| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| mytor4 |
Posted - 04/04/2008 : 16:42:46
I am curious where you would rate Toskala this yr.
I had claimed in a earlier post that the leafs goaltending had been average [Toskala ] to terrible [Raycroft ].
Antroman disagreed with me quoting ,Toskala is an awesome goalie.
he also asked me --Check out Toskala's stats playing on a supposed poor team my friend.
I did check his stats and there listed below
My reason for saying he
s been an average goalie at best was
1st his goals against 2.74 which puts him at 32 nd overall
2nd his save % is 9.04 which sits him at 31 st overall
'These stats sits him at the bottom of the league which to me does not discribe awesome. whats your opinion
57 career losses,46 shutouts and 5 vezina trophys.6 Stanley Cup rings in 8 yrs |
| 13 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| irvine |
Posted - 04/05/2008 : 16:43:52
I had to vote 11-15.
That is my current opinion of Toskala. Though, given some different circumstances, a little more behind him in terms of years playing as a starter -- I'd likely move him up to around 5-10.
Irvine |
| mytor4 |
Posted - 04/05/2008 : 16:35:22
quote:
Originally posted by MarkhamMax
I'm just going to save a lot of space and fully back Beans on this. He basically echoes my feelings on Toskala. I think he was a rare gem on a very mediocre team. Toskala was one of JF Jr's good moves. Top 15 I'd say
"Take two pucks to the head and call me in the morning".
I can agree with you on Toskala being # 15 on the list but Beans writings leads to suggest he's 6th on the list . 6th to 15th is a big difference. Now with that i've said my peace and don't want to get into any wars about this subject. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion. Bean,yourself myself ,everybody. Anyways later .
57 career losses,46 shutouts and 5 vezina trophys.6 Stanley Cup rings in 8 yrs |
| MarkhamMax |
Posted - 04/05/2008 : 16:06:19
I'm just going to save a lot of space and fully back Beans on this. He basically echoes my feelings on Toskala. I think he was a rare gem on a very mediocre team. Toskala was one of JF Jr's good moves. Top 15 I'd say.
"Take two pucks to the head and call me in the morning". |
| mytor4 |
Posted - 04/05/2008 : 15:35:11
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Wow, this actually made me laugh out loud.
1) I was not saying that one should not consider the areas where Toskala was below average, I was simply stating that you have to look at both what he did good and what he did poorly.
2) If hockey was simply a math game it would be played by scientist, not athletes. You have to consider other things than straight math.
3) The percentages of things does not make the stat better. A player who takes 4 shots in the season and scored two goals has a higher percentage than Ovechkin, but does that make them a better goal scorer?? Not on your life.
4) Anyone who has watched any amount of hockey in the past 3 years would agree that Broduer, Luongo, Lunqvist, and Kipprusoff are the elite. Some could also argue guys like Nabokov and Turco. But how this is so absurd to you I can not understand.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First off this quote #3 is a joke.
3) The percentages of things does not make the stat better. A player who takes 4 shots in the season and scored two goals has a higher percentage than Ovechkin, but does that make them a better goal scorer?? Not on your life.
Using 4 shots and scoring 2 goals come on you can do better than that. What about 400 shots at 10% compared to 300 shots at 15%. If your going to bring up % at least be reasonable. % are used over a period of time and amounts and over those periods yes they show who is the better goal scorer I would think you would know and understand that.
So your now saying that O.V.has 400 shots and 65 goals but Mike Smith has scored 70 goals taking 1500 shots so Mike is the better scorer. NOT ON YOU LIFE.
Putting Broduer, Luongo, Lunqvist, and Kipprusoff as elite goalies i have no problem with.Some could also argue guys like Nabokov and Turco, I have no problem with.
But claiming that Toskala is near elite if not elite is a joke and absurd.Theres no way that Toskala is the next best after the goalies named .The goalies i would rank ahead of Toskala would be.
Brodeur
Luongo
Lunqvist
Kipprusoff
Nabokov
Turco
Miller
Vokoun
Giguere
Backstrom
Dipietro
Bryzgalo
Leclaire
Huet
Quite easily i would take any goalie above before Toskala.
There are also more i would take in the up and commers as in Fleury and Price. All named above have proved it this yr just check there stats.
Again what i claim is absurd is----You claiming that Toskala is near elite if not elite to you. That I can not understand. All stats show otherwise.
57 career losses,46 shutouts and 5 vezina trophys.6 Stanley Cup rings in 8 yrs |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/05/2008 : 10:04:46
Wow, this actually made me laugh out loud.
1) I was not saying that one should not consider the areas where Toskala was below average, I was simply stating that you have to look at both what he did good and what he did poorly.
2) If hockey was simply a math game it would be played by scientist, not athletes. You have to consider other things than straight math.
3) The percentages of things does not make the stat better. A player who takes 4 shots in the season and scored two goals has a higher percentage than Ovechkin, but does that make them a better goal scorer?? Not on your life.
4) Anyone who has watched any amount of hockey in the past 3 years would agree that Broduer, Luongo, Lunqvist, and Kipprusoff are the elite. Some could also argue guys like Nabokov and Turco. But how this is so absurd to you I can not understand.
|
| Axey |
Posted - 04/05/2008 : 07:28:46
the moral to the story is.... ne chance of toskala being a good or great goalie was depleted once he put on the laf jersey |
| mytor4 |
Posted - 04/05/2008 : 07:02:25
quote:
Originally posted by Patchy
Any body that knows math will tell you that quote is wrong. Thats like saying a guy that has taken 400 shots and scored on 10 % of them is just as good of a shooter as a guy that has taken 300 shots and scored on 15% of them. FALSE---Higher % means your doing a better job than the goalie with a lower %. Simple math
[/quote]
Actually, you're wrong about that...15% of 300 isn't as much as 10% of 400.
