Nabby has to go?

By chuq | Published May 5, 2009

A meme that’s popped up in the comments and other places…

I have to toss in that I think Nabby needs to go too — it’s not that he’s the “problem” per say, but I just don’t see him ever playing consistant enough for a 2 month stretch to win a cup.

I said upfront that Nabby wasn’t the problem. I still think Nabby isn’t the problem. It’s easy to say “he has to go” — it’s not so easy to improve the team. So, we do away with Nabokov, how do we replace him with a goalie that makes the team better? As opposed to just being a different team… In the system? Greiss isn’t the answer. Nobody in the system is ready — not remotely, as far as I can tell — to step into the NHL and be a potential Vezina candidate? Nabby didn’t make the finals, but to be honest, he wasn’t far from it.

Take a step back for a second and look at the first round:

  • Anaheim 2-0
  • Anaheim 3-2
  • San Jose 4-3
  • Anaheim 4-0
  • San Jose 3-2
  • Anaheim 4-1

two shut-outs, 1 one-goal game, two two-goal games. In reality, what Nabby did DIDN’T MATTER. no goalie can win a game where your offense scores zero. The Sharks only scored 1.5 goals a game. Even if Nabby had a 2.00 GAA, they’d have lost that series. The number of goalies in the playoffs right now that would have a chance of winning a series when the offense is only scoring 1.5 goals a game is — two: Thomas and Varlamov. Put Hiller (1.83) or Luongo (2.06) backstopping the Sharks in the first round, and this team goes down.

So let’s forget about “fixing” this team by swapping out goalies. Nabby wasn’t the problem.

Related posts:

  1. Time For A Two Goalie System?
  2. Nabby’s injury, and some thoughts on the blues game.
  3. Round 2 predictions
  4. Sharkspage – San Jose Sharks, Hockey, NHL sports blog
  5. So what did the Dallas series prove to us about the Sharks?
This entry was posted in Sports - Hockey. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
  • http://watkinslynn.typepad.com/pages_pucks_and_pantry/ Mrs. L

    After the loss, I was pretty much “trade everyone I can't take this anymore”….now that I've calmed down a bit it's more of “make a trade or do something to make this team better”…of course I thought they had done that last year. I now have no idea what that “make the team better”, but I'm hoping the Sharks bigwigs will know what to do.

  • http://mmatm.blogspot.com Red

    I totally see your point on Nabby. True, replacing him won't make the team better. But I'm thinking it won't make it worse either – and it might free up a little money in the cap so we have a little play room to shuffle that forward lineup.

    I also completely agree that what the Sharks should do in front of the net is what the Wings do. I can't say I love Holmstrom enough. I wish he was a Shark so bad and have for 4 or 5 years now. Clowe should be that type of player, but he does it maybe once or twice a season. It kills me. I think it's a box everyone thinks he should be in, but he just won't fit.

    I can't imagine blowing up and rebuilding, although I sure have heard that around town and on the internet. I think these are fans who are johnny-come-latelies and hadn't lived through the rebuilding stage before. I really don't want to go back to that when our great draft picks of a few years ago are now of age and we have some great veterans that really seem to have no interpersonal problems.

  • http://www.chuqui.com chuqui

    I guess my bottom line is it's easy to say 'replace Nabby' but really tough for me to see any way that “replace Nabby” and “make the team better” happen together. Nabby to me was not in my top-3 for Vezina, but in the top 6 or so. I just find it hard to think we can do better than that by free agent or trade, and I don't believe anyone at the AHL level is remotely close to that good.

    Clowe to me is a keeper. He's got grit, skill and size. He's to me one of those guys who can play first or second line (optimally second) as the guy who's fighting in the crease for screens and rebounds. Look at the Wings and how they play, and you can see what I want the Sharks to do (which they aren't). He should be our mule.

    Michalek could be a mule, too, but isn't, and he's just plain-old disappointed too many times. I'm ready to go in another direction with this roster spot.

    My bottom line: a team that only scores 1.5 goals a game isn't fixed by changing the goaltending. And that's the Sharks in the playoffs. The car is on fire, we'll solve it by changing tires?

    My other bottom line: we're just NOT THAT FAR from where we want to be. This isn't a “blow up and rebuild” scenario, but it's more than a “we need a couple of character guys for depth” thing.

    chuq

  • http://watkinslynn.typepad.com/pages_pucks_and_pantry/ Mrs. L

    After the loss, I was pretty much “trade everyone I can't take this anymore”….now that I've calmed down a bit it's more of “make a trade or do something to make this team better”…of course I thought they had done that last year. I now have no idea what that “make the team better”, but I'm hoping the Sharks bigwigs will know what to do.

  • http://www.chuqui.com chuqui

    I guess my bottom line is it's easy to say 'replace Nabby' but really tough for me to see any way that “replace Nabby” and “make the team better” happen together. Nabby to me was not in my top-3 for Vezina, but in the top 6 or so. I just find it hard to think we can do better than that by free agent or trade, and I don't believe anyone at the AHL level is remotely close to that good.

