Jump to content
The Official Site of the Chicago Blackhawks
I-miss-Wis

The Crawford Thread

Recommended Posts

I really enjoy reading through this topic. I also find it quite humorous how everyone jumps all over Easton_fection and immediately side with Rob. I am sure that Rob does not need the homer support as he is doing fairly well holding up his end of the discussion. I also must say that Easton_fection does make some very good points. Stats are not always THE telling factor. For what it is worth I don't have a hate on for Crawford and I don't care what his stats are. I do not feel very comfortable going into the playoffs with Crawford in net and Raanta as the backup. :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bottom line is Corey Crawford is a winner.

He's posted 30 or more victories each season since being installed as number 1. The exception being the lockout year....he was part of a tandem that won the Jennings, and then a Cup

32 wins this year and that's after missing 10 straight games from injury. And playing on a team that didn't score a single overtime goal until the last week of the season.

You can talk soft goals, numbers, eye test etc.........you find goalies that consistently win 30 plus games a year and you'd probably want them on your team. Crawford's on our team, but apparently that's a problem.

Edited by Icaddiedforstosh
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know the answer.

Secondly I have never said that the eye test isn't a viable tool; I only question you, in stating that it is the only tool.

Both tools need their checks and balances. If I present you as a scout, a player that has great numbers; you would then go out to watch the player play. If I present you as a scout, great film on a player; you would then go check out the numbers. The two tools work hand in hand.

Our debate isn't about which one of us knows more about hockey. The debate is you stating that stats are worthless all together.

Quit trying to twist the argument and I still do not understand your hostility towards me.

I had rather anticipated that you would not be able to provide the answer, heck even provide an answer. It's really pretty obvious when you watch the games. Smith plays the deepest in his own net(sometimes actually in it), and Quick plays the highest in net. This is something that is rather evident, and if you are unable to identify something as simple as this how can you make evaluations on other aspects of a goaltenders game? You can't. The question was meant to illustrate the fact that you aren't cognizant of goaltenders style of play or ability level.

Let's address your statement concerning the "eye test". You claim in the above post that you never stated that the "eye test" isn't a viable tool. Yet in this thread you have multiple posts in which you utilize parody, sarcasm, derision and caricatures mocking my position that one needs to actually watch a goaltender play to make an evaluation; and also that stats for goaltenders are relatively worthless. Then you go on to point the finger at me, claiming that I am the one that is hostile towards you. Which is rather funny considering that I have not mocked or ridiculed your position. I have simply repeatedly stated over and over that you cannot draw conclusions on goaltenders from stats because the team they play on greatly influences their stats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then you cannot throw jabs at those with a differing opinion if you are unwilling to present your proof to your side of the debate. Simple as that.

Uninterested in providing a response to something in which people either already know, or really don't care. This isn't the "NHL goaltender debate" thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had rather anticipated that you would not be able to provide the answer, heck even provide an answer. It's really pretty obvious when you watch the games. Smith plays the deepest in his own net(sometimes actually in it), and Quick plays the highest in net. This is something that is rather evident, and if you are unable to identify something as simple as this how can you make evaluations on other aspects of a goaltenders game? You can't. The question was meant to illustrate the fact that you aren't cognizant of goaltenders style of play or ability level.

Let's address your statement concerning the "eye test". You claim in the above post that you never stated that the "eye test" isn't a viable tool. Yet in this thread you have multiple posts in which you utilize parody, sarcasm, derision and caricatures mocking my position that one needs to actually watch a goaltender play to make an evaluation; and also that stats for goaltenders are relatively worthless. Then you go on to point the finger at me, claiming that I am the one that is hostile towards you. Which is rather funny considering that I have not mocked or ridiculed your position. I have simply repeatedly stated over and over that you cannot draw conclusions on goaltenders from stats because the team they play on greatly influences their stats.

I accept your apology and all is well. Ultimately, we are on the same side; we are Blackhawks' fans.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really enjoy reading through this topic. I also find it quite humorous how everyone jumps all over Easton_fection and immediately side with Rob. I am sure that Rob does not need the homer support as he is doing fairly well holding up his end of the discussion. I also must say that Easton_fection does make some very good points. Stats are not always THE telling factor. For what it is worth I don't have a hate on for Crawford and I don't care what his stats are. I do not feel very comfortable going into the playoffs with Crawford in net and Raanta as the backup. :)

What I find funny about this thread is that just about everyone agrees on the same thing with Crawford (good for the team but not NHL elite), and the same thing with the stats vs eye test debate (both help each other), but a few are just stuck to their one side and completely dismissing the other side (or ignoring it). Makes for some interesting popcorn viewing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uninterested in providing a response to something in which people either already know, or really don't care. This isn't the "NHL goaltender debate" thread.

