Goaltending

[robrob74]

42 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Look, we had enough chances to bury the puck but Jones was dialed in.

The Janko chance point-blank.

The Monahan chances (two IIRC) were point blank.

A penalty shot for cripes sakes (weak Bennett attempt not withstanding).

 

The difference between us and a lot of team is that we don't get shots away at weak goalies.

Smith's first goal against.  Far post, unscreened.  Seen that story a dozen times.

How many times have you seen a shot like that from the Flames go in.

Very few shots like that on the rush.  Maybe Tkachuk's from last week.

 

No, I'm not pinning th loss on Smith, just the first goal.

He made up for it later, but against a hot goalie, you only get so many chances.

 

Thats where they gotta find a way because in the playoffs almost every goalie is a hot goalie. 

 

Jankowski should’ve went top shelf. I think that’s where this team has it’s problems. We have three snipers but only two are dialed in. The depth scoring isn’t pulling its weight. And when Tkachuk scores it seems he’s on the Monahan/Gaudreau line. Just saying they gotta start shooting it to where it has a better chance of going in. I see a few good chances but it’s not enough. On goalies like that you gotta get ugly.

[travel_dude]

There's a blog in The Athletic about Flames galtending by Darren Haynes.  You have ot be a sunscriber to read the whole article, but it didn;t start out very complimentary to Smith:  

 

 

Big goal. Bad goal.
Sunday night’s game at the SAP Center in San Jose began with a scene that’s become all too familiar for the Calgary Flames.
Fifty seconds into a key divisional showdown with the Sharks and they were already one behind on the scoresheet.
Circling in the offensive zone, Evander Kane took a pass from Joe Pavelski and from the faceoff dot, fired a snap shot that cleanly beat goaltender Mike Smith on his glove side. San Jose would not relinquish that lead, going on to a 3-1 victory.
In evaluating goals against, there are two criteria:
Was the shot stoppable?
How did it impact the game?
This was a double-dip of yuck for Calgary.

To begin, Smith and his enormous 6-foot-4 frame needs to at least get a piece of a shot from that angle and distance, regardless of how precise it is.
Second, it was a significant goal to surrender as it immediately put the Flames back on their heels.

 

Not asking anyone to copy the article, but wondered if anyone read it.  

[MAC331]

15 hours ago, travel_dude said:

There's a blog in The Athletic about Flames galtending by Darren Haynes.  You have ot be a sunscriber to read the whole article, but it didn;t start out very complimentary to Smith:  

 

 

Big goal. Bad goal.
Sunday night’s game at the SAP Center in San Jose began with a scene that’s become all too familiar for the Calgary Flames.
Fifty seconds into a key divisional showdown with the Sharks and they were already one behind on the scoresheet.
Circling in the offensive zone, Evander Kane took a pass from Joe Pavelski and from the faceoff dot, fired a snap shot that cleanly beat goaltender Mike Smith on his glove side. San Jose would not relinquish that lead, going on to a 3-1 victory.
In evaluating goals against, there are two criteria:
Was the shot stoppable?
How did it impact the game?
This was a double-dip of yuck for Calgary.

To begin, Smith and his enormous 6-foot-4 frame needs to at least get a piece of a shot from that angle and distance, regardless of how precise it is.
Second, it was a significant goal to surrender as it immediately put the Flames back on their heels.

 

Not asking anyone to copy the article, but wondered if anyone read it.  

That goal did not define the game that prevailed at all. Our guys responded very well IMO and the difference was Jones in the other net. I would like to put some of these writers in the net just so they know how fast a "snap shot" can be by one of the best goal scorers. Smith played by far is best game of the season and the writers find a way to not let up on the negative story of our season so far. It makes me wanna puke.

[travel_dude]

39 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

That goal did not define the game that prevailed at all. Our guys responded very well IMO and the difference was Jones in the other net. I would like to put some of these writers in the net just so they know how fast a "snap shot" can be by one of the best goal scorers. Smith played by far is best game of the season and the writers find a way to not let up on the negative story of our season so far. It makes me wanna puke.

 

So, you read it and not just the excerpt?

[MAC331]

58 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

So, you read it and not just the excerpt?

Actually I did not, no access nor do I care to read much from sportwriters these days.

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, MAC331 said:

Actually I did not, no access nor do I care to read much from sportwriters these days.

 

Haynes is one of the most neutral writers that cover the Flames.

He can be a bit too positive at times, but nothing like fanboy Steinberg or Wills can be.

[travel_dude]

Smith starting against Montreal.

