| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 05/13/2015 : 09:23:59
So as to not go off topic on the Oilers thread, I thought I'd start this one to discuss Dukes opinion on goalies and their abilities to "step their game up" during the playoffs............
Here's what you said......
Some goalies can win cups - some goalies CANT
Ryan Miller ( in my opinion ) is a goalie who could have won a Stanley cup on a solid team
He was arguably the best goalie in hockey that year Crosby scored that weird goal on him during the Olympics... He has the ability
The Canucks brought him in and gave him mega millions for a reason
This is very vague. I understand that some goalies have better stats in the playoffs and have "raised their level of play" but it's often a small sample size over a career. Let's not forget the team in front of them. Halak had that brilliant run for the Habs in 2010, but he didn't get them to the final. However, he also didn't have a truly great team in front of him either. How do you view him? He's never won a cup, had a brilliant 2010 playoff where he "raised his game", but also has career numbers in the playoffs which are very similar to his regular season numbers? Is he a guy you think "can win a cup", because he hasn't to this point!?
What about my favorite when it comes to this discussion? Henrik Lundqvist. For years, many have said he's the best goalie in hockey. He's won 0 cups, though he's got a good shot this year I guess assuming he wins his "do or die" game tonight? His playoff numbers are marginally better in the playoffs, but he's not won a cup? Can he?
Maybe I lied saying Lundqvist was my favorite to discuss. Lol, it's obviously Roberto Luongo. It's fair to say that he hasn't "raised his level of play" in the playoffs because his career numbers are actually a slight bit worse than his reg season (not much). BUT, and I say this praying we don't have to rehash this whole topic, he came within 1 game of winning the cup. I know many will say "yeah, he couldn't win the big one", but you'll never convince me that this is the case when a goalie gets you to game 7 of the SCF and the entire team is outplayed. I guess what I'm saying is, on the right team, he could (or could have as he's not getting any younger) win a cup. What do you think?
I could go on, but I'm sure you see my point, as I do yours to some degree. Now, this is just your opinion I know, but to say "Ryan Miller ( in my opinion ) is a goalie who could have won a Stanley cup on a solid team is pretty vague. I mean, I could say that about anyone! The same thing that happened to Luongo could just as easily have happened to Miller (a loss in game 7 on a solid team). Let's face it, that's exactly what happened to Miller in the Olympics, not??? Exactly!
The Canucks brought him in for exactly the reasons nuxfan mentioned in the other thread. I don't think for a second that anyone, the Canucks management included, figured they had a really good shot at the cup this year (or the next couple). That's not to say they couldn't / won't / etc win one, but it's unlikely. Miller is there to give them a chance, but to also mentor Lack, fill a need, etc. |
| 40 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 06/16/2015 : 16:06:02
I agree that Miller/Anderson would be good for Edmonton to mentor a youngster, however, I'm not sure Edmonton has that youngster yet??? If they do have a guy in the system, I'm guessing he's not yet ready even for the backup role regardless of who's starting and/or mentoring him.
When I suggested a guy like Schneider, I'm not saying I think they should deal for him, just that the ideal guy for them is a guy still in his 20's (with 6-8 strong / prime years left in him), but WITH experience. While Schneider isn't the most experienced guy, I think he's more than proven he's capable and good enough to be a #1 in the NHL.
Edmonton's choices really are:
1. Miller/Anderson type vet to get them through 2-3 years without losing all their confidence and allowing the team to stay in most games and be competitive.
2. Youngster like Lehner who while unproven as of yet, could be the long term answer at the right price. Also could be disasterous if he doesn't pan out.
3. Mid-late 20's guy with experience and already proven (Schneider / F. Andersen?) who can help the team now and in the future. Prob most expensive of the 3 options (to aquire).
Not sure which way they go, or perhaps they go a totally different route and either stick with what they have (oh dear god....) or bring a youngster up to grow with the core? That could possibly destroy the confidence of said youngster AND some of the young core they're trying to build around! |
| JOSHUACANADA |
Posted - 06/16/2015 : 14:53:12
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
Joshua....I'm prob in the minority, but I'm not sold on the Hamburgler. I need to see more to convince me that 20game stretch wasnt a bit flukey. I know there are late bloomers and all but this guy was never really expected to be all that good to begin with from all the research i did on him. He is however, the perfect age for what Edmonton should be looking for, though they prob would prefer more experience. Anderson is like Miller to me though, would be good to get them through a few years till they find/groom their long term solution but like Miller, at this point in his career, a move to Edmonton is prob as appealing as an STD?
I'm excited to see what Edm does. Prob is, their ideal goalie, would be a guy like Schneider (youngish but with some experience ) and that kind of guy won't come cheap.
There's been rumours they may be interested in Lack and some wishful thinking Canucks fans have proposed "Lack for the 16th overall) but not sure the Canucks would trade within the div (though surely they would for 16OA but that isn't likely at all), much like they nixed a rumoured better offer for Schneider from Edm a couple years ago?
I'm onboard with the comments on Hammond, I understand why you think Anderson and Miller would avoid Edmonton as a destination at this point in there careers, but I don't think Schneider would be the right guy in Edmonton. He is young enough and has had good success so far in his career, but I don't think he would improve the team enough for them to take that step forward. The reason I suggested Miller and Anderson was because of there age and experience. They have already had success with both good and bad teams wherein they both have shouldered the load and won when the team was borderline. A decade of play later for both goaltenders, either would be able to weather the storm without folding in a rebuilding market in Edmonton, provided either physically could handle playing long enough to see the end of the rebuild. Both have mentored younger goalies into future #1, without letting the competition of losing the #1 become a distraction. I don't think Schneider has those attributes yet if ever. If it isn't Miller and Anderson, I think it would be a similar type veteran who could win a few while the team goes through the growing pains without the team or fan base losing confidence. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 06/13/2015 : 21:25:16
Joshua....I'm prob in the minority, but I'm not sold on the Hamburgler. I need to see more to convince me that 20game stretch wasnt a bit flukey. I know there are late bloomers and all but this guy was never really expected to be all that good to begin with from all the research i did on him. He is however, the perfect age for what Edmonton should be looking for, though they prob would prefer more experience. Anderson is like Miller to me though, would be good to get them through a few years till they find/groom their long term solution but like Miller, at this point in his career, a move to Edmonton is prob as appealing as an STD?
I'm excited to see what Edm does. Prob is, their ideal goalie, would be a guy like Schneider (youngish but with some experience ) and that kind of guy won't come cheap.
There's been rumours they may be interested in Lack and some wishful thinking Canucks fans have proposed "Lack for the 16th overall) but not sure the Canucks would trade within the div (though surely they would for 16OA but that isn't likely at all), much like they nixed a rumoured better offer for Schneider from Edm a couple years ago? |
| JOSHUACANADA |
Posted - 06/13/2015 : 13:25:28
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
quote:
Originally posted by The Duke
Alex you pretty well nailed everythig were debating with that summary, good job
And you are agreeing that miller was a great goalie, still above average I think, SURELY much better than anything the oilers currently have, ( this was another debating point)
SO
Guess we're just disagreeing on the Sabres now #128526;
Alex, do you agree that maybe there was 8 cup contenders in this years Stanley cup playoffs ??.....I think so
NYR...PITT...WSH...TB...
CHI...SJ...ANA...STL...NSH.......that's 9
What about borderline teams like Mont ?
That's 10 contenders
Only 16 teams make the playoffs !!!!!
Years ago , the Buffalo teams were talking about were somewhere in this type of cluster..... A contender yes.... Cup favorite ?... Not a chance , even though they came close
The point I'm trying to make is if Miller was on a true cup contender in this type of cluster .... Like the break Hasek got....( Detroit )...YES he would certainly have a Stanley cup ring, maybe even 2
Duke.....I think where we disagree, and it's fine, is in which teams we consider(ed) "serious contenders" each year. Take this season for example. You listed 9 teams you considered "cup contenders" and these included Nashville, Washington, Pittsburgh AND San Jose. Well, obviously you made an error listing the Sharks who missed the playoffs? I'm not sure if that was just an oversight or you meant another team? Regardless, I just can't fathom how you consider Washington, Pittsburgh and Nashville "contenders", yet Montreal, a "borderline team"? I know Price is the #1 reason they finished where they did, but he was accompanying them to the playoffs, was he not? I just don't know how they can be considered anything but a "serious contender" regardless of who their MVP is. They got to where they were on Carey Price's back. I get it. BUT, the playoffs is generally where "playoff hockey" aka LOW SCORING games occur. The cup is often won by a sound defensive team with a great goalie, or a good goalie who gets hot and "elevates his play".
