Like so many T-shirts in Times Square, I heart New York. I heart New York for a whole lot of reasons, and a lot of them are dumb, but one of the not-dumb ones is that the city is the omnipresent cultural trendsetter. Everything comes from New York. Clothes, theatre, music, food - whatever's trendy in the US started being trendy in New York. So it's always satisfying and intriguing to see the rare cultural phenomenon which spreads over the continent before it hits the city. Well, modern anthropologists such as myself are in luck, as a trend that has been sweeping NHL fan bases for years has finally touched down in Manhattan: the Goalie Controversy.
Though arguments over which of your team's netminders is better have been a part of hockey for a long time, it seems like recently you can't go a few months without some team being in some crisis between the pipes, real or imagined. Of course, the best-known Goalie Controversy in recent memory was resolved over the summer, when Canucks fans were either relieved or appalled to learn that one of their two very good goalies, Cory Schneider, had been traded to a Devils team desperate for a goalie under 40 (or at least one who probably hasn't fucked his wife's sister), leaving room for their other very good goalie, Roberto Luongo. But there's been no shortage of other goalie arguments around the league over the last few years: Fleury vs Vokoun, Bernier vs Reimer, Halak vs Price, Halak vs Elliott, every man for himself in Philly... they run the gamut from "our team has no good goaltending prospects" to "our team has two good goalies and we, the fans, have decided to irrationally hate one of them," and they're always a hot topic of discussion, where "discussion" means hockey fans pretending to be psychologists and ignoring statisticians.
The recipe for a Goalie Controversy is not so different from that of most other invented sports narratives: take a narrow enough window of time that the sample within it fits some very specific trend, add an emotionally charged description of that trend, and then claim it applies to the subject at large. Season with a dash of the phrase "head case," and you've got yourself a Goalie Controversy! For example, in Pittsburgh, Marc-Andre Fleury (career save percentage .910, playoff save percentage .903) is a head case, but knows what it takes to win the big games, while Tomas Vokoun (career .917, playoff .928) couldn't win when it counts.
And that recipe has finally landed on Broadway. This season, the Rangers finally did away with their charming, gorgeous-eyed, terrible backup in Martin Biron, leaving room for young stud Cam Talbot to finally get some NHL starts. The kid has played very, very well, and the new coach isn't afraid to actually use his backup, which has led some fans to question the heartiness of the Kingdom. This came to something of a head this morning, when it became clear that Talbot would start for the second game in a row. So this is where I tell you why you're worried, why it's fine, and what this might actually mean.
Why you're worried
First of all, Talbot is playing a lot more than we're used to during the reign of the King. In his first 5 full seasons, Lundqvist never played fewer than 68 regular season games (playing 70 twice, 72 once, and 73 once), and after a brief reprieve in 2011-12, in which he played only 62, he returned in the lockout-shortened season to play 43 of 48 (on pace for another 73). This season, including tonight, he'll have started only 19 of 28, on pace for a career-low (in full seasons) 56 games. That's low for any starter, but it's extremely low for Lundqvist.
And the games he's played haven't gone too well. Lundqvist is posting an 8-11 record on the season, compared to Talbot's 6-1. Looking at those records, it'd be easy for you to conclude that Talbot is playing better hockey right now. And you wouldn't necessarily be wrong: the King has allowed 46 goals on 553 shots (.917), while Talbot has allowed only 11 on 198 (.944). Lundqvist isn't at the top of his game right now, and Talbot certainly appears to be. Searching for extra-hockey explanations, it's easy to find some: the Queen (which is what I assume Mrs. Lundqvist is called) recently gave birth to the Prince (which is what I assume their child is called), so maybe he's distracted. It's a contract year, and the Rangers' future with Lundqvist is not yet clear. Maybe he needs to play 70+ games a season to feel good enough about himself to play his best. Maybe the new coaching staff doesn't fit with him. And so on.
Why it's fine
That's all bullshit. We don't have to get into why win-loss record is a terrible way to judge a player, since it's something a whole team does. When the disparity is that strong (Talbot is 6-1!), it's easy to start feeling like it's one guy's fault, but that's nuts. Also, Talbot's opponents have been the Canucks, the Predators, the Canadiens, the Blue Jackets, the Islanders, the Red Wings, and the Flyers - of those, only Detroit and Montreal are playoff teams right now. Yes, Talbot's .944 is very impressive, but he's only faced about 36% of the shots Lundqvist has, and from generally subpar teams. Come talk to me when that save percentage stays consistent over another dozen games against teams like the Bruins, Penguins, Ducks, Sharks, and Blues. Until then, there is no question who the starter on this team is.
And here's the thing, you guys: it's a good thing when you have a reliable backup so your starter doesn't have to play so much. Remember that reprieve season I told you about, 2011-12, when Lundqvist only played 62 regular season games? It was the best season of his career. He posted a .930 save percentage, averaged fewer than 2 goals allowed per game, and won the Vezina. I'm not saying more rest is the only ingredient for that kind of success, but it sure as hell isn't going to hurt.
What this might actually mean
There's no doubt that the King remains one of the best goalies in the league. But his numbers, while still good enough that basically any NHL team would want him (.917 is nothing to be embarrassed about), are not quite as superhuman as we're used to. To be sure, he's not playing his best hockey right now. And that is okay! It is December! He is likelier to remain very, very good for the next few seasons than he is to settle into mediocrity.
But. This offseason, his contract will expire, as will those of some other key Rangers. Lundqvist would be the hottest free agent goalie in a very long time, and he will likely command a 7- or 8-year deal at around $10 million per year. Conventional wisdom to date has been that, as one of the few elite goalies in the NHL, he'd be worth that (even if 5 years from now, depending on the cap, it could start to look ugly), and that the Rangers should do their best to get it settled before he hits the open market. But, if the King is starting to look only very, very good, then that becomes a more interesting question. The going rate for a very good goalie is a sight less than $80 million. Even if he has been the face of the franchise for almost a decade, even if he's often been the only reason the team has been respectable, let alone competitive - would Lundqvist really be worth $10 million a year for 8 years, in an offseason in which we have to sign Ryan Callahan and Dan Girardi, if he's only very, very good?
It's way too early in the season to be asking that question, of course, and so the question isn't really the point. The point is that even if you are concerned about the King's "meager" .917 so far this season, you still shouldn't be asking whether or not he's about to be replaced by Cam Talbot; you should be asking whom we're signing next summer.
No comments:
Post a Comment