Goaltending

[travel_dude]

16 hours ago, conundrumed said:

Term on Rittich will be the key to the signing.

At his current pace, it isn't realistic to expect <4 going forward.

If he stumbles, go from there.

But expecting a goalie putting up Top 10 numbers in the world to be a bargain <4 isn't realistic.

He'll be 27 to start next year, any bridge will be a year or 2 imho.

 

Still too early on value though. He still has a lot of play ahead of him.

 

I mentioned this elsewhere, but Murray signed for 3.75 the summer before winning the SC.  Yes it was a few years ago, but the comp is reasonable.

He's also only had one good year, numbers wise.  

 

[travel_dude]

14 hours ago, Cowtownguy said:

Send Gillies+ up to Endmonton for Talbot.

 

McDonald and a cap dump would be my limit.

Talbot may still be a good backup, but I'm not spending $4.16m (prorated) on a backup trying to salvage his season.

[cross16]

13 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

I mentioned this elsewhere, but Murray signed for 3.75 the summer before winning the SC.  Yes it was a few years ago, but the comp is reasonable.

He's also only had one good year, numbers wise.  

 

 

Worth about 4.1 million in today's dollars.

 

However, tricky one here is the Pens didn't buy any UFA years. Murray remains and RFA for the duration of the contract so it's not a great comp for Rittich who is UFA in 1 year. 

[robrob74]

23 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

McDonald and a cap dump would be my limit.

Talbot may still be a good backup, but I'm not spending $4.16m (prorated) on a backup trying to salvage his season.

 

Some goalies just aren’t good, but I believe that both the players and the goalies have an affect on each other’s play. A team plays poorly in front of a goalie, bad scoring chances goals mount and the goalie gets blamed because their numbers now look bad. Goalies start to lose faith in team and then gets in their heads and suddenly they can’t play in net anymore.

 

goalie starts letting in bad goals and now team gets deflated because of bad goals. For me, it’s both. Edmonton is a Shi-Show right now, and I do wonder if Talbot could be salvaged on a better team? 

 

I guess thats the burden a goalie has to swallow, they’re the ones that get blamed. He is lights out for two seasons and now can’t stop a beach ball. 

 

The Oilers are a mess. I guess 4M is a lot to pay to find out if he could be saved. 

 

I would trade Gillies straight up for Talbot. 

 

Edited in:

 

Are the Flames willing to pay up to 8M in net split between two goalies? 

[cross16]

On the future goalie front, Tyler Parsons stopped  Heat record 49 shots in a win the other day. Faced 51 shots and stopped 49 of them.

 

He's been better since he came back from injury. Won 5 of his 8 starts with 4 games of a Save % over .95. Facing a ton of rubber too, as he's average over 30 shots against a start. Heat are very bad defensively form what I understand. 

[travel_dude]

36 minutes ago, cross16 said:

On the future goalie front, Tyler Parsons stopped  Heat record 49 shots in a win the other day. Faced 51 shots and stopped 49 of them.

 

He's been better since he came back from injury. Won 5 of his 8 starts with 4 games of a Save % over .95. Facing a ton of rubber too, as he's average over 30 shots against a start. Heat are very bad defensively form what I understand. 

 

He looked good in pre-season.  I think he needs a lot of time in the AHL, at least another year.  Next year, he should be getting the majority of starts, regardless of Gillies' status.

[flames-fan-in-jets-land]

1 hour ago, robrob74 said:

 

Some goalies just aren’t good, but I believe that both the players and the goalies have an affect on each other’s play. A team plays poorly in front of a goalie, bad scoring chances goals mount and the goalie gets blamed because their numbers now look bad. Goalies start to lose faith in team and then gets in their heads and suddenly they can’t play in net anymore.

 

goalie starts letting in bad goals and now team gets deflated because of bad goals. For me, it’s both. Edmonton is a Shi-Show right now, and I do wonder if Talbot could be salvaged on a better team? 

 

I guess thats the burden a goalie has to swallow, they’re the ones that get blamed. He is lights out for two seasons and now can’t stop a beach ball. 

 

The Oilers are a mess. I guess 4M is a lot to pay to find out if he could be saved. 

 

I would trade Gillies straight up for Talbot. 

