Game 4 against ANA: Do you pull the goalie?

[icarus]

A thread I've been saving for the August doldrums, when we can reflect with fondness and sadness on the Flames' great season and playoff run.

I'll get straight to the point for those who don't want to read on: In game 4, would you have pulled the goalie for a 56-second 6-on-3 powerplay when trailing by one goal with just over twelve minutes to go?

The failure of the Flames to score on their 5-on-3 is what I consider to be the turning point in the series, i.e. the moment when the outcome of the series was all but assured.

To set the scene a little for those who don't remember:

- Game 4 at the Saddledome.
- Each team has won at home so far, the Flames trailing the series 2-1.
- In the previous game, the Flames scored on a 6-on-3 in the dying seconds to send it to OT where they won.
- Flames jump out to an early 2-1 lead in game 4
- Ducks claw back in the 2nd period on a Johnny Hockey turnover to tie it
- Joe Colborne's boneheaded hi-stick at the end of the second leads to an ANA PP marker at the beginning of the third to send them ahead
- About five minutes later ANA takes a hooking penalty and while killing the penalty take another, leading to a 56-second 5-on-3 with about twelve minutes left in regulation
- The Flames generate little and fail to score on the 5-on-3
- The late game push comes up short and ANA scores an empty net to seal the victory

I'm pretty conservative when it comes to pulling the goalie but at the time I remember thinking that Bob Hartley should have pulled Ramo to make it a 6-on-3. Hindsight is 20-20 and we all know that the 5-on-3 didn't work but would you have made the same call as Hartley or would have you gambled and left the net empty for the extra attacker with so much time left?

[robaur]

No.........

[Bingo]

I would have and was thinking the same thing at the time.

I like the fact that NHL has had a coaching philosophy change that focuses more on what could happen on the good side, then on the bad side.

Its tough enough to get control to hit an empty net 5 on 3, so 6 on 3 would be even less likely.

Plus the Flames seem to have the 6 bodies on the ice thing down through their comebacks all season, wouldn't be cluttered or effecting their 5 on 3 set plays.

[Northendzone]

pulling your goalie with that much time to go is a very "bold" move - i don't recall even thinking about it at that time - so i guess my answer is no i would not ahve pulled the goalie

[heep223]

Not a chance. A 5 on 3 is enough of an advantage and I think the PP% for them is around 50%. The other team can ice it, there's no reason to risk the empty netter. Plus the team likely wouldn't have a strategy for 6-3 (could be wrong).

[Strange Brew]

Great question. I'm not sure 6 on 3 is enough of an increased advantage. Do they really practice it much? And if the penalties expire it's going to be tricky getting your goalie back out there.

[Huntingwhale]

The failure of the Flames to score on their 5-on-3 is what I consider to be the turning point in the series, i.e. the moment when the outcome of the series was all but assured.



I would say the turning point of that series was when the puck dropped in game 1 and the Flames were clearly outmatched, outclassed and outsized throughout the entire series. That moment in game 4 wouldn't have mattered, even if we scored and somehow won that game. We still wouldn't have beaten the Ducks in their home (and at this rate probably never will).

The Ducks were the better team, plain and simple. Maybe a redo with a healthy Gio, a fully healthy Ferland and additions like Hamilton and Frolik would have made a difference. But either way, the Flames were completely outmatched that series and quite frankly were lucky it wasn't a 4 game sweep if not for Gaudreau's last minute goal in game 3.

And as Strange Brew said, imagine trying to get a player off the ice in order for the goalie to get back when the penalty expires. Suddenly it goes from a 6 on 3, to a 6 on 4, to a 6 on 5. Chaos. Imagine if the other team somehow scored while trying to make that happen. We'd be blaming Hartley for the loss.

[codynw]

I would have put in both goalies and played 4 on 3 instead. Just to #### with them.

[Jason14h]

Adding a 6th skater there may actually clog up the ice more then help.

[Poe969]

For me, no I wouldn't. I think there would be too much passing and wanting to get the perfect play, essentially they'd over think it. I think it would be too crowded and there's just too much that would go wrong in that situation. That's just my thinking though.

[BurningSteel]

Would have been a bold move if it were done and we won the game. BUT if we had lost or they scored in that time OMG it would be worse than that time that Feaster almost lost the franchisae on ROR.

We were not getting past ANA last year either way. This year though will be different.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

No, for me. I doubt anyone practices 6-3, so it might mess up the PP and one lucky swipe of the puck and you are down a goal. Total killer. You gotta hope that the 5-3 is enough. Didn't pan out in this circumstance, but it was the right call.

[Itse]

I'm going with no. Huge risk, small advantage.

[troutman]

Math says:

http://faculty.nps.edu/sebuttre/docs/estimatingNHLScoringRates.pdf

In the 2008-09 season, 5 on 3 resulted in 19 goals per every 60 minutes. This is 8x the scoring rate at 5 on 5. And 3x the scoring rate at 5 on 4.

That is a big enough advantage not to assume the risk of an empty net goal at 6 on 3.

On a two minute 5 on 3, you should expect to score about 63 % of the time.

A 56 second 5 on 3 should result in a goal 30% of the time.

[icarus]

Some great points made and it looks like Bingo is the only one who thinks the same as me.

