|
Post by Boston_Habs on May 19, 2016 7:34:52 GMT -5
I get that lots of GMs missed on those guys, and lots of GMs missed on Gallagher too. That's just how it goes sometimes. Drafting talent in the NHL is hard.
I don't really fault Timmins, but it's a fact that the only drafted players in the past 5 years who have made any kind of impact are Galchenyuk and Beaulieu. It's still too early for the 2014 and 2015 class, but the 2012 and 2013 classes should be showing signs of life. And it really just takes ONE. I don't care who it is, but somebody has to emerge as something more than a replacement-level player.
As far as I'm concerned, there are lots of jobs open up front:
Pacioretty/Galchenyuk/Gallagher OPEN/Pleks/OPEN OPEN/Eller/OPEN Byron/Mitchell/Flynn
If DD can't be moved to the wing, he should be moved out. But there are 3-4 spots available on the top 9 for UFAs, trade targets, and prospects.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on May 19, 2016 7:58:09 GMT -5
That's just how it goes sometimes. Actually, it happens all the time ... Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on May 19, 2016 8:19:06 GMT -5
I get that lots of GMs missed on those guys, and lots of GMs missed on Gallagher too. That's just how it goes sometimes. Drafting talent in the NHL is hard. I don't really fault Timmins, but it's a fact that the only drafted players in the past 5 years who have made any kind of impact are Galchenyuk and Beaulieu. It's still too early for the 2014 and 2015 class, but the 2012 and 2013 classes should be showing signs of life. And it really just takes ONE. I don't care who it is, but somebody has to emerge as something more than a replacement-level player. As far as I'm concerned, there are lots of jobs open up front: Pacioretty/Galchenyuk/Gallagher OPEN/Pleks/OPEN OPEN/Eller/OPEN Byron/Mitchell/Flynn If DD can't be moved to the wing, he should be moved out. But there are 3-4 spots available on the top 9 for UFAs, trade targets, and prospects. It doesn't really change the number of open spots, but I wouldn't be adverse to separating Pacioretty and Galchenyuk. Yeah it worked really well, but is it really necessary? I am personally of the opinion that Galchenyuk is on the verge of stardom, and thus it won't really matter who he plays with; I think he's going to get 70+ next year regardless. We've also seen that Pacioretty and Plekanec can play well together, so I think that by separating Max and Alex we can set up two good scoring lines, as opposed to one, top-heavy line. Sign a free agent/trade for a veteran for the Galchenyuk line, and then stick a couple of rookies on the second and third lines. UFA/Galchenyuk/Gallagher Pacioretty/Plekanec/Carr Desharnais/Eller/McCarron Byron/Mitchell/Flynn (Danault, Matteau) I don't know man... everyone seems to righting off next season already, but to me it doesn't look that bad. You've got the core of two pretty good offensive lines, we've seen Desharnais thrive on an exploitation third line, and we've got fourth liners of every ilk, style and build. Lots of depth on defense, and of course the potential for top-notch goaltending, assuming Price is healthy. It's not perfect, but no team is...
|
|
|
Post by blny on May 19, 2016 9:56:00 GMT -5
I think who plays together in the Fall depends on who Berg is able to attract this summer. I'll go on record as saying I'd like to see Max and Alex left together. Let them loose. Unleash them. PGG.
I'm being a broken record here, but my gut keeps telling me that Eriksson would be a strong fit with Plekanec. Two smart, two-way players. Loui gives Tomas a winger that can score and thinks the game in a similar fashion. Loui can play either side of center too. As a result, where you pencil him in on the second line depends on the kid you insert. Ghetto, Carr, Lehkonen, whoever; you end up with two responsible players capable of producing and mentoring a kid.
Without going all in with a guy like Stamkos, you've got money you can spend on the third line. Eller centers the line. Maybe you look at a guy like Brouwer. You'd have to overpay, but you get harder to play against in a big way. Carr is feisty. Carr-Eller-Brouwer.
Byron-Mitchell-Danault
If there's a 13th forward it would be Flynn or Lessio for me.
I'm not writing the year off. Add the goals. A healthy Price. Even with Therrien, they'll be back fighting for the division title.
That roster above, with DD bought out, is likely in the area of $72 million.
