Why Vancouver Doesn't Have a Goalie Controversy

This post was originally an angry comment that I vomited all over this nhl.com article, but then it got such a positive response from other Canuck fans who have similarly grown bored of the persistent caterwauling of the lackadaisical effort put forth from the Canuck-covering media that I thought, "What the hell? Let's make a whole post out of my rant."

3...2...1...GO!

Have you heard the news? The Canucks have a Goalie Controversy! Just like last year! And the year before that! And the year before that!

In fact, since 2011, the word "Controversy" has been even more synonymous with the words "goalie" and "Vancouver" than "Graveyard" had been the previous 12 years or so.

For those of you who haven't read an article about the Canucks in 5 years, I'll summarize the "controversy" for you:

The goalie with the lower salary is playing better.

That's it. 

"So I guess we hate each other now, right?"

Photo Credit: www.theprovince.com

Every single season since 2012, that's been the case. Even in 2011, Schneider had a (barely) better save percentage than Luongo. As a Canucks fan, I'm sick of it. I'm sick of being told that there's a controversy when there isn't. If Lack is playing better, then just say that Lack is playing better. Stop saying "controversy" - it's become cliche. It's lazy journalism. Every hack reporter has commented on it fifty times by now. 

The only time in the past 4 years that things actually got controversial was when Lack started the Winter Classic instead of Luongo. And then Luongo was traded the next day. That's 1-2 days of actual goalie controversy, and 3-4 years of media-manufactured pseudo-controversy.

Here's a list of teams whose highest-paid goalie was outperformed by a lower-paid, younger goalie this season:

Senators (Hammond), Wild (Dubnyk), Blackhawks (Darling/Raanta), Rangers (Talbot), Red Wings (Mrazek), Stars (Enroth), Avalanche (Pickard), Lightning (Vasilevskiy), Canucks (Lack).

That's almost 1/3 of the league. It's a fairly common scenario. Having a young, talented goalie doesn't make you special just because he outperforms a veteran. 

And if you look into the numbers, it's not even especially surprising that Lack is the better goalie right now. Miller's numbers are slightly lower than his career average, but that's to be expected considering that he's almost 35. Even last year, Lack's save percentage was higher than Miller's is this year, and Lack was a rookie - chances were good that it would improve. 

If you want to talk about controversy, then ask the Vancouver management why they paid $18m for a goalie who would very likely be posting 2nd-rate numbers within a year. They were practically asking for a new "controversy". That's not Willie Desjardins' problem. Desjardins, as the coach, whose job it is to ice the best possible team, should not give two s#!ts about who is *supposed* to be the starter, or who has the higher salary. His job is to play the goalie who gives him the best chance to win. 

If Miller gets upset about having to sit on the bench, then it's his fault for not playing better. He's an adult. He's a professional. He's making $6m/year regardless. 

"But Lack doesn't have playoff experience!" you whine. You know what, Canuck fans, we're not winning the Stanley Cup this year anyway. How about we give Lack playoff experience now, so that we don't have an inexperienced goalie in 2-3 years when we might actually be contenders?

"But Miller has more shutouts!" Yeah, and somehow Lack still has a better goals against average. Do you know what it says about a goalie with a low GAA and a low number of shutouts? Consistency. If you don't get a lot of shutouts while maintaining a low GAA, it means that you don't get blown-out very often. 

"But Miller has more wins!" Do you know how 'wins' work when attributed to goalies? It's the goalie-of-record when the winning goal in the game was scored. It doesn't really say much about a goaltenders actual ability. 

The article under which this tirade was unleashed had opined that Canucks players should brace themselves to "expect to be answering more questions about goalie controversies".

Here's a rhetorical question: Why does the media even ask the players those types of questions?

Want to know the answer to my rhetorical question?

The answer is that because it's not the players' job to have any idea about the goaltending future of the team. As such, they're only going to give vague, enigmatic answers that provide fuel for more exaggerated tales of "controversy". If the media was actually interested in answers, they'd just ask Linden and Benning. But then, if they did that, they might have to put actual work into their jobs.