    Clowe to me is a keeper. He's got grit, skill and size. He's to me one of those guys who can play first or second line (optimally second) as the guy who's fighting in the crease for screens and rebounds. Look at the Wings and how they play, and you can see what I want the Sharks to do (which they aren't). He should be our mule.

    Michalek could be a mule, too, but isn't, and he's just plain-old disappointed too many times. I'm ready to go in another direction with this roster spot.

    My bottom line: a team that only scores 1.5 goals a game isn't fixed by changing the goaltending. And that's the Sharks in the playoffs. The car is on fire, we'll solve it by changing tires?

    My other bottom line: we're just NOT THAT FAR from where we want to be. This isn't a “blow up and rebuild” scenario, but it's more than a “we need a couple of character guys for depth” thing.

    chuq

    • http://mmatm.blogspot.com Red

      I totally see your point on Nabby. True, replacing him won't make the team better. But I'm thinking it won't make it worse either – and it might free up a little money in the cap so we have a little play room to shuffle that forward lineup.

      I also completely agree that what the Sharks should do in front of the net is what the Wings do. I can't say I love Holmstrom enough. I wish he was a Shark so bad and have for 4 or 5 years now. Clowe should be that type of player, but he does it maybe once or twice a season. It kills me. I think it's a box everyone thinks he should be in, but he just won't fit.

      I can't imagine blowing up and rebuilding, although I sure have heard that around town and on the internet. I think these are fans who are johnny-come-latelies and hadn't lived through the rebuilding stage before. I really don't want to go back to that when our great draft picks of a few years ago are now of age and we have some great veterans that really seem to have no interpersonal problems.

  • http://mmatm.blogspot.com Red

    I agree that Nabby wasn't the problem in the playoffs and that it is a problem with offense.

    But I still think it's time Nabby went to another team… Tampa Bay? lol anywhere but the west of course. My solution, bring Greiss up (he's ready and every year he gets older), play him early in the year, use Boucher's experience at stepping in and being great, build Greiss' publicity up and then trade him to get a different go-to goalie mid-season with Boucher still as backup. I believe there are a couple of decent young prospects in the Sharks stable for the future.

    1) Salary Cap. He makes a ton of money and his playoff play was average. Even taking into consideration the report on his hip (seriously, not that bad, even for a goalie) his play just wasn't the usual intense Nabby who generally will see the puck as the size of a beach ball. By the way, for Nabby it was strained hip muscle, not hip flexor. It was Thornton who had the groin/hip flexor problem.

    2) As I think I may have commented a few posts ago, he was not ready for the turnover that inevitably happens. After our D got the puck, he would relax in the crease and stand up. That may have been hip oriented, but with such a minor thing, he should not have even felt it if he was really into the game. If it was a problem, Boucher could have been playing instead as again, Nabby was just average.

    3) I just remembered this, but over the season I had noticed that Nabby and the D just don't work well together. Whether it's a team philosophy of the coach with the D following, and Nabby has a different idea, I don't know. However, I think we all know that Nabby is not a good puck handler, yet he likes to do it. Don't we all scream “get back in the net” to him when he does that? Anyway, Nabby will want to send the puck one way, and the D and sometimes the forwards are all skating a different direction. Then a scramble ensues and more often than not the Sharks still get it out of the zone, but the smooth flow that they need to succeed isn't there. Another key to that is rebounds. A goalie can direct them where he wants at this high of a level on a consistent basis. I believe Nabby does, but again, it's often in a place where the D isn't ready for it.

    But what do I know really? I'm just critiquing because I like to and that's just how I see it.

    But mostly, Doug Wilson's summer should revolve around figured out why the offense was so impotent and make the adjustments necessary. If Nabby stays – and I'm sure he will – it won't make that much of a difference. I think the only real factor involved is the salary cap and I sure can't figure that out.

    Michalek, much as I love him, needs to go. He's highly skilled and has been noticed a bit around the league before. Marleau should stay, but I really don't see a problem with someone else being named captain. He's mature enough to handle that by now and maybe even would like that.
    Thornton, I don't know. I just don't know. Did he learn anything from this year? Gawd I hope so. I think his problem is trying to think too much. He just needs to 'do' as it takes too much time for him to think things over. I really appreciate that he didn't try to bleed the Sharks dry in contract negotiations before.
    Clowe, no injuries, but no intensity and was virtually invisible… not to mention lack of scoring. There's no excuse for that so I think he should go too. On the other hand, maybe that's just from hearing him say “I have no plans, but I know I won't be watching any more hockey.” At first that didn't bother me. Two weeks later… it's starting to really gnaw at me. He should be watching just so he can see all the hard work and intensity that it takes to step up that extra level needed.

    Sorry for the tome ;-)

  • ErikSchwartz

    Nabakov is 33 years old. He played nearly 3700 regular season minutes. Nabby played 12 of our last 13 regular season games. It turns out he was playing injured.

