Jump to content
The Official Site of the Montréal Canadiens
Canadiens de Montreal

#31 Carey Price 2012-2013


ColRouleBleu
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'd play Budaj Thursday. But all in all, I see Price playing 40-42 games...

Agreed. Only way I see price resting more is if we somehow keep up this miraculous pace & are "in" the playoffs so early that we can give Price some nights off in preparation for the playoffs, but even that is risky as then he may not be as sharp.

One game at a time but I think it wouldnt hurt to let the backup play at least one game this week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd play Budaj Thursday. But all in all, I see Price playing 40-42 games...

I think that's probably what coach MT has in mind, so far we have a shot at a playoff spot. Price is playing very well now and I think MT (first year back behind the bench) is going to go with his #1 as much as he can.

Would suck for Budaj to only play 5-6 games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't win 'em all. It's tough when the other goalie turns into an even more of a brick wall and your team can only sneak one past him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did anyone see that stat line that TSN put up during the game? Going into last night Price had a 0.970 save percentage in even strength situations. 0.970!!!! That is just insanely impressive. I didn't catch the timeline for those stats (did anyone PVR the game? :P) but from the way they were talking I got the impression that it was at least over the last year or so. That means that he put up those numbers on a last place team behind Cunneyworth's flying circus of seven defencemen. The next best on the list, if I remember correctly, was something like 0.958.

Seriously, I knew he was good, but if that really was including last year's games then that blows me away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did anyone see that stat line that TSN put up during the game? Going into last night Price had a 0.970 save percentage in even strength situations. 0.970!!!! That is just insanely impressive. I didn't catch the timeline for those stats (did anyone PVR the game? :P) but from the way they were talking I got the impression that it was at least over the last year or so. That means that he put up those numbers on a last place team behind Cunneyworth's flying circus of seven defencemen. The next best on the list, if I remember correctly, was something like 0.958.

Seriously, I knew he was good, but if that really was including last year's games then that blows me away.

I don't know how long it was over but he didn't have an elite ES SV% last year, it wasn't terrible or anything but he had a really good SV% while short handed that pulled his numbers up to where they were (Our PK was awesome thanks in large part to Carey).

This year a quick look tells me he has a .956 ES SV%, of course he gave up 2 ES goals last night so it's likely the .970 SV% was just over the course of this season prior to the 2 goals he gave up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how long it was over but he didn't have an elite ES SV% last year, it wasn't terrible or anything but he had a really good SV% while short handed that pulled his numbers up to where they were (Our PK was awesome thanks in large part to Carey).

This year a quick look tells me he has a .956 ES SV%, of course he gave up 2 ES goals last night so it's likely the .970 SV% was just over the course of this season prior to the 2 goals he gave up.

Thanks, Roy. That's a bit less impressive, then, with so few games, but still great numbers all the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Roy. That's a bit less impressive, then, with so few games, but still great numbers all the same.

He's interesting because he's an elite goalie but he's still 25 and there's another gear yet IMO. Seems like ever year he has 1 rough stretch. There's always 1 month with an .890 SV% or something. He eliminates that and he's nominated for a Vezina, year in year out essentially IMO.

Could this be the year? He's starting to enter his prime years.

It's crazy to think about the fact that he's 25, he's accomplished a lot already and been through even more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just throwing it out there but I recall the timeline being from past seasons. I could possibly be wrong but that's what I remember.

Is that calculated differently than just adding the percentages up and diving by the number of actual percentages added to find the average? I understand how the percentage is calculated but just wondering about the average over time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just throwing it out there but I recall the timeline being from past seasons. I could possibly be wrong but that's what I remember.

Is that calculated differently than just adding the percentages up and diving by the number of actual percentages added to find the average? I understand how the percentage is calculated but just wondering about the average over time.

No matter what time fram you pick, it's simply:

Number of saves/Number of shots

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just throwing it out there but I recall the timeline being from past seasons. I could possibly be wrong but that's what I remember.

Is that calculated differently than just adding the percentages up and diving by the number of actual percentages added to find the average? I understand how the percentage is calculated but just wondering about the average over time.

I think you may be thinking of GAA. Starting sometime recently, they adjusted the GAA calculation. It used to be the total number of goals divided by the number of games, but now they do the total number of goals divided the number of minutes then multiplied by 60.

