them. One had one of the best defensive teams of the 90s and a great defensive team in the mid-late 00s the other got to play with a declining version of the defense from 09-10 onwards. 

Edited October 30, 2017 by kickazz

[Buppy 1,720]

2 hours ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

Not saying that. Did not say that Howard is as good as Ozzie was. Pointing out that the situations that both faced are similar.

Osgood was never quite good enough, underappreciated, undervalued, even though he was a good goalie with good numbers and had proven they could win a cup with him. Wings still went out and got Czech goalie Hasek and hung Ozzie out to dry in waiver draft.

Howard also is viewed as not quite good enough, underappreciated, undervalued, even though he is a good goalie with good numbers and they could win a cup with him if he had the same team in front of him that Ozzie had. Still people wanted to replace him with Czech goalie Mrazek and wanted to hang him out to dry in the expansion draft.

Ergo Howard=Osgood 2.0 in that context....

Over-simplifying a bit, and still ignoring the fact that Howard's numbers have not always been good. He's been pretty hit and miss as a starter. His overall career numbers are good, and when he's been good he's been excellent. But he's also had a lot of "down" periods.

Osggod didn't have the peaks that Howard has had, nor the valleys. Pretty much the only criticism of Osgood was the playoff losses, even though he played well and probably didn't deserve all the blame he got. He just wasn't Roy. And underappreciated or not, replacing him was the right move.

Howard too has received unwarranted blame for playoff losses, but that's far from the only reason he's been criticized. It was mostly the ups and downs, coupled with one of those "downs" coinciding with Mrazek coming in and playing very well. Now that Mrazek has had his own "down", while Howard is back "up", the sentiment is understandably reversing. But that doesn't mean the idea of Mrazek replacing Howard should never have existed, nor that we should ignore Howard's previous poor play, nor that Howard was or is undervalued. 

[DickieDunn 2,571]

When Howard is on and healthy, he's one of the better goalie in the league.  When he's off, he's terrible, and he gets hurt every year.  Put all those factors together, and he's mediocre because he can't be counted on to be your #1 all year.  If someone wants to argue that his good periods make him better than mediocre, that's their opinion.

[kickazz 5,459]

3 hours ago, DickieDunn said:

When Howard is on and healthy, he's one of the better goalie in the league.  When he's off, he's terrible, and he gets hurt every year.  Put all those factors together, and he's mediocre because he can't be counted on to be your #1 all year.  If someone wants to argue that his good periods make him better than mediocre, that's their opinion.

^ fake news

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

18 hours ago, kickazz said:

Osgood had a better defense in front of him than Howard did. Most of Howard's "early-mid" years was spent with an aging Lidstrom. 

Lost Rafalski, didn't have Konstantinov, Murphy, nor did we have our 00s guy named Schneider. 

Osgood got to play with those guys, Howard either didn't or only did for a couple of years (Rafalski) but even Raf was declining by the time Howard came around . 

Not really that easy to compare the two goalies, they had completely different defense in front of them. One had one of the best defensive teams of the 90s and a great defensive team in the mid-late 00s the other got to play with a declining version of the defense from 09-10 onwards. 

Mostly agree, which makes what Howard's done that much more remarkable IMO. His career numbers are actually better than Osgood's despite having a significantly worse defensive team in front of him. Yet there is still the idea (not saying you) that he's mediocre because of inconsistency and/or due to injuries. Don't get that. 

 

16 hours ago, Buppy said:

Over-simplifying a bit, and still ignoring the fact that Howard's numbers have not always been good. He's been pretty hit and miss as a starter. His overall career numbers are good, and when he's been good he's been excellent. But he's also had a lot of "down" periods.

Osggod didn't have the peaks that Howard has had, nor the valleys. Pretty much the only criticism of Osgood was the playoff losses, even though he played well and probably didn't deserve all the blame he got. He just wasn't Roy. And underappreciated or not, replacing him was the right move.

Howard too has received unwarranted blame for playoff losses, but that's far from the only reason he's been criticized. It was mostly the ups and downs, coupled with one of those "downs" coinciding with Mrazek coming in and playing very well. Now that Mrazek has had his own "down", while Howard is back "up", the sentiment is understandably reversing. But that doesn't mean the idea of Mrazek replacing Howard should never have existed, nor that we should ignore Howard's previous poor play, nor that Howard was or is undervalued. 

