Jacob Markstrom (is better than Cam Talbot)

[Kipper_3434]

Fans here are crazy at relating to context:
Poster 1: Talbot put up better numbers in his career and cost less than markstrom.
Poster 2: you are ignoring CONTEXT! Markstrom put up slightly above average save % in one season where Vancouver allowed tons of low quality shots from outside. Vancouver = no good therefore Markstrom = good. Also if you exclude Markstrom's bad games you are left with only his good games. Which means Markstrom is ELITE (but only if u smrt and can do maths)
Me to myself: didn't Talbot play most of his career as a starter in Edmonton?..yeah that Edmonton...swarm defence, "this guy scored"...

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Yes, I know and acknowledge that Markstrom had one (1) above average year. Tre was counting on that being an indicator of sustained quality, but it hasn’t borne fruit yet

Pursuing the ‘good player on a bad team’ involves some risk.

When I look at an elite goalie on a bad team, the first one that comes to mind is Roberto Luongo, the years he was in Florida. He had a bad W-L and great sv%

I simply think it is a real risk that Markstrom actually is what his stats say - average - ish. And he isn’t paid to be average-ish. Talbot is paid to be average. Mike Smith is paid to be average

He had 1 elite gear and several above average years in my opinion. Boasting over a .910 on a team that finished 29th, 26th, 23rd, and 17th in those years is impressive and above average in my opinion.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Lol. Drawing on what appears to be a stalkerish familiarity with my posts. I’m not happy, I’m a bit creeped out.

Didn't realize having a memory that was able to pull on funny things said to me two weeks ago was stalkerish. My bad for giving you a scare big guy.

Noticed you missed on owning up to your lie about me excluding bad games in my stats though. If you're more interested in the trading shots part of this discussion, that's fine, but you're not good at it and it's kind of boring.

If you want to actually talk honest about Markstrom, happy to do that. You don't need to lie about what I've brought to the table to make your own point more solid, nobody is keeping score.

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

You're comparing the players, without factoring in that a down year for Price or Gibson is equivalent to an average year for Markstrom.

No, I'm not. I'm bringing up our perception of different players and how it differs when weighed against recent performance.

Even with that said, Gibson's .903 is not equal to Markstrom's average of .910... or is it? Is Markstrom's .910 basically the same as .917 then? Obviously not.

[CSharp]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

I haven’t had an issue with Markstrom’s play as a Flame for the most part, but I have to ask.

Is he actually any good?

Last season, his 2.66 GAA put him in a 25th-place tie with Optimus Reimer. His save percentage of .904 was 38th.

Note* - All stats are for goalies with 20+ starts, according to quanthockey.

His final year in Vancouver:

2.75 GAA (27th, tied with Koskinen)
.918 save % (14th)

18/19

2.77 GAA (27th)
.912 save % (27th)

17/18

2.71 GAA (28th)
0.912 save % (31st)

16/17

2.63 GAA (29th)
.910 save % (36th)

To make matters worse, the Flames employed at least one goalie who was statistically superior each of these seasons - sometimes it was both.

Markstrom’s best attribute seems to be his durability - he can play 60 games.

Beyond that, he’s nothing special.

They should have kept Talbot.

Grant Fuhr had a 3.4x average most of his career and he was one of the best back in the day. I just gotta question Tre's quest for the Holy Grail of goalies when he's got huge holes to fill throughout the team! It's like we keep seeing Hiller series repeat itself in an infinite loop! I really believe Markstrom is fine, but could've sufficed with Rittich and built a better team in front of him. Now, you have to wonder if Markstrom gets hurt again, what gonna happen if the backup just doesn't perform to expectations. Pretty laughable!

[1qqaaz]

Originally Posted by Kipper_3434

Fans here are crazy at relating to context:
Poster 1: Talbot put up better numbers in his career and cost less than markstrom.
Poster 2: you are ignoring CONTEXT! Markstrom put up slightly above average save % in one season where Vancouver allowed tons of low quality shots from outside. Vancouver = no good therefore Markstrom = good. Also if you exclude Markstrom's bad games you are left with only his good games. Which means Markstrom is ELITE (but only if u smrt and can do maths)
Me to myself: didn't Talbot play most of his career as a starter in Edmonton?..yeah that Edmonton...swarm defence, "this guy scored"...

Talbot put up 91.9% in Calgary (the highest save percentage from a Flames starter since 2006, other than Kipper's 2009-2010 season).
Markstrom put up 90.4% on Calgary.

It's the same team - Calgary - so there's not much need for context.

Of course, Markstrom was injured and was overplayed.
We'll see how he does this year. Honestly, I think he'll be fine. But I also bet Talbot puts up better numbers.

[1qqaaz]

It bugs me how Lehner has been available about 4 times over the past 8 years, and the Flames have never shown any interest with him.

He put up 92%+ in two of his three seasons on a horrible Buffalo team. Same goes for a bad Ottawa team.
He put up good numbers on a bad Chicago team.
He put up extremely good numbers on good NY Islander and Vegas teams.