It used to be the raw goals against average per game, but now its goals against average per 60 minutes of play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's crazy to think about the fact that he's 25, he's accomplished a lot already and been through even more.

You said it. I was thinking this just the other day - we could possibly be set in nets for the next decade plus. I know people were calling for guys like Brule (thank god we didnt!) or Kopitar (would have been ok, but still not as great) but the Price pick was truly one of the bright spots in a stretch of otherwise futile management.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did anyone see that stat line that TSN put up during the game? Going into last night Price had a 0.970 save percentage in even strength situations. 0.970!!!! That is just insanely impressive. I didn't catch the timeline for those stats (did anyone PVR the game? :P) but from the way they were talking I got the impression that it was at least over the last year or so. That means that he put up those numbers on a last place team behind Cunneyworth's flying circus of seven defencemen. The next best on the list, if I remember correctly, was something like 0.958.

Seriously, I knew he was good, but if that really was including last year's games then that blows me away.

Yes I PVR'd the game and that stat was for the last 3 seasons!!! I couldn't believe it. Next on the list was Luongo at .964. The rest were Anderson at .954, Bryzgalov at .953 and Vokoun at .951. Also stated that prior to the game Price allowed 4g on 143 shots so far this season. That's why he will be the starter for Canada next year at the Olympics in Sochi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's interesting because he's an elite goalie but he's still 25 and there's another gear yet IMO. Seems like ever year he has 1 rough stretch. There's always 1 month with an .890 SV% or something. He eliminates that and he's nominated for a Vezina, year in year out essentially IMO.

Could this be the year? He's starting to enter his prime years.

It's crazy to think about the fact that he's 25, he's accomplished a lot already and been through even more.

Most good tenders go through that. You have the odd one's like Roy and Brodeur who rarely (in their prime) had bad games and when they did, backed it up with an impressive outing the next game.

Eddy "the eagle" Belfour was well known for being either hot or cold. Cujo (not on same level as Price or the other tenders mentioned) was hot and cold as well. So I'm not surprised when price has his slumps. He's still young enough to be able to gain consistency. Instead of having a bad month, maybe have the odd bad game during that stretch. If he was 30+, his tendencies would be more engrained, harder to break bad habits and change certain tendencies as you age.

It really is incredible, since we saw him (basically) right out of jr, most of us tend to think he's 27-29 years old. The kid is just entering his peek playing years(some say it's closer to 27 for tenders and dmen). For a 25 year old, he's a solid tender.

I always cringe when a team with a hot rookie tender, trades their vet #1 for their new young stud. Mason had an excellent rookie season, maybe not the best example since leclaire didn't fare much better in Ottawa and mason may have ended up playing most of the games anyways. After his rookie season, he seemed to have all the right things going for him and everything pointed to him being a future elite. He's struggled ever since to become the tender everyone expected him to be, hasn't even come close.

The growing pains for tenders are much different than for a forward. Young tenders often have bad stretches and struggle with consistency. Cam ward won the cup in his first year, then struggled with consistency 2 year following the cup. Hot younger tenders are exposed through video today. The thing that separates the good from the greats is their ability to adjust their game and either improve the holes in their game or find a way around them.

Another good example is Vancouver. Lou has had his struggles there (usually when the pressure was at it's highest, post season, elimination games, etc...), but usually pretty solid during the reg season. They tried hard to trade lou in the offseason, now he's playing lights out and getting the starts over Schneider. Schneider isn't playing horribly, but the nucks may have been in trouble early on had Lou not stuck around. he has won them a few games.

Even with an impressive rookie campaign, it's very hard to predict how a tender will mature. Even Roy had some growing pains following the 86 cup. Seemed to get it back in 88-89, but still wasn't enough to beat the flames. Finally found his grooves in 93 and the rest is history. Winning 2 cups in Montreal and 2 cups in Colorado. The first being the year he was traded, just goes to show how he thrives under pressure. Patrick was made from a different mould, what would break other tenders only made Patrick stronger. Price has some Roy tendencies, ability to thrive under the pressure, a bit of cockiness (which is almost needed for such a demanding position), durability (ability to play a lot of games), tough skin, both could handle both the media and fan pressure in Montreal (Thibo and Theo couldn't hack it).