Nice attempt at deflection ;)

If you are uninterested in providing a response to "something in which people either already know, or really don't care", then why even bother posting?

In all honesty, you are a much better poster than this foolishness that has cropped up in this thread. You usually care to educate. Be nice to see that again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had rather anticipated that you would not be able to provide the answer, heck even provide an answer. It's really pretty obvious when you watch the games. Smith plays the deepest in his own net(sometimes actually in it), and Quick plays the highest in net. This is something that is rather evident, and if you are unable to identify something as simple as this how can you make evaluations on other aspects of a goaltenders game? You can't. The question was meant to illustrate the fact that you aren't cognizant of goaltenders style of play or ability level.

Let's address your statement concerning the "eye test". You claim in the above post that you never stated that the "eye test" isn't a viable tool. Yet in this thread you have multiple posts in which you utilize parody, sarcasm, derision and caricatures mocking my position that one needs to actually watch a goaltender play to make an evaluation; and also that stats for goaltenders are relatively worthless. Then you go on to point the finger at me, claiming that I am the one that is hostile towards you. Which is rather funny considering that I have not mocked or ridiculed your position. I have simply repeatedly stated over and over that you cannot draw conclusions on goaltenders from stats because the team they play on greatly influences their stats.

My takeaway is that the question was meant to illustrate something different altogether...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had rather anticipated that you would not be able to provide the answer, heck even provide an answer. It's really pretty obvious when you watch the games. Smith plays the deepest in his own net(sometimes actually in it), and Quick plays the highest in net. This is something that is rather evident, and if you are unable to identify something as simple as this how can you make evaluations on other aspects of a goaltenders game? You can't. The question was meant to illustrate the fact that you aren't cognizant of goaltenders style of play or ability level.

Let's address your statement concerning the "eye test". You claim in the above post that you never stated that the "eye test" isn't a viable tool. Yet in this thread you have multiple posts in which you utilize parody, sarcasm, derision and caricatures mocking my position that one needs to actually watch a goaltender play to make an evaluation; and also that stats for goaltenders are relatively worthless. Then you go on to point the finger at me, claiming that I am the one that is hostile towards you. Which is rather funny considering that I have not mocked or ridiculed your position. I have simply repeatedly stated over and over that you cannot draw conclusions on goaltenders from stats because the team they play on greatly influences their stats.

Stats are quantifiable and the eye test is not. Stats do not paint the entire picture but they give rational people the ability to compare and contrast multiple things (or goalies in this case) against a determined set of standards as to what is generally good and what is not. The eye test is subjective and every single person will have a different set of standards as to what passes the eye test and what doesn't. Im sorry that we all don't subscribe to the EFET (Easton Fection Eye Test) Method when it comes to evaluating goaltenders, but maybe if you wouldn't be so quick to discount a quantifiable way to merely support an argument (stats) and learn accept it as one part of a way to draw a conclusion then this thread could turn back into a fun discussion instead of all of us lobbing grenades at each other across the line that has been drawn in the sand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stats may be hard facts but a single stat on it's own is hard to quantify. If you have two cars that put up the same time in the 1/4 mile, they can have still have very different horsepower ratings--and what brings them to the same 1/4 mile time is other things like car weight, drag coefficient, transmission gearing, torque, etc.

As such, every single stat has to be quantified and related to anyhting that can cause that stat to be what it is, and sometimes, there is no hard stat--that's where the eye-test has to sometimes fill in the gap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stats are quantifiable and the eye test is not. Stats do not paint the entire picture but they give rational people the ability to compare and contrast multiple things (or goalies in this case) against a determined set of standards as to what is generally good and what is not. The eye test is subjective and every single person will have a different set of standards as to what passes the eye test and what doesn't. Im sorry that we all don't subscribe to the EFET (Easton Fection Eye Test) Method when it comes to evaluating goaltenders, but maybe if you wouldn't be so quick to discount a quantifiable way to merely support an argument (stats) and learn accept it as one part of a way to draw a conclusion then this thread could turn back into a fun discussion instead of all of us lobbing grenades at each other across the line that has been drawn in the sand.

