Marc Andre Fleury

[The Snapshot]

People spouting the 'if he would've just had like 5 more saves' crap are being so myopic. If the team would've taken 5 less penalties, the D blocked 5 more shots, Sid and Geno would've scored 5 more goals, we would've walk away from 5 more scrums, our PP would've scored 5 more goals, our PK would've stopped 5 more cross-crease passes, the team would've made 5 less attempts to go up the side boards when the Flyers D was pinching below our wings, our coaching staff would've made 5 meaningful adjustments, or we would've gotten 5 more lucky bounces, well...you get the point.

This guy gets it.

Throwing Fleury under the bus for a team's failure is nonsense. Fleury is part of that team and contributed but what happened in the first round was a complete organizational failure, from Shero to Bylsma down to essentially every single player. Asking Fleury to clean up the mess of his team that wouldn't play D in front of him, couldn't keep its composure, couldn't kill a penalty to save their lives and to clean up the mess of a coaching staff that got completely out coached and had no answer for problems that haunted them against Philly all season, completely unfair. He shouldn't be scapegoated. No single player should be, not even Paul Martin.

No, he doesn't and neither do you. Defending a $5M goalie who posts a low 800% in the playoffs is absolutely ridiculous. Watch the goals. There were 15 softies minimum. Doesn't matter what the situation was that led to the stoppable shot,

[brwi]

MAF had a really bad playoffs along with the rest of the team. Still, your goaltender has to play a lot better than MAF did who frankly sucked. Bring in a young backup to really push him(Lindback of the Preds comes to mind right away) so there is at least a "B" option next year if MAF starts to falter when it matters.

[tfrizz]

Did they analyze how goalies end up with save % in the low .800s over 6 six games?

Basically, they found that hot or cold streaks are nothing more than random chance.


Here's an interesting statistic to back up an often-said claim about Fleury:

This season, Fleury faced an average of 27.28 shots per game. He faced fewer shots in 41 games, and more shots in 32 games.

When facing < 27.28 shots:
Record: 22 - 14 - 1
Shots Against: 878
Goals Against: 104
GAA: 2.71
Sv%: 0.882
Shutouts: 1

When facing > 27.28 shots:
Record: 22 - 7 - 3
Shots Against: 1047
Goals Against: 75
GAA: 2.33
Sv%: 0.928
Shutouts: 2

This suggests that games 2 and 3 against the Flyers (the only 2 in which he faced > 27.28 shots) were statistical anomalies while the other games were truer to the numbers.

[The Snapshot]

Did they analyze how goalies end up with save % in the low .800s over 6 six games?

Basically, they found that hot or cold streaks are nothing more than random chance.

How does the "random" occurrence happen in three straight playoffs? That seems less than random. That would only seem random if Fleury were going to have a career that spans 50 years and never sucks in the playoffs again.

[Staggy]

Good post with the statistics, tfrizz. It would be interesting to see the variances for playoff performances as well.

[tfrizz]

Good post with the statistics, tfrizz. It would be interesting to see the variances for playoff performances as well.

2011 vs Tampa Bay
< 27.28: 1-4, 3.44 GAA, .857 save %
> 27.28: 2-0, 0.84 GAA, .968 save %

2010 vs Ottawa, Montreal
< 27.28: 3-5, 2.99 GAA, .871 save %
> 27.28: 4-1, 2.53 GAA, .911 save %

2009 vs Philadelphia, Washington, Carolina, Detroit
< 27.28: 8-5, 2.65 GAA, .892 save %
> 27.28: 8-3, 2.57 GAA, .922 save %

2008 vs Ottawa, NY Rangers, Philadelphia, Detroit
< 27.28: 7-0, 1.12 GAA, .950 save %
> 27.28: 7-6, 2.40 GAA, .927 save %

2007 vs Ottawa
< 27.28: 0-3, 3.06 GAA, .882 save %
> 27.28: 1-1, 4.89 GAA, .877 save %


Also interesting to note is that in the two playoff games in which Fleury faced exactly 27 shots, he's 2-0 with a 1.50 GAA and .944 save %. That means if we re-arrange the range just slightly to < 27 and >= 27, the divide becomes a little larger.

