Re: 2009 Chicago Blackhawks

[brinoch]

Not to pile on, but Khabi wasn't good in the playoffs last season. He was average, at best. Huet is playing about as well as Khabi did right now. He's shown he can get hot; let's hope that he does.

[kujay]

Not to pile on, but Khabi wasn't good in the playoffs last season. He was average, at best. Huet is playing about as well as Khabi did right now. He's shown he can get hot; let's hope that he does.

 

I've never liked the guy, I admit. But Khabi was never as bad as Huet.

 

But, on a more positive note, at least we know ownership won't let the team go to hell for another 15 years if they blow this chance.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Khabibulin save percentage in 2009 playoffs: .898

Huet save percentage this season: .898

[cubsfan]

Khabibulin save percentage in 2009 playoffs: .898

Huet save percentage this season: .898

Khabibulin last regular season: .919

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Thank you for proving my point. Goalies don't play exactly the same in the postseason as they do in the regular season.

[kujay]

Thank you for proving my point. Goalies don't play exactly the same in the postseason as they do in the regular season.

 

So we can expect Huet to be shittier...

 

I'm losing this argument out of my hatred for Huet. I can't help myself.

 

EDIT: Okay, when my expletive is key to understanding whatever stupid point I'm trying to make....yeah...

 

I was saying we can expect Huet to be worse in the playoffs then, by that logic.

[17 Seconds]

Khabibulin save percentage in 2009 playoffs: .898

Huet save percentage this season: .898

 

and how far did the hawks make it last year? not to the stanley cup.

 

i don't understanding why people bringing up the fact that khabi wasn't good in the last 2 series of the playoffs. he is one of the main reasons we flamed out against detroit.

 

the goal is not to make it to the conference finals this year. the goal is to win the cup. khabi sucking last year is a perfect example of how hard it is to win with your goalie not perofmring.

 

and if huet has an .898 save percentage in the palyoffs this season, we aren't winning the cup.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

1) The Blackhawks scored 2, 2, 4, 1 and 1 goals against Detroit. If you can consider a goalie one of the main reasons we lost when we were held to two goals or less four times in five games, then I don't know what to say.

 

2) There's no team in the Western Conference as good as Detroit was last year.

 

3) If you consider anything short of winning the Cup a failure of a season, you are bound to be disappointed. Nobody is likely to win the Cup, and the Blackhawks were probably not going to win it regardless of who their goalie was. They might win it, but the odds will always be against.

[kujay]

1) The Blackhawks scored 2, 2, 4, 1 and 1 goals against Detroit. If you can consider a goalie one of the main reasons we lost when we were held to two goals or less four times in five games, then I don't know what to say.

 

2) There's no team in the Western Conference as good as Detroit was last year.

 

3) If you consider anything short of winning the Cup a failure of a season, you are bound to be disappointed. Nobody is likely to win the Cup, and the Blackhawks were probably not going to win it regardless of who their goalie was. They might win it, but the odds will always be against.

 

So what is success or failure for this year? Gotta be making the finals, right?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Depends on a lot of factors. It's easy to say "We made the WCF last season, so we have to make it further now for it to be a success because we added Hossa." But there's a lot of factors.

 

First, we got pretty lucky last season. There's not a single team in the entire playoffs that were a better matchup for us than Calgary, and then Vancouver was another good matchup for us. If we'd been facing different teams in the first or second round, we could have easily gone out sooner.

 

Second, we might be facing a very good and finally healthy Detroit team in the first round. If we lose to them in a tough seven-game series, that's different than if we get beat by Nashville in five in the first round.

 

Third, hockey just plain has a lot of randomness in a short series. Not as much as baseball, but a ton more than basketball.

 

Whether or not the season was a success, to me, depends on to whom we go out, when and how.

 

To me, it's a disappointment if we go out to anyone but San Jose, Detroit or Vancouver.

 

It's a disappointment if we go out to SJ or Vancouver for any reason other than their goalies stealing four games in a disgusting manner. We should be outskating them easily.

 

It's a disappoinment if we get to the Cup Final and don't put up a strong showing against one of the best teams in the East.

[17 Seconds]

1) The Blackhawks scored 2, 2, 4, 1 and 1 goals against Detroit. If you can consider a goalie one of the main reasons we lost when we were held to two goals or less four times in five games, then I don't know what to say.

 

Detroit's save percentages that series

 

.938

.949

.852 (hawks win)

.952

.968

 

so again, thank you for illustrating how big of a factor goaltending was in that series.

 

2) There's no team in the Western Conference as good as Detroit was last year.

 

Interesting. Detroit had 112 points last year. SJ is on pace for 117 this year. Detroit was +51 last year. SJ is on pace for +66 this year.

 

3) If you consider anything short of winning the Cup a failure of a season, you are bound to be disappointed. Nobody is likely to win the Cup, and the Blackhawks were probably not going to win it regardless of who their goalie was. They might win it, but the odds will always be against.

