[CP Story] Did the Flames Miss the Playoffs on July 1st?

[troutman]

Whether your third goalie is in the press box or Stockton, should make zero difference to how the team plays.

The one problem for the goalies is they aren't getting enough game action.

[Bingo]

I think searching for examples of goalies that worked well in 3 goalie rotations is fruitless. It clearly effected these goalies ... that or all three of them did nothing but eat Chessy Puffs all summer.

It didn't work. They were all way below their play last season.

The '04 thing isn't a good example either as there were injuries. They traded McLennan when they got all three back.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I think searching for examples of goalies that worked well in 3 goalie rotations is fruitless. It clearly effected these goalies ... that or all three of them did nothing but eat Chessy Puffs all summer.

It didn't work. They were all way below their play last season.

The '04 thing isn't a good example either as there were injuries. They traded McLennan when they got all three back.

I don't disagree with this, but I also think the goaltending last year was below average, walking the thin line to being poor for most of the season. I've always maintained that the Flames made the playoffs in spite of goaltending, not because of it.
But clearly it is worse this year.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Yeah, they really weren't that good last year. Adequate would be flattering to either goalie.

[Bingo]

Agreed ... thought I said that in the article actually. 16th ranked save percentage last season, hardly the reason they made the playoffs as some suggested.

My whole point was that the only thing worse than below average goaltending is the same goaltenders with a lack of confidence from hearing footsteps.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Agreed ... thought I said that in the article actually. 16th ranked save percentage last season, hardly the reason they made the playoffs as some suggested.

My whole point was that the only thing worse than below average goaltending is the same goaltenders with a lack of confidence from hearing footsteps.

Yup you did say that in there.
I guess where we potentailly disagree is that their play is well below last season. My feeling is that it is marginally worse - but enough that the team has lost confidence in each other (as you also talk about in the blog). The skaters don't trust the guy in net is capable of making the big save, and the tenders are watching their D play worse than last year.
One can argue that it started with the 3 headed monster, but I'm not totally sold on that.

I think it is a combination of factors -
- 3 goalies
- Slow start by key guys (Gio, Monahan, Hudler)
- Brodie injury
- Step back by Wideman and Russel

I have wondered how the season would have gone differently had Brodie been there on Day 1. I see his injury being the #1 factor in a bad start that obliterated the team's mojo.

[Geeoff]

We may have had 3 goalies on the roster but we were only playing 2? I don't see how that negatively affected their performance. Hiller and Ramo just sucked because they are below average NHL goalies.

[Strange Brew]

I am not convinced that Ramo or Hiller have been "pressing" because Ortio was with the big club. And if they hadn't signed Ramo, our goaltending might be worse. I think the questions to ask about the offseason are:

Should the assets used to acquire Hamilton been better served to acquire a goalie, then or in the future?
Should a 16th place young rebuilding team spent big $'s and term on a 2nd line winger, Frolik? He has been good enough but he was also not the missing piece to a championship either.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I think you'd do better inserting a few "in my opinion" statements here and there.

Comes across a little less like Zeus on Mount Olympus that way.

I've seen it coaching kids, compensating for a weak link is a huge issue, especially if it's a goaltender.

The Flames had success last year because they never waivered from the system. Now they are, badly

It could be changes.
It could be tuning Hartley out.

But the absolute best way to destroy a system that relied on too much defensive zone time, blocking shots and countering is a goaltender that destroys the confidence in said system by letting in weak goals from every angle.

And I don't think that's simple at all.

Could just be basic math.

Maybe this season they were due to "regress" from the "unsustainable" run that was last year.

Sacrilegious to suggest around these parts but it looks like that's exactly how it's playing out. Maybe those who were saying all those third period comebacks and winning despite being outshot would not be able to continue were right and this has been the correction.

Or maybe it has something to do with re-signing a goalie on July 1st...

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Could just be basic math.

Maybe this season they were due to "regress" from the "unsustainable" run that was last year.

Sacrilegious to suggest around these parts but it looks like that's exactly how it's playing out. Maybe those who were saying all those third period comebacks and winning despite being outshot would not be able to continue were right and this has been the correction.

Or maybe it has something to do with re-signing a goalie on July 1st...

How many "knob" points does this post get, Bingo?

[Tinordi]

I actually like what bingo did in this article which is get us all talking by upsetting the apple cart a bit. I just think it's more explainable that various players who all had career years aren't this season and bounces aren't going our way. Basically a regression for a team that wasn't as good as last season may have suggested.