 

Edited in:

 

Are the Flames willing to pay up to 8M in net split between two goalies? 

The possibility is there. (see Dubnyk and Broissot.)

 

I'm sure his contract would be pro rated in some way and theres no way in hell he's getting anything close to 4 mil next year when he becomes a UFA.

 

Do we need an insurance goalie?

Will Smith perform when needed?

Will Smith stay healthy?

Will Rittich handle the workload?

 

I guess it comes down to IF needed, is Talbot a step up from Gillies/Parsons? Or from other available backups cost wise?

[ABC923]

I'd take a flyer on Talbot in the offseason.  Could probably be signed for half of what he currently makes, and I think he's a good candidate for the next Dubnyk (destroyed by the Oil machine).  I doubt they trade him to us without demanding more than he's worth (which is around a 3rd rounder imo).  I would want him to clear waivers first before acquiring too, as for this season he would be third on our depth chart.  He needs to get his confidence back playing in the minors maybe.

[The_Tribal Chief]

Rittich New Mask

[Cowtownguy]

19 minutes ago, ABC923 said:

I'd take a flyer on Talbot in the offseason.  Could probably be signed for half of what he currently makes, and I think he's a good candidate for the next Dubnyk (destroyed by the Oil machine).  I doubt they trade him to us without demanding more than he's worth (which is around a 3rd rounder imo).  I would want him to clear waivers first before acquiring too, as for this season he would be third on our depth chart.  He needs to get his confidence back playing in the minors maybe.

Good points. I would not be surprised if he turns things around in the right situation, which is not Edmonton if you are a goalie. No goalie on earth can survive, let alone shine, in that city. Edmonton will dump him for nothing at some point.

 

5 minutes ago, The_Snowbear said:

Rittich New Mask

Kewl. Wish he switched to a Gerry Cheevers mask.

[The_Tribal Chief]

lol new one compliments Kipper and vernon

Just now, Cowtownguy said:

Good points. I would not be surprised if he turns things around in the right situation, which is not Edmonton if you are a goalie. No goalie on earth can survive, let alone shine, in that city. Edmonton will dump him for nothing at some point.

 

Kewl. Wish he switched to a Gerry Cheevers mask.

 

[robrob74]

14 minutes ago, The_Snowbear said:

Rittich New Mask

 

Picture?

[The_Tribal Chief]

It is on Twitter

[The_Tribal Chief]

https://twitter.com/ryanleslie73/status/1087778114174779392

 

[travel_dude]

[robrob74]

Nice!

[travel_dude]

I'm hoping that one of the regular posters has a subscription to The Athletic.  Haynes did a story about the impact of stickhandling by goalies:

 

https://theathletic.com/804879/2019/02/07/analyzing-the-impact-of-mike-smiths-puck-handling-abilities/

 

Can't view it, but was wondering if someone that has access can just do a quick summary.  My belief is that Smith's handling of the puck can have negative impact on zone time, chances etc.  Sure, he has times where his handling directly causes a goal (WAS game).  The other impact can be spending time trying to get the puck back after a turnover or the result being a penalty.

 

Rittich has more glaring errors, but also handles it less and lets the D do their job.

[cross16]

In short, the results show no real impact (positively or negatively) but the author also admits it's a really difficult study to draw conclusions from as it's hard to separate the action of puck handling and results (ie shots given up, hits taken etc etc).

 

 

[travel_dude]

2 hours ago, cross16 said:

In short, the results show no real impact (positively or negatively) but the author also admits it's a really difficult study to draw conclusions from as it's hard to separate the action of puck handling and results (ie shots given up, hits taken etc etc).

 

 

 

Yeah I hear ya.  My bias tends to play a part of my view, but guys like Francis/Wills also have a bias for pumping Smith up for playing the puck, saying that it takes the pressure off the D.  I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle.  Sometimes it helps.  Sometimes it creates more zone time.  Some times it impacts the D over the period (both positive and negative).

 

Don't get me wrong.  I think his stopping the puck on pucks played around the boards is fine.  But, I tend to think he should just do that and get rid of it with a short pass.  Or put a glove on it.

