[OT-ish] Lenny starts for Pheonix

[nyiballs]

In Ari's defense...  I played on the same ice with Lenny his freshman year, and remembered wondering why he was a recruit and I was a walk-on.  There seemed to be little difference to me.  (I whupped him in the rebound game).  So when he put up those two big years, I was skeptical as well.  That being said, his resume' is unimpeachable.  Team Canada WJC (1st NCAA player in like 30 years), NCAA records, All-American, AHL All-Star, 2nd round draft pick...

What I have come to realize is that Dave is one of those rare tenders who has so much control over his body and positioning, that he never has to make any ridiculous saves.  He is always in the right place, so he makes it look easy.  When you score on him, it's either flat out beating him with a great shot or a defensive breakdown.  Rarely will you see him scrambling to stop a rebound though, because he is usually in too good of a position to have to scramble.

[jkahn]

The following would explain the different calculations:
The 3.05 calculation uses rounded minutes.
The 3.10 calculation uses truncated minutes.

[Beeeej]

[Q]jkahn Wrote:
 The following would explain the different calculations:
The 3.05 calculation uses rounded minutes.
The 3.10 calculation uses truncated minutes.[/q]

Is there anything that would explain ESPN listing it as 3.09 for Lenny's season but 3.10 for his career?

Beeeej

[ugarte]

[Q]Beeeej Wrote:

 [Q2]jkahn Wrote:
 The following would explain the different calculations:
The 3.05 calculation uses rounded minutes.
The 3.10 calculation uses truncated minutes.[/Q]
Is there anything that would explain ESPN listing it as 3.09 for Lenny's season but 3.10 for his career?[/q]Maybe it is 3.096 and one is programmed to cut it off after two digits and the other rounds up? The inconsistency is still stupid, of course.

[calgARI '07]

[Q]ugarte Wrote:

 [Q2]calgARI '07 Wrote:
I honestly didn't think much of him when he played for Cornell, but it is very hard to deny how technically sound he is.[/Q]
I don't want to start an argument, but...

You say this all the time, Ari, and I'll never understand it. He set the friggin' NCAA GAA record and was widely praised for his solid technical play. Other people saw enough in him to (a) put him on Canada's WJC team and (b) use a high draft pick on him. What could he possibly have done that would have impressed you?[/q]

I appreciate all of his accomplishments and it's fine if everyone thinks he was the greatest.  I just didn't think he was.  That team LeNeveu played on was one of the most dominant I have ever seen at any level.  They had the best defensive corps in college hockey and a group of outstanding two-way forwards to go along with it.  I just don't think LeNeveu was challenged very much his record-breaking year.  Then when he finally did get challenged in the semifinals, he was brutal.  There are a lot of great goalies out there, but separates the oustanding goalies from that group is that they elevate their games in huge games.  You cannot have bad games in the NCAA's or the season is over.  On that note, I love McKee and although he was on an outstanding defensive team last year, he earned the accolades he received.  I didn't think LeNeveu deserved the Hobey but I did think McKee did.  Even though McKee played pretty well against Minnesota, I think he would want the first goal back.  It wasn't the best game he played all season.  But I really believe in McKee to ultimately get it done in the big game, far more than I did  LeNeveu.  

[Beeeej]

As far as I'm concerned, you said absolutely nothing in that post that distinguishes between LeNeveu and McKee, yet your opinions of the two are quite different.

It's fine if you just have a gut sense that McKee's the real deal and Lenny wasn't, but the way you're trying to explain it paints them both with the same brush.

Beeeej

[calgARI '07]

[Q]Beeeej Wrote:

 As far as I'm concerned, you said absolutely nothing in that post that distinguishes between LeNeveu and McKee, yet your opinions of the two are quite different.

It's fine if you just have a gut sense that McKee's the real deal and Lenny wasn't, but the way you're trying to explain it paints them both with the same brush.

Beeeej[/q]

I just try to put things as gently as I can because some people take things personally and get really angry.  What I was saying is basically that I credit McKee a lot more with Cornell's 27-5-3 record last year and his amazing individual statistics than I do LeNeveu with Cornell's 30-5-1 record in 02-03 and his amazing individual statistics.  More specifically, LeNeveu didn't give Cornell a good opportunity to win against New Hampshire whereas I think McKee always does, even against the very high powered Minnesota team (although even in that game he didn't play at his best).

[Beeeej]

And again, I think you're just painting yourself into a corner.  McKee always gives them a chance to win and if you mess up in the playoffs you're not the real deal, yet although McKee wasn't at his best in the Minnesota game, he's the real deal.

Frankly, I happen to think our offense was flat in the semis at Buffalo.  Unlike other seasons, we were scoring 3, 4, 5, 6, sometimes 8 goals all the way up until the BC game in the quarters.  When we could only put two in the net all game against New Hampshire (okay, three, but only two from sticks below the crossbar), expecting Lenny to save us all by himself was very unrealistic.

Beeeej

[calgARI '07]

[Q]Beeeej Wrote:

 And again, I think you're just painting yourself into a corner.  McKee always gives them a chance to win and if you mess up in the playoffs you're not the real deal, yet although McKee wasn't at his best in the Minnesota game, he's the real deal.