[steelhammer]

His average shots against varies each season and also varies between the regular season and playoffs. It would be more informative to compare it to those numbers or perhaps his career shots against in the regular season and or playoffs. That being said, I'm still not sure that it tells us anything good, sorry.

Edit

[tfrizz]

His average shots against varies each season and also varies between the regular season and playoffs. It would be more informative to compare it to those numbers or perhaps his career shots against in the regular season and or playoffs. That being said, I'm still not sure that it tells us anything good, sorry.

Edit

It shows a trend that Fleury tends to play much better when facing more shots than facing fewer. When that trend is paired with a vulnerable defense, it's a very bad combination.

Now, it's very possible that this is something that developed in junior for him. Over his QMHL career, Fleury faced an average of 37.74 shots per game and saw 50+ on a semi-regular basis. He may have never developed that deep focus because he never had to - he was seeing action far more often than not. Fleury himself has admitted to having trouble focusing when he isn't getting a lot of shots, which makes this quite plausible.

As I mentioned throughout the season, teams stopped just throwing pucks on Fleury when they realized the difficulty the Pens' defense had with breaking up a good forecheck & cycle. Especially later in the season, we saw teams breaking down the defensive coverage with regularity leading to high quality scoring chances. This is a two-fold problem - not only does your goalie see fewer shots, but the shots seen are of better quality.

[steelhammer]

His average shots against varies each season and also varies between the regular season and playoffs. It would be more informative to compare it to those numbers or perhaps his career shots against in the regular season and or playoffs. That being said, I'm still not sure that it tells us anything good, sorry.

Edit

It shows a trend that Fleury tends to play much better when facing more shots than facing fewer. When that trend is paired with a vulnerable defense, it's a very bad combination.

Now, it's very possible that this is something that developed in junior for him. Over his QMHL career, Fleury faced an average of 37.74 shots per game and saw 50+ on a semi-regular basis. He may have never developed that deep focus because he never had to - he was seeing action far more often than not. Fleury himself has admitted to having trouble focusing when he isn't getting a lot of shots, which makes this quite plausible.

As I mentioned throughout the season, teams stopped just throwing pucks on Fleury when they realized the difficulty the Pens' defense had with breaking up a good forecheck & cycle. Especially later in the season, we saw teams breaking down the defensive coverage with regularity leading to high quality scoring chances. This is a two-fold problem - not only does your goalie see fewer shots, but the shots seen are of better quality.

I just don't understand where you are getting this data on shot quality variation in relation to opponent's shot quantity. Everything you are saying is subjective. The number of shots the other team generates is a much higher function of the Pens' offenseive zone time than it is the opponent's strategy (which varies game-to-game). Even with that being said, over Fleury's last 20 regular season games where he was not pulled, he saw >27 shots in 14 of those games (70%).

[The Snapshot]

His average shots against varies each season and also varies between the regular season and playoffs. It would be more informative to compare it to those numbers or perhaps his career shots against in the regular season and or playoffs. That being said, I'm still not sure that it tells us anything good, sorry.

Edit

It shows a trend that Fleury tends to play much better when facing more shots than facing fewer. When that trend is paired with a vulnerable defense, it's a very bad combination.

Now, it's very possible that this is something that developed in junior for him. Over his QMHL career, Fleury faced an average of 37.74 shots per game and saw 50+ on a semi-regular basis. He may have never developed that deep focus because he never had to - he was seeing action far more often than not. Fleury himself has admitted to having trouble focusing when he isn't getting a lot of shots, which makes this quite plausible.

As I mentioned throughout the season, teams stopped just throwing pucks on Fleury when they realized the difficulty the Pens' defense had with breaking up a good forecheck & cycle. Especially later in the season, we saw teams breaking down the defensive coverage with regularity leading to high quality scoring chances. This is a two-fold problem - not only does your goalie see fewer shots, but the shots seen are of better quality.

I'm not sure whether you are defending Fleury or condemning him? He has been a pro for long enough that what he learned in Jumiors shouldn't matter. The scenario you are painting about shots and shoddy defense ignores his horrible rebound control and propensity to give up soft goals. I really can't tell what you are saying?