Great post.

My job requires me to work with numbers and Nielsen reporting all day and it would be real nice to just say, well I see my product selling, so it must be doing well forget the statistics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stats may be hard facts but a single stat on it's own is hard to quantify. If you have two cars that put up the same time in the 1/4 mile, they can have still have very different horsepower ratings--and what brings them to the same 1/4 mile time is other things like car weight, drag coefficient, transmission gearing, torque, etc.

As such, every single stat has to be quantified and related to anyhting that can cause that stat to be what it is, and sometimes, there is no hard stat--that's where the eye-test has to sometimes fill in the gap.

If a train left new york at 300 miles per hour, and accelerated speed fifteen miles per hour, and traveled a distance of 683 miles, tell me: what time would that train reach Chicago?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

keep it goin' here gents. only a couple more pages before we get to 50. i know we can get there by thursday evening. that would certainly have to signal some sort of good mojo for crow starting thursday night. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you who are stat crazy, here is a link to HockeyProspectus 2013-2014 GVT stat. Crawford comes in ranking 83rd on the list, just barely ahead of Steve Mason. There are 17 goalies ahead of him on this list.

Prospectus GVT

You know EF.....I can understand you're wanting to make your point that Crawford falls short in your eyes as a goalie and that's why you'd search for links like these to bolster that opinion. And you're not alone. I get it. On the other hand you've also stated you like Crawford and to be honest that's getting harder to believe.

As for me, it's just one man's opinion but the Cup defense is here, and I can only ask for one thing from the Chicago Blackhawks goaltender. That is, give it your best shot, man.

That's it. He did that last year and like it or not (and if you're a Hawks fan, you had to like it) he was a major reason the team became the first to win 2 Cups in the cap era. I don't care about how the 17 goalies in front of him stack up by stats, eye test, glove hand, in net positioning or the myriad of other criteria trotted out in these 47 pages.

He's the goalie for the team I root for and for the love of Mike he pulled it off last year. I'm going to be pulling for him to do it again knowing that's a ton of pressure to stand up to. That's a criteria that hasn't been brought up by us "experts" too often in this thread.

I believe in this team. Corey Crawford is a big part of it.

  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know EF.....I can understand you're wanting to make your point that Crawford falls short in your eyes as a goalie and that's why you'd search for links like these to bolster that opinion. And you're not alone. I get it. On the other hand you've also stated you like Crawford and to be honest that's getting harder to believe.

As for me, it's just one man's opinion but the Cup defense is here, and I can only ask for one thing from the Chicago Blackhawks goaltender. That is, give it your best shot, man.

That's it. He did that last year and like it or not (and if you're a Hawks fan, you had to like it) he was a major reason the team became the first to win 2 Cups in the cap era. I don't care about how the 17 goalies in front of him stack up by stats, eye test, glove hand, in net positioning or the myriad of other criteria trotted out in these 47 pages.

He's the goalie for the team I root for and for the love of Mike he pulled it off last year. I'm going to be pulling for him to do it again knowing that's a ton of pressure to stand up to. That's a criteria that hasn't been brought up by us "experts" too often in this thread.

I believe in this team. Corey Crawford is a big part of it.

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CC damn near ended up with a Conn Smythe. Throw the stats out the window, the playoffs are a much different beast as we all know. The quest for a Cup often defies logic, stats, "expert" analysis, reason, predictions, records, regular season trends, and many other things. Let the beards grow thick boys. Let's Go Hawks!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you who are stat crazy, here is a link to HockeyProspectus 2013-2014 GVT stat. Crawford comes in ranking 83rd on the list, just barely ahead of Steve Mason. There are 17 goalies ahead of him on this list.

Prospectus GVT

If this is supposed to be an argument against Crawford then you picked a pretty bad stat to try to make him look bad as you left out a couple things such as:

Crawford ranks 83rd...out of 956 players on the list. That puts Crow in the top 9% in the league

Raanta ranks 941 for some comparison

A couple other guys of note are Schneider at #166, Mike Smith at #206, Niemi at #229, Hiller at #377, Howard at #399, Emery at #926, The Great Pekka Rinne at #938, and Cam Ward at #950...the last two have higher cap hits than Crawford next year as well

So what are you trying to prove here?