Does that mean Rittich against EDM or is it Mike wins, he stays in and if Mike loses, he gets to do better next time.

I get the logic of giving Smith a chance to get the win after a letdown, but at some point you need to go to the goalie that is winning games.

Asking the team to have to score 3+ goals per game is asking for trouble.

 

[travel_dude]

Some interesting number provided from an article about saves at even, PP and PK by each goalie.  Posted with only the information provided in the writeup.  I didn't include the graph, which is confusing at best:

 

Penalty kill

The Flames’ penalty kill has given up 14 powerplay goals, shown in blue. Playing time between the goalies is not equal, so one way to compare their play would be to look at rates, specifically their saves per 60 minutes. When on the penalty kill, Smith makes 37.4 saves/60, which gives him a SV% of .800, whereas Rittich makes 42.1, resulting in a SV% of .833.  Nine goals against the penalty kill were high danger. While both Smith and Rittich have given up a couple of low- and medium-danger goals while on the penalty kill, Rittich has been much better at limiting high-danger goals. Smith’s HDSV% on the penalty kill is .588, compared to Rittich’s .800, which coincidentally is Smith’s overall penalty kill SV%.

 

Even strength

At even strength, the Flames have been scored on 36 times, shown in purple. Similarly looking at rates, Smith sits at 25.9 saves/60; Rittich at 28.4 saves/60. Rittich’s even strength SV% of .951 is among the best in the league. Smith, on the other hand, has an even strength SV% of .893, which ranks him among the worst in the league.  The stat to look at here is again high-danger goals against. Smith has struggled making high-danger saves. His HDSV% is a paltry .814, compared to Rittich’s .926. For what it’s worth, Rittich’s HDSV% at even strength is second best in the league, behind Pekka Rinne (among goalies with more than 300 minutes played).

 

Powerplay

The Flames have had their woes on the powerplay, but they’ve also given up two shorthanded goals against, shown in red. Both of these goals were scored on Smith, and both of these goals were not high danger.  Giving up a shorthanded goal definitely hurts, but having them scored on low-percentage shots hurts a bit more. While it can and will happen to any goaltender on any given night, letting in shorthanded goals on mediocre shots when the powerplay itself has struggled to score is not a good combination.

 

 

[flames-fan-in-jets-land]

11 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

Some interesting number provided from an article about saves at even, PP and PK by each goalie.  Posted with only the information provided in the writeup.  I didn't include the graph, which is confusing at best:

 

Penalty kill

The Flames’ penalty kill has given up 14 powerplay goals, shown in blue. Playing time between the goalies is not equal, so one way to compare their play would be to look at rates, specifically their saves per 60 minutes. When on the penalty kill, Smith makes 37.4 saves/60, which gives him a SV% of .800, whereas Rittich makes 42.1, resulting in a SV% of .833.  Nine goals against the penalty kill were high danger. While both Smith and Rittich have given up a couple of low- and medium-danger goals while on the penalty kill, Rittich has been much better at limiting high-danger goals. Smith’s HDSV% on the penalty kill is .588, compared to Rittich’s .800, which coincidentally is Smith’s overall penalty kill SV%.

 

Even strength

At even strength, the Flames have been scored on 36 times, shown in purple. Similarly looking at rates, Smith sits at 25.9 saves/60; Rittich at 28.4 saves/60. Rittich’s even strength SV% of .951 is among the best in the league. Smith, on the other hand, has an even strength SV% of .893, which ranks him among the worst in the league.  The stat to look at here is again high-danger goals against. Smith has struggled making high-danger saves. His HDSV% is a paltry .814, compared to Rittich’s .926. For what it’s worth, Rittich’s HDSV% at even strength is second best in the league, behind Pekka Rinne (among goalies with more than 300 minutes played).

 

Powerplay

The Flames have had their woes on the powerplay, but they’ve also given up two shorthanded goals against, shown in red. Both of these goals were scored on Smith, and both of these goals were not high danger.  Giving up a shorthanded goal definitely hurts, but having them scored on low-percentage shots hurts a bit more. While it can and will happen to any goaltender on any given night, letting in shorthanded goals on mediocre shots when the powerplay itself has struggled to score is not a good combination.

 

 

One thing I always wonder when it comes down to these type of analytics is how subjective is the definition of high, medium and low danger chances? Does every stat guy use the same formula or can each chance be classified differently dependent on the prefered outcome? That being said I tend to put more faith in opinions and views of ex players rather than professional sportscasters and stat guys that never played/coached at that level.