    We ended the season 26 points ahead of our nearest pacific division rivals (thus assuring at WORST the 3rd seed in the west).

    Why chase the President's Trophy if it's going to wear your goalie down for the playoffs?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Mathews/1022441396 Michael Mathews

    Josh, that's pretty much how I feel about it. No doubt Nabokov is a good goaltender, but I don't see him as a consistent big-game goalie.

    The sad part is that Chuq is right — there is nobody in the system right now who looks to be as good. I'm not sold on Boucher. I think he had a hot start last year, but was pretty ordinary in the few games he played in the second half of the system. The whole team was pretty ordinary down the stretch, sad to say.

  • Josh

    Another way to look at it however, is save percentage. Nabokov had a .890 save percentage over the course of the first round. Put Hiller (.951) in, and they give up fewer than the 9 goals they scored, or Luongo (.933) in and they basically play even up. Seven goaltenders had at least a .928 save percent for the first round. Of those seven, only Martin Brodeur is not still playing. A .928 save percentage for the Sharks would cut the goals against down to 11. Ok, yes, they only scored 9, but they probably win game 2 (they outshot Anahiem 44-26), and possibly game 1 (which they outshot Anahiem 35-17, but Nabakov gave up the only two goals on shots that were stoppable). If they split at home to start the series, the go to Anahiem up 3-2 for game 6, and even if they lose game 6, they still play game 7. Had they won both the first two, Anahiem is golfing. And again, let's recap, this series was really lost by dropping the first two at home. Nabokov gave up 5 goals on 45 shots those games.

    Nabokov is not the only problem on this team. He's probably not the biggest problem on the team. But I still am not convinced that you can win a cup with him backstopping, and this is something that has actually concerned me for a while. You don't win cups with .890 save percentages. The fact that even as bad as they played, they held the Ducks to 155 shots in 6 games (just under 26/game) makes his GAA misleading.

    • http://www.chuqui.com chuqui

      without turning this into a dead horse beating contest, another aspect of the .890 save percentage is that when a team isn't scoring offensively, it has to push harder and take chances. That leads to turnovers and odd man breaks, and even if a goalie is great, some of them will go through. My big problem with Nabby's performance was really that the defense in front of him was breaking down and handing opportunities to the Ducks at bad times, or (like when Grier tripped over the linesman) turning the puck over at the blueline and doing a poor job of making Nabby's life easy.

      honestly, I just don't pay attention as much to save percentage as goals and GAA; I can think of four or five goals that I don't blame on Nabby, but on bad defense in front of him; Even assuming a miracle and he might somehow stop two of those — the bottom line is you're simply not going to win playoff rounds by winning four games 1-0 or 2-1, and that's what the Sharks offense was forcing them to do.

      And, as Dave Pollak noted, Nabby was playing with a strained hip flexor. He didn't look like he was on his game because, well, he wasn't. Probably 90% — enough to be the difference in 2-3 of those goals.

      There are many bigger problems on the Sharks than goaltending. Weak offense. Lots of shots, lots of low-percentage shots. Not willing to fight for position in the slot for screens and rebounds. Passive power play.

      Instead of looking at Hiller and Luongo and saying we need to upgrade Nabby (good luck at that! Anyone who thinks Clemmenson or Fernandez or name ANY goalie that's available as an upgrade is wrong), take a look over at Detroit and Osgood. It's not about building a team that requires your goalie to be impossibly good; it's about building a team where a really good goalie can carry the team forward.

      Heck, the Ducks are a good example of what I don't think we want to be; without Hiller stealing games, the sharks are still playing and the Ducks are golfing. Put Nabokov's sore hip on Hiller, and the series reverses. Building a team like that is risky; building a team like Detroit, where nobody has to play impossibly good, is a much better model — and fairly immune to injuries, even to key players. Which is why Detroit is consistently good and still playing hockey.

      So rather that “fix” the goalending, and spending money trying to upgrade something not really broken, use the Detroit model: upgrade the weak spots on the team so that we aren't depending on the goaltending ot save us from ourselves. And that means fixing the top six forwards…

  • jecook

    Great debate for sure. Nabby was ordinary, the team played the 1st 2 games with ordinary emotion. In game 3 nabby
    could not hold the lead on 3 seperate ocassions, he failed to steal a game or make Varlamov or Luongo stops when called upon to rise above the ordinary. Nabby let in 2 quick goals in game 5 to start the 3rd. He lacked the timing for the big save that puts a stamp on a game. He looked more like the goalie that lost his job to Toskala a few years ago than the goalie that battled Kipper and Turco toe to toe a year ago in the playoffs. That said, I think Nabby is back for the final year of his deal, it is just too hard to find a goalie that would step in and be 'the man' at such short notice from an organizational perspective. As much as I liked the play of Boucher, I would think it is time to have a young up and coming goalie as the backup. Is Greiss the guy? Who would have imagined the Varlamov situation a month ago?