If anything we dodged a bullet by avoiding landing a goalie and giving up real value. Would Talbot or Jones have really been the difference between a bottom feeder and playoffs? Maybe but more likely we were destined to be out of it and we still have our second round pick eye were going to trade.

[DeluxeMoustache]

^ The season describing problem has been outside the blue paint

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I think searching for examples of goalies that worked well in 3 goalie rotations is fruitless. It clearly effected these goalies ... that or all three of them did nothing but eat Chessy Puffs all summer.

Or they've all gone sour at the same time. Every goalie goes sour from time to time. Kiprusoff had his off stretches; so does Carey Price. Even Dryden and Roy had times when they were less than their usual lights-out.

C. S. Lewis talks about ‘the Stoic fallacy’: thinking that because you can do a thing sometimes, you can do it all the time. Human beings, by nature, have their ups and downs. This doesn't require explanation. Nor does it do any good to huff and puff about consistency and demand more of it. NO human being is perfectly consistent, except when in a coma.

It didn't work. They were all way below their play last season.

This looks to me like a classic case of apophenia. People see something out of the ordinary, but instead of reflecting that it's within the realm of random fluctuation (which it is), they look for a pattern in it, need to explain it, need to blame it on some particular and simple cause. I very much doubt there is any particular cause, or that it's as simple as you make out.

If having three goalies on the roster were a sure way to make them all play badly, this would be universally known all over the NHL and nobody would ever do it. Treliving is not a stupid man. He would have shot his best goalie into the sun if he knew that was what it took to make the other two perform to their usual level.

The '04 thing isn't a good example either as there were injuries. They traded McLennan when they got all three back.

And there has already been one injury and two demotions this year. They've only gone a grand total of about two weeks with three goalies actually on the active NHL roster. But since those were the first two weeks, people have made that their baseline for the season. Any change from that is treated as an anomaly and dismissed from the narrative: another classic cognitive fallacy. First impressions, they say, are lasting; only wise people know that first impressions are not necessarily accurate.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

This looks to me like a classic case of apophenia. People see something out of the ordinary, but instead of reflecting that it's within the realm of random fluctuation (which it is), they look for a pattern in it, need to explain it, need to blame it on some particular and simple cause. I very much doubt there is any particular cause, or that it's as simple as you make out.

I am trending towards this school of thought now too, regarding goalies and the team as whole. There are no particular reasons for this team to be near the bottom, except for that this team should indeed be near the bottom.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

If having three goalies on the roster were a sure way to make them all play badly, this would be universally known all over the NHL and nobody would ever do it. Treliving is not a stupid man. He would have shot his best goalie into the sun if he knew that was what it took to make the other two perform to their usual level.

But isn't that the case?

The talk all summer here was how you HAD to sort it out. Hartley and Treliving both suggesting it never works. Goalies themselves saying it's not a good situation.

You never here any NHL executive actively trying to acquire goaltenders to make sure they have three or four.

I think a goaltender can be average and a team can win, the Flames proved it last season. But if something happens on that front and the goaltending slips players tend to leave their spots trying to over compensate. Then the goalies no longer trust the defenseman and the whole thing comes down.

In my opinion we've certainly seen an element of that in the Flames play.

Last night in Arizona was actually one of the few times that they consistently played that containment brand that they played last season effectively.

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by troutman

The three goalie "problem" is such a made up media controversy.

These are professional athletes. Someone is always coming for your job.

Especial for a goalie. You are a goalie from a young age and know there are only 30 NHL starter jobs in the entire world.

And you still decided to be a goalie. You need to be wired differently to be a goalie and obviously be very mentally strong. I doubt the 3 goalie system could mess with a goalies head.

[Leeman4Gilmour]

Whenever a disaster (over the top word, but I'm using it anyways) occurs, upon investigation you'll always find many reasons. I think most, or all, of those reasons have been mentioned above, but there's always a root cause. I couldn't agree more with the article which suggests the three goal tender situation is the root cause of this years "disaster". Well written, and thank you.

[flamesfever]

IMO whether it's 2 or 3 goalies it really doesn't matter. Until they either develop, or acquire by trade, a recognized number one goalie, this team is going nowhere. And the faster they do that the better, as I believe it's taking its toll on our defence.

I would have preferred that they take a chance on Ortio by allowing him to play for an extended period. I think he did show, at times last year, that he may have the potential to be our number one.