This (above) is exactly what I've been arguing since day 1. I do in fact believe that any top 8 team is a "serious contender" for the cup. I also believe that Miller played on more than one (likely 3 or 4) teams good enough to be considered a "serious contender" for a cup. I'm not by any means, saying he's not a good goalie, I just didn't agree, and his stats don't seem to back up, that he's a goalie who's raised his level of play in the SCF. I'm not saying he can't. I fully concede he did raise his play in the Olympics. I just don't see any proof that he's done it in the SCF. Again, I don't think he cost any of these Sabres teams a cup, I just don't think he ever put his team on his back to get them where they needed to be. Also, to re-iterate another point, I even said that the Sabres teams I considered "serious contenders", inc the Presidents Trophy winning team, we not necessarily considered THE FAVORITE, but def good enough to be a serious contender and easily good enough to win the cup. Nowadays, 8 seeds are capable of making the final and while this wasn't quite the case back then, any top 8 team would have been more than capable of winning a cup!
As for Miller as an elite goalie, yes, I do believe for a time, he was a top 5. I've said it before in this thread. That was never my point of contention.
Do I think the Oilers should try to aquire him? Well, I didn't like the Canucks getting him in the first place so it's hard for me to say yeah, the Oilers should. That depends on what they plan on doing as far as goaltending goes. I understand they have a young guy they're bringing along who they hope is their goalie of the future? Laurent Brossoit, or something like that? I don't know ANYTHING about him, but if they think he's the future, then Miller could be a stop gap until he's ready as I think Miller still has a few good years in him. They really need some stability back there as they build, or continue to build, this team. You can't have all these young studs constantly playing on a losing team and you'd like to see McDavid, Hall, Eberle, Nurse, etc get some playoff experience in the next 3 years before any "goalie of the future" comes along. Me personally, if I'm running the Oilers, I try to pick up a guy like Lehner AND either hang on to Scrivens or even try to get a better, experienced guy to split duties with him and/or to make him earn the job while hopefully he (Lehner) lives up to expectations and becomes a good #1.
Huge Ottawa fan as you know. I would suggest Hammond or Anderson before Lehner. Even though I have suggested Lehner in the past for Edmonton, you would be better suited for one of the others. Liked this guy coming up, but underwhelming as a backup and only decent when needed as a starter. If he doesn't get the majority of starts he doesn't really impress me as a backup. Would he be the one to lead Edmonton from outside looking in to above the playoff bubble, probably not and as discussed in this thread to death a guy like Miller or Anderson would be better suited to stabilize the backend in Edmonton |
| JOSHUACANADA |
Posted - 06/13/2015 : 13:09:19
quote:
Originally posted by markliso
quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA
Its been suggested that Miller never was a top 10 goalie, so I figured I post the stats that show he was.
2005-06 48 g, 30 wins-11th, 11th in gaa, 9th s%, 1 so, 11-7 playoffs
2006-07 63 g, 40 wins-3rd, 20th in gaa, 15th s%, 2 so, 9-7playoffs
2007-08 76 g, 36 wins-6th, 24th in gaa, 29th s%, 3 so, no playoffs
2008-09 59 g, 34 wins-8th, 8th in gaa, 8th s%, 5 so, no playoffs
2009-10 69 g, 41 wins-4th, 2nd in gaa, 2nd s%, 5 so, 2-4 playoffs, Vezina, Silver medal
2010-11 66 g, 34 wins-12th, 21st in gaa, 17th s%, 5 so, 3-4 playoffs 2 so
2011-12 61 g, 31 wins-13th, 21st in gaa, 19th s%, 6 so, no playoffs
2012-13 40 g, 17 wins-16th, 34th in gaa, 17th s%, 0 so, no playoffs
2013-14 59 g, 25 wins-17th, 28th in gaa, 19th s%, 1 so, 2-4 playoffs
2014-15 45 g, 29 wins-16th, 27th in gaa, 32nd s%, 6 so, 1-1 playoffs
I don't get it, seeing all the stats laid out, I am only convinced that he had only one good year. 08/09 was marginal at best. No other argument about top 10 or is he a starter, I just only see one good year when you lay stats out like that.
The part you missed was the next paragraph following the stats and the fact it was 2 good seasons definitely in the top 10 from 2008-2010, you could even argue 2005-06 he was a top 10 goalie as his stats suggested. Below is the sentence you didn't copy.
"These are Millers stats. For certain he was top 10 thru 2008-2010 and I'd suggest he might have been from 2005-2012, until the team he was on was just not good enough or gave up in front of him."
Besides, I notice you took no consideration of the average top 10 placing of wins per season for goaltenders. I know its not a sexy stat for goalies, but some of the better goalies don't always show up high in these gaa and save% categories, but win when they need to. Some of the better goalies in the last few decades play with the team in front of them complementing the goalie with good defensive zone coverage, which Buffalo did well from early in Millers career from 2005-2010, but some of the better goalies who don't show up as high on the gaa, save % have teams which are weak on allowing high percentage shots against and poor at defensive zone coverage, Which I am suggesting Buffalo was post 2011. Most nights Miller was the best player for Buffalo. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 06/11/2015 : 15:24:54
quote:
Originally posted by The Duke
Alex you pretty well nailed everythig were debating with that summary, good job
And you are agreeing that miller was a great goalie, still above average I think, SURELY much better than anything the oilers currently have, ( this was another debating point)
SO
Guess we're just disagreeing on the Sabres now #128526;
Alex, do you agree that maybe there was 8 cup contenders in this years Stanley cup playoffs ??.....I think so
NYR...PITT...WSH...TB...
CHI...SJ...ANA...STL...NSH.......that's 9
What about borderline teams like Mont ?
That's 10 contenders
Only 16 teams make the playoffs !!!!!
Years ago , the Buffalo teams were talking about were somewhere in this type of cluster..... A contender yes.... Cup favorite ?... Not a chance , even though they came close
The point I'm trying to make is if Miller was on a true cup contender in this type of cluster .... Like the break Hasek got....( Detroit )...YES he would certainly have a Stanley cup ring, maybe even 2
Duke.....I think where we disagree, and it's fine, is in which teams we consider(ed) "serious contenders" each year. Take this season for example. You listed 9 teams you considered "cup contenders" and these included Nashville, Washington, Pittsburgh AND San Jose. Well, obviously you made an error listing the Sharks who missed the playoffs? I'm not sure if that was just an oversight or you meant another team? Regardless, I just can't fathom how you consider Washington, Pittsburgh and Nashville "contenders", yet Montreal, a "borderline team"? I know Price is the #1 reason they finished where they did, but he was accompanying them to the playoffs, was he not? I just don't know how they can be considered anything but a "serious contender" regardless of who their MVP is. They got to where they were on Carey Price's back. I get it. BUT, the playoffs is generally where "playoff hockey" aka LOW SCORING games occur. The cup is often won by a sound defensive team with a great goalie, or a good goalie who gets hot and "elevates his play".
This (above) is exactly what I've been arguing since day 1. I do in fact believe that any top 8 team is a "serious contender" for the cup. I also believe that Miller played on more than one (likely 3 or 4) teams good enough to be considered a "serious contender" for a cup. I'm not by any means, saying he's not a good goalie, I just didn't agree, and his stats don't seem to back up, that he's a goalie who's raised his level of play in the SCF. I'm not saying he can't. I fully concede he did raise his play in the Olympics. I just don't see any proof that he's done it in the SCF. Again, I don't think he cost any of these Sabres teams a cup, I just don't think he ever put his team on his back to get them where they needed to be. Also, to re-iterate another point, I even said that the Sabres teams I considered "serious contenders", inc the Presidents Trophy winning team, we not necessarily considered THE FAVORITE, but def good enough to be a serious contender and easily good enough to win the cup. Nowadays, 8 seeds are capable of making the final and while this wasn't quite the case back then, any top 8 team would have been more than capable of winning a cup!
As for Miller as an elite goalie, yes, I do believe for a time, he was a top 5. I've said it before in this thread. That was never my point of contention.
Do I think the Oilers should try to aquire him? Well, I didn't like the Canucks getting him in the first place so it's hard for me to say yeah, the Oilers should. That depends on what they plan on doing as far as goaltending goes. I understand they have a young guy they're bringing along who they hope is their goalie of the future? Laurent Brossoit, or something like that? I don't know ANYTHING about him, but if they think he's the future, then Miller could be a stop gap until he's ready as I think Miller still has a few good years in him. They really need some stability back there as they build, or continue to build, this team. You can't have all these young studs constantly playing on a losing team and you'd like to see McDavid, Hall, Eberle, Nurse, etc get some playoff experience in the next 3 years before any "goalie of the future" comes along. Me personally, if I'm running the Oilers, I try to pick up a guy like Lehner AND either hang on to Scrivens or even try to get a better, experienced guy to split duties with him and/or to make him earn the job while hopefully he (Lehner) lives up to expectations and becomes a good #1. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 06/11/2015 : 14:27:29
I think it's really funny that the point that Alex and I have been trying to make in the past how ever many posts have also been stated clearly by Slozo in his last point. So funny. It's also funny that Slozo has the stones to say +/- is a team stat (be it poor or not) can't be used to shown the talent of a defensive group. I would also like to point out that the two seasons Buffalo went to the Conf finals they had a defensive group will a stellar plus minus. Yet, the defensive groups on the teams did not make the playoffs were very poor plus minus. The constant?? Miller's stats didn't change substantially.