He was freaking horrible in three straight playoffs. No amount of shots or lack of shots negates the simple fact that he gave up lots of soft goals and lots of horrible rebounds at the absolute worst time in games. If you can't focus after you give up a weak goal on one of the 1st 5 shots in a playoff game, or give up a softie after your team worked it's tail off to get one back only minutes before.....well you have more than focus issues. You might just be bad.

I don't want to take his Cup away from him, but the thought at that time was that he was going to springboard off of that into another stratusphere as a goalie. He was going to put all of the crap from the previous paragraph and take his considerable physical gifts to another level. That clearly has not been the case, so it appears that that year was an anomoly.

I'm just wondering when a kid who has been in the league since he was 18 actually becomes dependable. He has really never been. Not even the Cup year. He was a wild card then, and he came up Aces. The rest of his career he has been a Deuce, and Deuces have not been wild.

[jimjom]

Is it true that the Pens are scouting a 34 year old Finnish goalie?

[tfrizz]

Is it true that the Pens are scouting a 34 year old Finnish goalie?

I heard the same. They're apparently scouting Petri Vehanen.

[columbia]

[Fast B]

His average shots against varies each season and also varies between the regular season and playoffs. It would be more informative to compare it to those numbers or perhaps his career shots against in the regular season and or playoffs. That being said, I'm still not sure that it tells us anything good, sorry.

Edit

It shows a trend that Fleury tends to play much better when facing more shots than facing fewer. When that trend is paired with a vulnerable defense, it's a very bad combination.

Now, it's very possible that this is something that developed in junior for him. Over his QMHL career, Fleury faced an average of 37.74 shots per game and saw 50+ on a semi-regular basis. He may have never developed that deep focus because he never had to - he was seeing action far more often than not. Fleury himself has admitted to having trouble focusing when he isn't getting a lot of shots, which makes this quite plausible.

As I mentioned throughout the season, teams stopped just throwing pucks on Fleury when they realized the difficulty the Pens' defense had with breaking up a good forecheck & cycle. Especially later in the season, we saw teams breaking down the defensive coverage with regularity leading to high quality scoring chances. This is a two-fold problem - not only does your goalie see fewer shots, but the shots seen are of better quality.

I'm not sure whether you are defending Fleury or condemning him? He has been a pro for long enough that what he learned in Jumiors shouldn't matter. The scenario you are painting about shots and shoddy defense ignores his horrible rebound control and propensity to give up soft goals. I really can't tell what you are saying?

He was freaking horrible in three straight playoffs. No amount of shots or lack of shots negates the simple fact that he gave up lots of soft goals and lots of horrible rebounds at the absolute worst time in games. If you can't focus after you give up a weak goal on one of the 1st 5 shots in a playoff game, or give up a softie after your team worked it's tail off to get one back only minutes before.....well you have more than focus issues. You might just be bad.

I don't want to take his Cup away from him, but the thought at that time was that he was going to springboard off of that into another stratusphere as a goalie. He was going to put all of the crap from the previous paragraph and take his considerable physical gifts to another level. That clearly has not been the case, so it appears that that year was an anomoly.

I'm just wondering when a kid who has been in the league since he was 18 actually becomes dependable. He has really never been. Not even the Cup year. He was a wild card then, and he came up Aces. The rest of his career he has been a Deuce, and Deuces have not been wild.

Could have fooled me.

[tfrizz]

I just don't understand where you are getting this data on shot quality variation in relation to opponent's shot quantity. Everything you are saying is subjective. The number of shots the other team generates is a much higher function of the Pens' offenseive zone time than it is the opponent's strategy (which varies game-to-game). Even with that being said, over Fleury's last 20 regular season games where he was not pulled, he saw >27 shots in 14 of those games (70%).

Yes, and look at his performance in those games. When he won 9 consecutive games from Feb 21 to Mar 17, he faced 27 or more shots in all but 1. In that same stretch, he only posted a save % under .935 twice - with the one game facing less than 27 shots being under .900.

In that 20 game stretch you mentioned, he went 11-1-1 when facing > 27 shots and 2-3-0 when facing <= 27 shots.


