Steve Mason - turned another corner?

[Dobber]

Mason won the game for Philly last night. If the Flyers win the series, we'll look back to this turning point I think. 37 saves, 38 shots. We can all agree that none of us are comfortable with considering Mason a top 10 goalie. Or even a Top 15 goalie.

But does this change if he muscles them into the second round?

I was surprised at the outcome today, I must admit. Little faith. But good for him

[Axeman33]

I think it was a fantastic performance for Mason, but lets just wait and see him turn in a few more of these performances before I consider him turning any corners. It's his consistency that worries me.

[Happy Hour]

Mason won the game for Philly last night. If the Flyers win the series, we'll look back to this turning point I think. 37 saves, 38 shots. We can all agree that none of us are comfortable with considering Mason a top 10 goalie. Or even a Top 15 goalie.

But does this change if he muscles them into the second round?

I was surprised at the outcome today, I must admit. Little faith. But good for him

Yeah, really struggling with whether or not to keep him as I know a lot of others are right now. Problem I have is I know he'll play a ton next year on a good Philly team and rack up a bunch of wins but when he's bad, he's plain brutal. His inability to stay healthy is also a major concern. This is probably a decision I'll leave until the last possible minute, tough one.

[lucifer316]

i still remember many giving Niemi and Crawford a hard time about where they should rank after winning cups

i think it is a bit premature to make Mason a top 10 or top 15 guy if he advances past the first round against the team with the 18th best offense in the league

[Shiva Blaster]

For the sake of his trade value in my league, I hope he keeps it up!!!!

[Top_Shelf]

Personally, I wouldnt trust him as #1 or even #2 goalie on my fantasy team even if Philly got to the second round. His blowups cost me a couple of key H2H matchups. I'd like to see him show some consitent play in the regular season before crowning him a viable fantasy starter.

[Magicstew]

Personally, I wouldnt trust him as #1 or even #2 goalie on my fantasy team even if Philly got to the second round. His blowups cost me a couple of key H2H matchups. I'd like to see him show some consitent play in the regular season before crowning him a viable fantasy starter.

He will be Philly #1 next year - prime time - if he can get them to 2nd round. Going to have to give him some credit. All goalies have a few blips in regular season.

[Ed.]

In terms of GAA and S% he was average at best, and often worse than that from December onward, which makes him somewhat of a painful own in leagues where those stats are important. That said, he's my #2 by default, and goalies are damn near impossible to acquire in this league without sending one back the other way, so he's definitely a keeper for me.

[Dobber]

In terms of GAA and S% he was average at best, and often worse than that from December onward, which makes him somewhat of a painful own in leagues where those stats are important. That said, he's my #2 by default, and goalies are damn near impossible to acquire in this league without sending one back the other way, so he's definitely a keeper for me.

Yes, but my position is - much of his crap play over the last few years has been confidence. So if he muscles Philly into a second round I think it impacts his future numbers. "Turned the corner", if you will

[lucifer316]

Yes, but my position is - much of his crap play over the last few years has been confidence. So if he muscles Philly into a second round I think it impacts his future numbers. "Turned the corner", if you will

no one will know if he has turned the corner until the rest of his career has played out

[JagrBomb]

no one will know if he has turned the corner until the rest of his career has played out

so you need to wait until a player's career is over to determine whether they are good? does that mean we need to wait until crosby finishes his career to determine if he is an elite player?

[lucifer316]

so you need to wait until a player's career is over to determine whether they are good? does that mean we need to wait until crosby finishes his career to determine if he is an elite player?

that isn't even close to what i suggested in my post at all

you can't say that going to the 2nd round of the playoffs this season marks the point at which Mason turned the corner of his career if by the end of next season he has lost his starting gig

but to address specifically what you are asking about a career, Crosby has been good his entire career so far so yes one can call him good

but considering more of Mason's career has been suck than has been good then yes much more of it needs to be played out before he can be considered good

[JagrBomb]

that isn't even close to what i suggested in my post at all

you can't say that going to the 2nd round of the playoffs this season marks the point at which Mason turned the corner of his career if by the end of next season he has lost his starting gig

but to address specifically what you are asking about a career, Crosby has been good his entire career so far so yes one can call him good

but considering more of Mason's career has been suck than has been good then yes much more of it needs to be played out before he can be considered good

so we need to look at the player's career, and if for the majority of it they have been good, then they are good? and if the majority of it they suck, you will need to wait until his career is over before you can label him as good again?

let's say player X was awful his first 3 seasons. then seasons 4 and 5 he puts up very very good numbers. by your logic, he is not a good player yet, and must finish his career before we can pass judgement?

i'm just confused by your logic...i get your point that you need some sort of consistency to be labelled as a good player, one season doesn't really mean anything. but you can't just say the majority of a guy's career he has sucked, this means we need to wait till his career is done before he can be considered a good player.

[lucifer316]

so we need to look at the player's career, and if for the majority of it they have been good, then they are good? and if the majority of it they suck, you will need to wait until his career is over before you can label him as good again?

let's say player X was awful his first 3 seasons. then seasons 4 and 5 he puts up very very good numbers. by your logic, he is not a good player yet, and must finish his career before we can pass judgement?

i'm just confused by your logic...i get your point that you need some sort of consistency to be labelled as a good player, one season doesn't really mean anything. but you can't just say the majority of a guy's career he has sucked, this means we need to wait till his career is done before he can be considered a good player.

the flash in the pan part of a player's career can really come at any point during it so yes i much prefer a wait and see before i declare a person good when the bulk of their career to this point hasn't been good

when we look at Cheechoo's career we don't call him a good player because of those first 2 seasons

to me it doesn't matter when the season's occur beginning, middle or end if there aren't more of them than the bad ones you aren't a good player

don't get me wrong there are exceptions like a Tim Thomas for example, but there is a huge difference between a Jennings trophy, 2 Vezinas and a Conn Smythe and winning 3 playoff games in the first round

[lucifer316]

i am curious if you are saying that winning 3 playoff games is all it takes to make Mason good praba