Price does possess all the right qualities to be an elite tender in this league and even more importantly, in Montreal. He has improved, first few season he would have strong games, but always let in that stinker. He still lets in the odd stinker, most of the time, has a solid 60 minutes between the pipes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I PVR'd the game and that stat was for the last 3 seasons!!! I couldn't believe it. Next on the list was Luongo at .964. The rest were Anderson at .954, Bryzgalov at .953 and Vokoun at .951. Also stated that prior to the game Price allowed 4g on 143 shots so far this season. That's why he will be the starter for Canada next year at the Olympics in Sochi.

Good instinct. It wasn't true. At least not for the last 3 seasons (he's somewhere in the .920's at ES for the previous 3 years). Although 4 goals on 143 shots is a .972 ES SV% so that maybe what they were referencing while mixing up the time frame.

As for him being the starter in Sochi, I hope so but Hockey Canada has shown a loyalty to the guys who have done it for them and if they went back to Luongo it wouldn't stun me.

Just throwing it out there but I recall the timeline being from past seasons. I could possibly be wrong but that's what I remember.

Is that calculated differently than just adding the percentages up and diving by the number of actual percentages added to find the average? I understand how the percentage is calculated but just wondering about the average over time.

No matter the sample it's simply the % of shots you stop so saves/shots faced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good instinct. It wasn't true. At least not for the last 3 seasons (he's somewhere in the .920's at ES for the previous 3 years). Although 4 goals on 143 shots is a .972 ES SV% so that maybe what they were referencing while mixing up the time frame.

As for him being the starter in Sochi, I hope so but Hockey Canada has shown a loyalty to the guys who have done it for them and if they went back to Luongo it wouldn't stun me.

Nail on head, Canada's Olympic committee is very loyal. If Luongo continues his strong play from this season through to the next, he'll be a shoe-in for Sochi along with MAF. I think brodeur's Olympic days are over, so Price won't have to go up against marty, but even if he does join Team Canada, they'll probably start with Lou. Olympic committee likes veteran tenders for the Olympics, which is why Lou would probably front and centre.

Subban may have a chance if he takes off. They gave Doughty a shot a few years ago (think injuries played a factor), nonetheless, there's no reason why PK won't at least get invited to tryout if he continues to improve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No matter what time fram you pick, it's simply:

Number of saves/Number of shots

Good instinct. It wasn't true. At least not for the last 3 seasons (he's somewhere in the .920's at ES for the previous 3 years). Although 4 goals on 143 shots is a .972 ES SV% so that maybe what they were referencing while mixing up the time frame.

No matter the sample it's simply the % of shots you stop so saves/shots faced.

I understand that. I was thinking averages so I thought they'd take the last three ES Sv% from each season, add them and then divide by 3. But what they actually do is just take the cumulative number of shots over 3 seasons and divide that by the cumulative number of saves?

I noticed the discrepancy as well when I looked back on the stats. .970 just didn't make sense even looking at it in the 'average' way I was thinking.

I think you may be thinking of GAA. Starting sometime recently, they adjusted the GAA calculation. It used to be the total number of goals divided by the number of games, but now they do the total number of goals divided the number of minutes then multiplied by 60.

It used to be the raw goals against average per game, but now its goals against average per 60 minutes of play.

Even though that wasn't what i was thinking about, I actually didn't know this. Or I don't remember it happening. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that. I was thinking averages so I thought they'd take the last three ES Sv% from each season, add them and then divide by 3. But what they actually do is just take the cumulative number of shots over 3 seasons and divide that by the cumulative number of saves?

I noticed the discrepancy as well when I looked back on the stats. .970 just didn't make sense even looking at it in the 'average' way I was thinking.

Even though that wasn't what i was thinking about, I actually didn't know this. Or I don't remember it happening. Thanks.

Correct. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He won't be superman every night but man this team isn't the same without him. He's our rock and our MVP. I don't blame Budaj for tonight's loss - not at all actually but you can't help but think Carey probably wins it for us. Which is why Budaj is a backup and Carey is a 6.5 million dollar goalie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We would have won this game with Carey, not even a question. I hope we won't play Budaj much this season, the last two games he played were painful to watch.

I wouldn't say painful, personally, since I don't think that Budaj has been all that bad. I will say, though, that I agree with Roy that Carey probably would have won the game. It's just the type of goals that were being scored - Carey is great at protecting his crease during those big scrums in front of the net, and you'd have to think that he'd have been able to fight through the traffic to get one of those loose pucks in front that lead to goals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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