Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Occam's Razor

Roberto Luongo is 16-2-2 with a .926 save percentage while representing Canada in senior men's international competitions. Before he turned pro, he also played great in two world junior tournaments and helped two different teams qualify for the Memorial Cup.

Luongo's career professional playoff numbers against every team other than the Chicago Blackhawks are 16-12, 2.15, .931.

Combine that with the international numbers, and Luongo is a sparkling 32-14-2, 2.07, .929 in postseason and international games as a pro that did not involve the Blackhawks.

Against Chicago in the playoffs, Luongo is 4-8, 3.52, .888.

Occam's Razor says the simplest solution is more likely to be correct. So, which solution seems simpler and better suited to the facts?

1. Luongo chokes in pressure situations, and just happened to either play behind powerful defences or get lucky every single time he played in big games, other than when he played against Chicago in the playoffs where his true nature was revealed.

2. Luongo is just fine in pressure situations, and he and his teammates matched up poorly against Chicago the past two playoff seasons.

27 comments:

nightfly said...

Shhhhhhhhh you're spoiling the narrative!!!! LALALALALALALALA

:D

Anonymous said...

3: Luongo can perform admirably against very inferior opposition, but cannot handle equal teams to his own.

dan said...

You have One of the best sports 'stat' sites on the WEB! Again, you are ahead of the curve. I live in Vancouver, and Luongo gets 'abused' regularly by fans and commentators that have no idea what it takes to win. (The losing has effected their rational senses). I would add that the Canucks are very poorly coached. One of the reasons the Canucks appear to not match up well with Chicago is because the coach is not able to respond, counter Chicago. The league is so close in talent that in the playoffs it is all about getting the right matchups and making the adjustments game to game. AV is unproven and really incapable of competing against the big boys (Quenville/Bowman, Babcock)
Unfortunately, the 'knowing minds' will realize this too late..and Vancouver's window will close.
We like scapegoating in this town.
and we can't tell the diff. between Great guys -A.V. and great players/coaches.
If the coaching staff was changed in either series the Canucks would have won.(I can provide more evidence later)
One of Harry Neale's quotes is completely inaccurate now.
Coaches don't get enough credit nowadays..proof is that they are fired so often nowadays.(Why would teams do this, incur extra costs unless it had a potential benefit. (Something Vancouver hasn't figured out - A.V> is just a slick talker and a career assistant.

The Contrarian Goaltender said...

Anonymous: Your argument is that a guy who played his first six seasons with vastly inferior teams, while still attracting recognition and being repeatedly named to his country's national team because of his play, suddenly couldn't handle better opposition anymore as soon as he pulled on a Vancouver jersey?

You can make up any rationalization you want, but my point is that we have to decide which one is most likely. If you can make your argument without using the two Chicago series as Exhibits A to Z, then I'll listen, but I doubt that you can. If you can't, then it seems much more likely to be correct that Luongo (and Vancouver) plays poorly against the Chicago Blackhawks.

Anonymous said...

And his reason for nearly singlehandedly blowing the Kings series and getting outplayed by Jonathan Quick was... ?

The Contrarian Goaltender said...

Let's try to keep this discussion to things that actually happened, shall we?

Quick had an .884 save percentage despite actually having a competent penalty kill in front of him, he in no way outplayed Roberto Luongo. Luongo had two bad games but was very good in games 5 and 6 as the Canucks closed out the series. Saying Luongo nearly blew that series is like saying he nearly won the '09 series against Chicago.

And this is still small potatoes relative to the main point of the post, that Luongo's overall record in pressure situations is not lacking by any means.

Agent Orange said...

I'm not labeling Luongo a choker. I do however think that he doesn't meet his normal performance levels in pressure situations. By this I mean he isn't a top 2 or 3 goalie in these situations. Maybe he drops to a top 10 or 15. If you want to call that choking than that is your prerogative but I don't think I would call it "just fine".

I think most teams in the running for the Memorial cup would love to have a top 15 NHL goalie on their team. That talent level will improve your chances even if that goalie underperforms when the pressure is on. The average talent pool in the CHL is vastly different than the NHL (obviously). We don't consider Crosby scoring 1.38 ppg in the NHL compared to 2.5 ppg in the CHL underperforming. His talent level compared to average is much higher in the CHL than the NHL.

My expectation is that Canada would be the strongest team in the majority of the international tournaments Luongo has played in. How many of those 16 wins were against the Norways and Germanys of the world? A lot of goalies could have won those games.

