Jacob Markstrom (is better than Cam Talbot)

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

I think if you follow my sequence of posts, they are pretty consistent as the whole picture is built out

I don’t particularly like the goalies overly reliant on blocking style, didn’t like his rebound control last year (which seems improved so far, on his part plus on the team cleaning up chances)

And you do know what one bad start does to sv% on a small sample, right? Look at Shesterkin pre and post Flames

Markstrom has been average career wise, is being put in the best position to succeed in his career

I also said I expected significant improvement from Markstrom this year under Sutter. Guess what? I was right

I agree with Sutter’s statement about shutouts being team concept oriented as long as your goalie is good enough

Markstrom is good enough, but 3 of the 4 shutouts were pretty easy, I don’t need to change my jeans based on what I have seen.

You basically said if he sucks it's on him and if he does well it's all Sutter. Bases covered.

Give the guy some credit...you wanted elite numbers and you have them.

Talbot, not so much

[DeluxeMoustache]

I think any good goalie would have career numbers here

Including Talbot

Big deal

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

nnnn

Markstrom has been great this year. He was okay last year, and Darryl wasn’t the coach when Treliving signed him.

Talbot also had a better year last year.

The cap is a real thing, and it’s not unfair to ask why you pay 2x the years and dollars for production that doesn’t seem to be as good as what you already had.

Like I said, happy to be wrong, and nothing I said was invalid.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Knightslayer

Honestly your point isn't being missed but I am failing to see what your end goal is with your arguments.

End goal? There is none, hence why I am done with this thread. But why defend my position that hasn't changed since game 2? Because I've seen no reason to change it a whopping seven games later.

At the beginning of this thread, I said that I don't think Markstrom is a difference-maker. In all honesty I don't think there are many goalies like that. There are goalies who can be that in good years (Tim Thomas, Prime Lundvqvist, Price, Bobrovsky, MAF, Gibson, Vasilevsky etc) but even they have some cringey down years. Usually there's about two or three goalies a year MAX who can sustain it all regular season and even then they tend to be burnt out by the time the playoffs start.

I think goaltending is a position that is typically good enough if it's not outright losing you games (Hiller 2016, Eliott 2017 Playoffs, Talbot Game6, Markstrom post-injury last year) and have never been someone to think goalies are the issue. I've even said Rittich and Ramo were good enough, and they were probably average in the grand scheme.

Since then, dino7c made it his personal mission to "prove me wrong" because I went to a thread about Oliver Kylington, and pulled up three of his concieted, matter-of-fact claims about the player from Spring 2021. Maybe not the classiest thing I've done, but certainly not something to have a vendetta over (to the point of sending angry PMs and changing his signature in a holier-than-me show of fake humility). dino7c really wants me to admit I am wrong about Markstrom - but I don't think I am. For all the flack I am getting about QS% - I sincerely think it's an important stat and a star goalie should be posting a QS% over .600 during a good year.

I think he's a good enough goalie, but he hasn't been the single best goalie in the league this year and I don't think a nine game sample size really changes my overall opinion of his eliteness versus the other 250+ games of his career.

What I am glad to be wrong about however is that Markstrom has flashed an ability to win games where he is seeing low shot totals. This was a legitimate concern he seems to be reducing my concerns over every time he wins a game with low shot totals. It is NOT a guaranteed transition.

Now I'm actually done.

[dino7c]

First of all you called me out after posting something positive about Kylington because I thought he was poor in the past (that is actually what I think you and others should do, I certainly wouldn't call it out)

second this is not at all related

To say Markstrom's bad numbers are on him but his good numbers are all the team is pretty lame to say the least.

CP is something else

Brad should be fired, but his team is so good the goalie shouldn't get credit for his historic start to the season.

but Brad signed the goalie...but but

All summer this team sucked but now they are the Wings and this is Osgood

what the actual ####

Markstrom has been on fire so far, its being recognized around the league...only on CP

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Markstrom has been great this year. He was okay last year, and Darryl wasn’t the coach when Treliving signed him.

Talbot also had a better year last year.

The cap is a real thing, and it’s not unfair to ask why you pay 2x the years and dollars for production that doesn’t seem to be as good as what you already had.

Like I said, happy to be wrong, and nothing I said was invalid.

Its not 2x, Talbot is older and he is not here because he allowed every scoring chance in the net in an elimination game. At the same time Markstrom was taking out the cup champs.

agree or not that is why Talbot is not here

[PepsiFree]

It IS funny if you think about it.