And now he gets paid less than Markstrom, while also being younger.
His career average is as high as Markstrom's best season. Plus Lehner is more durable and has a larger track record.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by 1qqaaz

Talbot put up 91.9% in Calgary (the highest save percentage from a Flames starter since 2006, other than Kipper's 2009-2010 season).
Markstrom put up 90.4% on Calgary.

It's the same team - Calgary - so there's not much need for context.

Of course, Markstrom was injured and was overplayed.
We'll see how he does this year. Honestly, I think he'll be fine. But I also bet Talbot puts up better numbers.

Since when is 26 games a starter workload?

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Bingo

It doesn't take mental gymnastics to see the Canucks' media picking the guy as their team MVP in each of his last two seasons there.

When Calgary signed him there were experts (Woodlief?) suggesting that Vancouver' system was tough to play in and that Markstrom was better suited for the Calgary system, and that he was elite.

So he was trending. That's why Vancouver wanted him back. That's why Calgary paid to get him.

Has he regressed? Will he regress? Time will tell. But those supporting the idea that the jury is still not in have more on their side than mental gymnastics.

Hey, I am firmly on the side that the jury is not in.

But expressing my concerns, based on my observations, has not been well received by some. I don’t understand the absolute conviction that he is a top goaltender because neither the data nor the eye test have borne it out

It’s Kevin Woodley from InGoal that you are referring to. He often has good insight and I believe he is a Canucks fan

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Kipper_3434

Fans here are crazy at relating to context:
Poster 1: Talbot put up better numbers in his career and cost less than markstrom.
Poster 2: you are ignoring CONTEXT! Markstrom put up slightly above average save % in one season where Vancouver allowed tons of low quality shots from outside. Vancouver = no good therefore Markstrom = good. Also if you exclude Markstrom's bad games you are left with only his good games. Which means Markstrom is ELITE (but only if u smrt and can do maths)
Me to myself: didn't Talbot play most of his career as a starter in Edmonton?..yeah that Edmonton...swarm defence, "this guy scored"...

The people saying Markstrom is not elite outnumber the people saying he is elite by about 10-0.

"Markstrom is elite" is not an argument actually being made by anyone.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

He had 1 elite gear and several above average years in my opinion. Boasting over a .910 on a team that finished 29th, 26th, 23rd, and 17th in those years is impressive and above average in my opinion.

Yeah, but the league is full of a mix of average, above average and below average teams. A quick look at his sv% shows him basically tracking slightly below league wide average usually, 2 points higher once and 6 points higher in the ‘elite year’

Again, it’s an average number, with a story to explain

I would prefer to see above average results, to saying (average + a story) = above average

That year that Markstrom was ‘elite’, Talbot had .919 here for 13th in the league, and Markstrom had .918 for 14th. Koskinen put up .917. Was Talbot’s year elite? How about Koskinen?

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by 1qqaaz

Talbot put up 91.9% in Calgary (the highest save percentage from a Flames starter since 2006, other than Kipper's 2009-2010 season).
Markstrom put up 90.4% on Calgary.

It's the same team - Calgary - so there's not much need for context.

Of course, Markstrom was injured and was overplayed.
We'll see how he does this year. Honestly, I think he'll be fine. But I also bet Talbot puts up better numbers.

It actually wasn't the same team...same logo but they certainly didn't play the same

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

If he stopped one of two completely stoppable, unscreened shots from distance, he would have had the win.

The Rakell goal was a good goal. The Fowler goal was the type of shot that Markstrom did not give up at all during those last two seasons with the Canucks. Like literally, unscreened shots from outside a certain range, he did not let a single one in (until the play-offs against the Wild when he got the jinx by Friedman before the game).


I've seen him give up at least a half-dozen in his time with the Flames.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by CSharp

Grant Fuhr had a 3.4x average most of his career and he was one of the best back in the day. I just gotta question Tre's quest for the Holy Grail of goalies when he's got huge holes to fill throughout the team! It's like we keep seeing Hiller series repeat itself in an infinite loop! I really believe Markstrom is fine, but could've sufficed with Rittich and built a better team in front of him. Now, you have to wonder if Markstrom gets hurt again, what gonna happen if the backup just doesn't perform to expectations. Pretty laughable!

I like what we have seen from Vladar so far. I expect we see him early next week in one of the back to back games on the road trip

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Yeah, but the league is full of a mix of average, above average and below average teams. A quick look at his sv% shows him basically tracking slightly below league wide average usually, 2 points higher once and 6 points higher in the ‘elite year’

Again, it’s an average number, with a story to explain

I would prefer to see above average results, to saying (average + a story) = above average

That year that Markstrom was ‘elite’, Talbot had .919 here for 13th in the league, and Markstrom had .918 for 14th. Koskinen put up .917. Was Talbot’s year elite? How about Koskinen?