The main issue here is that Luongo is very highly paid and we now live in a salary cap NHL. The odds that the goalie at the other end takes up more cap space than Luongo are small. A negative side impact of this is his skaters aren't likely to be as good as the other teams. Vancouver needs Luongo to outperform the other goalie just be even.

Before the cap it was fair to compare skaters on the team to give a good goalie on a bad team the benefit of the doubt. I don't think its fair to do anymore because a high paid goalie can have a negative impact on the skill level of his teams skaters.

Vancouver needs a top 5 goalie to be successful. If they are getting that in non-pressure situations and not getting it in pressure situations who else do we point the finger at?

In Florida there were no pressure situations for Luongo to face. Makes it difficult to base a judgment on.

The Contrarian Goaltender said...

Agent Orange: Do you have any evidence to support your view that Luongo drops from top 3 to top 15? Is that just your gut feeling?

My opinion is that it's ridiculous to pretend that we can rate goalie performance with that degree of certainty over such a small sample size.

In international play, Luongo is 8-0-1 against weak opponents (Latvia, Switzerland, Germany, Slovenia, Austria, Norway) and 8-2-1 against strong opponents (Czech Republic, Sweden, Finland, Slovakia, Russia, USA). Even more importantly Luongo has good save numbers, and these days in best-on-best tournaments there is not much difference between the top teams in the world in terms of shooting skill and shot quality against.

The main issue here is that Luongo is very highly paid and we now live in a salary cap NHL.

No, that's not the main issue. We're not talking about Luongo's value, we're talking about his reputation as a playoff failure. The size of a player's contract does not define whether or not their performance improves or declines in pressures situations.

You may be right that this affects the perception of Luongo's pressure performance, but I don't think it should. Do you think that Jaroslav Halak's play last year was made even more clutch by the fact that his cap it was only $775K? If not, then it doesn't make sense to use the opposite logic for a highly-paid goalie either.

Darren said...

How do the Olympics rank for 'pressure situations'?

Isn't the most logical conclusion of your analysis that Luongo sucks against Chicago, but otherwise is a very good goaltender?

Agent Orange said...

CG: Completely gut feeling and Top 3 compared to Top 15 is just spit-balling numbers.

Again I'm not saying he is bad or a failure I'm just saying he is not his dominant self. He seems to fight the piick. Has more trouble controlling rebounds. In general it just seems like his confidence isn't there.

Do you have a game log for Luongo's international games? I would be interested to check them out but am unaware of a resource for it. How many if any of those games against strong opponents would you consider Luongo's team being outmatched?

Sorry maybe I should have said "My main issue with Luongo".

Halak: I don't like to deal in clutch much less more or less clutch. I like to look at overperform/underperform expectations or what the team needs. Expectations are usually dictated by pay-check and previous performance.

Halak = Low paycheck = Low expectation

Luongo = High paycheck = High expectation

Halak's performance in the first 2 rounds was fantastic. He overperformed his expectations. He came back down to earth against philly but his team only scored 7 goals in 5 games and got shutout 3 times. There is a high likelihood that he could have maintained his performance and they would have still lost.

Luongo's performance in the playoffs last year was not as good as his regular season. His performance against Chicago last year was not as good as his regular season performance.

For reference Luongo received 18 goals in 6 games against Chicago. If he had performed at close to his normal level (let's say 0.91 sv%) over that series my estimate is it goes to at least game 7.

Just to be clear on my overall position. These are all just my opinions.

1) Luongo is a great goalie in "non-pressure situations".

2) In pressure situations Luongo does not play at his normally high level. I don't think he is drastically lower so I will not call him a choker. But I will say he is underperforming.

3) Vancouver made Luongo their star. They need Luongo to perform at his normal level to have good team success.

"If not, then it doesn't make sense to use the opposite logic for a highly-paid goalie either."

Disagree completely for any player. If I commit money to a player that is money I cannot commit elsewhere on the team. If I commit a high dollar amount to my goalie I cannot pay my defensemen as much. So I should expect to have lower quality defensemen on the ice in front of my all-world goalie. I need my all-world goalie to play like one in order to make up for my lower quality defense.

If I get some great overperformance from a low-paid player that is just a bonus. Alternatively, if I pay a guy the league minimum and he goes out and plays like the worst player on my team well what did I expect? Its a completely different expectation. I am depending on the high paid player not on the low paid player.

The Contrarian Goaltender said...

Darren: Yes, that's my conclusion, I thought it was clear from the post.

Agent Orange: The international game log can be found at hockeygoalies.org.