~~Go Leafs Go~~
[/quote]
Actually i'm right. I never said it was more ,I said it was better.
Also your math is off a bit to 10% of 400 =40 15% of 300 = 45
but the amount doesn't matter it's the % that tells the story. for instance the if the guy with the games ends up playing 100 more games at the same 15% than he would end up with 60 goals. the % is used to compare the players when the have played different amount of games,had different amount of shots against them. it tells who did the best in those statistics. so if you look at Toskala stats you will find that rates at the bottom of most of them.
57 career losses,46 shutouts and 5 vezina trophys.6 Stanley Cup rings in 8 yrs |
| Patchy |
Posted - 04/04/2008 : 20:40:31
[/quote]
Any body that knows math will tell you that quote is wrong. Thats like saying a guy that has taken 400 shots and scored on 10 % of them is just as good of a shooter as a guy that has taken 300 shots and scored on 15% of them. FALSE---Higher % means your doing a better job than the goalie with a lower %. Simple math
[/quote]
Actually, you're wrong about that...15% of 300 isn't as much as 10% of 400.
~~Go Leafs Go~~ |
| mytor4 |
Posted - 04/04/2008 : 20:15:33
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I think the view is a little short sighted. The talk is about how Toskala's save percentage is 31st in the league and his GAA puts him at 32nd in the league. What about being 10th in wins, 7th in shots against, 8th in saves, and 20th in Shutouts??
A goalie who saves 90% or more of the shots he faces is doing his job. Above this, a goal who faces over 1800 shots and have a .901 is doing as good as a goalie who faces 1200 shots and has a .910 save percentage.
Toskala was one of the few shining stars on the Leafs, and to this he produced to this fashion on a team that is not in the playoffs is fine. Put Toskala on any top 10 team in the league and his stats prove that even more.
I put Toskala in the near elite set of goalies in the league, if not elite. I would only put Luongo, Brodeur, Kipprusoff, and Lundqvist ahead of every other goalie. He is right behind them.
6-10, easily!
Short sighted you say. Your trying to munipilate the facts.
You say he is 10th in wins but don't put in that only 6 other goalies have more losses. You also say he is 7th in shots faced but again don't mention that only 6 other goales played more games than him.
Also think about what your say here-----a goal who faces over 1800 shots and have a .901 is doing as good as a goalie who faces 1200 shots and has a .910 save percentage.
Any body that knows math will tell you that quote is wrong. Thats like saying a guy that has taken 400 shots and scored on 10 % of them is just as good of a shooter as a guy that has taken 300 shots and scored on 15% of them. FALSE---Higher % means your doing a better job than the goalie with a lower %. Simple math
Also you say he produced to this fashion on a team that is not in the playoffs . Then how come there are many other teams that didn't make the playoffs but there goalies produced better,Luongo,Garon,Bryzgalov,Miller,Vokoun,Leclaire. these goalies team didn't make the playoffs but they all out performed Toskala this yr. FACT.
Last but not least .You say you would only put Luongo, Brodeur, Kipprusoff, and Lundqvist ahead of Toskala .I really can't believe a knowledgeable person like yourself would even think that let alone say that. Thats the most absurb thing i've heard in a long time.
57 career losses,46 shutouts and 5 vezina trophys.6 Stanley Cup rings in 8 yrs |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/04/2008 : 19:31:58
I think the view is a little short sighted. The talk is about how Toskala's save percentage is 31st in the league and his GAA puts him at 32nd in the league. What about being 10th in wins, 7th in shots against, 8th in saves, and 20th in Shutouts??
A goalie who saves 90% or more of the shots he faces is doing his job. Above this, a goal who faces over 1800 shots and have a .901 is doing as good as a goalie who faces 1200 shots and has a .910 save percentage.
Toskala was one of the few shining stars on the Leafs, and to this he produced to this fashion on a team that is not in the playoffs is fine. Put Toskala on any top 10 team in the league and his stats prove that even more.
I put Toskala in the near elite set of goalies in the league, if not elite. I would only put Luongo, Brodeur, Kipprusoff, and Lundqvist ahead of every other goalie. He is right behind them.
6-10, easily! |
| Gostarsgo12 |
Posted - 04/04/2008 : 17:13:10
I put him in 6-10 I think if he gets a good team in front of him he has good potential to be a great goalie and he already is one from the looks of it this year
Go Stars |
| mytor4 |
Posted - 04/04/2008 : 16:58:02
quote:
Originally posted by irvine
That is one very long 'poll' question.
I also don't get what these numbers are for as the answers.
Are they where he sits amongst starters? 1-5 = top 5 starters? 30 being bottom of the barrel?
Irvine
The numbers just show his position out of the top 40 goalies including starters and backups. He sits near or at the bottom among starters in the league in save % and goals against.
The numbers in the poll 1-5 6-10 and so on is where you would rate him as a goalie in other words how many goalies would you pick ahead of hin to back stop your team. If there's only two goalies you would pick ahead of him than you would put him in the 1-5 bracket
57 career losses,46 shutouts and 5 vezina trophys.6 Stanley Cup rings in 8 yrs |
| irvine |
Posted - 04/04/2008 : 16:50:37
That is one very long 'poll' question.
I also don't get what these numbers are for as the answers.
Are they where he sits amongst starters? 1-5 = top 5 starters? 30 being bottom of the barrel?
Irvine |
|
|