So, how can someone say that the defense was bad and Miller carried them on his back. If his stats didn't change should he have not also carried other defensive groups on his back?? Why just for 2 years was that team exceptionally good?? Oh right, it was all Miller.
And anyone who can look at the team Hasek played on in Buffalo and carried all the way to game 7 of the finals was SUBSTANTIALLY worse than any team Miller played with who made the playoffs. I mean by a mile. Hasek is a perfect example of the goalie that Slozo and Duke are trying to claim that Miller is. However, Hasek was a brilliant goalie on both good and bad teams. Miller has been an above average, top 10 but not top 5 goalie when his team is good and around 10 on poor teams. He's played on contenders (1 President Cup winner, another tied with wins in the season, St. Louis, and Vancouver who is not far removed from being a contender) and he doesn't make those teams good enough to win a Cup.
|
| The Duke |
Posted - 06/11/2015 : 11:36:44
Alex you pretty well nailed everythig were debating with that summary, good job
And you are agreeing that miller was a great goalie, still above average I think, SURELY much better than anything the oilers currently have, ( this was another debating point)
SO
Guess we're just disagreeing on the Sabres now #128526;
Alex, do you agree that maybe there was 8 cup contenders in this years Stanley cup playoffs ??.....I think so
NYR...PITT...WSH...TB...
CHI...SJ...ANA...STL...NSH.......that's 9
What about borderline teams like Mont ?
That's 10 contenders
Only 16 teams make the playoffs !!!!!
Years ago , the Buffalo teams were talking about were somewhere in this type of cluster..... A contender yes.... Cup favorite ?... Not a chance , even though they came close
The point I'm trying to make is if Miller was on a true cup contender in this type of cluster .... Like the break Hasek got....( Detroit )...YES he would certainly have a Stanley cup ring, maybe even 2
|
| markliso |
Posted - 06/11/2015 : 06:14:55
quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA
Its been suggested that Miller never was a top 10 goalie, so I figured I post the stats that show he was.
2005-06 48 g, 30 wins-11th, 11th in gaa, 9th s%, 1 so, 11-7 playoffs
2006-07 63 g, 40 wins-3rd, 20th in gaa, 15th s%, 2 so, 9-7playoffs
2007-08 76 g, 36 wins-6th, 24th in gaa, 29th s%, 3 so, no playoffs
2008-09 59 g, 34 wins-8th, 8th in gaa, 8th s%, 5 so, no playoffs
2009-10 69 g, 41 wins-4th, 2nd in gaa, 2nd s%, 5 so, 2-4 playoffs, Vezina, Silver medal
2010-11 66 g, 34 wins-12th, 21st in gaa, 17th s%, 5 so, 3-4 playoffs 2 so
2011-12 61 g, 31 wins-13th, 21st in gaa, 19th s%, 6 so, no playoffs
2012-13 40 g, 17 wins-16th, 34th in gaa, 17th s%, 0 so, no playoffs
2013-14 59 g, 25 wins-17th, 28th in gaa, 19th s%, 1 so, 2-4 playoffs
2014-15 45 g, 29 wins-16th, 27th in gaa, 32nd s%, 6 so, 1-1 playoffs
I don't get it, seeing all the stats laid out, I am only convinced that he had only one good year. 08/09 was marginal at best. No other argument about top 10 or is he a starter, I just only see one good year when you lay stats out like that. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 06/10/2015 : 09:05:37
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
But fair enough, the President's Winning team that got there very much on the back of Miller AND a very decent scoring team was a team favoured as a contender. Sure.
But that wasn't the argument . . . the argument was whether Miller failed that team.
He didn't.
the end.
Don't Leaf me hanging, Buds!
Thank you! THAT (bolded), was exactly what's being debated here was it not??? How did you suddenly decide this debate was about Miller "failing his team"? WTF? I don't recall claiming that Miller failed his team at all. The entire thread began with a debate resulting from Duke's position that Miller is one of those goalies who's capable of raising his level of play in the playoffs. Now, there's no evidence of that, but it's ok for him to have that as an opinion I guess, BUT, the debate then shifted to "he's never had a good enough team on which to win a cup". This was implying that even though he's good enough to raise his game and carry a team to a cup, this team still has to be capable of helping out and being a legit contender to some degree! THIS is what was being debated unless I've completely misunderstood everything said to this point. I continued to insist that the President's Trophy winning Sabres team HAS TO be considered "good enough" to have won the cup if Miller "raised his game" as Duke claims he's capable of! I just don't see where you figure this argument has been over whether or not Miller "failed his team"? Where was this ever said???
As a footnote, I do recall most of your debate with Beans being over whether or not Miller was ever a top 5 goalie, a topic on which I'm actually in agreement with you. However, you did seem to be on board with Duke's opinion on Buffalo not being a good enough team to be considered a contender with a lot of your other posts including the one where you compared them to this year's Habs.
But as for whether or not Buffalo was ever a good enough team / considered a "serious cup contender", THAT is what I've been debating with Duke for the most part.
THIS is what I'm talking about - quote:
Originally posted by The Duke
Do you realize the guy has never played on a legitimate Stanley cup contending team in his ENTIRE career ???
quote:
Originally posted by The Duke
Beans , you really think Buffalo had legitimate Stanley cup winning teams
Come on be realistic
Buffalo had a few good years with above average teams, nothing more
Even in those years, other teams in the league were much more powerful
quote:
Originally posted by The Duke
My point is... At NO. POINT in history was Buffalo EVER a Stanley cup favorite ...
quote:
Originally posted by The Duke
And by the way, Joshua is 100 % correct...
Miller would have a Stanley Cup already if he played on a true contender
No problem
I leave you with a paragraph I wrote earlier in this thread that sums up what I'm talking about.....quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
As for Miller, yes, I believe he was elite for a period of time. I'm also NOT saying that he wouldn't have won a cup on another team. It's an unknown that we can't do anything about. Where I'm disagreeing is where you don't think he's ever had a team around him that is good enough to win a cup. That's laughable. Did you somehow miss the part where I mentioned the Sabres coming in 1st overall one year? I don't care WHO was responsible for this! You seem to think it was ALL on Miller, FINE, then why didn't he step up in the playoffs and do exactly what you seem to think he did all year for them??? Let's not forget what started all this. YOU, not I, not Beans nor anyone else around here stated the following: "goalies like Miller have the power to raise their play come playoff time, it's a special gift for some of these athletes" Do you remember this? Since then you've been provided stats that seem to render your opinion "silly", including the fact that his numbers in the playoffs BARELY improve, to the point that they are pretty much aligned with his career numbers. How is this a guy who has the ability to "raise his play"? How about when I mentioned the fact he made back to back semi finals and in one, lost to the eventual cup champs in game 7 after leading 2-1 entering the 3rd period! How is THAT an example of a guy who steps his game up come playoff time???
I rest my case......
|
| n/a |
Posted - 06/09/2015 : 21:27:33
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
No, you HAVE NOT shown that (Buffalo had a good enough team to win the cup). I'll tell you why.
If they did, they would have won.
Really? Next you're gonna claim "My Dad's stronger than your Dad!". Wow....I shouldn't be, but I'm shocked. If that's the take you've resorted to, I'm embarrassed for you.
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
Miller's stats were very good for that year in question. Better than many a goalie who has won the cup. Do your research, there are many goalies out there in the modern era especially. Osgoode. Niemi. Crawford.
Alex, YOU have nothing to back up your opinion.
Slozo....you're being stubborn, plain and simple. IF pointing out to you that the Sabres were a 1st place team during Miller's tenure is not enough to convince you that he did in fact have a good enough team in front of him (not to mention the other years where they were a top 5-6 team, including StL) to "raise his level of play" like the Duke claims he can/does, and win a cup, then I may as well be trying to convince you that water is in fact wet. Even that you'd prob argue isn't true.
How about this.....Name me the last President's Trophy winning team that was not considered a cup contender? NOT FAVORITE for the cup, but a contender, as that's what all of this is about in the first place. If you wanna continue to waste my time trying to convince me that the Sabres President's Trophy winning team wasn't a good enough team to win the cup then at least come up with something better than you have to this point. Much better actually. Thanks in advance.........
My father has passed on, so I'll claim no such thing . . . and look who's being stubborn? lol
But fair enough, the President's Winning team that got there very much on the back of Miller AND a very decent scoring team was a team favoured as a contender. Sure.
But that wasn't the argument . . . the argument was whether Miller failed that team.
He didn't.
the end.