[travel_dude]

6 minutes ago, flames-fan-in-jets-land said:

One thing I always wonder when it comes down to these type of analytics is how subjective is the definition of high, medium and low danger chances? Does every stat guy use the same formula or can each chance be classified differently dependent on the prefered outcome? That being said I tend to put more faith in opinions and views of ex players rather than professional sportscasters and stat guys that never played/coached at that level.

 

I would suggest that these stats are not subjective.  Not as bad as shot counts or hits.  I don't believe don't however analyse the quality of the shots.  For instance, a rocket or knuckle ball fired from a low danger spot or alternatively a weak shot from a high-danger spot.  But, it's an evolving field.  Post game evidence that may or may not support what the eye sees.  

 

The issue I have with sportscasters and ex-players is that they have their own biases.  They round up evidence to support their opinions or just blatantly love or hate certain teams.  Even blogs on FN or in the Sun/Herald are written with bias.  I removed any interpretation of the stats from the post, as each person needs to draw their own conclusions.    

[Squilliam89]

Yeah I am sick of smith getting chance after chance. Its not fair to Rittich, and its not fair to the team. Playing from behind all the time makes everything more difficult. Based on the numbers, i have no idea why the coach doesn't just roll with Rittich for the next little while, as long as hes playing well and getting wins

[cross16]

46 minutes ago, flames-fan-in-jets-land said:

One thing I always wonder when it comes down to these type of analytics is how subjective is the definition of high, medium and low danger chances? Does every stat guy use the same formula or can each chance be classified differently dependent on the prefered outcome? That being said I tend to put more faith in opinions and views of ex players rather than professional sportscasters and stat guys that never played/coached at that level.

 

Analytics or not, pretty much all stats tracked in hockey are subjective. Can't really say that non analytics are more accurate or trustworthy than traditional stats and they all have their flaws/limitations 

[conundrumed]

16 minutes ago, Squilliam89 said:

Yeah I am sick of smith getting chance after chance. Its not fair to Rittich, and its not fair to the team. Playing from behind all the time makes everything more difficult. Based on the numbers, i have no idea why the coach doesn't just roll with Rittich for the next little while, as long as hes playing well and getting wins

Rittich's been in a zone, should be taking advantage and keep Smith's starts down.

It's actually what we were hoping for. We've had "placeholder" goalies how  long now?

Give Rittich the 2-1 split for now.

I still think Smith will be fine and this is a golden opportunity to keep his starts down.

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

 

Analytics or not, pretty much all stats tracked in hockey are subjective. Can't really say that non analytics are more accurate or trustworthy than traditional stats and they all have their flaws/limitations 

 

If I understand the metrics at all, high danger is within a certain area of the ice (slot, bottom of circle, side of net, etc), while low danger would be top of circle out.  They all results in a save or goal, so it doesn't result in a post or missed shot or block.

[robrob74]

1 hour ago, conundrumed said:

Rittich's been in a zone, should be taking advantage and keep Smith's starts down.

It's actually what we were hoping for. We've had "placeholder" goalies how  long now?

Give Rittich the 2-1 split for now.

I still think Smith will be fine and this is a golden opportunity to keep his starts down.

 

 

I would go on a 1-1 run right now. Alternate the starts, and start grooming Rittich to be able to handle a higher work load. 

 

Smith getting W’s is gonna get the team into the playoffs, but so is Rittich. 

 

Rhe year Johnson was playing better, they had to get Elliott going so they sat a goalie who was in a zone. Elliott got into a zone, but it got Johnson out of it. Some say Johnson started losing, but stats will only show the losses now, but he was still playing good in those, until he sat for awhile.

 

This team handles goaltending horribly. They want a young guy to seize it, we have one doing his best to, but not letting him stay with it.

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, conundrumed said:

Rittich's been in a zone, should be taking advantage and keep Smith's starts down.

It's actually what we were hoping for. We've had "placeholder" goalies how  long now?

Give Rittich the 2-1 split for now.

I still think Smith will be fine and this is a golden opportunity to keep his starts down.

 

I support your recommendations.

So far, Rittich is playing as good or better than his start last year.

On the flip side, Smith is playing as bad as he was in January/March/April.

 

Getting Smith going is necessary for the remains of the season.

Winning until that happens is just as important.

I am up and down about the starter versus MTL and EDM.

Smith had two wins against EDM last year and 2 horrific losses.

Rittich was his usual 3 GA, but lost in the shootout.

Against MTL this year, Rittich was good in a game where the team was horrible.  40 shots against. 