 

I'm talking about goals, not expectations. Of course the odds are against you winning. That doesn't change the fact that anything other than your goal will be a dissapointment. When you have a team this good that continues to show it during the regular season, the goal is a championship. Anything less than that is a dissapointment.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I think the Blackhawks are, right now, a favorite to win the series against any team in the Western Conference. San Jose is the only team at their talent level, and the Blackhawks are a good matchup against them.

 

But let's say we get Detroit, Vancouver and San Jose in the first three rounds. I'd say we are 55%, 70% and 65% to beat each of those three teams individually. But the odds of running through all three, if those odds are correct, would only be 25%.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Detroit's save percentages that series

 

.938

.949

.852 (hawks win)

.952

.968

 

 

Question: What was the save percentage in the regular season of the goalie who put up those numbers?

[17 Seconds]

Detroit's save percentages that series

 

.938

.949

.852 (hawks win)

.952

.968

 

 

Question: What was the save percentage in the regular season of the goalie who put up those numbers?

 

much better than huet's .898

[17 Seconds]

I think the Blackhawks are, right now, a favorite to win the series against any team in the Western Conference. San Jose is the only team at their talent level, and the Blackhawks are a good matchup against them.

 

But let's say we get Detroit, Vancouver and San Jose in the first three rounds. I'd say we are 55%, 70% and 65% to beat each of those three teams individually. But the odds of running through all three, if those odds are correct, would only be 25%.

 

i wouldnt take vancouver and their +45 lightly

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Detroit's save percentages that series

 

.938

.949

.852 (hawks win)

.952

.968

 

 

Question: What was the save percentage in the regular season of the goalie who put up those numbers?

 

much better than huet's .898

 

Incorrect.

 

Look it up.

[NewUserName]

Detroit's save percentages that series

 

.938

.949

.852 (hawks win)

.952

.968

 

 

Question: What was the save percentage in the regular season of the goalie who put up those numbers?

 

without looking my guess would be that it was below .900. Also there was a lot of talk of needing to upgrade at goalie at the deadline last year for the Wings. Osgood was just not very good in the regular season last year. Conklin was just not good enough to take the job.

[17 Seconds]

oops, nevemrind. i was thinking of the year before last when osgood's was .914. he sucked last year.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

oops, nevemrind. i was thinking of the year before last when osgood's was .914. he sucked last year.

 

And then had a dominating series against the Blackhawks in the conference finals.

 

Point remains: How Huet is playing right now is not automatically how he'll be playing in 20 games. He was excellent for the first three months of the season, and we may get that back. And even if he's awful, this team is good enough to have at least a chance to outscore other teams.

[NewUserName]

I am not sure Q is the right coach to bring Huet out of a slump though.

[17 Seconds]

oops, nevemrind. i was thinking of the year before last when osgood's was .914. he sucked last year.

 

And then had a dominating series against the Blackhawks in the conference finals.

 

Point remains: How Huet is playing right now is not automatically how he'll be playing in 20 games. He was excellent for the first three months of the season, and we may get that back. And even if he's awful, this team is good enough to have at least a chance to outscore other teams.

 

of course there's a chance. just not a very good one.

[Soul]

Not to pile on, but Khabi wasn't good in the playoffs last season. He was average, at best. Huet is playing about as well as Khabi did right now. He's shown he can get hot; let's hope that he does.

 

I've never liked the guy, I admit. But Khabi was never as bad as Huet.

 

But, on a more positive note, at least we know ownership won't let the team go to hell for another 15 years if they blow this chance.

 

He really wasn't good in the playoffs last year. I don't know why so many people keep clinging to him in these Huet arguments.

[Soul]

But let's say we get Detroit, Vancouver and San Jose in the first three rounds. I'd say we are 55%, 70% and 65% to beat each of those three teams individually. But the odds of running through all three, if those odds are correct, would only be 25%.

 

What are the odds of any team going through 3 teams to the finals? Can't be much better.

 

Heck, in any sport.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

But let's say we get Detroit, Vancouver and San Jose in the first three rounds. I'd say we are 55%, 70% and 65% to beat each of those three teams individually. But the odds of running through all three, if those odds are correct, would only be 25%.

 

What are the odds of any team going through 3 teams to the finals? Can't be much better.

 

Heck, in any sport.

 

Exactly. The whole "championship or it's a disappointment" thing befuddles me in the era of 30-team leagues.

[Magnetic Curses]

But let's say we get Detroit, Vancouver and San Jose in the first three rounds. I'd say we are 55%, 70% and 65% to beat each of those three teams individually. But the odds of running through all three, if those odds are correct, would only be 25%.

 

What are the odds of any team going through 3 teams to the finals? Can't be much better.

 

Heck, in any sport.

 

Exactly. The whole "championship or it's a disappointment" thing befuddles me in the era of 30-team leagues.

 

we've been waiting a long time.