Don't Leaf me hanging, Buds! |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 06/08/2015 : 10:07:18
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
No, you HAVE NOT shown that (Buffalo had a good enough team to win the cup). I'll tell you why.
If they did, they would have won.
Really? Next you're gonna claim "My Dad's stronger than your Dad!". Wow....I shouldn't be, but I'm shocked. If that's the take you've resorted to, I'm embarrassed for you.
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
Miller's stats were very good for that year in question. Better than many a goalie who has won the cup. Do your research, there are many goalies out there in the modern era especially. Osgoode. Niemi. Crawford.
Alex, YOU have nothing to back up your opinion.
Slozo....you're being stubborn, plain and simple. IF pointing out to you that the Sabres were a 1st place team during Miller's tenure is not enough to convince you that he did in fact have a good enough team in front of him (not to mention the other years where they were a top 5-6 team, including StL) to "raise his level of play" like the Duke claims he can/does, and win a cup, then I may as well be trying to convince you that water is in fact wet. Even that you'd prob argue isn't true.
How about this.....Name me the last President's Trophy winning team that was not considered a cup contender? NOT FAVORITE for the cup, but a contender, as that's what all of this is about in the first place. If you wanna continue to waste my time trying to convince me that the Sabres President's Trophy winning team wasn't a good enough team to win the cup then at least come up with something better than you have to this point. Much better actually. Thanks in advance......... |
| JOSHUACANADA |
Posted - 06/07/2015 : 21:39:55
Its been suggested that Miller never was a top 10 goalie, so I figured I post the stats that show he was.
2005-06 48 g, 30 wins-11th, 11th in gaa, 9th s%, 1 so, 11-7 playoffs
2006-07 63 g, 40 wins-3rd, 20th in gaa, 15th s%, 2 so, 9-7playoffs
2007-08 76 g, 36 wins-6th, 24th in gaa, 29th s%, 3 so, no playoffs
2008-09 59 g, 34 wins-8th, 8th in gaa, 8th s%, 5 so, no playoffs
2009-10 69 g, 41 wins-4th, 2nd in gaa, 2nd s%, 5 so, 2-4 playoffs, Vezina, Silver medal
2010-11 66 g, 34 wins-12th, 21st in gaa, 17th s%, 5 so, 3-4 playoffs 2 so
2011-12 61 g, 31 wins-13th, 21st in gaa, 19th s%, 6 so, no playoffs
2012-13 40 g, 17 wins-16th, 34th in gaa, 17th s%, 0 so, no playoffs
2013-14 59 g, 25 wins-17th, 28th in gaa, 19th s%, 1 so, 2-4 playoffs
2014-15 45 g, 29 wins-16th, 27th in gaa, 32nd s%, 6 so, 1-1 playoffs
These are Millers stats. For certain he was top 10 thru 2008-2010 and I'd suggest he might have been from 2005-2012, until the team he was on was just not good enough or gave up in front of him.
In Millers best season in Buffalo, including his Vezina winning season, Buffalo either missed the playoffs or lost in the first round despite Miller having 2 shutouts in 7 games. Buffalo was not the best team, nor near the best team or favorite to win the cup, except 2 of the 8 years, which they had good odds and these being Millers 1st 2 years as a starter when he stole the starter job from Biron. But 4 out of 8.5 years Miller was the starter in Buffalo, they didn't even make the playoffs, despite Miller averaging top 5-10 in wins. The only time Miller had a shot at winning the cup was in his first 2 years as a starter, but not necessarily his best seasons.
The memory of Buffalo being a strong defensive team was true in 2007 and prior, again his first 2 seasons as a starter, but after that point in time most of the best defensive players left for greener pastures in the next 2 or 3 seasons. After this point the defensive system in front of Miller sucked, but the offense was still decent for a time. After 2010-11, I maintain most nights the only guy holding Buffalo into the game was Miller, and this from someone who watched a lot of games cheering for the other team, not a stats guy telling you what he reads on a stats sheet.
If you are calling down Miller as old you misinformed, as some goaltenders enter there prime at his age. Last season was not his best statistical season gaa or s% but he still finished 16 in wins with 6 shutouts in barely half of the teams games, on a team most had written off at the beginning of the season as a rebuild and a team which had missed the last seasons playoffs. At the beginning of the season Miller played excellent, and Vancouver was winning above where most figured they would until Miller got injured. When he came back he wasn't playing as well as his first 20 games and Lack was given the starts and he ended up playing sporadically and wasn't recovered from his injury. In the 2 games he did play in the post season for Vancouver he was better than Lack, but Vancouver was not good enough for him to get a longer look in the post season. I'd suggest if he played on a better team Miller would be playing in top 10 wins category again.
You may have the opinion that his best days are behind him and some of the arguments are valid, but I still feel he has a few good years in front of him with the right team and given the majority of the starts. |
| n/a |
Posted - 06/05/2015 : 22:55:48
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
Duke.....You're correct, it's pointless. But that's because you have nothing to back up what essentially is just your opinion. I get it, you think Miller is the type of goalie who can "raise his game at playoff time" however, you have NOTHING except for a 2 week Olympic tournament to back that up though.
You don't think that Buffalo ever had a team good enough to help him win a cup! Great, but we've shown you that they did in fact have that. If you want to argue that a Presidents Trophy winning team isn't "good enough" (not even necessarily the favorite if that helps you), then you couldn't be more correct in saying it's pointless to argue/debate, because you're being too stubborn. Even if that first place team was only the odds on 4th best "favorite", your claim that Miller is able to raise his game should be enough to give him the chance you're claiming he never had.
Speaking of odds, you showed your knowledge of those in your post. I recommend you not gamble anymore!
I was so excited when the Rangers lost (sorry Ryan93 ) so that I could start to discuss Lundqvist in this capacity and hear your ridiculous theories move on to him and the Rangers teams he's had around him, but I can't be bothered now. 
Basically I too am done with this unless someone brings a better argument to the table. There is nothing statistical, nor obvious to back up your opinion on what's been discussed here. I'm tired of wasting my time backing up my opinion and trying to convince someone who refuses to see the obvious. 
No, you HAVE NOT shown that (Buffalo had a good enough team to win the cup). I'll tell you why.
If they did, they would have won.
Miller's stats were very good for that year in question. Better than many a goalie who has won the cup. Do your research, there are many goalies out there in the modern era especially. Osgoode. Niemi. Crawford.
Alex, YOU have nothing to back up your opinion. And it's absolutely hilarious that Beans brings up the +/- of defence men as this big trump card proof of a team's worth vs the goalie's worth.
Are you freaking serious? A team stat - and a poor one, in many instances, as has been covered many times here - is being used to judge how good the d-corps is, and is used to put down the goalie?!? Are you for freaking real?!?
Did it occur to you that the GOALIE made those d-men look so good? lol . . . Did it?!?
Holy tunnel vision batman!
Don't Leaf me hanging, Buds! |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 06/04/2015 : 09:33:38
Duke.....You're correct, it's pointless. But that's because you have nothing to back up what essentially is just your opinion. I get it, you think Miller is the type of goalie who can "raise his game at playoff time" however, you have NOTHING except for a 2 week Olympic tournament to back that up though.
You don't think that Buffalo ever had a team good enough to help him win a cup! Great, but we've shown you that they did in fact have that. If you want to argue that a Presidents Trophy winning team isn't "good enough" (not even necessarily the favorite if that helps you), then you couldn't be more correct in saying it's pointless to argue/debate, because you're being too stubborn. Even if that first place team was only the odds on 4th best "favorite", your claim that Miller is able to raise his game should be enough to give him the chance you're claiming he never had.
Speaking of odds, you showed your knowledge of those in your post. I recommend you not gamble anymore!
I was so excited when the Rangers lost (sorry Ryan93) so that I could start to discuss Lundqvist in this capacity and hear your ridiculous theories move on to him and the Rangers teams he's had around him, but I can't be bothered now.
Basically I too am done with this unless someone brings a better argument to the table. There is nothing statistical, nor obvious to back up your opinion on what's been discussed here. I'm tired of wasting my time backing up my opinion and trying to convince someone who refuses to see the obvious. |
| The Duke |
Posted - 06/04/2015 : 04:04:26
Forgot to add ... Beans since your good at stats..,
I wonder what the plus / minus numbers looked like for those D - men post Miller ?
I have no idea and don't have time to look it up but would be an interesting read |
| The Duke |
Posted - 06/04/2015 : 03:59:44
Beans,Alex ... It's pointless arguing with you 2 about Buffalo
Beans, you posted buffalos D- men plus/minus numbers... Do you realize by posting these numbers your actually backing up What Myself and Slozo are saying about Miller ????.....Miller gave them those plus/minus numbers because NO. ONE could score on him at that time #128526;
What about Hasek ???... Was he could in Buffalo ???...how come he couldn't win a Stanley cup playing on those FANTASTIC Buffalo teams you speak of ??? Huh ???