And once again, you're making a value argument, not a clutch argument. I am not addressing any value arguments in this post.

I agree with you in general that in most cases it is not wise to commit big money to the goaltending position, because that means your goalie needs to significantly outplay other goalies to enable you to get good value for that money. But again that's a separate issue as to whether Luongo has a fair reputation for his performances under pressure.

Agent Orange said...

Thanks for the link I'll give it a look over. To this point I hadn't had a good resource for international play so I could only work off the games I saw.

You are right I'm not making a clutch argument.

I'm not making a value argument either. I'm making an expectations argument.

If you want we can take the money out of it.

Luongo performed at a high level during the regular season. Because of this high level of performance Vancouver was a good team. 100+ points and won the division. They were not dominant but I think its fair to call them a good team.

Luongo's performance dipped in the playoffs and in my opinion he did not meet the expectations placed on him. I would imagine he did not meet his own expectations either.

Darren: I've made my feelings on the Olympics pretty clear. I'll review the game logs and might change my mind but from what I've seen he has been a good goalie on the best team. We should expect a lot of success for him in that venue and we should expect it even if he doesn't dominate.

Luongo playoff career is short. Only 6 series so far.

2007
Dallas: Based on goalie play the series was pretty even both Turco and Luongo were good. Result was a pretty even 7 game series. From what I remember of that series Vancouver may have had a slight edge in shooter going in skill but I didn't follow the series closely to make any comments on good/bad luck which could was that away.

Anaheim: Again goalie play was pretty even. Luongo and Giggy both played well. Anaheim had better skill in skaters and made short work of the Canucks. This was arguably Luongo's best playoff series.

2009
St Louis: The blues were overmatched pretty much across the board and the Canuck ran over them. Luongo was good but didn't really need to be.

Chicago: The teams overall were pretty even (goalies included). The Canucks needed Luongo to outperform the Chicago goalies to win the series. That didn't happen (goaltending didn't steal the show either way) and as a result the Canucks lost.

2010
LA: Luongo was inconsistent. He played basically the same level as Quick (maybe a little better). The Canucks were a better overall team and won the series as expected.

Chicago: See 2009 Chicago.

Chicago makes up one third of his playoff career. So if you want to say Luongo sucks one third of the time fine. His performance against LA wasn't much better. Now we are up to half of his playoff career.

I'm not saying Luongo is a choker or even a bad playoff goalie. I'm not saying he is doomed to playoff mediocrity the rest of his career based on his performance so far. All I am saying is that to this point his playoff performance hasn't matched his regular season performance.

Agent Orange said...

I looked quickly at the Olympic stats against quality competition (Czech Republic, Sweden, Finland, Slovakia, Russia, USA). Unless I made a mistake with transcribing the stats I get the following stat-line for Luongo.

8-2-1 0.908 sv% 2.897 GAA

It would seem as though Luongo fattened up his save rate statistics against the weaker teams in the competitions.

These number are split between 3 "types" of tournament.

IIHF World Championship (2003, 2004, 2005) - I'm not sure what the competitive landscape in terms of favorites is in these tourneys.

2004 World Cup of hockey - Based on the inclusion of NHL talent I would assume Canada was one of the favorites.

Winter Olympics (2006, 2010) - Canada should be favored here.

So playing on the best team Luongo was able to put up pretty good stats and seemed to dip closer to average against stronger competition. Sounds like another guy I know.

The Contrarian Goaltender said...

Your numbers are correct, and of course Luongo has better numbers against the likes of Slovenia and Latvia than against the Finns and Swedes. So does every other goalie.

Luongo's numbers are quite a bit worse in world championship games than in best-on-best tournament games, which shouldn't be too surprising because Canada typically sends much younger and weaker squads to the world championships.

If you further divide the numbers you calculated against the top teams by each type of tournament, you get this split:

World champs: 3.42, .896
Best-on-best: 2.32, .923

Make of that what you will.

The problem with small sample sizes is that it's pretty easy to twist the numbers any way you want. We don't even know if these numbers accurately refect Luongo's performance, he might have been really lucky in a game where he had good numbers (as some allege for the gold medal final in Vancouver, for example), and he also received great reviews for his work in some of those world championship games where his numbers aren't all that great.

That's why I don't want to conclude too much, although I still maintain that there is not enough evidence to say that Luongo's play drops against stronger competition or in pressure situations.

