Goaltending

[zima]

It doesn't matter which of the 2 you put in you can blame the D all you want but it is obvious neither Goalie is doing there job. It is there responsibility to stop the puck and they letting in very soft goals each and every night. I know every one is going to come back with letting to many break aways and sure most of the time you can't blame goalies on them but what about the other 3 or 5 goals they let in? Just crazy how the puck is suppose to stop there and it doesn't.

[AlbertaBoy12]

4 hours ago, zima said:

It doesn't matter which of the 2 you put in you can blame the D all you want but it is obvious neither Goalie is doing there job. It is there responsibility to stop the puck and they letting in very soft goals each and every night. I know every one is going to come back with letting to many break aways and sure most of the time you can't blame goalies on them but what about the other 3 or 5 goals they let in? Just crazy how the puck is suppose to stop there and it doesn't.

Elliot made some big saves last night and kept us in the hockey game which means he did his job. Im really tired of this excuse that the goalie shouldnt stop the puck on a breakaway or 2 on 1 took place, and its the teams job to limit those chances. We have allowed alot less in shots per game, but our goals against is just as bad. Mistakes will happen and its their job to be that last line of D. If a goalie in the NHL needs all the shots to come from the outside with no screen to be successful, hes probably not a NHL goalie. Im totally agreeing with you, I dont think we gave up that many high quality chances against toronto, but every high quality chance found its way to the back of the net. 

[travel_dude]

Seeing that Jim Corsi was fired as the goalie coach of STL, might it be a good idea to hire him?  He had pretty good success with Elliott in the past.  

[Carty]

13 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

Seeing that Jim Corsi was fired as the goalie coach of STL, might it be a good idea to hire him?  He had pretty good success with Elliott in the past.  

 

13 seasons of experience with the Sabres and just shy of 3 with the Blues...   If it were up to me, I'd give him a shot at it short term...

[JTech780]

So I was looking playing around on corsica.hockey, today and I was looking at goaltending analytics. I like how they break sv% down into low danger, medium danger and high danger. Here are Elliott's and Johnson's sv%.

 

Elliott

SV%:       89.26

LDSV%:  97.40

MDSV%: 90.87

HDSV%:  74.34

 

Johnson

SV%:       91.28

LDSV%:  97.60

MDSV%: 91.38

HDSV%:  82.30

 

So Elliott and Johnson are pretty equal on the low and medium danger shots, but Johnson has decided edge on high danger shots (low slot area). From looking at these stats it's the high danger save% that separates the good goalies from the bad.

 

Another stat I like GSAA, Goals Saved Above Average, this is goals allowed below the expectation based on shot danger faced.

 

Elliott is -12.23

Johnson is +2.23

 

So basically Johnson has saved us 2 goals more than the average goalie and Elliott has let in 12 more goals than the average goalie. 

[travel_dude]

33 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

So I was looking playing around on corsica.hockey, today and I was looking at goaltending analytics. I like how they break sv% down into low danger, medium danger and high danger. Here are Elliott's and Johnson's sv%.

 

Elliott

SV%:       89.26

LDSV%:  97.40

MDSV%: 90.87

HDSV%:  74.34

 

Johnson

SV%:       91.28

LDSV%:  97.60

MDSV%: 91.38

HDSV%:  82.30

 

So Elliott and Johnson are pretty equal on the low and medium danger shots, but Johnson has decided edge on high danger shots (low slot area). From looking at these stats it's the high danger save% that separates the good goalies from the bad.

 

Another stat I like GSAA, Goals Saved Above Average, this is goals allowed below the expectation based on shot danger faced.

 

Elliott is -12.23

Johnson is +2.23

 

So basically Johnson has saved us 2 goals more than the average goalie and Elliott has let in 12 more goals than the average goalie. 

 

All well and good for the totals for the year.  But....

I am more interested in what they have done in the last two months.  December and January.  Anything prior to that is just noise right now; Elliott with a horrible start and Johnson with a great run.  

[CheersMan]

5 hours ago, JTech780 said:

So I was looking playing around on corsica.hockey, today and I was looking at goaltending analytics. I like how they break sv% down into low danger, medium danger and high danger. Here are Elliott's and Johnson's sv%.

 

Elliott

SV%:       89.26

LDSV%:  97.40

MDSV%: 90.87

HDSV%:  74.34

 

Johnson

SV%:       91.28

LDSV%:  97.60

MDSV%: 91.38

HDSV%:  82.30

 

So Elliott and Johnson are pretty equal on the low and medium danger shots, but Johnson has decided edge on high danger shots (low slot area). From looking at these stats it's the high danger save% that separates the good goalies from the bad.