Why don't you explain to me why Hasek WON A STANLEY cup as soon as he got his ASS out of Buffalo ??? Huh ???
I'll tell you why in case u missed the point... He left an average Buffalo team and went to a real hockey team... BINGO !!!!! Stanley cup ring
Miller would have been in the same boat under same circumstances
|
| Alex116 |
Posted - 06/02/2015 : 09:08:21
Fair enough Beans. I think we're debating sample size / time period. I'd agree, over a 5 year period, maybe/borderline. But from 09-11, prob more than likely and 2010, certainly. You did say that at no time did you consider Miller a top 5 though and i think that's where we disagreed, though you seem to have come around on that and at least consider him a one time, albeit brief, top 5 goalie?
Either way, this thread has morphed off into a few different mini topics and the one i 100% agree with you on is that Miller did in fact have teams good enough in front of him to have had more than one legitimate shot at a cup. It all goes back to Duke's claim that Miller is one of those guys who's capable of elevating his game at crunch time, something i just don't seem to be able to find any evidence of occuring to this point in his career (asisde from a 2 week Olympic tournament i suppose?). |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 06/02/2015 : 07:20:02
Very good point also Alex. Personally, I have never been a fan of Miller mostly because every time the guy talks he is complaining about something and it's never his fault. I have issues with people who can't take accountability for their actions. I would still argue that saying he was a top 5 goalie was not a forgone conclusion. He did win the Vezina one year and I give him credit for that. None the less, in his peak, he was playing in a league with Brodeur, Luongo, Kipprusoff, Lundqvist, Thomas, Nabokov, and Hasek to name a few. To say Miller was a hands down top 5 guys is tough for me. Top 10 for sure. Borderline top 5 and some of those seasons certainly top 5. But if you are naming the top 5 goalies for the 5 year period of time of Millers peak (likely 2005-2010) I am not sure you could give Miller an automatic pass into the top 5.
Borderline.
|
| Alex116 |
Posted - 06/01/2015 : 12:28:49
Well said Beans, though you did say in one of your posts that you didn't feel Miller was ever a top 5 goalie? That is the only point I'd argue considering 2009-2011 he would have been in my mind.
Slozo.... "A goalie could never lead a team to a fantastic season? Even a president's trophy winning season?"
Ummm, where'd I say this? I never said anything about a goalie "leading" his team anywhere. If you took it that way, so sorry. If I did say that, my apologies, it wasn't meant that way. My point was, hockey is a team game and one player does not win them a contest that is run over 82 games! Yes, Price is the MVP of the Habs, no question. But lets not forget they have a Norris calibre dman, like him or not. He is not just a past winner, but is nominated again this year. They also have a pretty balanced team overall with a 37 goal scorer and some good young energy. Yes, Price is the MVP, but you make it sound like they're an AHL team with Price as the goalie and that's it! This is NOT the Leafs we're talking about!
Besides, take any teams top player out of the equation and they're likely not gonna win the cup. Not saying it CAN'T happen, but the odds skyrocket when this happens.
As for Roy, I'm not sure what the reference meant? I'm guessing you're going to try to convince me that he won the '86 cup on his own? If so, I'd argue you're wrong there too. He had a pretty good lineup around him if you care to go back and look at it! Regardless, I'm still not sure where "Roy" helps your argument considering Miller's been unable to do exactly what you seem to be claiming Roy did? Maybe I misunderstood the reference?
Joshua....When you look back and don't recall Buffalo being that strong of a contender it makes me think that it's long enough ago that because of it being Buffalo, it's just not something that you would have stuck in your memory. It's no different than when Carolina beat Edm in '06. Ask any casual hockey fan where Carolina finished that season and I'd bet you 75% would say somewhere in the 6-12 range overall? They were in fact tied for 3rd overall, 1 point out of 2nd. Answer me honestly, do you recall that off the top of your head? I've asked friends and most say "oh, that was the year Edm was an 8 seed and Carolina, weren't they like a 5 or 6 seed?". Truth is, they were one of the top teams that year. It's just easy after 10 years to forget because they're the Carolina Hurricanes! Same prob goes for Buffalo.
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 06/01/2015 : 09:54:35
So, few things. Slozo, I think you missed my point entirely. I never said Miller was never an elite goalie. I don't think he was as good as some are saying but for me to say that Miller, as a goalie who had multiple 40 win seasons, even more 30 wins seasons, a Vezina, and essentially a decade of solid play was garbage would be as ignorant as I am claiming others to be. I have not been as big of a fan of Miller as others and that might have been because I did not see him as much as some of the easterners. None the less, that was not nor has ever been my point. Also, I appreciate your comment of my spelling. It's funny but I also find it childish. None the less, touché.
Secondly, I have to say that people have very selective memories. People talk about Vanek and his 40 goals season and say that other than Miller there was nothing else there. Briere was one of the leagues best centres during his time with Buffalo, including a 95 pt season. He was a huge free agent signing when he was poached by Philly. If I recall, he was the catch of the summer. Chris Drury was an excellent two way player and was absolutely clutch in the big moments. Let's not forget Pominville either. Vanek, Drury, Pominville, and Drury ALL had more than 30 goals in 06/07. Throw in Roy and Afinogenov who each had 20+ and you had the highest scoring team in the NHL. And to say they had a weak defensive group is simple laughable. Look at their group of defensemen:
Numminen - 29 pts +17
Lydman - 19 pts +10
Tallindeer - 14pts +19
Campbell - 48pts +28
Kalinin - 29 pts - +19
Spacek - 21 pts +20
Paetsch - 24 pts +10
Their worst defensemen was a +10? That's a terrible group of players right there.
Finally, my entire point of all of my posts on this thread have been the same: Duke said that had Miller played on a cup contending team he would have won the cup. My argument is that he did play on a contender. He played on at least 2 teams in Buffalo that had the potential to win it all. They were the favorite in many ways. He had a cup of coffee in St Louis who was also a contender and lost in the first round. He also played on teams that had a fighting chance in Buffalo.
That's my point. My shear point.
|
| JOSHUACANADA |
Posted - 05/29/2015 : 23:31:01
I don't know how this thread has gone from personal opinions of a goaltender to how good or bad Buffalo was as a team 10 years ago. I'll be the first to admit Buffalo winning a presidents trophy was not a crystal clear memory, but the loss to my team that year in the playoffs was more crystal clear. Who out there is gonna argue that by and large Miller was the MVP for that team that year.
I am gonna say that I may be wrong about other peoples opinions of Buffalo being a serious contender for the cup. But I never felt that way and only now looking back at Eastern Conference finals and who they lost 2 do I see how close they came. But again as close as they came I can say without a doubt, when Miller was on the team he was the biggest threat Buffalo has during that time.
For someone to write off a goaltender who is the 30th goaltender in NHL history to record over 300 wins (323 currently), in only 12 years of playing time, with 6+ years more good years of playing time based on some of the other great goaltenders in recent history playing careers. To also call a goaltender who was 1 goal away from a gold medal, 1 game away from a Final round of Stanely cup playoffs (losing to the eventual cup winners), a Vezina winner, and a goaltender with a career average of 2.59 and gaa of .915, who also never had a season above 2.81 or below .906 in the nhl as not being a bonified #1 is ridicules. He certainly was in my eyes a top 5 or better goaltender from 2006-2011 and when Buffalo became a crap team in 2012-13 got traded, imo, as the best available goaltender on the market at that time.
You want stats to back up my opinion he is a big game goalie, his post season gaa is 2.49 and his save % is .915, and he has a winning record. His international record is 6-0-1 never losing in regulation with a .946 save% and a unbelievable 1.30. The year Canada beat Miller in the shootout for the gold, USA led by Miller beat Canada in the preliminary round. Same year he was voted on as the best goaltender in the NHL. |
| n/a |
Posted - 05/29/2015 : 21:17:55
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
quote:
Originally posted by The Duke
And by the way, Joshua is 100 % correct...
Miller would have a Stanley Cup already if he played on a true contender
No problem
The only reason Buffalo had those point totals was because of him... And the Hasek days of course. Superior goalies on average overall teams
This is a poor effort at comedy, right?
Did you even take the time to read that other post I made? He played on a President's Trophy winning team!!! How is that not a team good enough for the Stanley Cup? 5th place the year before! TOP frickin' 5! What more can you ask for??? A goalie does not win a team a President's Trophy, sorry, but you'll NEVER convince me otherwise.
FTR.....as much as I am on Beans' side on the fact that Miller did play on teams good enough to win a cup, I do disagree with him and believe that Miller was a top 5 goalie for a number of years and a no brainer #1 in 2010.
A goalie could never lead a team to a fantastic season? Even a president's trophy winning season?
2015 Canadiens - came 2nd overall, utterly there by virtue of Carey Price. A marginal playoff team IF that otherwise.
Same as that Buffalo team. They had a 40 goal scorer in Vanek, but . . . not a whole lot else, and the defence was crazy bad.