We could also look at a different definition that includes all the elimination games he played in international tournaments. After all, that's when teams go up against better opponents and face the prospect of going home. What is Luongo's record in those elimination games for Canada? It's 9-0, 2.54, .916. Pretty hard to quibble with that.

Again, I'm not saying he is clutch, I'm just saying there's not enough evidence to claim he isn't. There's a big difference there.

Anonymous said...

How do you figure that LA had a great penalty kill? I believe most hockey observers agreed that the Sedins/Samuelsson line were pretty much unstoppable, that the Kings had no answer for them and that the young Drew Doughty was just not up to the task. Even if you don't quite agree with that, you'll have to admit that offensively at least, Vancouver held a strong advantage.

I also disagree that Luongo was "very good" in games 5 and 6, he was decent, but didn't stand on his head, and nor did he have to with the offense in front of him.

I compare this series the most in recent years to the '07 Devils/Lightning series, in which the favored team was clearly superior in every way and indeed won, but with much more difficulty than needed be due to a subpar performance from its goaltending star (and actually, NJ in '07 was not nearly as good as Vancouver in '10, so Brodeur deserves more slack than Luongo).

Darren said...

It wasn't clear, as this is what I read:

"1. Luongo chokes in pressure situations, and just happened to either play behind powerful defences or get lucky every single time he played in big games, other than when he played against Chicago in the playoffs where his true nature was revealed.

2. Luongo is just fine in pressure situations, and he and his teammates matched up poorly against Chicago the past two playoff seasons."

So, your conclusions appeared to apply far more broadly than to just Luongo playing the Blackhawks.

Agent Orange said...

CG: It would appear Brodeur in the same situation is:

7-2 0.93 sv% 1.89 gaa.

which by my reasoning tells us 1 of 3 things.

1) Luongo's isn't as good a puck stopper as Brodeur. Although Luongo just wins so who cares about the stats.

2) BRODUER IS TEH BEST EVA WHAT ARE YOU GUYZ TALKING ABOUT?!?!?!?!11111oneoneleven

3) Playing for team Canada is a pretty sweet deal and is likely to lead to winning and posting good numbers.

I would take #3 out of those and add in the catch that it is very different from the NHL playoffs. Canada against most other teams is basically unfair and you aren't likely to find that situation in a playoff run (although Vancouver - St Louis in 09 was pretty close - KIDDING!).

You are correct we can cut and slice these numbers all we want and down to a point where we are talking about Luongo's 100% sv% in the 2nd period of night games played on odd numbered days when its above 36 degree in the locker room so maybe we should just give up on that part.

As I said earlier I don't argue for/against clutch so I'll just ask my question to you:

Based on his regular season performance how would you describe Luongo's body of work in the playoffs?

A) Overperforming
B) Underperforming
C) Same as regular season

I'm not asking for a predictor of how he will do in the future or how lucky he got in the playoffs so far or even what you think he is capable of. You've seen him play in both scenarios I'm sure. I'm just interested in understanding what you think of his performance playoff compared to regular season.

The Contrarian Goaltender said...

C. The same, or at least close enough to the same that we can't identify a difference with any confidence at all.

The distribution hasn't exactly been the same, Luongo's famously had a higher percentage of bad games in the playoffs, but he's also had a higher percentage of good games as well. Three series of overperforming + three series of underperforming = six series of business as usual.

If Luongo had a .919 save percentage in every series that he played, he probably would look much better in many people's eyes because there would be fewer low moments for them to obsess over. Maybe Vancouver would have advanced or forced a seventh game in one or both of the Chicago series. On the other hand, they would certainly have lost against Dallas in '07 and would never even had the chance to play Anaheim, and they also wouldn't have swept the Blues (although Vancouver still would likely have won the series). Given that Detroit and Pittsburgh stood in the way in '09, I'd say last year is the only one that looks like a potential missed opportunity for the Canucks, assuming they did overcome Chicago. And even if Luongo had a .919 save percentage in every game against Chicago last year, I think the only difference is that the series would have gone 7.

I don't really want to get into a deep discussion of potential alternate universes, my point is that I don't think the distribution matters all that much. Even if it did, I don't think Luongo had much personal control over it.

There is an overwhelming tendency for people to disproportionately focus on a game or two, or sometimes even a single big save or bad goal against when rating goalies. But when you do that you are grossly overrating the impact of a few discrete events. The only way to evaluate anybody properly is to the look at the context of the entire sample.

Anonymous said...