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on May 19, 2016 10:41:11 GMT -5
I don't know man... everyone seems to righting off next season already, but to me it doesn't look that bad. You've got the core of two pretty good offensive lines, we've seen Desharnais thrive on an exploitation third line, and we've got fourth liners of every ilk, style and build. Lots of depth on defense, and of course the potential for top-notch goaltending, assuming Price is healthy. It's not perfect, but no team is... I'm down with that, but the difference between good and contender can be subtle. In this case, it's the right UFA (Loui Eriksson?) and one of our prospects separating from the pack. The combination there could account for the 20-30 goals we are missing. It's tantalizingly close but we have seen how hard it is to find that extra missing offense (Briere, Parenteau, Semin). I agree that there are plenty of good pieces and it's not even like we need an elite player up front. It's just that the extra production we need to get over the top has been hard to come by. Still, that's the job and I'm expecting 47-50 wins and 100+ points. No excuses Bergie!
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on May 19, 2016 10:51:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by stoat on May 26, 2016 15:47:02 GMT -5
The Habs carry 23 players and dress 20. How many of those 20 (or 23) are at least pretty good NHL players? Name them, please (and don't say all are).
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 26, 2016 17:00:49 GMT -5
Carey Price Parnell Karl Subban Andrei Markov Jeff Petry Nathan Beaulieu Alexei Emelin Maximillian Kolanda Pacioretty Alex Galchenyuk Brendan Gallagher Tomas Plekanec Lars Eller
I gots 11
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on May 26, 2016 17:15:18 GMT -5
From what I've seen in these playoffs, Skilly…I'd take Emelin, Plekanec, and Eller off that list….
Emelin makes too many defensive errors…although his hitting can turn a game around….(see Lucic)….
Pleks always disappears come playoff-time, offensively, when the going gets rough….and he's aging. He'll be 34 this October.
Same with Markov…but he's so hockey smart, he makes up for it….for now…he'll be 38 in December.
And Eller is an enigma to me. More likely because of his usage….
It takes a warrior-mentality to win the Cup…no matter how skilled a team is.
|
|
|
Post by HABSINFL on May 26, 2016 18:04:11 GMT -5
Good analysis CH
|
|
|
Post by blny on May 26, 2016 18:29:13 GMT -5
Emelin and Markov were both significantly better after the deadline. That includes the fact that they both had to play because Beaulieu, Gilbert and Petry were all out hurt.
My hope for next season is that Markov plays very little on the PK. Give those minutes to Emelin, Beaulieu and Pateryn. That will take some strain off.
I'd like to see the same done for Plekanec, if possible. Eller's face off game is good. His ability to drive possession is very good. Let him center the first unit PK. Give the second unit to Mitchell. The wingers can be a rotation of Pacioretty, Byron, Danault, etc.
Pacioretty-Galchenyuk-Gallagher Eriksson-Plekanec-Brouwer Carr/Lehkonen-Eller-Andrighetto (forechecking machine) Danault-Mitchell-Byron
Markov-Subban Emelin-Petry Beaulieu-Pateryn Barberio
Price-Condon
PAP and DD buyouts
It's really hard to predict what it would take to get Eriksson and Brouwer. I'm predicting $5 million and $4 million respectively. Eriksson gives you a smooth two-way player with smarts to play with Plekanec. Brouwer gives you a game like Joel Ward's, which means hard to play against, enough skill to play with good players, and a net presence to clean up garbage. Both guys will be 31 to start the season, so 4 years would be ideal. Brouwer's never had a 4 year deal, so the extra year might cinch it. Berg would know the player well. Both players could take PK time.
At those numbers, the roster comes in somewhere under $71 million. $3 million plus in space. If Lindgren steals the backup job from Condon, you lose 400k in space. If Lehkonen makes the team, you need that space for his potential bonuses.
IMO, the hype around Ladd and Backes will make them too expensive for what they are, and Backes is a center. The line up above is balanced. I think it's harder to play against, bigger, more skilled, and produces more goals.