How to not convince you otherwise?
You remember Roy the last time he won the cup for the Canadiens?!?
Don't Leaf me hanging, Buds! |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 05/29/2015 : 18:58:59
quote:
Originally posted by The Duke
No Alex, I am not a Las Vegas expert, but I do gamble.
I do know enough to accept reality on these odds set up by Vegas ..... They are surmised to lure suckers to place large sums of $$$$ on teams who these experts know are pretty certain ARE NOT going to win the Stanley cup ( eg Montreal )
Erm... no, you do not know enough about odds or how they are set. Suffice to say, everything of yours that I just quoted is absolutely incorrect. Feel free to educate yourself: http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/sports-betting2.htm
Some quick thoughts:
- Miller was certainly a top-5 goalie for a stretch of his career (possibly a top-3), and was undeniably the best goalie during the 09/10 season when he won the Vezina trophy. Its pretty hard to dispute this, given the stats and the actual hardware.
- winning a cup does not necessarily make you a great goalie. In the 09/10 season, Niemi won the cup, but wasn't even in the running for the Vezina that year. This year Price is almost certain to win, despite not being in the final 4.
- BUF was definitely a "contender" for a few years in the early 2000's, they had an excellent bunch of forwards when their window was open. BUF was consistently amongst teams expected to go deep in any playoff year, and they sometimes did. You may not like BUF, and you may not think they're good now... but again, a team that won the presidents trophy and regularly finished in the top-5 in the league would be considered by nearly ANYBODY to be a legitimate contender. Have we all lost our hockey sense??? |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 05/29/2015 : 16:45:07
Duke.....
Conclusion: You know VERY little about gambling, odds, the way they are set, Vegas, etc. From everything you've said, this is obvious! If it was so easy to "lure suckers", then why not make the odds even higher? Why not have every team at the same odds and rely on every teams fans to become "suckers" and only pay out the winning teams fans? Ohhhhhh, maybe because those who actually know how to gamble would then make a mint betting against their own team??? Do you think I put even a nickel on the Canucks to win??? NOPE. What you're missing is the fact that the odds are set so that they minimize any HUGE potential losses and gain on the losers. It spreads the money around and......errrr, why am I even explaining this.................?
As for Miller, yes, I believe he was elite for a period of time. I'm also NOT saying that he wouldn't have won a cup on another team. It's an unknown that we can't do anything about. Where I'm disagreeing is where you don't think he's ever had a team around him that is good enough to win a cup. That's laughable. Did you somehow miss the part where I mentioned the Sabres coming in 1st overall one year? I don't care WHO was responsible for this! You seem to think it was ALL on Miller, FINE, then why didn't he step up in the playoffs and do exactly what you seem to think he did all year for them??? Let's not forget what started all this. YOU, no I, nor Beans nor anyone else around here stated the following: "goalies like Miller have the power to raise their play come playoff time, it's a special gift for some of these athletes" Do you remember this? Since then you've been provided stats that seem to render your opinion "silly", including the fact that his numbers in the playoffs BARELY improve, to the point that they are pretty much aligned with his career numbers. How is this a guy who has the ability to "raise his play"? How about when I mentioned the fact he made back to back semi finals and in one, lost to the eventual cup champs in game 7 after leading 2-1 entering the 3rd period! How is THAT an example of a guy who steps his game up come playoff time???
You do understand that only 1 team wins every season, right? I don't care how good a goalie and/or his team is, it's not a guarantee that they will win the cup.
I'm left now cheering for the Rangers to lose the cup so that I can hear you tell me how Lundqvist has never had a team good enough around him to win a cup. 
I'll leave you with this.....Cujo. Elite - check! Better playoff numbers than reg season numbers over career - check! Played 2 seasons with a powerhouse Det team inc one which finished 1st overall (not to mention some very good TO teams) - check! Won a Stanley Cup - uhhhhh, NOPE.
Since I can't convince you that ANY President's Trophy winning team HAS TO be considered "a serious contender", I'm left finding myself trying to convince you that Miller had capable teams around him AND that not every elite goalie on a "serious contender", will win a cup. Just ask Luongo.......... |
| The Duke |
Posted - 05/29/2015 : 08:44:11
No Alex, I am not a Las Vegas expert, but I do gamble.
I do know enough to accept reality on these odds set up by Vegas ..... They are surmised to lure suckers to place large sums of $$$$ on teams who these experts know are pretty certain ARE NOT going to win the Stanley cup ( eg Montreal ) .... I wonder how any Montreal fans placed wagers this year on these odds and lost their shirt ?
You agree that Miller was an a elite goalie.... But you seem to disagree that he wouldn't have had a Stanley cup on another team. This doesn't make sense to me.
The problem here is simply that you believe Buffalo was a true cup contender, some of us here who watch Buffalo alot ( being leaf fans we see them often ) all seem to agree that they were never a Stanley cup favorite.... Guess that's a difference of opinion that's all
Buffalos couple good seasons resembles this seasons Montreal canadians to me.... A .500 hockey club with the worlds best goalie who made them a .600 - .700 hockey team.
A good hockey team. BUT. Not even close to greatness
|
| Alex116 |
Posted - 05/28/2015 : 17:45:54
quote:
Originally posted by The Duke
And by the way, Joshua is 100 % correct...
Miller would have a Stanley Cup already if he played on a true contender
No problem
The only reason Buffalo had those point totals was because of him... And the Hasek days of course. Superior goalies on average overall teams
This is a poor effort at comedy, right?
Did you even take the time to read that other post I made? He played on a President's Trophy winning team!!! How is that not a team good enough for the Stanley Cup? 5th place the year before! TOP frickin' 5! What more can you ask for??? A goalie does not win a team a President's Trophy, sorry, but you'll NEVER convince me otherwise.
FTR.....as much as I am on Beans' side on the fact that Miller did play on teams good enough to win a cup, I do disagree with him and believe that Miller was a top 5 goalie for a number of years and a no brainer #1 in 2010. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 05/28/2015 : 17:42:43
quote:
Originally posted by The Duke
Alex those odds are made up by people who are about to make Millions off the NHL playoffs ... They are done to get people to make huge wagers on hockey teams to make $$$$$
They are not odds implemented by true hockey analysts
They intice people to lose $$$$$
Duke, no offense, but you have NO IDEA what Vegas / gambling is all about or how it works. Their odds are not simply set so they can "make Millions". Yes, they usually do make millions, but that is on quantity. If you really don't believe Vegas odds are as close to "reality" as can be, there's prob nothing I can do to convince you otherwise. You're focussing more on opinions of yours, mine, hockey analysts, etc rather than "probable odds". Vegas does in fact take into account probability. THAT is the reason a team like Chicago, coming out of arguably the better conference, which finished BEHIND Montreal in the standings, had lower odds!!!
quote:
Originally posted by The Duke
Question for you .....
Do you believe yourself that Chic and Mont should have basically the same odds of winning the Stanley cup going into the playoffs ?...as these odds imply
Your opinion ??
Kinda already answered this I guess. As stated, my personal opinion, Chicago would go further. However, as I also mentioned, they take into account the difficulty of the opposition in making it far, P. Kane's injury status, Chi's mediocre goaltending, etc.
|
| n/a |
Posted - 05/28/2015 : 15:09:03
Wow, I guess I missed the yearly Beans Blowout special there. Too bad, I guess I don't come on here as often anymore, sorry guys*.
* don't worry, it's not because anyone called me names or disagreed with me or anything like that, lol . . . just busy with other stuff and other sites.
So - apparently I'm the ignorant person . . . ok Beans . . . you asked for it . . .
Quote from the educated Mr. Beans, to we plebes (myself and Duke, of which I will only defend myself):
quote:
Their argument is based on hearsay, assumption, and in many cases just shear ignorance.
Classic. Here's a side note to Beans - when accusing someone of sheer ignorance . . . try not to spell it as if it's an implement for cutting your hedges with.
So this is my statement that he has an issue with, and became so inflamed with rage that he had to start hurling insults over the internet:
quote:
Quite simply, you are 100%, totally, incorrect.
Apparently, you never watched Buffalo games. I did.
The year in St. Louis was a poor year for Miller, no doubt . . . and yet, I really don't blame him for everything that happened there.
Was it a blanket statement? Yes, it was . . . did I disagree vehemently? Yes, exactly the same as Beans himself did earlier, and something that I commented on (saying someone else was 100% wrong) . . . did I back it up with facts? No, other than the fact that I have and continue to watch a lot of east coast and Buffalo games, and stating that clearly, I was more familiar with Miller . . . and I stand by that comment. Because if Beans ever HAD watched Buffalo games like I had, he wouldn't have this opinion.
Here are some facts now, that are 100% at odds with Beans' contention that Miller was barely a top 10, top 5 goalie if ever (I love how he describes that, talking about an era 7 years ago that still had Brodeur and Luongo in their prime and Lundqvist and Rinne just starting theirs).
