Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef
I would argue that he was actually 1-3-3 and while his GAA was north of 3 that he faced an average of 34 shots against per game and the only reason his GAA is north of 3 was the Bruins debacle which destroyed his stats and anyone who watched that game know Irving was not the biggest problem that game (he was not good either though).
Without that Bruins game Irving was still an underwhelming 1-2-3, but his GAA would have been 2.43 and his Save Percentage would have been .932. Irving only had 1 poor game during his call-ups, statistically speaking his final game against Edmonton was not great but he actually played pretty well in it too.
Irving was also a star in 2 of his 7 games and if you ask me he should have been in the Senators game where he made 45 saves and in the Coyotes game where he made 33 saves in a 2-1 overtime loss, but somehow the Coyotes media determined they deserved all 3 stars.
At worst you can say Irving was bad in 2 of his 7 starts. And he gave us a chance to win in 5 of his 7 games. All you can realistically ask from your backup goaltender is to give you a chance to win, Irving did that and then some.
|
Ok... Or you can take a revisionist history stance. Unfortunately he DID get blown out in Boston, so that's on his stat line. He DID let in those OT goals when we needed him to stop them. And you already disproved your star argument by demonstrating how entirely subjective it is.
Take off the rose coloured glasses. He did no better than Karlsson or McElhinney before him. Karlsson stopped a bunch of pucks and lost games, same with McElhinney. At the end of the day, it's the Ws that bring home the bacon.