So we disagree on the degree of comparison then.  I am guessing that you think their careers are more dissimilar than I do? OK. You seem to think that I am over-generalizing their careers. Fair enough, I don't. So be it.

No two players in NHL history have the exact same careers, yet players are compared to each other all the time, regardless. True, Osgood's career was more consistent than Howard's. Never said otherwise. Don't see how that means you can't compare the 2.

Never said that Howard didn't deserve any criticism, just that people were being overly critical, and that some of it was unfair. Felt that Ozzie got the same treatment. Again, my opinion, feel free to disagree.

True, Osgood wasn't as good as Roy. Which is exactly what I was arguing when I said people thought that he "just wasn't good enough." They wanted something better, which I thought was unfair and unnecessary. 

BTW, Why do think that Osgood needed to replaced? The team wasn't any more successful with Hasek in net than they were with Osgood. Don't get that one.

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

3 hours ago, DickieDunn said:

When Howard is on and healthy, he's one of the better goalie in the league.  When he's off, he's terrible, and he gets hurt every year.  Put all those factors together, and he's mediocre because he can't be counted on to be your #1 all year.  If someone wants to argue that his good periods make him better than mediocre, that's their opinion.

Don't mean to single you out Dickie, you're not the only one to say this. But statistically, Howard has had good numbers every season since his first full year in 2009-10. His "worst" year was 2015/16, and even then his save % was .906 and his GAA was 2.8. He also only played 26 games that year because of injury, so of course his numbers go down. I wouldn't expect otherwise. Goalies numbers should go down during seasons that they are battling thru injuries. What I don't recall is "bad" years when he is healthy.  That would make him inconsistent, and fairly criticized for it. He is definitely injury prone. Injury season=bad season, healthy season=good season. (Not 100% sure about this, so if I'm wrong, feel free to correct me anyone). I just don't think its fair to criticize him for that.

Also, as the defense in front of him continues to decline, wouldn't you expect to see his numbers drop? More shots against, better quality scoring chances against, higher percentage shots against, failure to clear the puck, can't blame the goalies for that.

Edited October 30, 2017 by Neomaxizoomdweebie

[kliq 3,755]

4 hours ago, DickieDunn said:

When Howard is on and healthy, he's one of the better goalie in the league.  When he's off, he's terrible, and he gets hurt every year.  Put all those factors together, and he's mediocre because he can't be counted on to be your #1 all year.  If someone wants to argue that his good periods make him better than mediocre, that's their opinion.

I don't disagree with the bold, and I get what you are trying to say, but that just isn't what mediocre means. Mediocre is a term used to describe a skill set, being injury prone does not make a guy "mediocre" injuries make the guy unreliable.

Maybe if a guy suffers an injury that becomes a chronic issue and he still plays (ie. a Kronwall situation) he can become mediocre, but that is not what happens to Howard. Howard is very good, gets hurt, becomes bad, then when healthy becomes good again. Again, that is injury prone not mediocre.

Howard is an above average goaltender, not elite, not mediocre. 

Whatever, at this point its just arguing semantics. 

[kickazz 5,459]

Yzerman was mediocre. Guy spend most of his 30s injured. 

Dickie's logic is stupid. Nuff said. Move along. 

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

Well its not gonna get any easier for Howard, or Mrazek any time soon. Per Khan, DK just mediocred his ankle. He'll be mediocre another 10 days to 3 weeks now.

[kickazz 5,459]

9 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Well its not gonna get any easier for Howard, or Mrazek any time soon. Per Khan, DK just mediocred his ankle. He'll be mediocre another 10 days to 3 weeks now.

If a mediocre player mediocres his season because of an injury, what does that make him? Sub-mediocre? 

[Buppy 1,720]

1 hour ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

...Never said that Howard didn't deserve any criticism, just that people were being overly critical, and that some of it was unfair. Felt that Ozzie got the same treatment. Again, my opinion, feel free to disagree.

...

BTW, Why do think that Osgood needed to replaced? The team wasn't any more successful with Hasek in net than they were with Osgood. Don't get that one.

Don't want to go any farther turning this Mrazek thread into a Howard .vs Osgood thread. Point was just that much of the criticism of Howard is in fact justified (albeit not for the "always gets hurt" rationale Dickie wants to stick with). Much more so than Ozzie prior to 01-02. 

