(Poll) Who is the best goalie in the NHL today?

[ruxpin]

51 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

But my choice regardless is Quick. Just my preference

Yeah, I have no problem with that. Like I said, I don't think anyone really dominates. 

 

If you're insinuating that the Kings are contenders last year if they have Quick, I'm not buying that though. 

[OccamsRazor]

32 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

Yeah, I have no problem with that. Like I said, I don't think anyone really dominates. 

 

If you're insinuating that the Kings are contenders last year if they have Quick, I'm not buying that though. 

 

Why not they already won it all as an 8th seed why couldn't they do it again?

 

I mean since we are using the past to try predict the future right??? 

[ruxpin]

2 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

Why not they already won it all as an 8th seed why couldn't they do it again?

 

I mean since we are using the past to try predict the future right??? 

Because they got good goaltending last year. They had the sixth best GAA in the league last year and the third best in the west. 

 

They finished 8 points out of the 2nd wildcard.  Goaltending wasn't the problem. They had the 25th best offense. Quick wasn't going to help that. 

 

It's not a matter of 8th getting hot and winning. They weren't getting into the playoffs with or without Quick. 

[OccamsRazor]

5 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

Because they got good goaltending last year. They had the sixth best GAA in the league last year and the third best in the west. 

 

They finished 8 points out of the 2nd wildcard.  Goaltending wasn't the problem. They had the 25th best offense. Quick wasn't going to help that. 

 

It's not a matter of 8th getting hot and winning. They weren't getting into the playoffs with or without Quick. 

 

I disagree.

[ruxpin]

1 hour ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

I disagree.

You're welcome to be wrong. 

 

I have no idea what you're disagreeing with, though. 

 

Exactly how many goals do you think Quick would have scored? 

[OccamsRazor]

1 hour ago, ruxpin said:

You're welcome to be wrong. 

 

You too.

[OccamsRazor]

1 hour ago, ruxpin said:

Exactly how many goals do you think Quick would have scored?

 

Anf for the record it isn't about how many goals he could score but how many he could have prevented.

 

Even you should know this or i give you to much credit.

 

Which is it?

[ruxpin]

1 hour ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

Anf for the record it isn't about how many goals he could score but how many he could have prevented.

 

Even you should know this or i give you to much credit.

 

Which is it?

I lay out for you stats and a reasoned argument. And you come back with "I disagree." No rational argument or even discussion but instead clinging on randomly believing something simply because you wish it to be true. It doesn't work that way, and I can go to Facebook for that crap. Not even an attempt to explain, when asked, what exactly, you disagree with.  

 

Once again. Third best GAA. Is that the part you disagree with? It's easy enough to look up. Budaj actually had similar and in many cases BETTER numbers than Quick's career stats. And the same save pct and better GAA than Quick did. All easy to look up. Which do you disagree with? 

 

The Kings offense, in the meantime, was 25th. 5 places worse than the FLYERS. That's how bad it was.  Is this what you disagree with? 

 

10th in the conference and 8 points out. Maybe it's this you disagree with. 

 

Where does the difference magically come from?  Some mystical magical stats his numbers don't support? On a team that simply wasn't that good?  

 

A rationally based argument other than "because I believe so" and ironically empty condescension would be good. Or do you have nothing actually reality based? 

 

I'm guessing not, or you would have made the slightest attempt at it after two chances. 

[OccamsRazor]

22 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

I lay out for you stats and a reasoned argument. And you come back with "I disagree." No rational argument or even discussion but instead clinging on randomly believing something simply because you wish it to be true. It doesn't work that way, and I can go to Facebook for that crap. Not even an attempt to explain, when asked, what exactly, you disagree with.  

 

Once again. Third best GAA. Is that the part you disagree with? It's easy enough to look up. Budaj actually had similar and in many cases BETTER numbers than Quick's career stats. And the same save pct and better GAA than Quick did. All easy to look up. Which do you disagree with? 

 

The Kings offense, in the meantime, was 25th. 5 places worse than the FLYERS. That's how bad it was.  Is this what you disagree with? 

 

10th in the conference and 8 points out. Maybe it's this you disagree with. 

 

Where does the difference magically come from?  Some mystical magical stats his numbers don't support? On a team that simply wasn't that good?  

 

A rationally based argument other than "because I believe so" and ironically empty condescension would be good. Or do you have nothing actually reality based? 

 

I'm guessing not, or you would have made the slightest attempt at it after two chances. 

 

Ok.

[ruxpin]

8 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

Ok.

That's what I thought.  Got nothing. 