Sutter is doing great, but no credit to Treliving because that was the owner’s hiring and/or if it was Treliving’s he wasted too much time waiting for Sutter.

Kylington is doing great, but no credit to Treliving because it should have happened sooner, and it’s not just because of Sutter’s incredible system.

Markstrom is doing great, but no credit to Treliving OR Markstrom because shutouts aren’t actually helpful and any average goalie would be as good in this incredible system.

Team is 7-1-3. Things can’t just be great, they have to be great in spite of someone else’s shortcomings or nothing more than a lucky mirage. Exhausting.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by dino7c

First of all you called me out after posting something positive about Kylington because I thought he was poor in the past (that is actually what I think you and others should do, I certainly wouldn't call it out)

I wasn't calling you out for posting something positive about Kylington, though. I was calling you out for your humiliation of the 30 GMs for not picking up on waivers, when just a few months ago you were appealing to the authority of 30 GMs for not claiming on waivers. I don't care who's right or wrong, but I was calling you out for the sheer hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by dino7c

second this is not at all related

So the day that Kylington thing happened, you never sent me an angry PM on October 28th with contents about Markstrom? Right after you bumped this thread to "call me out"?

Oct 28. 11:18 PM

Originally Posted by dino7c

This aged well

Right. Totally unrelated. Nothing personal.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Pepsi, some people think the owners had more to do with Sutter joining than Tre

That’s what I think. Makes sense to me, I’ve seen the arguments, they are fine and still that’s where I am

I like Tre’s roster, don’t like his coach management. If he was overridden, and we have great results, well, good

I love the results. The team is fun to watch. Markstrom has been quite good.

I love what I’m seeing, but still don’t think Treliving is a top GM or Markstrom is an elite goalie.

Can these opinions coexist in your world?

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

I wasn't calling you out for posting something positive about Kylington, though. I was calling you out for your humiliation of the 30 GMs for not picking up on waivers, when just a few months ago you were appealing to the authority of 30 GMs for not claiming on waivers. I don't care who's right or wrong, but I was calling you out for the sheer hypocrisy.



So the day that Kylington thing happened, you never sent me an angry PM on October 28th with contents about Markstrom? Right after you bumped this thread to "call me out"?

Oct 28. 11:18 PM


Right. Totally unrelated. Nothing personal.

okay CSI, that post did age terrible...I was merely saying you were the pot calling the kettle black.

That was a week ago, this thread isn't about you and I

People called out Markstrom for not having elite numbers...now that he does so far its "oh its just the team"

you aren't the only one saying it I am not just talking to you although you seem to have the most spin.

Christ sakes all I am saying is give Markstrom some ####ing credit thus far

1.65 .942

[dino7c]

I can see it now, NHL awards

Markstrom accepting his Vezina

Rando CP hops up on stage "Markstrom is great and Imma let him finish but so and so didn't have Sutter and their quality starts were blah blah"

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Pepsi, some people think the owners had more to do with Sutter joining than Tre

That’s what I think. Makes sense to me, I’ve seen the arguments, they are fine and still that’s where I am

I like Tre’s roster, don’t like his coach management. If he was overridden, and we have great results, well, good

I love the results. The team is fun to watch. Markstrom has been quite good.

I love what I’m seeing, but still don’t think Treliving is a top GM or Markstrom is an elite goalie.

Can these opinions coexist in your world?

You don’t really need or care for my approval. And it’s not even really down to one poster (and if it were, you weren’t top of mind), I’m just noticing a trend of every good thing being tied to something that is actually bad or discredited completely.

Which is also fine, but then there are also people who say “But I’m happy and enjoying everything!” and still spend 5 pages arguing about why the thing is actually bad/meaningless. It’s just weird. Y’all are weird. You’re like the people who rate a recipe 5 stars and then in the comments talk about how half of the ingredients were gross so you substituted them with something else. Just weird, don’t get the vibe at all.

[dino7c]

If you have an opinion and are not willing to change it no matter how the data changes do you really have an opinion or just bias

If Markstrom falls off and ends the season with non elite numbers so be it...it won't be an elite season I will say it

It's certainly trending elite right now the numbers don't lie and he will be recognized as one of the top players at his position come season end if it continues anywhere close


He is also starting for a World Power in hockey at the Olympics (Flames homers I guess)

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Its not 2x, Talbot is older and he is not here because he allowed every scoring chance in the net in an elimination game. At the same time Markstrom was taking out the cup champs.

agree or not that is why Talbot is not here

And that’s great.

