Jump to content

Roenick on Mason, Flyers


brelic

Recommended Posts

I have to agree with @Polaris922 on Mason, although I found the Fleury comparison interesting.   I'll buy that but don't know that I would have come up with that on my own.

 

Polaris, top 5?

 

For me (not in order, just kind of random stream of consciousness)

Jonathan Quick

Tuukka Rask

Henrik Lundqvist

Carey Price (?)

 

For me, after that, there's a drop off to the next level.  

I'd entertain putting Bishop or Varlamov there but am hesitant due to body of work.   Clearly, if ranking on this season alone they belong there.

 

Then we're into the next level (again, no order)

Miller

Bobrovsky

Fleury

Schneider

Is Luongo still in this group?

Crawford

Niemi

Mason

 

I'm certain I've omitted someone.

 

I don't know that I even put Mason toward the top of this second list yet.  He obviously had periods of time where he was lights out but then periods of time where he was quite pedestrian.  If he continues to grow and is a bit more consistent then he moves up this second list.  I know that the Flyers' defense is suspect and part of his year total was in the beginning when the team was a disaster, but a 2.50 GAA and .917 SV% in the top five is just a bit absurd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


but a 2.50 GAA and .917 SV% in the top five is just a bit absurd.

 

What about 2.45, .902?

Or 2.07, .915?

Or 2.58, .911?

 

The first two are Quick's numbers over the past two seasons, and the last one is from this past Cup run.

 

Pretty pedestrian, no?

 

Compare to Lundqvist over the same period:

 

2.05, .926

2.36, .920

2.14, .927

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about 2.45, .902?

Or 2.07, .915?

Or 2.58, .911?

 

The first two are Quick's numbers over the past two seasons, and the last one is from this past Cup run.

 

Pretty pedestrian, no?

 

 

 

Two cups.  The first Cup he carried them.  The second he was admittedly just one of the guys, but I'm not sure they win without him either.  You can't compare a guy like Mason who had one fairly average season (all things considered--and I really like the guy) on an also-ran team and after several Leightonfest seasons with a guy with 2 rings and a Conn Smythe trophy.

 

I know I opened the door with the stats thing, but that was assuming we understood he won nothing and neither did his team.  So personal stats is all there is left and Mason's aren't shiney.

 

Yeah, Quick is in the top of the class department.  Mason is somewhere in the "oh yeah, he's here too" in the above average class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I know I opened the door with the stats thing, but that was assuming we understood he won nothing and neither did his team.  So personal stats is all there is left and Mason's aren't shiney.

 

As has been discussed elsewhere, Mason's numbers were virtually identical to Bryzgalov's first season stats with the Flyers, excepting a .008 SV% in favor of Mason.

 

Mason: 33-18-7, 2.50, .917

Bryz: 33-16-7, 2.48, .909

 

And, to me, that's the big difference in Mason over Bryzgalov - Mason makes the saves you're supposed to make and makes a few that leave shooters shaking their heads.

 

Bryzgalov didn't really reliably do either of those things and more often than not had his own team shaking their heads.

 

I'm just not sure that "better than Bryzgalov" makes him a Top Five goalie int he NHL. Certainly not for me. Yet. There is still potential.

 

But the guy's 26, though, so that "potential" had better start being "actual" real quick if he wants to be a "Top Five" goalie in this league..

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As has been discussed elsewhere, Mason's numbers were virtually identical to Bryzgalov's first season stats with the Flyers, excepting a .008 SV% in favor of Mason.

 

Mason: 33-18-7, 2.50, .917

Bryz: 33-16-7, 2.48, .909

 

And, to me, that's the big difference in Mason over Bryzgalov - Mason makes the saves you're supposed to make and makes a few that leave shooters shaking their heads.

 

Bryzgalov didn't really reliably do either of those things and more often than not had his own team shaking their heads.

 

I'm just not sure that "better than Bryzgalov" makes him a Top Five goalie int he NHL. Certainly not for me. Yet. There is still potential.