To address the issue of career numbers, here is how it works out:

Average Shots Against: 29.23

< 29.23 Shots Against
Record: 142 - 105 - 16
GAA: 2.68
Sv%: .892
Shutouts: 14

>= 29.23 Shots Against
Record: 123-56-23
GAA: 2.67
Sv%: .923
Shutouts: 13


As you can see, both Fleury's record and save % improve tremendously when facing more shots.

[The Snapshot]

His average shots against varies each season and also varies between the regular season and playoffs. It would be more informative to compare it to those numbers or perhaps his career shots against in the regular season and or playoffs. That being said, I'm still not sure that it tells us anything good, sorry.

Edit

It shows a trend that Fleury tends to play much better when facing more shots than facing fewer. When that trend is paired with a vulnerable defense, it's a very bad combination.

Now, it's very possible that this is something that developed in junior for him. Over his QMHL career, Fleury faced an average of 37.74 shots per game and saw 50+ on a semi-regular basis. He may have never developed that deep focus because he never had to - he was seeing action far more often than not. Fleury himself has admitted to having trouble focusing when he isn't getting a lot of shots, which makes this quite plausible.

As I mentioned throughout the season, teams stopped just throwing pucks on Fleury when they realized the difficulty the Pens' defense had with breaking up a good forecheck & cycle. Especially later in the season, we saw teams breaking down the defensive coverage with regularity leading to high quality scoring chances. This is a two-fold problem - not only does your goalie see fewer shots, but the shots seen are of better quality.

I'm not sure whether you are defending Fleury or condemning him? He has been a pro for long enough that what he learned in Jumiors shouldn't matter. The scenario you are painting about shots and shoddy defense ignores his horrible rebound control and propensity to give up soft goals. I really can't tell what you are saying?

He was freaking horrible in three straight playoffs. No amount of shots or lack of shots negates the simple fact that he gave up lots of soft goals and lots of horrible rebounds at the absolute worst time in games. If you can't focus after you give up a weak goal on one of the 1st 5 shots in a playoff game, or give up a softie after your team worked it's tail off to get one back only minutes before.....well you have more than focus issues. You might just be bad.

I don't want to take his Cup away from him, but the thought at that time was that he was going to springboard off of that into another stratusphere as a goalie. He was going to put all of the crap from the previous paragraph and take his considerable physical gifts to another level. That clearly has not been the case, so it appears that that year was an anomoly.

I'm just wondering when a kid who has been in the league since he was 18 actually becomes dependable. He has really never been. Not even the Cup year. He was a wild card then, and he came up Aces. The rest of his career he has been a Deuce, and Deuces have not been wild.

Could have fooled me.

And that is the issue with folks who support and unsupportable performance like the one he just laid down. You cannot see the pieces of his game that have been problems for his entire career, that happen to have reared their head in each of the last three seasons?

He won a Cup. The team was awesome, and he won more than he lost, but he was far from a sure bet on any given night in those playoffs. His "issues" were still evident then as well, but he seemed to have answered the critics by performing against his track record in two huge games back to back. That is what has folks like you still supporting him against all outcomes.

That doesn't mean he hasn't stunk out loud not only in the last three playoffs, but to an alarming degree in the beginning of the 2010 season as well as the last stretch of games leading up to these playoffs. Name another top goalie who has such alarming fluctuations in his play.

The Cup was 3 full seasons ago. He has been instrumental in the team's failure every season since. How is that something not to be discussed.

Read my posts prior to these playoffs. I stated that I thought he was a gigantic advantage over Bryz. I assumed his play down the stretch was just a blip, and that he would be able to force the Flyers to thoroughly dominate us to win, because he was going to stop more than Bryz by a long shot. That turned out to be homerism on my part, because he got outplayed by a mess of a goalie.

[meow]

Is it true that the Pens are scouting a 34 year old Finnish goalie?

I heard the same. They're apparently scouting Petri Vehanen.

Hahaha, the scouting report of him on that website sounds exactly like one for Fleury.

