This. If Tuukka is healthy, then it's obviously Tuukka. If he's at a reduced capacity, then it depends on how reduced he is and if that puts him below Sway as an option. Absent that information, I don't know how we could answer this.I feel like nobody can reasonably answer the question since we're not the training staff. If Tuukka's healthy enough, he goes. If he can't push off or anything, Swayman goes. That said, it should be a firm decision. You can't test the waters with a goalie.
Yeah pretty much this. I'd almost rather play Swayman than even a 90% Rask. The margin for error for a goalie is too damn small to risk it with someone who is not fully healthy.I feel like nobody can reasonably answer the question since we're not the training staff. If Tuukka's healthy enough, he goes. If he can't push off or anything, Swayman goes. That said, it should be a firm decision. You can't test the waters with a goalie.
Reversion to the mean. Even if healthy, is Rask more likely to be what he has been for 24 or so games this season and 294 games over the past six, or what he was for the first nine games of this playoffs?And he's been on fire until yesterday. I don't know why what he did in 2018 is particularly relevant to the decision.
No, I’m not, and that’s not how math works.You're very casually "yada, yada"-ing him finishing second the Vezina 12 months ago in favor of things that happened 60 months ago when JM Liles was a top 6 defenseman and Ryan Spooner was the Krejci heir apparent. 5 of the last 6 years is wholly arbitrary and I would argue most of those years are irrelevant at this point.
It’s six years of mostly consistent data.If athletic performance worked in a linear fashion, then I would agree. Unfortunately there is a bunch of randomness and recent performance can be more relevant than past performance. Considering the question is "who should start tonight", I don't find how Tuukka performed in 2018 to be particularly relevant to the discussion.
What conclusion have I come to outside I did not think your reasoning was particularly sound?It’s six years of mostly consistent data.
Your argument is that recent performance is what matters, but not recent performance from this regular season, which tracks that six years of data, and certainly not recent performance from last game, when Rask couldn’t move.
This is what it looks like when you come to a conclusion and then have to reverse engineer the reasoning.
Your conclusion is, “But I don’t want Tuukka to be league average.”What conclusion have I come to outside I did not think your reasoning was particularly sound?
“He’s been on fire until yesterday.”And please point out to where I said point 2.
I said the above in Post 4. I didn't disagree with your conclusion necessarily. I disagreed with some of how you got there. That led to 7 progressively more aggressive responses.I feel like nobody can reasonably answer the question since we're not the training staff. If Tuukka's healthy enough, he goes. If he can't push off or anything, Swayman goes. That said, it should be a firm decision. You can't test the waters with a goalie.
You misrepresented how I got there. Once that got cleared up, you didn’t really explain any disagreement with that reasoning, other than, “But randomness.” You’ve also claimed that I’m including irrelevant data, but haven’t explained why those data are irrelevant, but his regular season performance last year was, despite the fact that the former track his regular season performance this year and his six year mean, while your preferred data don’t.I said the above in Post 4. I didn't disagree with your conclusion necessarily. I disagreed with some of how you got there. That led to 7 progressively more aggressive responses.
It's irrelevant IMO how he has done the last six years when you're making a decision for a game in 3.5 hours, which (taking health off the table for second) for a goalie is all about what current form you are in and not how you were playing when JM Liles was your defenseman (also not an analogy, more pointing out how long ago it was). I would look at some combination of how he's done this playoffs, this year, and maybe last year. I would weight it strongly towards how he's done this playoffs and the end of the regular season. He's been hot until Monday, played okay in the regular season with hot and cold streaks and was lights out last year until the bubble, which I'm willing to discount because of unique circumstances. Given the other option is a rookie goalie who hasn't played in a month and has a suspect glove, I'm going to go with Tuukka (assuming health). Career narratives are pointless for upcoming lineup decisions, especially in goal.You misrepresented how I got there. Once that got cleared up, you didn’t really explain any disagreement with that reasoning, other than, “But randomness.” You’ve also claimed that I’m including irrelevant data, but haven’t explained why those data are irrelevant, but his regular season performance last year was, despite the fact that the former track his regular season performance this year and his six year mean, while your preferred data don’t.
Do we agree that Tuukka has been a roughly league average goalie for the past six years? If not, why not? What’s your reasoning?
His goals saved above average for those six years are:Rask is 3rd in save percentage among goalies with 6000 minutes played since 2017/2018 in the regular season behind Kuemper and Vasilevsky. He's 6th in high danger save percentage over the same time frame. Drops to 6th if we lower the time on ice qualifier to 5000 minutes,
In the playoffs over that same time period he has 2344 playoff minutes. He is 2nd in save percentage, .929 behind Carey Price who has half the minutes played. He's 2nd in high danger save percentage. He leads all goalies in goals saved above average in the postseason.
I guess by saying "6 years" you can include some down years when the team also stunk, but to call him roughly league average is simply not an accurate representation of his performance.
You literally had a post last week excoriating someone for picking three games as a better indicator of Rask’s ability than his stats over a 10 year period, but now true talent level as revealed by years of stats doesn’t influence a lineup decision (but strangely, his really awesome outlier regular season performance from last year maybe does), because the past 10 games are everything?It's irrelevant IMO how he has done the last six years when you're making a decision for a game in 3.5 hours, which (taking health off the table for second) for a goalie is all about what current form you are in and not how you were playing when JM Liles was your defenseman (also not an analogy, more pointing out how long ago it was).