And "need" has nothing to do with it. Hasek was a better goalie (as was Cujo), therefore it was the right move. A player doesn't necessarily have to be bad to justify replacing him. Just worse than the replacement.

1 hour ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

Don't mean to single you out Dickie, you're not the only one to say this. But statistically, Howard has had good numbers every season since his first full year in 2009-10. His "worst" year was 2015/16, and even then his save % was .906 and his GAA was 2.8. He also only played 26 games that year because of injury, so of course his numbers go down. I wouldn't expect otherwise. Goalies numbers should go down during seasons that they are battling thru injuries. What I don't recall is "bad" years when he is healthy.  That would make him inconsistent, and fairly criticized for it. He is definitely injury prone. Injury season=bad season, healthy season=good season. (Not 100% sure about this, so if I'm wrong, feel free to correct me anyone). I just don't think its fair to criticize him for that....

Yeah, your facts are a little inaccurate. 

First, goaltending and defense have evolved quite a bit, seems like your standards for "good" are a bit off. These days even .910 sv% is below average.

Secondly, you're mixing up last year and 15/16. Last year he was injured and played only 26 games, and was great. 15/16 he played 37 games, but he wasn't injured, he just lost the starting job. The year before that (14-15) is mostly the source of the "injury=bad season" myth. That year he was mostly great, then hurt his groin and wasn't the same afterward. He also had some injuries in 13-14, which was another below average year, but his play before and after was fairly similar. 12-13 he was healthy and good, 11-12 he had some injuries and was good, 10-11 he was healthy and not so good. All in all the injury correlation isn't that strong. Considering he's averaged nearly 50 games per season (and one of those seasons being only 48 games long), to even label him injury prone is somewhat misleading. 

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

11 minutes ago, kickazz said:

If a mediocre player mediocres his season because of an injury, what does that make him? Sub-mediocre? 

Sorry, what is 'an injury'?

Did you mean mediocre?

When DK gets healthy from his mediocre he will probs be paired with Kronwall bc of kronwalls partially mediocre knees.

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

On 10/30/2017 at 9:09 PM, Buppy said:

Don't want to go any farther turning this Mrazek thread into a Howard .vs Osgood thread. Point was just that much of the criticism of Howard is in fact justified (albeit not for the "always gets hurt" rationale Dickie wants to stick with). Much more so than Ozzie prior to 01-02. 

And "need" has nothing to do with it. Hasek was a better goalie (as was Cujo), therefore it was the right move. A player doesn't necessarily have to be bad to justify replacing him. Just worse than the replacement.

Yeah, your facts are a little inaccurate. 

First, goaltending and defense have evolved quite a bit, seems like your standards for "good" are a bit off. These days even .910 sv% is below average.

Secondly, you're mixing up last year and 15/16. Last year he was injured and played only 26 games, and was great. 15/16 he played 37 games, but he wasn't injured, he just lost the starting job. The year before that (14-15) is mostly the source of the "injury=bad season" myth. That year he was mostly great, then hurt his groin and wasn't the same afterward. He also had some injuries in 13-14, which was another below average year, but his play before and after was fairly similar. 12-13 he was healthy and good, 11-12 he had some injuries and was good, 10-11 he was healthy and not so good. All in all the injury correlation isn't that strong. Considering he's averaged nearly 50 games per season (and one of those seasons being only 48 games long), to even label him injury prone is somewhat misleading. 

Ok. Thanks for that. My recollection was that his numbers were often related to how healthy he was, but It's been too many years and too many injuries to recall which injuries went with which year with which stats. If I'm wrong, I'm man enough to admit it.

And I agree with you that .906/2.8 is not "good". I wasn't trying to argue that those particular numbers are. Just that they're not "throw him under the bus" numbers. And frankly, If those are the worst stats that he's ever had or ever will have, I can totally live with that. Bigger fish to fry on this team. Compared to Mrazek's stats last season and this year, or Coreau's or the hellabad numbers Niemi is putting up, Howard's "bad years" aren't really that bad. I guess I just don't get too flustered until you drop below .900 or above 3.00, but that's just me.