After an Elliotish first game, and an uneven at best first season, I had doubts.

They’ve been quelled. For now. I hope to continue to be wrong.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

there are also people who say “But I’m happy and enjoying everything!” and still spend 5 pages arguing about why the thing is actually bad/meaningless. It’s just weird.

Sometimes I have a tendency to be more prolific than passionate. I'd rather not get into the "why", but yes I'm fully aware of it.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Sometimes I have a tendency to be more prolific than passionate. I'd rather not get into the "why", but yes I'm fully aware of it.

Join the club! Posting a bunch keeps my crazy away!

Just do what I do and be stoked on everything Flames until people start calling you a pretentious dick.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Join the club! Posting a bunch keeps my crazy away!

Just do what I do and be stoked on everything Flames until people start calling you a pretentious dick.

I don't just post a lot, I have no ability to keep it brief.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Nothing you've said is in contrast to anything I've said.

You said I was "discrediting" his shutouts but that's not true.

He earned his shutouts. I never even said all his shutouts were easy.

What I said however, is that what matters is a win.

A 3-4 loss followed by a 6-0 win is not as effective as a 3-2 win followed by a 6-2 win - even if the GAA in both scenarios is 2.00

I'm done with this thread. It seems my point is being wholely and entirely missed by people that just want to beat the shutout drum.

Your point isn't being missed, it's being laughed at. You are doing mental cartwheels in an attempt to justify your initial position that Markstrom isn't a difference maker.

It's a bad take. But you just keep digging.

[Macindoc]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

For all the flack I am getting about QS% - I sincerely think it's an important stat and a star goalie should be posting a QS% over .600 during a good year.

I think he's a good enough goalie, but he hasn't been the single best goalie in the league this year and I don't think a nine game sample size really changes my overall opinion of his eliteness versus the other 250+ games of his career.

What I am glad to be wrong about however is that Markstrom has flashed an ability to win games where he is seeing low shot totals. This was a legitimate concern he seems to be reducing my concerns over every time he wins a game with low shot totals. It is NOT a guaranteed transition.

Now I'm actually done.

I can certainly agree that QS% has value as a stat, but I also think that with only 8 starts, because it reduces everything that happens in a game to a binary value, it is particularly susceptible to random variation and to schedule considerations (who we've played and under what circumstances).

I think, for one thing, that Markstrom's first game should simply be thrown out for the purposes of analysis of his contributions to the team, because the circumstances were so bizarre. I can't remember the last time a team that hadn't played for a week and had not played a single regular season game played another team that had already played a regular season game. It was almost a guaranteed loss with lots of goals against as players shook off the rust against an opponent that wasn't rusty (and really, the Flames should be complaining to the NHL head office about that scheduling, it gave a massive advantage to the Oilers). I know that you can't just exclude results willy-nilly from statistical analysis, but in this case, I would compare that game to a study subject who didn't meet the inclusion criteria for the study (i.e., a game in which either team had a reasonable chance of winning, which was not significantly altered by an artificially introduced confounding variable). I also think that because 3 on 3 OT is such an artificial environment created specifically for the purpose of causing goals to be scored at a greatly increased rate, that OT (and even worse, shootout) event counting and results (win or loss) should not be included in the QS%.

Now give me a goalie with 30 starts, and exclude all OT events from the calculations of QS%, and I think you might have something. But half of Markstrom's games (and all of his losses) have been either OT games or that Oilers game that was played under rare, bizarre, inequitable circumstances, so I don't believe that we have a representative sample at this point as far as that stat is concerned.

[driveway]

Some more context about Markstrom from JFresh, who's stats seem to have started much of this conversation.

Markstrom is playing extremely well AND is in a situation where he has a light workload:

Spoiler!

His workload has been so light, in fact that he's dropped well out of the top-10 in goals saved above expected since Halloween, despite posting that shutout against the Rags.

Spoiler!

What, then to make of Markstrom (and the Flames') success? In a nutshell: we're kicking hellacious ass.
5v5 Expected Goals For vs. Against - November 7

Spoiler!

5v5 Shot Attempts for vs. Against - November 7

Spoiler!

5v5 Goals For vs. Goals Against - November 7

Spoiler!