Quick vs. LaBarbera [UPDATE post-Thrashing]

by Quisp on Nov 14, 2009 1:05 PM PST Comment 3 comments

[UPDATE: after last night's 7-0 fun fest, I thought I would revisit Q's numbers to see where he stands vis-a-vis LaBarbera. The post has been altered accordingly:]

Halfway through Quick's next game, he will have played exactly the same number of minutes LaBarbera played for the Kings last season. Q has now played about a game's worth of minutes more than JLB did for us last season. How do they compare?

LaBarbera:

995 minutes / 2.83GAA / .893 SV% / 2 shut outs / 47 goals allowed

Quick:

966 minutes / 2.61GAA / .900 SV% / 0 shut outs / 42 goals allowed.

1061 minutes / 2.77GAA / .894 SV% / 0 shut-outs / 49 goals allowed.

Some other observations: LaBarbera allowed four or more goals in four games, 4, 6, 4, 4, all losses. Quick has allowed four or more five six times, 6, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4 (plus 3 in the Atlanta game in 35 minutes) but the Kings won two of those games. As noted above, JLB had two shut outs to Quick's zero. JLB allowed only one goal in two complete games and twice when coming in relief of EE. Quick has allowed only one goal five times, all complete games. JLB was pulled three times. Quick has never been pulled has been pulled once. Shots against are roughly even: JLB faced 439 shots; Quick has faced 464.

Conclusion: I instinctively believe Quick to be far superior to JLB. The numbers, however, aren't persuasively on my side. Quick's numbers are slightly better overall. I made the observation on a message board that if Quick had let in one fewer goal in each of his games, his numbers would be best in the league (this was in response to the comment that there have been goals in every game that Quick would like to "have back"). The point being, I don't think it's realistic or fair to expect him (or anyone) never to let in a soft goal. But I do think it's reasonable for him to cut down on the number of unforced errors leading to goals. Maybe by half. That would be consistent with our expectations of him in comparison to the often-maligned JLB.

[UPDATE: since the original post, he's let in seven goals in a game and a half. Going, as they say, in the wrong direction.]

0 recs | Comment 3 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I think there is very good reason to believe that Quick is far superior to LaBarbara. Quick is only in his first full season in the NHL (one presumes it will be a full season, anyway). He’s still young and developing, and probably hasn’t topped out in terms of his potential as an NHL goalie.

LaBarbs last year was a veteran who had already had several years to establish himself as a starter and could never quite take the No. 1 spot from Garon. If I’m not mistaken, he was already several years older than Quick when he came to the Kings. There was every reason to believe last year (if not earlier) that he had already reached his ceiling.

My point being, I guess, that it’s right to stick with Quick now, just as it was right to give up on LaBarbs then. That being said, I do think your analysis of how Quick and Bernier stand within the organization is quite perceptive, and that, as you say, Bernier will be waiting in the wings… until he isn’t anymore. And that’s probably how it should be right now, too.

by DougS on Nov 10, 2009 10:22 PM PST reply actions

I agree re Quick and JLB. Right now, I would put Quick in the same class as Jamie Storr, who I liked a lot and who, though he is much maligned these days, actually put up some great numbers and is highly placed statistically in the canon of Kings goaltenders. Storr never became the superstar many thought he could be, but that might have been dumb luck (I know there are others who say he was a head-case or something; but I have no reason to believe that would have stopped him had the cards fallen slightly differently). In any case, Quick hopefully is better even than that. I know it’s not the way coaches like to do things these days, but I would love to see Quick and Bernier as a 1A and 1B tandem. Probably not going to happen though.

by quisp on Nov 11, 2009 9:31 AM PST up reply actions

That SO stat difference might look like it favors Labs, but I would offer up that Quick’s GAA is better WITHOUT any SO’s, which exacerbates the difference between their GAA’s even moreso in favor of Quick.

by Surly Jacob on Nov 15, 2009 6:24 PM PST reply actions