It’s not a “narrative.” Those are his stats. His stats this year are not an outlier—they match the stats for 4/5 previous years. His backup outplayed him in one of those years and another came close to matching him.I would look at some combination of how he's done this playoffs, this year, and maybe last year. I would weight it strongly towards how he's done this playoffs and the end of the regular season. He's been hot until Monday, played okay in the regular season with hot and cold streaks and was lights out last year until the bubble, which I'm willing to discount because of unique circumstances. Given the other option is a rookie goalie who hasn't played in a month and has a suspect glove, I'm going to go with Tuukka (assuming health). Career narratives are pointless for upcoming lineup decisions, especially in goal.
I largely agree with this as well. When making lineup decisions for a completely unrelated sport at a completely unrelated level, a friend of mine once said, “If the younger player gives you about the same chance to win as the older player, go with the younger one to get him the experience.” I think that there’s something to that, here.With the "I'm just a guy watching the games on TV" caveat that I have no clue what Tuukka's current status is... I'm going to go with Swayman.
Tuukka's a phenomenal goalie and has been outperforming expected goals so far this postseason, but last game he seemed to take a turn for the worse. Two of those PP goals I feel like he would usually save, and several times he went out to play the puck and looked very slow getting back to the crease. Whatever his condition is, it doesn't appear to be getting better. Even if it's not getting noticeably worse, the book is out on him this postseason, and teams are challenging him.
As much as the focus should be on just winning tonight, then winning Game 7 after that, I think they should start Swayman even if they think a 80% (or whatever percent) Rask is the better option. If Swayman can't stop the relatively light offense of the Islanders, then this team is not getting past the Lightning next round anyway. Get the kid in now, and if the Bs advance he'll have some playoff wins under his belt before facing the Tampa Bay juggernaut, and maybe a week or so of rest improves Tuukka's condition. This also has the added value of disrupting the Islanders' game plan and maybe that flusters them.
Discussions aren't absent of context. One was backwards looking on the legacy of Rask's career (i.e., I can't trust him because of a large body of past performance). This one is forward looking based on 3 hours from now. For fast approaching forward looking decision that have minimal long-term impact (e.g., starting a game vs. signing a contract), I find recent-ish data to be more relevant than longer look backs. I'm lost as to whether you are arguing about Tuukka's legacy / standing or whether he should start. From the start, I've felt this is a short-term decision where the most recent data and information is most relevant. Hence my initial comment.You literally had a post last week excoriating someone for picking three games as a better indicator of Rask’s ability than his stats over a 10 year period, but now true talent level as revealed by years of stats doesn’t influence a lineup decision (but strangely, his really awesome outlier regular season performance from last year maybe does), because the past 10 games are everything?
It’s not a “narrative.” Those are his stats. His stats this year are not an outlier—they match the stats for 4/5 previous years. His backup outplayed him in one of those years and another came close to matching him.
It’s not irrelevant to the discussion at hand. His known baseline ability—as exhibited by remarkable consistency throughout the latter part of his career—is absolutely relevant. If it weren’t, we’d have gone with Swayman to start the playoffs because he was playing out of his tits while Tuukka was stumbling toward the end of the regular season.Discussions aren't absent of context. One was backwards looking on the legacy of Rask's career (i.e., I can't trust him because of a large body of past performance). This one is forward looking based on 3 hours from now. For fast approaching forward looking decision that have minimal long-term impact (e.g., starting a game vs. signing a contract), I find recent-ish data to be more relevant than longer look backs. I'm lost as to whether you are arguing about Tuukka's legacy / standing or whether he should start. From the start, I've felt this is a short-term decision where the most recent data and information is most relevant. Hence my initial comment.
Regarding the second point of your comment, that's irrelevant for the discussion at hand and has not been the question I have been addressing based on my above reasoning.
Dude, I quoted four different stats over a massive sample, including one of the top seasons of his career. You gave us the internally inconsistent, “Recent performance is all that matters,” “But he was awesome last year!” and “But athletic performance is random.”It’s also Vanian to say he’s been at par with his backups and not adjusting for the lower level of competition a backup plays. It’s Vanian to look solely at save percentage and come to the average conclusion you came to.
I missed that in the scrolling and back and forth. Apologies. I was wrong. Would’ve been useful in the first post as it’s not a self evident point. Regardless I’ve never cared about that in the course of this discussion until you used the Vanian term so it’s IMO secondary to this discussion and the point I was making. You dragged me in and I ate the cheese. That’s on me.Dude, I quoted four different stats over a massive sample, including one of the top seasons of his career. You gave us the internally inconsistent, “Recent performance is all that matters,” “But he was awesome last year!” and “But athletic performance is random.”
Please, spare me.
You’re hot to trot to include last year’s great stats, but not the four before it that mostly match this past one.I missed that in the scrolling and back and forth. Apologies. I was wrong. Would’ve been useful in the first post as it’s not a self evident point. Regardless I’ve never cared about that in the course of this discussion until you used the Vanian term so it’s IMO secondary to this discussion and the point I was making. You dragged me in and I ate the cheese. That’s on me.
And your grossly misrepresenting my point. The incredulous tone you take towards me disagreeing with you and the bastardizing of my view is tiresome.