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you presume that I am attempting to make him look bad here? Why is it, that everything that I post about him is taken as a knock on him? The only time you had agreed with me was about his lack of puck handling prowess. Did I make any statement the even remotely suggests that CC sucks? No. Once again here I am having to make the statement one more time. I like Crawford in net for the Hawks. The Hawks can win with him, and he can win with the Hawks. He's not the best in the league, and he's certainly not the worst. He's on a tremendously talented team, and the Hawks don't need him to be something he's not. Why must my posts always be taken negatively towards Crawford. If anything, my posts are much more negative towards fellow Hawk fans who like to suggest that "outside of Quick and Rask" there aren't any goalies in the league that are clearly better than him. And of course, the Hawks bested the Kings and Bruins in last years playoffs so that somehow makes an argument for Crawford being better than those two as well. I have no problem with CC in the pipes. I have a problem with the perception that he is a top 5 or top 10 guy because he just isn't. I've tried on numerous occasions to make the point that you cannot judge a goalie by SV% and goals against average alone. Some refute this and feel it is possible to rely just on stats, and persistently mock the so called "eye test"(which in the HF board thread a pro scout mentions that nothing beats putting eyes on a player). Also, some have presumed that I feel he isn't worth his upcoming salary. I don't really care what he will make in upcoming seasons, or any other player for that matter. He is in the top 1% of his profession. Any professional who is in that percentile is going to be earning well over whatever the median salary is in the field. Plus, I'm not an armchair GM who plays fantasy hockey and supposes that by using sites like capgeek I could be a NHL GM. I don't speculate on possible moves the Hawks could or should make. It's ridiculous to make those speculations because I am not privy to scouting evaluations that the club has and as such have no clue how the club feels about specific players. So, with that being said I do not have an issue with his 6M contract, I am not going to speculate who would be better for the Hawk at the position. Crawford is here, he is here for the next several seasons and let's hope he's here for his career.

When, when will this be accepted?

Edited by easton_fection

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this is supposed to be an argument against Crawford then you picked a pretty bad stat to try to make him look bad as you left out a couple things such as:

Crawford ranks 83rd...out of 956 players on the list. That puts Crow in the top 9% in the league

Raanta ranks 941 for some comparison

A couple other guys of note are Schneider at #166, Mike Smith at #206, Niemi at #229, Hiller at #377, Howard at #399, Emery at #926, The Great Pekka Rinne at #938, and Cam Ward at #950...the last two have higher cap hits than Crawford next year as well

So what are you trying to prove here?

Now we see why EF doesn't use stats; because he doesn't know how.

EF just gave us proof that Crawford is a top 9% player in the league, which know supports how underpaid Crawford is @ 2.6m and how underpaid many goalies may be underpaid in the league.

Hilarious!

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you presume that I am attempting to make him look bad here? Why is it, that everything that I post about him is taken as a knock on him? The only time you had agreed with me was about his lack of puck handling prowess. Did I make any statement the even remotely suggests that CC sucks? No.

Once again here I am having to make the statement one more time. I like Crawford in net for the Hawks. The Hawks can win with him, and he can win with the Hawks. He's not the best in the league, and he's certainly not the worst. He's on a tremendously talented team, and the Hawks don't need him to be something he's not. Why must my posts always be taken negatively towards Crawford. If anything, my posts are much more negative towards fellow Hawk fans who like to suggest that "outside of Quick and Rask" there aren't any goalies in the league that are clearly better than him. And of course, the Hawks bested the Kings and Bruins in last years playoffs so that somehow makes an argument for Crawford being better than those two as well.

I have no problem with CC in the pipes. I have a problem with the perception that he is a top 5 or top 10 guy because he just isn't. I've tried on numerous occasions to make the point that you cannot judge a goalie by SV% and goals against average alone. Some refute this and feel it is possible to rely just on stats, and persistently mock the so called "eye test"(which in the HF board thread a pro scout mentions that nothing beats putting eyes on a player).

Also, some have presumed that I feel he isn't worth his upcoming salary. I don't really care what he will make in upcoming seasons, or any other player for that matter. He is in the top 1% of his profession. Any professional who is in that percentile is going to be earning well over whatever the median salary is in the field.