[sil]

Read my posts prior to these playoffs. I stated that I thought he was a gigantic advantage over Bryz. I assumed his play down the stretch was just a blip, and that he would be able to force the Flyers to thoroughly dominate us to win, because he was going to stop more than Bryz by a long shot. That turned out to be homerism on my part, because he got outplayed by a mess of a goalie.

The Flyers goaltending, offense, and defense was better...and that last one really says something about how poorly the pens played in that series.

[The Snapshot]

The Flyers goaltending, offense, and defense was better...and that last one really says something about how poorly the pens played in that series.

Really, because we outplayed them 5 on 5 consistently? Their defense did not shut us down. Their offense being better was crap because their goaltending truly was better - and Fleury made less than 12 big saves in a six game series. He had 4 good periods out of 32, and all of the 28 others were unacceptable - not even average.

If anyone wants to defend Fleury, it just shows that they are not actually watching without bias. As I said, I TRULY believed Fleury was the single biggest advantage in that series, and he turned out to be the biggest liability. It's not even up for debate, because I haven't heard a single NHL analyst defend Fleury's play. That only happens here, and I assume it is coming from people with #29 jerseys.

[Staggy]

The Flyers goaltending, offense, and defense was better...and that last one really says something about how poorly the pens played in that series.

Really, because we outplayed them 5 on 5 consistently? Their defense did not shut us down. Their offense being better was crap because their goaltending truly was better - and Fleury made less than 12 big saves in a six game series. He had 4 good periods out of 32, and all of the 28 others were unacceptable - not even average.

If anyone wants to defend Fleury, it just shows that they are not actually watching without bias. As I said, I TRULY believed Fleury was the single biggest advantage in that series, and he turned out to be the biggest liability. It's not even up for debate, because I haven't heard a single NHL analyst defend Fleury's play. That only happens here, and I assume it is coming from people with #29 jerseys.

Fleury had 4 good periods out of 32? 32 what? He had at the very least 8 good periods, probably more, and that would be out of a total of 18. Fleury did not have a good series, he had a bad one by his standards. But so did the rest of the team.

[sil]

The Flyers goaltending, offense, and defense was better...and that last one really says something about how poorly the pens played in that series.

Really, because we outplayed them 5 on 5 consistently? Their defense did not shut us down. Their offense being better was crap because their goaltending truly was better - and Fleury made less than 12 big saves in a six game series. He had 4 good periods out of 32, and all of the 28 others were unacceptable - not even average.

If anyone wants to defend Fleury, it just shows that they are not actually watching without bias. As I said, I TRULY believed Fleury was the single biggest advantage in that series, and he turned out to be the biggest liability. It's not even up for debate, because I haven't heard a single NHL analyst defend Fleury's play. That only happens here, and I assume it is coming from people with #29 jerseys.

How is stating that the Flyers outplaying us in every aspect (which they did) defending Fleury...espeically when my post says the phrase...'the flyers goaltending was better'? I really could give a rat's butt at this point, but the Flyers were the better team...we didn't just lose because of MAF, and there's no defense for being that blinded. I could use your same argument and say that Orpik was the only reason we lost...he defended no one, went for big hits only, and stood around in the D-zone watching the flyers pretty passes. No wait...it was all Malkin's fault...yeah!...he absolutely had no interest in playing defensive hockey even for a second...entirely his fault we lost.

You must see how foolish a line of reasoning is that is was all one player's fault?

[sil]

Fleury had 4 good periods out of 32? 32 what? He had at the very least 8 good periods, probably more, and that would be out of a total of 18. Fleury did not have a good series, he had a bad one by his standards. But so did the rest of the team.

Nope. Clearly he was the only lousy player out there, and we'd be in the conference championship right now if we had a couple trash cans in the net instead.

[The Snapshot]

You must see how foolish a line of reasoning is that is was all one player's fault?

What's foolish is putting words in my mouth that he is 100% to blame. Never said that. I have simply said over and over that he was terrible, and AHL level performance, and that had he played even a little better the Pens could have gotten the chance to right themselves and play another round.

I have also said multiple times that many teams struggle in the 1st round, right themselves and go on to long runs. If that is not true, explain how the Rangers have played the maximum number of games to this point while playing the 8th and 7th seeds respectively.