 

But the guy's 26, though, so that "potential" had better start being "actual" real quick if he wants to be a "Top Five" goalie in this league..

 

Agree with every word of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I know I opened the door with the stats thing, but that was assuming we understood he won nothing and neither did his team.

 

That's a fair point, and I wasn't trying to compare Mason to Quick. I was only trying to show that it's really hard to evaluate goalies (and their statistics) in isolation from the teams in front of them.

 

In that regard, Lundqvist has demonstrated elite level statistics over a decade with different coaches, different squads in front of him, and different systems. Quick has not demonstrated excellence outside of his stellar Cup run (and that one year). In other words, that year is an outlier.

 

Put Quick on the Jackets and the Flyers, and he would have as many Cups as Mason. That's a virtual guarantee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Put Quick on the Jackets and the Flyers, and he would have as many Cups as Mason. That's a virtual guarantee.

 

 

I know what you're saying and agree.  But just to be a smart ass:  If Quick is on the 2010 Flyers, I'm still hung over from the Parade.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know what you're saying and agree.  But just to be a smart ass:  If Quick is on the 2010 Flyers, I'm still hung over from the Parade.

 

Haha, you're probably right. Same with Mason. And I think that's more a function of a team that caught lightning in a bottle and worked very well together at that particular point in time.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ill be honest, and don't lynch me for this.

 

I am not sold on Mason being a great starter myself.

 

I'm kind of in this boat too. He had a solid regular season, and stellar showing in the playoffs. But he's going to need to reproduce and in fact, improve upon those results moving forward. But as of right now, he's still a middle of the pack goalie.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mason has the talent and athletic ability...and youth, to become very good. How good in comparison to the Quicks of the league will be factored by how fast Philly can rebuild their defensive core.

 

 Quick, Crawford and Rask have all shown they can be great when the team plays great D in front of them, and pretty average when they don't.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@flyercanuck

 

The thing I really like about Mason and would like to see factored into the development of the D and the team generally is his puck handling. I think the trapezoid may eventually meet it's demise and if it does, I'd like to see a team that can take advantage of it.

 

Or maybe I'm just nostalgic for the Hextall glory years....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You want Mason to perfect his "Waffle Board Technique?"

 

I'm not familiar with that, but does it have anything to do with Hexy serving his stick up to a player - say a Chelios-type player - to eat like a waffle (minus the syrup)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm kind of in this boat too. He had a solid regular season, and stellar showing in the playoffs. But he's going to need to reproduce and in fact, improve upon those results moving forward. But as of right now, he's still a middle of the pack goalie.

 

 

I think that's an apt description.  It could be that we're so used to seeing bargain basement goaltending (or overpriced "meh") that average looks like superman to us.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Howdy:

 

I think Roenick is a loudmouth but he is entertaining. I hope Mason grows into the goalie people thought he'd be a few years back.  But as people noted when we picked him up, goalies tend to regress to their long-term GAA and Save Percentage. I hope that is not the case. But as I said in the thread on our goaltending, we will only know after the season starts.

 

Best,

Howie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mason is a talented goalie with potential, but not a sure thing. If he plays well, stats be damned, I'll be convinced.

Gone are the days of Roy, Brodeur, Hasek...and everyone else.

It's hard to identify goalie skill by stats due to how important systems and team play are. The eye test isn't objective.

What I do know is this: people wonder if Mason playing the whole NYR series gets his team a win, meanwhile facing Fleury in the playoffs is like shooting fish in a barrel. They are not in the same tier in my opinion, and neither are top five.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@doom88

Fleury beat his postseason issues this past year. He had two absolutely abysmal postseasons, but he's also had at least two very good ones. Taking accomplishments away, I see Fleury as the more skilled as far as athleticism, but Mason appears more sound in his positioning. They have similar stats in front of teams with similar lack of attention to defense. Though in fairness our defense was largely AHL at points of the season.

I think they're very comparable this past season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...