Yet GMs vezina voting, executives poll, every single analyst in the hockey world ranked Markstrom higher

Team play matters, I'm not sure why this is so hard

Grubauer was a great example...he is going to go from awesome numbers to #### in one season because his team sucks balls

It may or may not work out in the end but to suggest Brad did something crazy is dumb. Every single list had him as the top UFA goalie

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Yeah, but the league is full of a mix of average, above average and below average teams. A quick look at his sv% shows him basically tracking slightly below league wide average usually, 2 points higher once and 6 points higher in the ‘elite year’

Again, it’s an average number, with a story to explain

I would prefer to see above average results, to saying (average + a story) = above average

That year that Markstrom was ‘elite’, Talbot had .919 here for 13th in the league, and Markstrom had .918 for 14th. Koskinen put up .917. Was Talbot’s year elite? How about Koskinen?

Talbot played 26 games not a starters workload, not even close.

Why was Markstrom 4th in Vezina voting that year and Kostkinen and Talbot no where near the conversation? The Canucks gave up way more chances. I remember someone coming on the FAN after Markstrom was signed and used some formula to suggest had Markstrom had the same season he did that year with the Flames they would of had 8 more points which was enough to lead the division.

We have not seen that Markstrom very much since he came here but I am not drawing conclusions based on 2 games.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Yet GMs vezina voting, executives poll, every single analyst in the hockey world ranked Markstrom higher

Team play matters, I'm not sure why this is so hard

Grubauer was a great example...he is going to go from awesome numbers to #### in one season because his team sucks balls

It may or may not work out in the end but to suggest Brad did something crazy is dumb. Every single list had him as the top UFA goalie

So again, that’s one year. The Vezina is voted on every year

I didn’t say Brad did something crazy. But I would ask if he made the best decision.

Would the Flames have been better off with Talbot plus 2.3 M extra cap space than they are today? I think it’s a legitimate question.

Seattle will be bumpy and I don’t know what Francis was thinking on the whole, but it’ll be interesting to see how Grubauer does.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Talbot played 26 games not a starters workload, not even close.

Why was Markstrom 4th in Vezina voting that year and Kostkinen and Talbot no where near the conversation? The Canucks gave up way more chances. I remember someone coming on the FAN after Markstrom was signed and used some formula to suggest had Markstrom had the same season he did that year with the Flames they would of had 8 more points which was enough to lead the division.

We have not seen that Markstrom very much since he came here but I am not drawing conclusions based on 2 games.

Expectations? The Oilers have McJesus and he is what everyone pays attention to. The Flames also were not far removed from finishing first in the west

I’m not drawing conclusions based on 2 games either, I expect improvement

But I am fine to raise concerns based on 1 year and 2 games

It’d be great if Markstrom came out of the gates 2-0 with over .950 in that small sample like both Smith and Talbot. They will regress to the mean though

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

So again, that’s one year. The Vezina is voted on every year

I didn’t say Brad did something crazy. But I would ask if he made the best decision.

Would the Flames have been better off with Talbot plus 2.3 M extra cap space than they are today? I think it’s a legitimate question.

Seattle will be bumpy and I don’t know what Francis was thinking on the whole, but it’ll be interesting to see how Grubauer does.

Despite our disagreements, I think we can agree that we would have just used the extra money to give Gudbranson an even bigger contract

[saillias]

Originally Posted by 1qqaaz

I hated the prospect of signing Markstrom before it happened, I hated the contract when it was signed, and I still hate it now.

I assumed Markstrom would have a great first two years, then be subpar for the last 4 as he gets into his late 30s.

He hasn't be bad, but he hasn't earned 6 million. I wouldn't be surprised if Vladar ends the year with a higher save percentage than Markstrom.

But Markstrom does give the team a chance to win almost every night. He's rarely outright bad. And he can steal games. I love what I've seen from his interviews - he seems very professional and he's always holding himself accountable.
Again, I don't like the contract, but it could be a lot worse.

That's about where I fall on this as well. I never liked the contract and had the same expectations. From day 1 felt like another Tre special giving a big deal to a guy over 30.

Originally Posted by dino7c

Yet GMs vezina voting, executives poll, every single analyst in the hockey world ranked Markstrom higher

Team play matters, I'm not sure why this is so hard

Grubauer was a great example...he is going to go from awesome numbers to #### in one season because his team sucks balls

It may or may not work out in the end but to suggest Brad did something crazy is dumb. Every single list had him as the top UFA goalie

A savvy GM would ignore the noise and think long-term, not giving in to FOMO and hype. Tre bought high on another UFA. Might still work out but. The bolded is not a strong way to be making decisions. that's letting hype and noise run your team

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by saillias

That's about where I fall on this as well. I never liked the contract and had the same expectations. From day 1 felt like another Tre special giving a big deal to a guy over 30.



A savvy GM would ignore the noise and think long-term, not giving in to FOMO and hype. Tre bought high on another UFA. Might still work out but. The bolded is not a strong way to be making decisions. that's letting hype and noise run your team

So don't get Eichel because it might not work out? or maybe take a risk from time to time?

Talbot also absolutely blew an elimination game don't forget allowing every scoring chance into the net after having a 3-0 lead to work with.

Flames allowed 7 scoring chances and lost 7-4 lol (a few on Rittich to be fair)

I have honestly never seen such a stat in all my days of following Naturalstattrick

Markstrom was coming off knocking out the Wild/defending champ Blues standing on his head