 

Another stat I like GSAA, Goals Saved Above Average, this is goals allowed below the expectation based on shot danger faced.

 

Elliott is -12.23

Johnson is +2.23

 

So basically Johnson has saved us 2 goals more than the average goalie and Elliott has let in 12 more goals than the average goalie. 

 

Thats good information, thanks for sharing.  Reinforces what we've been seeing.  We need more from Elliott.

[robrob74]

3 hours ago, CheersMan said:

 

Thats good information, thanks for sharing.  Reinforces what we've been seeing.  We need more from Elliott.

 

It sounds like he had a good game tonight. From what I saw, watching the third, he made the saves when he had to. Nothing flashy, but shut the door.

[JTech780]

9 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

All well and good for the totals for the year.  But....

I am more interested in what they have done in the last two months.  December and January.  Anything prior to that is just noise right now; Elliott with a horrible start and Johnson with a great run.  

 

Since December 1st:

 

Elliott

SV%:       90.40

LDSV%:  95.40

MDSV%: 89.66

HDSV%: 82.98

GSAA:    -3.48

 

Johnson

SV%:       89.75

LDSV%:  95.38

MDSV%: 88.50

HDSV%:  85.32

GSAA:     -4.43

[travel_dude]

7 hours ago, JTech780 said:

 

Since December 1st:

 

Elliott

SV%:       90.40

LDSV%:  95.40

MDSV%: 89.66

HDSV%: 82.98

GSAA:    -3.48

 

Johnson

SV%:       89.75

LDSV%:  95.38

MDSV%: 88.50

HDSV%:  85.32

GSAA:     -4.43

 

Thanks for the info.  The HDSV% is still concerning, but it really didn't seem to help Johnson.  The other thing about stats is it doesn't show individually how many shots he faced for each category (or how many were actually stoppable).  

 

Not making excuses for Elliott, but I have been more impressed of late with him.

[DirtyDeeds]

Feb 4 marks the new slimmer pants for goalies. I am watching the Nucks-Wild game and lots of goals( 9 so far) tonight. *ponders if that is reason....

[travel_dude]

56 minutes ago, DirtyDeeds said:

Feb 4 marks the new slimmer pants for goalies. I am watching the Nucks-Wild game and lots of goals( 9 so far) tonight. *ponders if that is reason....

 

The tow goalies that complained about it a lot.  Miller looked to be a little closer to his Buck Sixty-five size.  His pads and jersey are a joke, though.  Put him in 80's gear and he would look like a shrimp.

 

The Leafs-Bruins game was even more remarkable.  11 goals.  I am at least a bit happier that Elliott has practiced for awhile in the smaller pants.  He seems to be a big enough guy that the ants shouldn't make that much difference.  He's very much a positional goalie, so he is usually square to the puck.  

[AlbertaBoy12]

I have to agree with some goalies complaints though that it seems weird to make this switch mid season. Its really a weird idea, and im not quite sure what the rush was for the NHL.

[cross16]

40 minutes ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

I have to agree with some goalies complaints though that it seems weird to make this switch mid season. Its really a weird idea, and im not quite sure what the rush was for the NHL.

 

Just take a look at the trend we are seeing with scoring and I think you'll see why the NHL was so desperate to get this done. 

[AlbertaBoy12]

10 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

Just take a look at the trend we are seeing with scoring and I think you'll see why the NHL was so desperate to get this done. 

oh dont get me wrong I see that, but it could have waited till next season. Im one of those people who would rather see a low scoring hockey game played the right way, then a 6-5 hockey game. Although that said when pittsbugh and washington faced off a few weeks back, I think it was 7-6 that was a pretty exciting game.

[Flyerfan52]

10 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

Just take a look at the trend we are seeing with scoring and I think you'll see why the NHL was so desperate to get this done. 

The goal rush & points in the stats column continue.

Next up is removing the position designation so all 6 skaters are rovers.

If that doesn't lead to a large enough increase in scoring next they'll revert to the pond hockey ploy of my youth where the fattest guy on each team is goalie. Since there will be little equipment you have to count on his bulk to cover the net.

 

Goalie equipment was getting way out of hand as to size but a big change should be brought in midseason so the 'tenders can practice in & acclimatize to the new stuff.

I rather think there should be a corresponding change in the skaters equipment. Top of mind is those weapons grade elbow pads some are so proficient with. Geordie Howe (Mr. Hockey) was famous for his use of the elbow but his pads were leather & wool meaning he felt every impact almost as much on the recieving end.

[Carty]

Shrinking the goalies equipment is long overdue...   Oversized equipment never should have been allowed in the first place...   Goaltenders will need better skill and technique instead of just relying on oversized equipment...