I have never ONCE said the Pens would have won the Cup, or even go to the Conference Finals. We will never know because MAF has failed three years in a row to get us out of the 1st round.

His play in all 3 seasons has been horrific. Every single analyst around the country and Canada poses questions about his game, and yet folks on this board think that the Pens style fails in the Playoffs or the coaching staff gets outcoached. My position is that the single biggest failure in this system and coaching staff is that their goaltender leaks goals and fails to make consistent stops at big points in games as soon as the playoffs begin.

That trumps everything to me, because that is simpy fact. No team can win when they get scored on 2 out of 10 shots. Watch every goal from the last 3 season's playoffs and tell me that 30-40% of them are not stoppable shots.

In this past series, fully half of the PP goals were weak and it was the PP where Philly won this series.

Never said Fleury was 100% to blame, but his apologists all know he sucks and they cannot read criticism objectively.

[tfrizz]

You must see how foolish a line of reasoning is that is was all one player's fault?

What's foolish is putting words in my mouth that he is 100% to blame. Never said that. I have simply said over and over that he was terrible, and AHL level performance, and that had he played even a little better the Pens could have gotten the chance to right themselves and play another round.

I have also said multiple times that many teams struggle in the 1st round, right themselves and go on to long runs. If that is not true, explain how the Rangers have played the maximum number of games to this point while playing the 8th and 7th seeds respectively.

I have never ONCE said the Pens would have won the Cup, or even go to the Conference Finals. We will never know because MAF has failed three years in a row to get us out of the 1st round.

His play in all 3 seasons has been horrific. Every single analyst around the country and Canada poses questions about his game, and yet folks on this board think that the Pens style fails in the Playoffs or the coaching staff gets outcoached. My position is that the single biggest failure in this system and coaching staff is that their goaltender leaks goals and fails to make consistent stops at big points in games as soon as the playoffs begin.

That trumps everything to me, because that is simpy fact. No team can win when they get scored on 2 out of 10 shots. Watch every goal from the last 3 season's playoffs and tell me that 30-40% of them are not stoppable shots.

In this past series, fully half of the PP goals were weak and it was the PP where Philly won this series.

Never said Fleury was 100% to blame, but his apologists all know he sucks and they cannot read criticism objectively.

So... who got the Pens to the 2nd round to face Montreal 2 years ago?

[sil]

You must see how foolish a line of reasoning is that is was all one player's fault?

What's foolish is putting words in my mouth that he is 100% to blame. Never said that. I have simply said over and over that he was terrible, and AHL level performance, and that had he played even a little better the Pens could have gotten the chance to right themselves and play another round.

I have also said multiple times that many teams struggle in the 1st round, right themselves and go on to long runs. If that is not true, explain how the Rangers have played the maximum number of games to this point while playing the 8th and 7th seeds respectively.

I have never ONCE said the Pens would have won the Cup, or even go to the Conference Finals. We will never know because MAF has failed three years in a row to get us out of the 1st round.

His play in all 3 seasons has been horrific. Every single analyst around the country and Canada poses questions about his game, and yet folks on this board think that the Pens style fails in the Playoffs or the coaching staff gets outcoached. My position is that the single biggest failure in this system and coaching staff is that their goaltender leaks goals and fails to make consistent stops at big points in games as soon as the playoffs begin.

That trumps everything to me, because that is simpy fact. No team can win when they get scored on 2 out of 10 shots. Watch every goal from the last 3 season's playoffs and tell me that 30-40% of them are not stoppable shots.

In this past series, fully half of the PP goals were weak and it was the PP where Philly won this series.

Never said Fleury was 100% to blame, but his apologists all know he sucks and they cannot read criticism objectively.

Regarding some of those goals, its definitely easy to call them 'weak,' however saying 50% of the PP goals the flyers scored were weak is subjective opinion, and not fact in any form. I agree a lot of them looked stoppable, but I don't know if I'd say half of them were on MAF...but that's my subjective opinion.

Based on most of what you said above, I agree. MAF had a really bad series. I said so in my original post, and added that the rest of the team was pretty darn lousy as well...which apparently you didn't agree with yesterday, since you went on some rant in response to my post. Now it seems you do agree with it...which I'm happy about.