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 26, 2016 21:39:52 GMT -5
BNLY, I love your analysis (the ongoing stuff) . . . and others' as well . . . but since it's all going to come down to coaching, why do you put so much effort into it all? you don't have DD first line centre, so it's all moot anyway.
keep going, though . . . keep giving us something to hope for.
|
|
|
Post by blny on May 26, 2016 22:15:09 GMT -5
BNLY, I love your analysis (the ongoing stuff) . . . and others' as well . . . but since it's all going to come down to coaching, why do you put so much effort into it all? you don't have DD first line centre, so it's all moot anyway. keep going, though . . . keep giving us something to hope for. LOL. We all know that Therrien is a square peg, round hole, coach. I'm just suggesting we switch out some of the pegs. Well, one at least. I don't know if Therrien can be successful with that group, but it won't be the groups fault. If Bergevin can assemble a group like that, he'll have addressed key needs and potentially have cap space for a deadline acquisition to put them over.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on May 26, 2016 22:18:23 GMT -5
It is interesting that none of us have any interest in Desharnais seeing the light of day...except one certain head coach. Bergevin is looking for a DD replacement in Shipachyov, we have a 9th overall pick who could become a Tyson Jost or Clayton Keller or Logan Brown, all of whom are centres. It certainly doesn't seem like DD is in the Habs plans for next year. I'd certainly like to see them turn him into an asset though. Because he's only got one year left on his contract, that could be important in moving him to a lower echelon team that needs to boost their CAP costs, or even eating half his contract to make it palatable to a trade partner. It's only one year more.
I also think Lehkonen is going to be a player for us next year. He won't be an impact player, but I think he can get 15-20 goals in his first year and play a responsible defensive game. If I'm correct, we will need to pick up just one UFA. I'd prefer Ericksson of all those available, since he's the best scorer I'm excluding Stamkos, since I think CAP constraints will keep us out of that running. If we do get Stamkos, we'll have to move guys like Pleks and DD or Eller. That wouldn't be so terrible. I think Danault can be our shut down center and he's a lot cheaper than either of those guys. Eriksson, Lehkonen or Stamkos, Lehkonen and along with a healthy Price and we're in that ECF.
Of course, that's all contingent on MT being removed sometime during the season. If he's in there come playoff time, all bets are off.
|
|
|
Post by blny on May 26, 2016 22:31:43 GMT -5
WRT our pick, I'm hopeful that Sergachev is there. Emelin with offense. LHD. He's a need.
|
|
|
Post by folatre on May 27, 2016 22:06:22 GMT -5
At NHL level I give "pretty good" or better status to the same eleven Skilly list. CH is right that a number of those guys have significant flaws. I love Canadiens elite core of Price, Subban, Galchenyuk and Pacioretty; though it is understandable to ask about if sufficient leadership come from the top talents. The secondary core lacks both numbers and quality.
Therefore, I like where blny proposes to go with two UFA wingers like Eriksson and Brouwer. However, this quest for good established wingers top six is complicated. I fear it will take considerably more money than Bergevin (and closely consulted Therrien) will commit and make room for. For Montreal $30 million USD is probably the magic number for Eriksson, either 5 years at $6M per or 6 years at $5M; for me $20 million over 4 years sounds way too low considering Plekanec signed contract to earn $6M per at age 34 and 35. And Brouwer is almost earning $4M annually now, so it seems long odds that his payday is not more than $16M/4yr. I think he signs for $25M over 5 seasons.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jun 1, 2016 15:43:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jun 1, 2016 15:45:23 GMT -5
It's not a lie, but more a half truth. Average goal tending AND more goals for.
|
|
|
Post by frozone on Jun 1, 2016 18:24:28 GMT -5
I drew a slightly different conclusion, but I noticed the same thing. Yes, there was that period where every mistake ended up in the back of the net, but I can't pin most of those goals on abysmal goaltending. I thought Condon lost a fair share of games in which he played good enough for the Habs to potentially win.
If anything was abysmal, it was the defensive breakdowns. Markov alone had a stretch of games in which he alone cost the team a few points. Even Price's stellar high risk shot save % wouldn't have been enough to stop a losing skid.