I suppose they don't practice 6-on-3 much but if you stick a player behind the net you could do some serious cycling until the other team gets discombobulated. Clearly puck possession is critical throughout the powerplay but as Bingo says, it is tough enough for three defenders to get enough possession to clear on a 5-on-3, let alone a 6-on-3.

Sure Hartley would have gotten the goat horns if it backfired but momentum was not on our side, and it was desperation time. The 5-on-3 should have scored but I would have stacked the odds even more and taken the gamble.

[2macinnis2]

Some great points made and it looks like Bingo is the only one who thinks the same as me.

I suppose they don't practice 6-on-3 much but if you stick a player behind the net you could do some serious cycling until the other team gets discombobulated. Clearly puck possession is critical throughout the powerplay but as Bingo says, it is tough enough for three defenders to get enough possession to clear on a 5-on-3, let alone a 6-on-3.

Sure Hartley would have gotten the goat horns if it backfired but momentum was not on our side, and it was desperation time. The 5-on-3 should have scored but I would have stacked the odds even more and taken the gamble.

When it happened I wanted the goalie pulled also, but not based on statistics or anything more thoughtful than simple momentum. The Flames were very stagnant at that point and a 6 on 3 goal could have turned the game back in their favor. It was a listless PP that ultimately finished that game for them.

But yeah, ultimately, they weren't winning that series anyway.

[Gaskal]

I think 6 on 3 was really the desperate last resort call in game 4. It was also a no brainer situation game 3; if the goalie hadn't been pulled game 3, everyone would've questioned Hartley's call there.

Pulling the goalie early when there's still time left to claw back in with you having a 5 on 3...for one it messes up your structured 5 on 3 that Marty has been drilling, two it would appear to his players that he didn't have as much confidence that they'd tie it in 5 on 3...or failing that, the rest of the PP and the ES play after that. When Hartley pulled in Game 3, it wasn't so much a strategic choice as it was a necessary one.

[Hackey]

That's a huge gamble that I don't think you need to take. 5 on 3 gives you a very good opportunity to score and the remaining 12 minutes does as well. An empty net goal at that point likely takes away all that opportunity and loses the game for you right then and there.

[dying4acup]

Maybe I pull Ramo under 5min. But I definitely wouldn't with that much time on the clock. Hartley trusted his team all year, and they can through so many times.

[You Need a Thneed]

Down 2 goals with 12 min left, you should.

Down one goal with 8 minutes left or so, you should.

Down one, 12 minutes to go, probably borderline.

I think it would be smart strategy to pull your goalie anytime you are down by two or more and have a PP in the third period.

[CSharp]

Nah, the Flames were too small up front and back. If they couldn't score on a 5-on-3, putting one more guy cluttering up the crease is gonna make the puck that much harder to go into the net. Doing so, the shooters at the point would need an "seeing-eye-shot". Gio's sitting up in the press box and Wideman didn't do much. End of story.

[chubeyr1]

12 minutes left, 5 on 3, with the best team in the league coming from behind? You are going to risk having an empty net to add another forward to the ice?

Coach would be fired for making this move. Could we of scored? Sure, could they of scored on us? Absolutely. 12 minutes left you pull your goalie its a terrible desperate move. Down by 2 or 3 goals it maybe a different discussion. With almost 20 percent left of the game to be played, with the comeback team of the year, you don't pull your goalie for a 6 on 3.

To be honest, the series was over as soon as the puck was dropped that first game. Our guys needed to lose this series as much as I wanted them to win it. So many young players, they got schooled bad. OR Schooled good is the way I look at it. Watch Monahan against Getzlaf those first few games. Monahan was a wreck, veteran center abused him bad. Come game 3 Monahan looked a lot better. Getzlaf was playing dirty playoff hockey. Acceptable dirty hockey. Its the playoffs, we all know the whistles go away come playoff time.

What the team did was amazing last year. Not going to question the coach that was coach of the year for not pulling the goalie with 12 minutes left on a 5 on 3.

I would love to reboot that series in two years. Calgary walks away with the win! If we reboot that series this coming season? 7 games double overtime Flames loss. Our young guys are still learning. Still growing too.

Sam Bennett is awesome, falls down all over the ice cause he is a kid not a man yet. Couple of years experience he wont be falling down.

Would love to see a new rink in 3 years time with the first year being a Stanley Cup Championship banner donning the rafters.

[indes]

Not a chance, way too much risk with 12 minutes left. A 6-3 means they could ice it when the first player gets out of the box.

[Wedge]

Any guy on here who says he doesn't is a liar.

[gargamel]

Here's a NY Times article about pulling the goalie for a mid-game 6 on 3. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/sports/hockey/09hockey.html

Statistically, we probably should have pulled Ramo, but there isn't a coach in the NHL (with the possible exception of Roy) with the balls to do it in that situation.

[YYC in LAX]

Any guy on here who says he doesn't is a liar.


I was pulling the goalie hard, after the Flames beat Vancouver in game 6.

[mikephoen]

Here's a NY Times article about pulling the goalie for a mid-game 6 on 3. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/sports/hockey/09hockey.html

Statistically, we probably should have pulled Ramo, but there isn't a coach in the NHL (with the possible exception of Roy) with the balls to do it in that situation.

This thread is interesting and so is that article. I'm sold. I say pull the goalie on any 5-3 with more than a minute left on the first penalty. Regardless of the score. It's got to be close to an automatic goal when you outnumber the other skaters 2 to 1.