[conundrumed]

3 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

 

I would go on a 1-1 run right now. Alternate the starts, and start grooming Rittich to be able to handle a higher work load. 

 

Smith getting W’s is gonna get the team into the playoffs, but so is Rittich. 

 

Rhe year Johnson was playing better, they had to get Elliott going so they sat a goalie who was in a zone. Elliott got into a zone, but it got Johnson out of it. Some say Johnson started losing, but stats will only show the losses now, but he was still playing good in those, until he sat for awhile.

 

This team handles goaltending horribly. They want a young guy to seize it, we have one doing his best to, but not letting him stay with it.

I just don't think we should be in, Smith needs to get going mode rn. Rittich just got married too, so he's playing for an NHL salary and longevity. Not that that matters, but it's a huge motivator towards stability.

Smith's in yr 2 of placeholder. We need to know if Rittich can be our starter next year.

It's totally up in the air. The way he's going now is a great opportunity, more important than worrying about a vet approaching retirement getting going.

We're overthinking it, imho. Take advantage of Rittich playing well under Smith's tutelage. Was that not the plan all along?

[redfire11]

23 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

I just don't think we should be in, Smith needs to get going mode rn. Rittich just got married too, so he's playing for an NHL salary and longevity. Not that that matters, but it's a huge motivator towards stability.

Smith's in yr 2 of placeholder. We need to know if Rittich can be our starter next year.

It's totally up in the air. The way he's going now is a great opportunity, more important than worrying about a vet approaching retirement getting going.

We're overthinking it, imho. Take advantage of Rittich playing well under Smith's tutelage. Was that not the plan all along?

I thought that was our plan for Rittich and Gillies but I guess management didn't get the memo.

[cross16]

 

1 hour ago, travel_dude said:

 

If I understand the metrics at all, high danger is within a certain area of the ice (slot, bottom of circle, side of net, etc), while low danger would be top of circle out.  They all results in a save or goal, so it doesn't result in a post or missed shot or block.

 

More or less. Based on probability of scoring.

 

 

[cross16]

Not even 20 games in yet. I don't really have a problem getting both guys going so long as Smith plays like he did in SJ and not against Colorado. 

 

Plenty of time for this to sort itself out and certainly not even close to needing to make decisions for next year. 

[travel_dude]

2 minutes ago, cross16 said:

Not even 20 games in yet. I don't really have a problem getting both guys going so long as Smith plays like he did in SJ and not against Colorado. 

 

Plenty of time for this to sort itself out and certainly not even close to needing to make decisions for next year. 

 

True, but you can't just go down the path of "Smith is our starter".  If it makes sense to start Rittich more, you do that.  If Smith is still having a "awe, crap" goal every game, you have to understand the impact it makes on the team, not just appease Smith.  

[conundrumed]

15 minutes ago, cross16 said:

Not even 20 games in yet. I don't really have a problem getting both guys going so long as Smith plays like he did in SJ and not against Colorado. 

 

Plenty of time for this to sort itself out and certainly not even close to needing to make decisions for next year. 

I agree, but just start your best player, so far it's Rittich. That's not an indictment of Smith. Perfect opportunity to limit his starts rn.

There's no saying Rittich won't fall apart when the pressure gets cranked, but take advantage now and give Smith time to work out the mechanics.

We don't have to force it rn is all I'm saying.

[robrob74]

40 minutes ago, redfire11 said:

I thought that was our plan for Rittich and Gillies but I guess management didn't get the memo.

 

Or the coaches haven’t.

[robrob74]

34 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

 

More or less. Based on probability of scoring.

 

 

 

Hmm if getting chances within that pink area is the only thing that constitutes a high danger chance then it could be extremely flawed. The chances from there can still be, by the eye test, not very good. We can put chance everyone from that area but still be considered poor chances by the eye test.

[robrob74]

37 minutes ago, cross16 said:

Not even 20 games in yet. I don't really have a problem getting both guys going so long as Smith plays like he did in SJ and not against Colorado. 

 

Plenty of time for this to sort itself out and certainly not even close to needing to make decisions for next year. 

 

I get that we are relatively early in the season. We don’t really know what the future plans are for goalies. Will riding smith mean a re-sign situation or shouldn’t we be grooming the goalie for future starter in the league. 

 

Counting on UFA and summer trades hasn’t been a great plan either. How long can Brobovsky play at an elite level. HK of the NYR has dropped in play the past few seasons as he is aging out. A UFA signing might still only bandage the situation.

 

I don’t mind if Rittich maintains his play as a backup. But the starter position scares me for the future. I get why people like Kehatch are concerned