I think that now that the season is over, we're looking to the stats to see where it all went wrong. The backup goalie numbers suggest our main weakness was in net, but really I think the backups simply failed to overcome the 4 greater problems of this past season: defensive breakdowns, no offense, injuries and poor in-game adjustments. I can't think of many goalies capable of overcoming all of these things.
|
|
|
Post by folatre on Jun 1, 2016 20:40:52 GMT -5
It is true. The defense was really poor too. They allowed rivals to feast in prime shooting zones thanks to turnovers, constant coverage breakdowns owe to lack of discipline and poor communication. I remember feeling the most alarming thing of the 40 games of franchise record breaking futility was supposed vaunted system of Therrien evaporated in thin air long before guys like Petry, Beaulieu, Gilbert, and Subban got injured. It was like the team signaled to world there is no defensive system or coaching to dig in around.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 1, 2016 21:04:21 GMT -5
It's not a lie, but more a half truth. Average goal tending AND more goals for. There you go!
|
|
|
Post by habsorbed on Jun 1, 2016 23:08:13 GMT -5
It is true. The defense was really poor too. They allowed rivals to feast in prime shooting zones thanks to turnovers, constant coverage breakdowns owe to lack of discipline and poor communication. I remember feeling the most alarming thing of the 40 games of franchise record breaking futility was supposed vaunted system of Therrien evaporated in thin air long before guys like Petry, Beaulieu, Gilbert, and Subban got injured. It was like the team signaled to world there is no defensive system or coaching to dig in around. Can our defence be that bad? I look at the finalist Pens and their no name D (except for Letang who may match PK) and wonder how does that team go so far. Yeah, they have a pretty good stable of forwards and have had great and surprising goaltending from Murray. But can't help feeling a lot has to do with a coach who understands the game and the talent he has.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jun 2, 2016 0:33:50 GMT -5
I read that article yesterday and my thought was that the article can be summarized by saying that when Price is playing great, we're great and when our goaltending sucks, we suck. Somehow that doesn't make me feel that our problems are solved. When Price is hurt we simply shouldn't be that bad. Bad yes, but not that bad. The reasons for being that bad are partly to do with not having enough scoring talent (because I'd put our healthy defense up against anyone's) and mostly to do with an inept coaching staff who have more in common with each other than with the game itself. Carolina is a team we can compare to because their goaltending also sucked and they had even more trouble scoring than we did. I think we have more talent (if we forget about Price) in every category except goal where we're equal. Carolina ended up with 4 more points than we did despite having a lot less talent IMO. That's an ugly looking team and worse than us pretty well everywhere except behind the bench where they have Bill Peters. And he doesn't affect their CAP at all. Taking a line out of The Wizard of Oz, "If we only had a brain".
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jun 2, 2016 5:58:27 GMT -5
I read that article yesterday and my thought was that the article can be summarized by saying that when Price is playing great, we're great and when our goaltending sucks, we suck. Somehow that doesn't make me feel that our problems are solved. When Price is hurt we simply shouldn't be that bad. Bad yes, but not that bad. The reasons for being that bad are partly to do with not having enough scoring talent (because I'd put our healthy defense up against anyone's) and mostly to do with an inept coaching staff who have more in common with each other than with the game itself. Carolina is a team we can compare to because their goaltending also sucked and they had even more trouble scoring than we did. I think we have more talent (if we forget about Price) in every category except goal where we're equal. Carolina ended up with 4 more points than we did despite having a lot less talent IMO. That's an ugly looking team and worse than us pretty well everywhere except behind the bench where they have Bill Peters. And he doesn't affect their CAP at all. Taking a line out of The Wizard of Oz, "If we only had a brain". I agree that the team, on paper, without Price isn't the worst team in the league. Goal scoring was an issue going into the season. I won't rehash the methods Bergevin tried to address it. However, when Gallagher went down and the tertiary scoring dried up, our shortcomings were exacerbated. Therrien spending the month of December not trying Galch with Pacioretty gets added to the list of issues we all have with the coaching staff. It falls within the topic of, "if our staff was better, it could have gotten the group out of the funk at least somewhat". If the coaching staff has the sense to leave Galchenyuk with Pacioretty, and put a healthy Gallagher with them, it should be a very competent first line. It should be one to stack against many of the best in the East. What it boils down to, again, is adding goals to that second line.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jun 2, 2016 8:38:55 GMT -5
Some team rankings from War on Ice:
Goals For: 16th Goals Against: 21st Corsi% For: 9th FF%: 11th Shots For: 9th Shots Against: 12th Scoring Chances For: 21st Scoring Chances Against: 15th High Danger Scoring Chances For: 18th High Danger Scoring Chances Against: 11th Faceoffs: 13th On Ice Sv%: 28th
One of them kind of sticks out, no? The others are either middle-of-the-pack, or even good. Scoring chances for could be higher (though the High Danger Scoring Chances bordered on average), but everything else was either average or above so. Even the "he has no defensive system" argument doesn't seem to hold up, as the team was average or above average in the "defensive" advanced stats of shots and chances against. Which is funny considering nobody thinks of Therrien as an advanced stats kind of coach.