Agent Orange
I hate to be the one remind you about basic stat. analysis.
But your not even comparing 'apples to apples'

You are comparing the 'whole reg. season to three series against top offensive teams all near the top seven. Also Vancouver in the reg season was actually only 12th in ga and sa (for what its worth not a dominant defensive team)
Further Luongo was not bad in the two Chicago series.He has been average against a great team. Given his team is basically average defensively it follows Therefore he has been above average.(for the record)
He has 4 dom. games/ 3 average games and 5 bad games

Also, last year he was 10% better than Niemi (when you adjust for power play time). You see Orange here's a newsflash - ave. pp s% is lower than ave eve strength % - just one example of your simplistic and inaccurate comparisons.

Also, Luongo was very strong even strength but very bad on pp.
and pp% has been shown statistically to me more the result of luck than even strength.
That's why AC uses even %
Finally, who else would you take in goal. The only accurate way to judge is against his peers.
Last year everyone was raving about Miller as the best goalie on the planet - where is he this year?
and of course he hasn't taken a team to finals yet? How about Fluery and Osgood Ward they allwon cups..but last year with everything on the line the best minds in hockey (Babcock, hitch, Yzerman et a.these guys are winners they know what there doing..what does that say about cup winner theory..Clearly Luongo is better then them. Vokun..maybe but he hasnt had a fair chance in playoffs has he? No..the only was to compare is over a large sample of even strength and here Luongo is the best of his generation.
Orange you are doing a classic case of believing in something strongly then manipulating the stats to confirm your emotionally biased beliefs..
Its the same thing the fans and media in Van. are doing.
Also, The Sedins were actually outplayed by 70% by Towes and Byfugluin in the series -there cap hit is more than Luongo..so using your value formula they were actually far more to blame (and under-produced compared to reg. season and comp.)than Luongo for the lost of the series..sorry to rock your boat and disrupt the 'narrative' but that's the facts..

Agent Orange said...

Anonymous

Can you point to the "stat. analysis" that I have provided in this discussion thread?

Can you also point out where I am manipulating numbers to suit my analysis?

I don't want to speak for CG but at this point I think he agrees I have presented overall performances at face value which is all I claimed to do. CG and I have also agreed we are getting to small sample size without a lot of outside influence. As such we stopped that line of discussion.

Your first point. Vancouver's team skill.

"Vancouver in the reg season was actually only 12th in ga and sa"

I never claimed Vancouver was a dominant defensive team. I said overall they were a good team.

This does raise a pretty interesting point. Luongo faced an average number of shots against and allowed an average number of goals? Are you arguing that he is an average goalie? I think that sells him a little bit short.

I'll take a little sidebar here to throw the numbers out for a stat that I was first exposed to by CG: The Win Threshold.

Vancouver regular season
GF - 3.27
SA - 29.5
WT% - 0.889

Vancouver post season
GF - 3.58
SA - 30.9
WT% - 0.884

The Canucks did allow 1.4 more SA/G which could be attributed to the better offensive teams they played in the playoffs but that also gave Luongo more support. Seems like overall it was just as difficult to win with Vancouver in the playoffs as it was in the regular season.

"He has been average against a great team."

I don't know that the Hawks/Kings of the last two years would be considered "great teams". In addition my argument was that in these situations he has given a top 10-15 goalie's performance. I guess you are a little more critical of Luongo than I am? I mean I am at least giving him the benefit of the doubt of possibly being top 10 in these situations.

"You see Orange here's a newsflash - ave. pp s% is lower than ave eve strength %"

Thanks I wasn't aware. I'm not really sure why it matters when you are comparing a goalies overall performance to himself. Luongo in the regular season has the same skill level as Luongo in the playoffs. So unless you are arguing that the difficult (PP against) shots are harder for Luongo to stop in the playoffs (maybe because he isn't performing at the same level) I'm not sure what value there is to splitting out the stats.

"Finally, who else would you take in goal..."

The best minds in hockey also choose Brodeur to start over Luongo. How did that work out? I think you are missing my point. I'm not making an argument for anyone over Luongo.

Do you want me to concede that based on regular season even strength save % Luongo is the best goalie in the NHL? Fine I have no problem with that. But his overall playoff performances (EV PP PK - ALL) have been lower in the playoffs. Again I'm not saying anything about his overall skill level or his possible future. Just what we have seen so far.

"The Sedins"

The twins have combined for the following stat line over the last 2 regular seasons.