Anyway, appreciate the insight. Oh, and threads go off the rails in here all the time as you know, so Howard/Ozzie is nothing. Thanks to the mods for being so lenient, especially when there are other sites out there with cyber-napoleons moderating them.

In conclusion, HOWARD=OSGOOD 2.0 BABY!

Edited November 2, 2017 by Neomaxizoomdweebie

[chaps80 1,591]

On 2017-10-30 at 5:38 PM, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

Mostly agree, which makes what Howard's done that much more remarkable IMO. His career numbers are actually better than Osgood's despite having a significantly worse defensive team in front of him. Yet there is still the idea (not saying you) that he's mediocre because of inconsistency and/or due to injuries. Don't get that. 

 

So we disagree on the degree of comparison then.  I am guessing that you think their careers are more dissimilar than I do? OK. You seem to think that I am over-generalizing their careers. Fair enough, I don't. So be it.

No two players in NHL history have the exact same careers, yet players are compared to each other all the time, regardless. True, Osgood's career was more consistent than Howard's. Never said otherwise. Don't see how that means you can't compare the 2.

Never said that Howard didn't deserve any criticism, just that people were being overly critical, and that some of it was unfair. Felt that Ozzie got the same treatment. Again, my opinion, feel free to disagree.

True, Osgood wasn't as good as Roy. Which is exactly what I was arguing when I said people thought that he "just wasn't good enough." They wanted something better, which I thought was unfair and unnecessary. 

BTW, Why do think that Osgood needed to replaced? The team wasn't any more successful with Hasek in net than they were with Osgood. Don't get that one.

Osgood didn’t “need” to be replaced, but in the three seasons since the’98 Cup, the Wings bowed out of the playoffs too early, culminating in the First Round Game 6 OT elimination loss at the hands of the Kings in ‘01, which Kings fans refer to as “The stunner at Staples”. That summer, Holland was contacted by the Sabres ( I think, may have been vice versa) about a trade for Hašek, who wanted out before he wasted his whole career carrying a team that would never win. When you have the opportunity to get a goalie of his level, coupled with adding Hull and Robitaille to an already loaded roster, you don’t pass it up. It sucked for Osgood, but I’m sure he understood. He moved on, was picked up by NYI and went back to work, making the playoffs with them. He could have complained and made a big deal of it and packed it in, but that wasn’t his style. He eventually made it back to DET and bailed out Hašek on the way to the ‘08 Cup. Perhaps a bit of redemption for himself there? 

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

24 minutes ago, chaps80 said:

Osgood didn’t “need” to be replaced, but in the three seasons since the’98 Cup, the Wings bowed out of the playoffs too early, culminating in the First Round Game 6 OT elimination loss at the hands of the Kings in ‘01, which Kings fans refer to as “The stunner at Staples”. That summer, Holland was contacted by the Sabres ( I think, may have been vice versa) about a trade for Hašek, who wanted out before he wasted his whole career carrying a team that would never win. When you have the opportunity to get a goalie of his level, coupled with adding Hull and Robitaille to an already loaded roster, you don’t pass it up. It sucked for Osgood, but I’m sure he understood. He moved on, was picked up by NYI and went back to work, making the playoffs with them. He could have complained and made a big deal of it and packed it in, but that wasn’t his style. He eventually made it back to DET and bailed out Hašek on the way to the ‘08 Cup. Perhaps a bit of redemption for himself there? 

Let's hope Mrazek has the same level of grace

[chaps80 1,591]

On 2017-11-07 at 6:58 PM, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Let's hope Mrazek has the same level of grace

Haha Can’t see him going anywhere soon, especially if he continues to play at a high level. He seemed to have found his game, and i’m sure the Wings staff is very happy about it. Howard’s been solid, but won’t be around forever. Mrazek was the guy to take over before, still can be. Too early in the season to tell, but I’m glad he’s smartened up.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

11 minutes ago, chaps80 said:

Haha Can’t see him going anywhere soon, especially if he continues to play at a high level. He seemed to have found his game, and i’m sure the Wings staff is very happy about it. Howard’s been solid, but won’t be around forever. Mrazek was the guy to take over before, still can be. Too early in the season to tell, but I’m glad he’s smartened up.

He's playing much better. Starts tonight against Flames.

[chaps80 1,591]

12 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

He's playing much better. Starts tonight against Flames.

Yep. Good to see him getting more starts.