Seems like the one thing that most needs to be improved upon is the team save percentage, which was one of the worst in the league. Now consider that the on ice save percentage actually includes 12 games of Carey Price with a .934 save percentage and it seems clear to me where the biggest problem was. Not the only problem of course, but a pretty big one. Which is why I am pretty optimistic about next season; as the article states, the Habs don't need all-world goaltending (though of course that will be nice), they just need average goaltending. Average goaltending won't win them the Cup, but they wouldn't be picking top 10 with it either.
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jun 2, 2016 9:34:58 GMT -5
If we're that close, one would think that such a team WITH all-world goaltending would win the Cup. Price won every piece of hardware applicable to him. And we weren't even close.
WITHOUT such a goalie…the worst team in the league. Those are the numbers that stick out to me. Price at the top of his game is single-handedly responsible for at least 30 pts. per season.
I don't care what Corsi or Fenwick have to say. If Price's injury recurs….we'll be toast again. Too many holes to fill with top players to withstand such a loss.
Losing Price also has a negative psychological effect on the team. The boys KNOW how much they rely on him. I doubt Bergevin shopping at the NCAA Undrafted Goalie Mall will help in that regard.
He's not going to find another Price….and so he has to find GOALS!
Hoping for Hudon? Anxious for Andrighetto? Counting on Carr?
We still have a Top 6 that's really a Top 3, contender-wise.
Once teams shut down Pacioretty, Galchenyuk, and Gallagher….
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jun 2, 2016 10:04:36 GMT -5
I guess that depends on how you look at it; two years ago, when Price was winning all that hardware, the team was not very good in the advanced stats department. Bottom ten in just about all of them. No doubt Price played a huge role in the team's success, and he was deservedly rewarded.
Also no doubt, in my mind anyways, the powers-that-be saw this and realized it was not the optimal recipe for success. I know it goes against the current zeitgeist, but I don't believe Therrien and Bergevin are as dumb as people think they are. They can see the games just as well as we can. So they brought in a new system, some new players, and statistically it was a resounding success. They improved pretty much across the board in all categories that people now say are essential to having sustained success. With the exception of goaltending. Which totally tanked. And the team tanked with it
So the question then becomes "which is more important, goaltending or puck possesion?" Using just the Montreal Canadiens as your data source then the only conclusion you can reach is "advanced stats mean nothing". I mean, they sucked at them one year, and with a great goalie had much success, and they were much better at the advanced stats in another year, but had terrible goaltending, and thus sunk in the standings. The only conclusion then is the stats don't matter, goaltending is key. Which is kind of a roundabout way of saying that coaching doesn't matter either, right? You can't have it both ways; you can't say Therrien sucks because his system does not preclude the team to being a good puck possesion team, and then dismiss the fact that his team was, in fact, decent at puck possession, by saying "it doesn't matter, its all the goalie". Therrien DID have a system that lent the team to having decent advanced stats, and if that is a marker of good coaching, well…
The OTHER conclusion, of course, is that it's a mixture of the two. Which is kind of what I have been saying; with average advanced stats, and average goaltending, the team probably would have been… average. And in the mix to make the playoffs. With bad goaltending, and average advanced stats, the team was bad. The improvement in the advanced stats was not enough to overcome the total collapse in nets. One metric was just too heavy to keep the scales balanced. Now how much improvement is needed, and where, to rebalance those scales? I think an improvement in goaltending, along with a continued improvement in the advanced stats, is not only likely, but likely to lead to a much more successful season.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jun 2, 2016 11:57:58 GMT -5