Reg.: 311 gp 358 pts 1.15 ppg
Post: 44 gp 56 pts 1.27 ppg

Just for the record

2010 reg.: 147 gp 194 pts 1.32 ppg
2010 post: 24 gp 28 pts 1.17 ppg

So the twins had career year last year and regressed to about their average in the playoffs despite the fact that Vancouver scored more gpg we should blame the Twins over Luongo?

The Contrarian Goaltender said...

But his overall playoff performances (EV PP PK - ALL) have been lower in the playoffs.

That's actually a false statement. Unless you are disregarding 2007, which I strongly suspect you are doing.

Luongo, regular season career:
EV: .928
PK: .887
PP: .908

Luongo, playoff career:
EV: .934
PK: .872
PP: .900

The playoff numbers are over a small sample, so there are larger error bars in terms of how accurately they describe his performance, but Luongo's struggles have come primarily on the PK in the playoffs.

Luongo also faced a higher percentage of shots against while on the penalty kill in the playoffs (23.6%) than in the regular season (22.1% career, 21.3% Vancouver only), which suggests that his teammates were either more undisciplined or they also underperformed on the PK.

The reason that we separate out performance by situation is that there seems to me to be more of a team effect on the PK, and as a smaller sample size it tends to be more impacted by luck than 5 on 5 performance. I also think that, like we see with some skaters, some goalies are just inherently better at either 5 on 5 or 4 on 5, although performances are fairly well correlated over large samples.

Agent Orange said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Agent Orange said...

CG: You are correct I was focusing on the last two years.

I don't mean to discredit Luongo's 2007 performance. He was incredible and the Canucks would have been out in short order without him.

The Canucks team of the last two years were teams that should have contended for the Cup and didn't it in large part due to their goaltending.

Anonymous said...

Wrong again orange;
the Sedins, coaching, lack of discipline were far ahead of Luongo
as reasons for the collapse.

Luongo was one of the few players that outperformed his rival.
(he played approx 8-10% better than Niemi.
If the coaching had made the Necc. adjustments to neutralize Towes and buf. (like Bolan did to Sedins)
If the Canucks actually had a shutdown line/defenceman..and if they had met the physical challenge when Buf. was intimidating Luongo..we would have won.
Your making the classic uneducated mistake of attributing to much importance to goaltending in the playoffs. (you might want to read som of CG's work)

Sorry Chicago both years and La were at very least strong offensive teams.

Luongo did not win them the series but he did not lose it either.
A very good breakdown of hockey is 45% of 40% defense and 15% goal tending.(this correlates quite well to usual salary cap numbers.
So I give Luongo 6-6.5 out of ten
either way goalies are rarely the difference.So the scapegoating of luongo is getting pretty worn out.

Agent Orange said...

Anonymous

In what world is Niemi a rival to Luongo? Luongo should be blowing Niemi out of the water in head to head competition.

In overall performance it wasn't nearly as one-sided as you might say

Niemi - 0.898
Luongo - 0.896

Now I know, I know you only care about EV strength save percentage. If you are going to stick to that as your only defending point of Luongo then we might as well end this argument now because I will not agree that we should disregard a goalie's performance on the PK simply because "the shots are harder".

Let me ask you a couple questions.

If Luongo had faced the same shot distribution and allowed the same number of goals but all of them on the PK what would you say of his performance?

What if he had allowed all of them at evens?

Chicago and LA were good scoring teams. But somehow they were able to score more goals per game in the playoffs (a usually low scoring environment) against better goaltending against Vancouver.

None of this addresses the fact that the Canucks scored more in the playoffs than the regular season. I guess those skaters shouldn't have bothered scoring when Luongo was going to allow 5 or more goals. Should have saved it for the game he played well.

It would be a lot easier for the twins to outscore their opposition if Luongo would stop allowing so many goals. See how that works?

I guess if I am uneducated you are over-educated? You have taken the pendulum swing to the complete other side of what you are accusing me of. Because Luongo is a good regular season goalie you are excusing him of all accountability in the playoffs. If his regular season number are good it must be the skaters, coaches, PK, fans yelling too loud its distracting him! Completely unable to consider the fact that maybe Luongo underperformed.

Lastly, my argument has nothing to do with the importance of goaltending it has to do with comparing regular season Luongo to

Agent Orange said...

The website cut off my last paragraph. It should read:

"Lastly, my argument has nothing to do with the importance of goaltending it has to do with comparing regular season Luongo to playoff Luongo."

Agent Orange said...

One more comment anonymous.

"So I give Luongo 6-6.5 out of ten"

I'm not sure what this is. Is this your rating for his playoff performance?

If so can you please give me your rating on the same scale of his regular season performance.