Frankly, I happen to think our offense was flat in the semis at Buffalo.  Unlike other seasons, we were scoring 3, 4, 5, 6, sometimes 8 goals all the way up until the BC game in the quarters.  When we could only put two in the net all game against New Hampshire (okay, three, but only two from sticks below the crossbar), expecting Lenny to save us all by himself was very unrealistic.

Beeeej[/q]

But New Hampshire and Boston College were legit teams and contenders for the National Championship, not standard ECAC competition.  There is no way Cornell was going to score that many goals against them.  The only way they were going to win was 2-1 or 3-2, harping on their true strength, defense.  It's playoff hockey between two powerhouse teams and Cornell wasn't going to win 4-3 or 5-4.  Remember, New Hampshire was the second best defensive team in college hockey.  Cornell should have won that game 2-1 or 3-2.  
McKee wasn't at his best against Minnesota, but played well enough for the team to win.  I don't think LeNeveu played well enough for Cornell to beat New Hampshire.

[mgl11]

I think that Lenny's 2nd Period performance in the UNH game is proof of that -- 3 shots, 2 goals...ugg.

[DeltaOne81]

[Q]calgARI '07 Wrote:
I don't think LeNeveu played well enough for Cornell to beat New Hampshire.[/q]

I've got a bad video replay review or a face-save that says you're wrong ;-)

My main issue here is that it's treated as a fact that a player/team has total control over their performance. Yeah, Lenny had a relatively weak (still pretty good) game at the wrong time. But this whole 'champions play right at the best time' thing is horse-hockey. That is only true in retrospect because the champions, duh, will have played better. The main problem with sports fans is like to take 1 or 2 or 3 performances and make a 'pattern' or some non-existant meaning out of it. There is sooo much randomness envolved in all of this.

You CAN'T take one game in a person's career and hold it against them. Now, had Lenny stayed, and he had repeatedly continued to lose big games, and play lesser in them, maybe you could have a point. But, his sum total of big games that he played was 4 (arguably 5), and he was 3-1 (4-1) in those games. Gee, a 75% success ratio in big games, and you're gonna say he didn't have what it takes?

Btw, I was sitting right off to the side of Lenny and he was completey hung out to dry on at least one of those goals. There are so many more factors.

The fact is that Lenny never looked impressive because as NYI said, he was always in the right place. I remember when I realized just how awesomely effective Lenny was. The @ SLU game in the middle of the winter in 02-03. Because Lenny was gone to the Canadian Jr team and Marr stepped in. Marr played very well and got us two wins in the N. Country so nothing against him, but the difference between someone who was as poised and in control of the puck as Lenny, and the scrambling that Marr needed to do several times, really showed me why Lenny was as good as he was.

I don't think anyone can be faulted for their initial opinion, but in the eyes of a great freshman campaign, a superb sophomore campaign, an appearance in the Frozen Four, an invite to the Canadian Jr team, and now having scouts and Wayne Freakin' Gretzsky give him a shot in the NHL after only 2 AHL seasons (pretty darn quick for a goalie), I think it may be time to admit that the people who know a whole lot more than any of us may just know what they're talking about.

[calgARI '07]

Maybe I should rephrase.  I don't think LeNeveu put Cornell in a position to win against UNH.  Could they have won that game the way he played?  Most definitely, but I don't think he bailed the team out when they were struggling in the first period.  Is it necessary the goalie's job to bail them out?  No, but for a goaltender of LeNeveu's caliber and reputation, I expected/hoped that he would.

[Beeeej]

My recollection is that Lenny got hung out to dry on both the second-period goals - a two-on-one and a power play scorcher.  Yes, sometimes a goalie will come up huge even in those circumstances, but it was the forwards and blueliners who lost that game, not Lenny.  McKee also got hung out to dry on the GWG in Minnesota - yet I had the strange feeling that a strong positional goalie like Lenny might still have made that save.  Ironic.

Beeeej

[JDeafv]

[Q]calgARI '07 Wrote:

 Maybe I should rephrase.  I don't think LeNeveu put Cornell in a position to win against UNH.  Could they have won that game the way he played?  Most definitely, but I don't think he bailed the team out when they were struggling in the first period.  Is it necessary the goalie's job to bail them out?  No, but for a goaltender of LeNeveu's caliber and reputation, I expected/hoped that he would.[/q]

Wow, without reading the rest of this thread, sounds like Debbie-downer.

[calgARI '07]

[Q]Beeeej Wrote:

 My recollection is that Lenny got hung out to dry on both the second-period goals - a two-on-one and a power play scorcher.  Yes, sometimes a goalie will come up huge even in those circumstances, but it was the forwards and blueliners who lost that game, not Lenny.  McKee also got hung out to dry on the GWG in Minnesota - yet I had the strange feeling that a strong positional goalie like Lenny might still have made that save.  Ironic.

Beeeej[/q]

Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one although I certainly do agree that the team lost that game together.  My point is just that if LeNeveu was the best player in college hockey and so amazing, he would have taken the team on his shoulders and come up with some big saves.  But that's neither here nor there.  Bottom line is that they didn't win that game and that they didn't beat Minnesota.  Hopefully we'll see a different outcome this season.