What bothers me a lot, BC, is that when I watch our team come out of our end, when they're successful, it's because of good individual efforts by players. It's because a forward broke into an open spot near the red line and one of our dmen made a good pass to him. When you play better teams, they give you less time and space and it's more difficult to make those very good, difficult plays. I rarely see us come out because of a good system. Chicago is such a great example. They usually have 4 guys back when they get possession. One winger normally is sitting out between the further blue line and red line to force at least one defenseman to cover him, so there's more space in the defensive zone. Of the remaining 4 guys, one has the puck, one is to that player's back, another to that player's front and along the boards andn the fourth is near the puck carrier in the centre. I've lambasted this point before, that the puck carrier has 4 options....the 3 guys to pass to, all in different locations, or carry the puck out himself. We rarely ever give the puck carrier that many options. They're all easy options too. The support guys are all close by so the guy with the puck doesn't have to make a superb pass. It just makes it easier to clear your zone, retain possession and attack with control of the puck. IMO, we emphasize recovering the puck far too much, which means not having it. If we had average advanced stats last year, I'm amazed. Frankly, I just think Therrien is one of the luckiest guys around. When his luck deserts him, he flops like a landed fish. Looking back at 2014-15, you suggest that the brain trust saw the failings and improved the puck possession. That was Therrien's 3rd full year coaching the Habs. It takes 3 years to figure out you're not a good possession team and you rely on your goalie too much? I suggest, rather, that some of the players on the Habs improved and gained more patience and that accounted for improved possession stats, rather than any difference in the system. Therrien and the players all stated that they hadn't changed much and I believe them because I didn't notice any real difference in our system. It's still hail mary passes and forechecking to regain the puck, all very tiring and inefficient strategies for long term success. I won't even get into the proper allocation of ice time and fairness to players, etc. To me it's a simple matter of friends looking after friends. I'm not even sure who's calling the shots on that team. If MT doesn't like a guy, he ends up being moved, unless it is politically difficult (see exhibits Subban and Galchenyuk). Is Bergevin really his own man? It's unfortunate I'm even questioning this, but them's the facts. Not all those guys Berg picked up can be that bad. They don't seem to fit with Therrien, though. Funny how the Mitchell's and Byron's of the world seem to work well with Michel, but not the offensively skilled guys. There's not much flexibility to Therrien and it's certainly making Bergevin's job a difficult one, as he's pointed out. PS. I agree our goaltending was awful last year. I don't think Condon is making the team this year. As Skilly points out all the time, our scoring was also pretty awful. A slight improvement in either would have made a huge difference. The question is, is it all a function of talent, or is there an issue with guidance, with player handling and with player usage which would have improved those areas, even with no change in personnel?
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jun 2, 2016 19:37:19 GMT -5
The goaltending was bad but I wouldn't blame Mike Condon ... it's not like he had too much in the way of defence in front of him on most nights ... the defence corps was battered up just about all season ... and when they weren't healthy, a pattern sort of developed ... they'd go into the 3rd either in a position to win it or tie it, but someone would miss a check and the game was over just like that ... I think the biggest thing they need to work on is the attitude ... as an outsider looking in, I saw the team simply give up in a lot of games this year ... I can't believe for a minute that a professional hockey player would not know the game in which his team was officially eliminated ... Lars Eller said he never knew that, however he also said that they guys in the room had known for while that they weren't going to make the playoffs (paraphrase) ... like, I'm in the room, but as a fan I'm really disappointed with that statement ... I actually feel pretty good that I didn't make it to Montreal for a game last year ... why would I fork out money to see a team mail it in ... that attitude has to change ... is Carey Price that much of a catalyst ... if he is then we haven't progressed very far ...
Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 2, 2016 20:09:39 GMT -5
I had a big elegant reply typed out regarding the link BC posted and the browser crashed .... Soooo , I'll condense what I typed.
It's interesting that the author uses empty net goals in the analysis of the team, and blames the goalies when goalies have nothing to do with empty net goals, but does not use shootout goals, when that's where a goalie really comes into play
The team surrendered 236 goals, but the goalies were only credited for 221 goals against.
|
|