[OccamsRazor]

7 hours ago, ruxpin said:

That's what I thought.  Got nothing. 

 

Bullshit. I have my opinion. And that is what i stated. You don't like it it's your issue. Just because i don't want to argue doesn't make it no less my opinion.

[ruxpin]

4 hours ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

Bullshit. I have my opinion. And that is what i stated. You don't like it it's your issue. Just because i don't want to argue doesn't make it no less my opinion.

 

You have not "stated an opinion." If you had expressed an "opinion," that would be one thing.  But you haven't even expressed an opinion.   You've just blurted out "I disagree" and, with ironically empty condescension, "you should know this or do I give you too much credit" when you've stated NOTHING.

 

If someone here actually HAS an opinion of how Quick's presence would have changed the Kings' fortunes last year, I'd love to hear it, maybe I'll change my mind.   But I have yet to see an actual argument.  Just foot-stomping.

[OccamsRazor]

13 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

If you had expressed an "opinion," that would be one thing. 

 

In my response to you on the 1st page:

 

Yeah maybe that would have been different if he hadn't missed most of the year injured....so we'll never know.

 

I agree for age reasons i may give Murray the nod. Age wise he has proven much more than Holtby and Bob.

 

But my choice regardless is Quick. Just my preference.

 

13 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

If someone here actually HAS an opinion of how Quick's presence would have changed the Kings' fortunes last year, I'd love to hear it, maybe I'll change my mind.   

 

And i said we'll never know. Look i didn't say you're wrong just didn't agree with. (we are still allowed to that here right?)

 

Get your panties out your crack, you're obviously in a mood to argue and i don't care enough to acquiesce.

 

Carry on.

[ruxpin]

9 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

In my response to you on the 1st page:

 

Yeah maybe that would have been different if he hadn't missed most of the year injured....so we'll never know.

 

I agree for age reasons i may give Murray the nod. Age wise he has proven much more than Holtby and Bob.

 

But my choice regardless is Quick. Just my preference.

 

I said I get that!   That's not what I've been discussing.

 

You think Quick is the best goalie, that's fine.   We all agreed from the start that THAT topic is subjective.   And I think there's substantial evidence to support your preference (Quick is the best)!  I don't necessarily agree but wholeheartedly admit it really comes down to preference.   I picked Murray, but Quick certainly has a hell of a resume to support picking him (not to mention longer track record to rule out "fluke").

 

What this dissolved into was an actual presentation of why Quick doesn't change the Kings' outcome last year  (he DID change their outcome on their first cup.   I have a hard time believing they get to the finals, much less win, if he doesn't stand on his head.  So this, for me, isn't about Quick good/Quick bad.  He's awesome.  I'd take him on my team in an New York minute).   This is about presenting actual facts and stats.  You come back with "I disagree."    Fine.   You disagree.  You may even be right.  But WHY?   All I asked for is WHY.  In the face of what I presented, WHY?  WHY do you disagree.  What are you basing that on?   Hell, which part are you even disagreeing with?   Who would know from your post?   

 

Then I get back solely about an 8th seed team winning a cup.   My detailed initial post and then my follow-up was HOW DO THEY GET TO EIGHTH SEED?  What changes when Budaj's stats were nearly identical to Quick's? I get more side-step and condescension in response to that.  

 

So whatever.  I'm done too.  I wouldn't mind actually having a discussion but since you continue to refuse, I no longer care.    I thought maybe you had some actual insight so I requested it.  My bad.  I won't make that mistake again.

[OccamsRazor]

21 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

My detailed initial post and then my follow-up was HOW DO THEY GET TO EIGHTH SEED? 

 

With a healthy Quick they could have won more games. Budaj for a journeyman was ok to start the year but let's be honest he only won 27 games. Quick won 40 the year before the.

 

They missed a wild card by 8 points.

 

So i would guess with him for the full year they would have played better.

 

He only played 17 games he won 8 and 2 they lost in OT.

 

Sure they could have scored more who couldn't have. The Sharks (just for example) scored a whooping 20 more goals than them and squeaked in.

 

Yet the Kings only allowed 1 more goal than the Sharks.

 

So my point is that i would have to think that if Quick could have played more of Budaj's 53 games he could have won more games and earned more points.

 

However it is speculation and we will never know.

 

Now good day sir!

 

[ruxpin]

1 minute ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

With a healthy Quick they could have won more games. Budaj for journey was ok to start the year but let's be honest he only won 27 games. Quick won 40 the year before the.

 

They missed a wild card by 8 points.

 

So i would guess with him for the full year they would have played better.

 

He only played 17 games he won 8 and 2 they lost in OT.