Rookie year as a starter, 2005/06 season
ranked 11th in GAA, 9th in save percentage
Led them to a surprise playoff berth, went to Conference finals, where they lost to the Stanley Cup winning Carolina Hurricanes in 7 games. Buffalo was killed by injuries, top 4 d-men were injured in that series, plus others . . .
Next year, 06/07 - 40 wins, but outside of top ten for GAA and save percentage (.911) with a very offensive oriented team. Still, led the team to another conference finals.
07/08 - 36 wins, but the Sabres miss the playoffs.
08/09 - 34 wins, also missed the playoffs. (.918 save %, 8th in league. GAA 18th in league at 2.53)
09/10 - 41 wins, 2.22 GAA (2nd in league) , .929 save % (2nd in league) , led Buffalo to a 100 pt season
Won the Vezina trophy, beating Martin Brodeur (greatest goalie of all time perhaps) and Bryzgalov
Also in 2010? He was MVP of the 2010 Olympic Hockey Tournament.
(I think it's safe to say, he was the best goalie on the planet, in the eyes of hockey officials for the NHL and the Olympics. But not, apparently, Beans, who while watching enough Buffalo games to know, deemed him a "barely top 5 guy")
2010/11 - 34 wins, 2.59 (21), .916% (17th)
He's been good to ok since his MVP year . . . but certainly a good goalie.
Please don't even start telling me, however, that Miller has never been one of the best in the league. He was. Maybe he isn't right now, but . . . at 34 yrs old, he's actually in a good spot still for goalies - usually in their prime years still. Definitely has a chance to have a huge rebound season in the top 5 once again.
Don't Leaf me hanging, Buds! |
| The Duke |
Posted - 05/28/2015 : 13:19:36
And by the way, Joshua is 100 % correct...
Miller would have a Stanley Cup already if he played on a true contender
No problem
The only reason Buffalo had those point totals was because of him... And the Hasek days of course. Superior goalies on average overall teams |
| The Duke |
Posted - 05/28/2015 : 13:10:45
Alex those odds are made up by people who are about to make Millions off the NHL playoffs ... They are done to get people to make huge wagers on hockey teams to make $$$$$
They are not odds implemented by true hockey analysts
They intice people to lose $$$$$
Question for you .....
Do you believe yourself that Chic and Mont should have basically the same odds of winning the Stanley cup going into the playoffs ?...as these odds imply
Your opinion ?? |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 05/28/2015 : 09:17:16
quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA
...................The forward core your spoke of as a group scored many goals, but compared to Pittsburgh, Washington, Chicago, Ottawa, San Jose, Anahiem, Vancouver and even Boston as a group I would say, had as deep or deeper scoring depth as a group and I would consider a greater threat in the playoffs during those years. I'd say they were in the top 3rd, but to suggest they were more would be a stretch. You could show stats in which offensively Buffalo was greater than that for stretches, but being that they played in the more offensive minded east there is an argument those stats are slanted slightly, yet I would still take the forward core from the other teams mentioned.
To say Buffalo was a threat in the playoffs is correct, but I wouldn't agree at any point they were considered a favorite to win, just a solid threat. Had Miller played on anyone of those other teams mentioned above, during the time he was leading the Sabres in the playoffs, I would suggest he would already had his name on the stanely cup, maybe more than once.
Joshua.....unless I'm completely misunderstanding your post, you couldn't be more wrong. Sorry, but if I'm reading correctly, esp the bolded part, you're saying that if Miller had played for those teams you listed, at the time he was leading the Sabres in the playoffs, he would have won a cup or more by now? That makes ZERO sense. Here's why.....In 06, the first of the back to back years Miller led Buffalo to the semi's, they finished 5th overall. Of those teams you implied he'd have had a better chance on, one (Ott) finished above them, one (Ott again) had more GF (and half played in the high scoring east) and just 2 (Ott and Ana) had fewer goals against. Keep in mind too when looking at GF and GA and taking into consideration the "high scoring east". It works the same for GA. IF the east was so much higher scoring, the fact that Buf gave up fewer goals than teams like Van, SJ and Chi from the west also has to say something. Also, of those 8 teams, only 3, yes 3, made the playoffs. So I'm not sure how all those others would have given him a better chance! Do you realize where some of those teams finished? Boston was 25th overall! Washington 27th! Chicago 28th! Pittsburgh 29th! How is it that these teams were "greater threat in the playoffs during those years"
The following season, Buffalo won the President's trophy! When was the last time a team came 1st overall and wasn't considered a favorite? Not THE favorite, but in the very least A favorite???
How anyone can argue that Buffalo WASN'T a contender for at least these two seasons (06/07) is beyond me. It's borderline insanity! If you say it's only 2 seasons and the sample size is too small to put it on Miller as a goalie who can or can't raise his game, fine, but you can't realistically say he didn't have a good chance or two to raise his game and win a cup. In 06, they lost to the eventual champs (Car) in a 7th game. That 7th game, the Sabres led by a goal after 2 periods only to see that 2-1 lead evaporate into a 4-2 loss. Again, just 1 game, but a darn big one and a great chance for Miller to "raise his level of play". Instead, and I don't have the slightest recollection of the goals, he let 3 by him and finished the game with a .857 sv % in bowing out of the playoffs. THAT, is not raising your game!
Again, and this goes right back to what started this thread (Duke's opinion that Miller could have won a cup on a solid team) I just don't see how anyone can back up an argument that Miller never played on a solid contender. It's utter nonsense! |
| JOSHUACANADA |
Posted - 05/27/2015 : 21:45:17
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I'm such a fool for even posting this, but I'll give it another try.
Firstly, idiot and moron were personal attacks and should not have been posted. My apologies.
I am not saying that Duke or Slozo need to agree with me. Far from it. They can say and think whatever they want. The annoying part is that my opinion is based on valid arguments. Their argument is based on hearsay, assumption, and in many cases just shear ignorance.
Let's dive deeper:
Duke's Statement:
At NO. POINT in history was Buffalo EVER a Stanley cup favorite ... I've never in my 40 plus years of watching hockey EVER hear any hockey fans say.... Buffalo is winning the Stanley cup this year... It hasn't happened
So because HE personally has never heard someone say that, it must not be true??
Bean's Rebuttal:
Buffalo has made the Stanley Cup final twice and the conference finals 6times in their history. They also made conference finals in back to back seasons twice. They finished in the regular season at or near the top of the league in 10+ seasons, including the President's Trophy.
Not saying I am right, but I would suggest most people would agree that a team who finished at the top of league, or in the top 5 in the league going into the playoffs, is likely a contender. A team that makes the conference finals 4 times and the finals 1 time in a 10 year stretch is not only a contender but an annual contender. If I said those stats without you knowing who the team was, you would call them a contender.
Not all of that was a time with Ryan Miller is at the helm but much of those 10 years were with Miller as the #1. I would also like to point out that during the years that Buffalo made it to the conference finals they had a very solid defensive group including Campbell, Tallinder, Kalinin, Numminen, and McKee. They also had one of the deepest groups of forwards in the NHL lead by Vane, (when he was scoring 40 goals a season), Briere, Drury, Pomminville, Hecht, Afinogenov, Connelly, Roy, Dumont, and Kotilik. They consistently had 4-6 guys with 20 goals and often had 3-4 with 30+. They lead the NHL in scoring and in wins in 2006/07!
So, a team with solid defensemen, a deep and skilled set of forwards, and an elite goalie (yes, at one time Miller was a top 10 maybe top 5 goalie in the NHL) is not a contender??
You can disagree. That's ok. But I would really like to hear anything of substance to argue my logic. Something better than, "you're wrong Beans," or, "I've never heard anyone say that so it's not true."
I'll wait here and hang out with the chirping crickets.
It looks like a valid argument on the surface Beans I will give you that. Buffalo looked like a lock most years to make the playoffs, but during the best years in Buffalo I would suggest the goaltenders were the MVP of those Buffalo teams. Take the Hasek, Biron, Millers off of those conference finals teams and Buffalo doesn't look as such a threat in the playoffs. To suggest the best years Miller had were in Buffalo wouldn't be a stretch and for someone to say he was a top 5+ goaltender for 4-5+ years would not be a stretch. I will give you the defensive point of you argument as Buffalo had decent depthon paper, but I think Miller elevated any defensive statistic at that time and made decent players look stellar. The forward core your spoke of as a group scored many goals, but compared to Pittsburgh, Washington, Chicago, Ottawa, San Jose, Anahiem, Vancouver and even Boston as a group I would say, had as deep or deeper scoring depth as a group and I would consider a greater threat in the playoffs during those years. I'd say they were in the top 3rd, but to suggest they were more would be a stretch. You could show stats in which offensively Buffalo was greater than that for stretches, but being that they played in the more offensive minded east there is an argument those stats are slanted slightly, yet I would still take the forward core from the other teams mentioned.
