You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go to Page...
Thank you for crosschecking our sponsors!
About This Page: This is a discussion on LA Kings Talk within the LetsGoKings.com forums, at Los Angeles Kings Hockey Fan Forum. if we had solid goaltending from the start? I wonder how much of an impace the soft goals had on the D and if it changed the way they played
if we had solid goaltending from the start? I wonder how much of an impace the soft goals had on the D and if it changed the way they played the game at the wrong time of the season.
I understand that, but would our defense have held up better if they were not so worried about soft goals going in?
No. Quite the reverse, actually. You'd think a D-and-Centerman-corps worried about softies would do the obvious thing and minimize shots on goal. Instead, they guard the back post, never pick up the opposing team's point guy that has decided to activate to receive a pass in the faceoff circle, only check and lift the slot guy's stick about 25% of the time, and do only a mediocre job of collecting and clearing rebounds.
So, no. They would not have done any better if they were not so worried about soft goals because they are guaranteeing through their play that there will be enough hard goals to put us out of contention in many games. It's hard to find any aspect of their play (in all of last season and the first 3 months of this one) that would indicate that their primary mission is to keep the opposing team from getting shots on goal. Since New Year's, more guys have been marking the guy in the slot, laying out for blocks, pressuring the guy at the point and on the half wall instead of giving him a 10ft radius to work (hampered only by flaccid stick waving in his general direction).
Bad goaltending affects everyone. I tend to agree that had Ersberg been playing at this level at the start of the season it probably would have been a different ending.
33.5 for Ersberg, and he's better at freezing pucks.
30.8 for Cloutier. (maybe the defense is working extra hard in front of him!)
Bernier and Quick both faced fewer than 30 spg, but their sample sizes are small and nobody's arguing that either is ready for NHL duty, so they're not really worth considering here.
This...will...never...get...it...done...ever. Near the end of last season I went on a rant projecting that if we could reduce the shots allowed per game to the 26-27 range, and projecting Labarbera to put up a 91% save rate (exactly what he has, BTW), we'd be a playoff team with a GAA in the 2.4 range instead of the nearly 3.2 it is now.
The goaltenders have held up their end of the bargain. Everyone else gets an F.
33.5 for Ersberg, and he's better at freezing pucks.
30.8 for Cloutier. (maybe the defense is working extra hard in front of him!)
Bernier and Quick both faced fewer than 30 spg, but their sample sizes are small and nobody's arguing that either is ready for NHL duty, so they're not really worth considering here.
This...will...never...get...it...done...ever. Near the end of last season I went on a rant projecting that if we could reduce the shots allowed per game to the 26-27 range, and projecting Labarbera to put up a 91% save rate (exactly what he has, BTW), we'd be a playoff team with a GAA in the 2.4 range instead of the nearly 3.2 it is now.
The goaltenders have held up their end of the bargain. Everyone else gets an F.
Great post. The importance of save percentage to the TEAM is often overstated. The context matters.
Would our defense have faired better this season... 
charles