 

Sure they could have scored more who couldn't have. The Sharks (just for example) scored a whooping 20 more goals than them and squeaked in.

 

Yet the Kings only allowed 1 more goal than the Sharks.

 

So my point is that i would have to think that if Quick could have played more of Budaj's 53 games he could have won more games and earned more points.

 

However it is speculation and we will never know.

 

Now good day sir!

Thank you

[Kings Redeem LA]

Although I can dig how Cup titles could provide

for reh-zoo-may enhancement in this discussion, 

I don't think Lundqvist loses top honors or top-five honors 

because he--rather, his teams haven't taken Lord Stanley on a tour. 

I don't know whom I'd pick as today's current best goaltender, but I will say that 

I find both Henrik Lundqvist and Carey Price tempting choices despite neither 

emerging as winners from a Stanley Cup Finals. Not yet anyway. At their best, and

they're often at their best, they own games from start to finish in awe-inspiring fashion. 

 

 @TropicalFruitGirl26 for that excellent Holtby contention. 

 

 @ruxpin for providing that detail and how you posted it. 

 

 

 

 

[OccamsRazor]

On 10/29/2017 at 10:35 AM, ruxpin said:

Thank you

 

I know this isn't a criteria of what makes the best goalie for today....just another reason why i love Quick so much...

 

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/quick-involved-second-period-fight-041901237.html

 

...he embodies what Hextall use to bring but better at stopping the puck. Would love to see him in orange and black.

 

Yeah i know it won't happen till he is at least 35.

[ruxpin]

1 hour ago, OccamsRazor said:

Yeah i know it won't happen till he is at least 35.

 

LOL  It's funny (and sad) because it's true.

[hf101]

On 10/28/2017 at 11:10 AM, ruxpin said:

Probably notable is whom I left off.    Obviously, the list is not exhaustive and leaves off people like Jake Allen, Ryan Miller, Vasilevskiy, Varlamov, and other goalies who have no business in this discussion. 

 

 

Question why did you not include Vasilevskiy on the list but yet included Gibson?

 

Vasilevskiy just might be the best Goalie in the League right now with only one loss in 14 games started.  He is very quickly earning a nomination for the Vezina trophy.

[ruxpin]

2 hours ago, hf101 said:

 

Question why did you not include Vasilevskiy on the list but yet included Gibson?

 

Vasilevskiy just might be the best Goalie in the League right now with only one loss in 14 games started.  He is very quickly earning a nomination for the Vezina trophy.

 

Fair points.  I'm not entirely sure except that when I wrote this two weeks ago (and arguably still) he's in "show me" mode.   Prior to this year he was extremely part time and last year wasn't all that impressive.  Last year obviously wasn't necessarily his fault.   For ME (again, this whole subject is admittedly quite subjective), he doesn't have the body of work that I would even put him in "best goalie" conversation.  I don't think Gibson actually belongs in the conversation but was only included for comparison purposes.

 

Here's the thing:  When Hammond came up with Ottawa and went on his run, he might have been the answer to "what goalie is playing best right now."   Some may even have wanted to say he was the best in the game.  Obviously, given hindsight, the second statement would have been silly.   

 

So, with that in mind, I think that's why I didn't include him.   Could he be?  Sure.  The comparison to Hammond is certainly not apples/apples since Hammond didn't have track record of being good in lower levels whereas V has some good history.    So, I guess I don't include him in my list of "best in the game," just because I'd like to see some body of work, but completely understand if someone else does.

[OccamsRazor]

3 hours ago, hf101 said:

 

Question why did you not include Vasilevskiy on the list but yet included Gibson?

 

Vasilevskiy just might be the best Goalie in the League right now with only one loss in 14 games started.  He is very quickly earning a nomination for the Vezina trophy.

 

 

Good point. I admit i overlooked him too.

[FD19372]

3 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

 

Good point. I admit i overlooked him too.

Vasilevsky certainly is more than worthy of consideration. and is among the top goalies undoubtedly. The only thing that could hurt him is the fact the team around him is so talented. He hasn't had to "stand on his head" too many times this season - as of yet.

[OccamsRazor]

4 minutes ago, FD19372 said:

Vasilevsky certainly is more than worthy of consideration. and is among the top goalies undoubtedly. The only thing that could hurt him is the fact the team around him is so talented. He hasn't had to "stand on his head" too many times this season - as of yet.

 

 

I get that but couldn't that be said about Murray too??

 

I mean honestly how many goalies on here are surrounded by shiity teams?? I don't see any. If any maybe the team in front of Price being the worst.