Plus, I'm not an armchair GM who plays fantasy hockey and supposes that by using sites like capgeek I could be a NHL GM. I don't speculate on possible moves the Hawks could or should make. It's ridiculous to make those speculations because I am not privy to scouting evaluations that the club has and as such have no clue how the club feels about specific players. So, with that being said I do not have an issue with his 6M contract, I am not going to speculate who would be better for the Hawk at the position. Crawford is here, he is here for the next several seasons and let's hope he's here for his career.

When, when will this be accepted?

When you admit that stats have merit just as we have admitted that the "eye test" has merit. We have razzed you because your previous statements made like the "eye test" is the only judgement. We were not poo pooing the "eye test," we were poo pooing your train of thought.

With a big enough sample size; the "eye test" and "stats" should pan out and tell a similar story.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you presume that I am attempting to make him look bad here? Why is it, that everything that I post about him is taken as a knock on him? The only time you had agreed with me was about his lack of puck handling prowess. Did I make any statement the even remotely suggests that CC sucks? No. Once again here I am having to make the statement one more time. I like Crawford in net for the Hawks. The Hawks can win with him, and he can win with the Hawks. He's not the best in the league, and he's certainly not the worst. He's on a tremendously talented team, and the Hawks don't need him to be something he's not. Why must my posts always be taken negatively towards Crawford. If anything, my posts are much more negative towards fellow Hawk fans who like to suggest that "outside of Quick and Rask" there aren't any goalies in the league that are clearly better than him. And of course, the Hawks bested the Kings and Bruins in last years playoffs so that somehow makes an argument for Crawford being better than those two as well. I have no problem with CC in the pipes. I have a problem with the perception that he is a top 5 or top 10 guy because he just isn't. I've tried on numerous occasions to make the point that you cannot judge a goalie by SV% and goals against average alone. Some refute this and feel it is possible to rely just on stats, and persistently mock the so called "eye test"(which in the HF board thread a pro scout mentions that nothing beats putting eyes on a player). Also, some have presumed that I feel he isn't worth his upcoming salary. I don't really care what he will make in upcoming seasons, or any other player for that matter. He is in the top 1% of his profession. Any professional who is in that percentile is going to be earning well over whatever the median salary is in the field. Plus, I'm not an armchair GM who plays fantasy hockey and supposes that by using sites like capgeek I could be a NHL GM. I don't speculate on possible moves the Hawks could or should make. It's ridiculous to make those speculations because I am not privy to scouting evaluations that the club has and as such have no clue how the club feels about specific players. So, with that being said I do not have an issue with his 6M contract, I am not going to speculate who would be better for the Hawk at the position. Crawford is here, he is here for the next several seasons and let's hope he's here for his career.

When, when will this be accepted?

When, when you realize that most people here can see through a backhanded complement....leave the obvious tone of "distrust" of CC out of your posts and it may happen.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now we see why EF doesn't use stats; because he doesn't know how.

EF just gave us proof that Crawford is a top 9% player in the league, which know supports how underpaid Crawford is @ 2.6m and how underpaid many goalies may be underpaid in the league.

Hilarious!

Well you know me Rob, and I don't care for stats one bit. That includes GVT. I have no clue what that stat's that equation uses, nor do I know how the stats are weighted in the formula. It's merely another stat. And you know how I feel about those. However, some severe ignorance is present at this board so here we go. Stat's for goalies are useless. The team the goalie plays on largely influences the statistical result the goalie will have. Naturally the higher the quality of the team the goalie plays on, the better the numbers will look. And since Crawford plays on what is arguably the most talented team in the league, it's rather reasonable to presume that his statistical results are the most skewed due to the level of talent that surrounds him. GVT stat is no different. That stat is influenced greatly by the great players who play in front of him. I am sorry that some of you feel that conclusions can be drawn from stats concerning goalies. They simply cannot. They are only good for fantasy hockey. As for his salary and the supposition that he is underpaid...the market determines value. Only if he were to be on the open market readily available for bids to be offered would his true financial value be determined. The Hawks elected to pay him 6M, so be it and good for him for getting it. As for the rest of the players you feel who are underpaid, well only the ones who have had an opportunity to utilize the open market are the only ones who are getting their true worth, for better or for worse.

The past few responses are just a prime illustration of a simple fact. It is not me who has an issue with Crawford, it is others who have an issue with me being realistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×