[robrob74]

42 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Yeah I hear ya.  My bias tends to play a part of my view, but guys like Francis/Wills also have a bias for pumping Smith up for playing the puck, saying that it takes the pressure off the D.  I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle.  Sometimes it helps.  Sometimes it creates more zone time.  Some times it impacts the D over the period (both positive and negative).

 

Don't get me wrong.  I think his stopping the puck on pucks played around the boards is fine.  But, I tend to think he should just do that and get rid of it with a short pass.  Or put a glove on it.

 

With his ability, I think he should be better in his decisions sometimes. I’d like to see him play it, but also pick times to. 

[MAC331]

On ‎2019‎-‎01‎-‎22 at 11:10 AM, robrob74 said:

 

Some goalies just aren’t good, but I believe that both the players and the goalies have an affect on each other’s play. A team plays poorly in front of a goalie, bad scoring chances goals mount and the goalie gets blamed because their numbers now look bad. Goalies start to lose faith in team and then gets in their heads and suddenly they can’t play in net anymore.

 

goalie starts letting in bad goals and now team gets deflated because of bad goals. For me, it’s both. Edmonton is a Shi-Show right now, and I do wonder if Talbot could be salvaged on a better team? 

 

I guess thats the burden a goalie has to swallow, they’re the ones that get blamed. He is lights out for two seasons and now can’t stop a beach ball. 

 

The Oilers are a mess. I guess 4M is a lot to pay to find out if he could be saved. 

 

I would trade Gillies straight up for Talbot. 

 

Edited in:

 

Are the Flames willing to pay up to 8M in net split between two goalies? 

Put Talbot on the offseason list.

[conundrumed]

3 hours ago, cross16 said:

In short, the results show no real impact (positively or negatively) but the author also admits it's a really difficult study to draw conclusions from as it's hard to separate the action of puck handling and results (ie shots given up, hits taken etc etc).

 

 

Agree. The study covered 3 things: dmen getting hit less, shots against and shots for. As cross says, all negligible. And closing with the difficulty of studying the true impacts.

td, stop being so cheap,

They likely still do the 50% off new subscribers. I'm in my 2nd yr and I think my renewal was $65 or something like that. My first year was like $33.

Haynes just came aboard this year. Trying to expand Calgary coverage. Love the fact you can pick your teams across all sports and they tailor your experience.

So I'll get an email telling me there's a new Flames/Wings story. No hunting for stories lest you're just browsing.

I love it, personally.

[CheersMan]

As hard as they try, the advanced stat community can not explain many parts of the game of hockey by looking solely at the numbers. The game was never conceived or invented with numbers in mind, other than the score, it evolved for entertainment purposes, but that’s not to say you can’t look at numbers and be entertained by the numbers, but don’t try to sell the common viewer on why things happen because of the numbers. I like Wilson by the way, his contributions and opinions are entertaining. 

[conundrumed]

Good reporting: here's what the numbers tell us. here's the issue with the data.

Bad reporting: here's what the numbers tells us. Here's why I'm right.

 

It certainly isn't on the stats community, the stats are the stats. It's those that use stats to make a point, and ignore the stats that don't fit their argument.

I'm not a stats guy, believe me. They can show trends well with enough data but it's dependent on the user/writer being forthcoming.

All the stats in the world don't win a game 7.

There's definitely people you trust using stats, and there's definitely people you don't trust.

I used to be anti-stat, but have come to realize it isn't the stat users, it's the spin doctors that I'm anti with.

[cross16]

18 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

Yeah I hear ya.  My bias tends to play a part of my view, but guys like Francis/Wills also have a bias for pumping Smith up for playing the puck, saying that it takes the pressure off the D.  I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle.  Sometimes it helps.  Sometimes it creates more zone time.  Some times it impacts the D over the period (both positive and negative).

 

Don't get me wrong.  I think his stopping the puck on pucks played around the boards is fine.  But, I tend to think he should just do that and get rid of it with a short pass.  Or put a glove on it.

 

This isn't my analogy but I've stolen it. A puck handling goalie is like a mobile QB in football. It looks cool, it gets attention and it has it's moments where it shines so people think it's a necessary skill or a boost to the team. But at the end of the season the QBs that win are the pure pocket passers. 

 

I think it especially true for Rittich as I think he is trying to be something he is not with the puck handling. It clearly does not come natural to him, so he should be coached to stay in his net.