 

      

[jjgallow]

VEINI VEHVILÄINEN

 

http://www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=176290

 

How do we steal this kid?  Late round draft pick, signing, or training camp invite?

[Flyerfan52]

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

VEINI VEHVILÄINEN

 

http://www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=176290

 

How do we steal this kid?  Late round draft pick, signing, or training camp invite?

1st year eligible for the draft so we'd have to draft him.

Seldom do goalies go high but in a year where the skaters are considered decent but no stars chancing a higher than normal pick would be in order. The stigma of 6-8 years development has been shown up by guys like Rath. By the 2nd round he could be gone. With another year playing against men (under contract there) he could be ready sooner.

The converse is the list of Team Canada WJC 'tenders who were good in junior & the WJC but a complete flop in the pros is long. I've already advocated trading our 1st & 2nd rounders but if he's hanging around in the 3rd (which I doubt) I'd chance it.

[robrob74]

2 minutes ago, Flyerfan52 said:

1st year eligible for the draft so we'd have to draft him.

Seldom do goalies go high but in a year where the skaters are considered decent but no stars chancing a higher than normal pick would be in order. The stigma of 6-8 years development has been shown up by guys like Rath. By the 2nd round he could be gone. With another year playing against men (under contract there) he could be ready sooner.

The converse is the list of Team Canada WJC 'tenders who were good in junior & the WJC but a complete flop in the pros is long. I've already advocated trading our 1st & 2nd rounders but if he's hanging around in the 3rd (which I doubt) I'd chance it.

 

The one thing about the Fins is that they've been pretty decent at developing goalies. Just a thought to go with JJ's post.

[Flyerfan52]

5 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

The one thing about the Fins is that they've been pretty decent at developing goalies. Just a thought to go with JJ's post.

They have been but I've noticed that seems to go in cycles. PQ used to produce most of the top enders, communist Russia as the USSR did so for a while I've noticed the USA is a good source (remove Cary Price & Canada doesn't have 1 that can hold a candle to a # of Americans).

I'd give Vehvilainen a bigger vote of confidence because he already plays against men but after seeing Laine & Puljujarvi said to be pretty much equal I have less confidence that it makes him pro ready.

Remember Halley Wickenhauwer played in a men's league & that the Women's TC regulary kicks Canadian college men's teams butts using them as a warmup.

 

*******************************************************************

It depends who is available when we pick but I certainly wouldn't hold on to a pick with his name penciled on it if that pick could be used to help sooner & long term (the D from the Ducks & Wild still occupying my thoughts).

[jjgallow]

30 minutes ago, Flyerfan52 said:

1st year eligible for the draft so we'd have to draft him.

 

I agree with what you've written above.   Quick question though...I've never really wrapped my head around it...

 

How did we sign Nick Schneider, who is younger?

[robrob74]

21 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

I agree with what you've written above.   Quick question though...I've never really wrapped my head around it...

 

How did we sign Nick Schneider, who is younger?

 

He went un-drafted in his draft year. I think we signed him after the draft. 

I think it probably depends on whether the goalie enters this draft or not. Did he not get drafted last year? Was it his first Draft year? 

 

I think that players can sign after they've gone through a draft and were not picked. 

I guess that adds to a question, do all players end up in the draft pool? Or does a player have to apply to be? I guess players can't just skip it and end-up a free agent. 

 

So I guess it depends on whether he went through a draft and wasn't selected?

[JTech780]

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

 

I agree with what you've written above.   Quick question though...I've never really wrapped my head around it...

 

How did we sign Nick Schneider, who is younger?

 

There is a brief window for players who go undrafted to sign with teams after the draft and before they go to their junior team. Schneider went undrafted, then was invited to Flames camp and impressed enough to get a contract before he was sent back to junior.

 

Vehvilainen went undrafted last year. He is a undersized and with the way goalie equipment is starting to shrink, I wonder if that is going to effect smaller goalies more. 

[jjgallow]

2 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

 

There is a brief window for players who go undrafted to sign with teams after the draft and before they go to their junior team. Schneider went undrafted, then was invited to Flames camp and impressed enough to get a contract before he was sent back to junior.

 

Vehvilainen went undrafted last year. He is a undersized and with the way goalie equipment is starting to shrink, I wonder if that is going to effect smaller goalies more. 

 

I take it that window is gone now?  For free, he would have been a good pickup for sure.

 

Isn't he like, less than an inch separation from Parsons?

 

Good question on the goalie size thing.   I feel like when the pads and such got bigger, it benefited the larger goalies more.  I'm not sure on that either.  But the larger the goalie, the more square footage of the net they can eliminate with equipment.   It might actually level the playing field?  Either way, I don't see 6'0 as undersized.  I see 5'9 as undersized, personally.