To say Buffalo was a threat in the playoffs is correct, but I wouldn't agree at any point they were considered a favorite to win, just a solid threat. Had Miller played on anyone of those other teams mentioned above, during the time he was leading the Sabres in the playoffs, I would suggest he would already had his name on the stanely cup, maybe more than once.
The name of this post was Duke s goalie thread and in it he is defending Miller as possibly being a goaltender who could and should be considered a bonified #1 goalie, which he has proven he is in the past and could be in the upcoming season(s). I happen to agree, but please do not take my disagreement as a personal shot, because it is just that, a personal opinion. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 05/27/2015 : 09:12:39
quote:
Originally posted by The Duke
As for my comment about Montreal....
The Canadians are a .500 hockey team without Price in the net .....and their record this season without Price in the net shows this very point.
How can u compare montreals forwards...
Patches...déj ... Gall ...a gal...plek...Eller To
A true cup contender like the Blackhawks ?????
Teows...Kane ... Sharp...hossa ...Saad...Vermette...Richards ...Bickel..shaw
Like chalk and cheese...
Montreal Cannot beat teams like this...even with Price in net
I'll stick to the Montreal part of your comments......"How can u compare montreas forwards...to a true cup contender like the Blackhawks"???
Easy.....They are not as strong. Is that what you were looking for? BTW, I get the Toews, Kane, Hossa, Sharp stuff, but to go as deep in your comparison as you did is pretty insane. Yes, their top 3 is stronger than the Canadiens top 3, but going beyond that, it's not that big of a difference. Now, look at D.....I'd say it's pretty even. So, let's look at goalies. Pretty easy to see which team wins here, right? So:
Forwards = Chicago
Defense = Even
Goalie = Montreal
Now, does this look as lopsided as you seem to think?
Duke, don't get me wrong here, in both of my hockey pools, I'm sitting with the correct final 4, so I actually picked Chicago to go further than Montreal. However, to imply that the Habs weren't a serious contender entering the playoffs is so wrong. When's the last time a 2nd place overall team wasn't considered a strong contender? It just doesn't happen, regardless of your or my opinion!!!
I'll let the real gambling folks out there explain it better to you. Here are the cup odds prior to the playoffs starting:
New York Rangers 6/1
Anaheim Ducks 8/1
Chicago Blackhawks 8/1
Minnesota Wild 8/1
St. Louis Blues 8/1
Montreal Canadiens 9/1
Nashville Predators 12/1
Tampa Bay Lightning 12/1
Detroit Red Wings 16/1
Ottawa Senators 16/1
Pittsburgh Penguins 16/1
Vancouver Canucks 16/1
New York Islanders 18/1
Washington Capitals 18/1
Calgary Flames 20/1
Winnipeg Jets 25/1
Note where the Habs were on that list? Not only top 6, not only ahead of TBay who they had trouble with all year and were on a collision course with, but also mere percentage points away from being in what would have been a 5 way tie for "2nd favorite".
I can't argue your opinion. I didn't pick them to go past TBay and they didn't. However, had they beat the Lightning, I would not have been shocked, nor would I have been to see them reach the final.
YES, they were a "serious contender". |
| The Duke |
Posted - 05/26/2015 : 18:13:11
Ok ok ... Everything's all good again #128514;#128514;
I guess we all see hockey diffrently. I admit that maybe I'm a don cheery type, throw the stats out the window , call it from gut feeling person #128526;
What's wrong with that ?
Yes Beans Buffalo had a couple good years , I'll admit that, but like I said, I've never looked at Buffalo at any point in their history as being an NHL powerhouse. Cup contender ? Marginal a couple times I guess.
Look closer at those Buffalo forwards you listed... Other than Vanek, is there another real true 1st line player on that list ?
With those D- men, other than Cambell ( in his A day ) are they as good as some D-cores we've seen in the NHL together ?
Compare them to NJ's powerhouse D-core... Stevens, S.Neid , Daneyko, Rafalski , white
No comparison ... These were cup contender D- men.
As for my comment about Montreal....
The Canadians are a .500 hockey team without Price in the net .....and their record this season without Price in the net shows this very point.
How can u compare montreals forwards...
Patches...déj ... Gall ...a gal...plek...Eller To
A true cup contender like the Blackhawks ?????
Teows...Kane ... Sharp...hossa ...Saad...Vermette...Richards ...Bickel..shaw
Like chalk and cheese...
Montreal Cannot beat teams like this...even with Price in net
|
| Alex116 |
Posted - 05/25/2015 : 17:00:40
A huge part of this debate lies in what exactly distinguishes a "serious contender" from just a playoff participant. Let's face it, ANY team making the playoffs nowadays is a contender compared to 20 years ago, though there are instances even back then where teams went very deep from low seeds.
Duke, your opinion that Montreal was not a serious contender this year is interesting. I don't see how any team with the best goalie on the planet, who came 2nd overall in the league can be considered anything BUT a serious contender? I get it, their goal scoring didn't match other teams. But their defence did and in fact was better than all the rest. In the playoffs, a good defence/goalie is kinda important, no?
Yes, Montreal had a bad matchup in Tampa, but we didn't know for sure this was going to happen when the playoffs began so it's hard to bring the "what if" into the equation!
I wasn't picking Montreal to win the cup, but to call them "not" a serious contender at the outset of the playoffs is surprising to me.
I guess Price just didn't step his play up huh? (I kid) |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 05/25/2015 : 11:40:39
I'm such a fool for even posting this, but I'll give it another try.
Firstly, idiot and moron were personal attacks and should not have been posted. My apologies.
I am not saying that Duke or Slozo need to agree with me. Far from it. They can say and think whatever they want. The annoying part is that my opinion is based on valid arguments. Their argument is based on hearsay, assumption, and in many cases just shear ignorance.
Let's dive deeper:
Duke's Statement:
At NO. POINT in history was Buffalo EVER a Stanley cup favorite ... I've never in my 40 plus years of watching hockey EVER hear any hockey fans say.... Buffalo is winning the Stanley cup this year... It hasn't happened
So because HE personally has never heard someone say that, it must not be true??
Bean's Rebuttal:
Buffalo has made the Stanley Cup final twice and the conference finals 6times in their history. They also made conference finals in back to back seasons twice. They finished in the regular season at or near the top of the league in 10+ seasons, including the President's Trophy.
Not saying I am right, but I would suggest most people would agree that a team who finished at the top of league, or in the top 5 in the league going into the playoffs, is likely a contender. A team that makes the conference finals 4 times and the finals 1 time in a 10 year stretch is not only a contender but an annual contender. If I said those stats without you knowing who the team was, you would call them a contender.
Not all of that was a time with Ryan Miller is at the helm but much of those 10 years were with Miller as the #1. I would also like to point out that during the years that Buffalo made it to the conference finals they had a very solid defensive group including Campbell, Tallinder, Kalinin, Numminen, and McKee. They also had one of the deepest groups of forwards in the NHL lead by Vane, (when he was scoring 40 goals a season), Briere, Drury, Pomminville, Hecht, Afinogenov, Connelly, Roy, Dumont, and Kotilik. They consistently had 4-6 guys with 20 goals and often had 3-4 with 30+. They lead the NHL in scoring and in wins in 2006/07!
So, a team with solid defensemen, a deep and skilled set of forwards, and an elite goalie (yes, at one time Miller was a top 10 maybe top 5 goalie in the NHL) is not a contender??
You can disagree. That's ok. But I would really like to hear anything of substance to argue my logic. Something better than, "you're wrong Beans," or, "I've never heard anyone say that so it's not true."
I'll wait here and hang out with the chirping crickets.
|
| Alex116 |
Posted - 05/24/2015 : 11:34:34
Sorry guys, but have to side with Beans here. While I'm not sure he's correct on why others dont post as much or why in general this forum has dried up to some degree, i have no proof otherwise.
But, in this particular instance, he's pretty spot on. He backed up his opinion with very valid stats and all he got in return more or less was "No Beans, you're wrong!". That's not gonna cut it as a rebuttal for many posters, especially not Beans.
I don't agree with his insults in return but will admit that I've done the same in the past when extremely frustrated. I can easily see his frustration after the replies he rec'd to his post re Miller and some good teams he's played on, and yes, some of those teams would have been considered Cup contenders and one may even have been a top 3 favorite. |
| The Duke |
Posted - 05/23/2015 : 08:55:22
Sorry Gipper, calling a fellow poster an idiot or moron is NOT the same as calling a hockey player or coach those names...lol... Well maybe not ...
Gotta fire back though when someone calls u one...
Beans don't usually call people things like that but like I said, he certainly can't handle being criticized. |
| The_Gipper |
Posted - 05/22/2015 : 05:18:53
ok guys that's enough with the personal jabs. let's stay on topic here... |
|
|
