Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post - Are the Calgary Flames destined to collapse?

Calgary4LIfe · 10-02-2015, 10:01 AM

The eye tests really need to be a big part of the picture. Just a few thoughts.

Like Bingo stated, one guy may be erratic, but with a much higher ability. The other guy is more composed and steady, but just 'average'. What position is your team in? Entering a rebuild, leaving a rebuild? Entering contender status? That does factor in whether you want to gamble somewhat that you can help one goalie become less erratic and end up with a much higher caliber of goalie. Maybe you don't have the time - or his flaws are too great - and the steady but mediocre guy is the logical choice. Stats may not tell you who to choose.

As for comparing goalies around the league, we must all remember Miika Kiprusoff. One bad (by his measure) and one great year. .933, .923,. .917, .906, .903, .920, .906, .920, .882.

He had a few rough patches as a goalie here in Calgary - mostly late in his career. However, you can see his fluctuating stats. Why? I think it was not only a slightly different team in front of him every year, but a different play style with regards to commitment to defence. His numbers reflect that. This is an important consideration with respect to Edmonton especially, as the NYR have one of the top defensive groups in the NHL, and Talbot is going to - without question - the absolute worst. Did they really watch him and do the eye test, or are they just basing it off his consistent display? I mean, most goalies will have their numbers drop, but some goalies do better than others behind porous defensive groups than others. Talbot will without question drop statistically, but by how much? Was there a better option out there who was more poor statistically, but who was more experienced playing on a defensively inept team?

Bryzgalov is a goalie that looked fantastic behind a solid system. Not so fantastic when he wasn't sheltered. The Scrivens example above is a good one, as is Dubynk. I think it was Bingo last year posted up an article about how a goalie can over-compensate in his position due to no longer trusting his teammates in front of him. They start to pick up bad habits. Dubynk is a goalie I had argued looked really good for Edmonton, and then he magically started getting worse. Scrivens I was never as high on, but he was a fairly reliable goalie more suited to a backup role - just like Cali said above - started out great and then started faltering. I think there is a certain truth to that article. Goalies like this will have horrible stats, but the eye test may show that they merely have bad tendencies that can be coached out again (like Dubynk) and with a bit of time behind a solid team-defensive structure.

I think goaltending is like every other position in hockey. You can't rely on stats only. There is a reason that some prospects that don't get drafted one year, are drafted in the subsequent draft. Others who aren't drafted and go on to post some very good offensive numbers still don't get drafted. We all know why - there is a significant issue with the prospect's game, a size limitation without a significant enough strength to balance it out, or he was simply the recipient of another prospect(s) who drove that line. Without using the eye test, we will never know if a certain high-end offensive dynamo could translate to the NHL (like a Gaudreau, or a Kane) vs not translating well (like a Baertschi, or like a Brendl). Of course you are going to scout and base your decisions on the eye test, not just go by the stats. Goalies are exactly the same. It really matters what style they play, how good their composure is, how good the defence in front of them are, etc. It matters quite a lot, even on the same team.

There are many good examples thus far. I expect there to be a few others as well. Interesting conversation.

I still think Ramo is the better choice - albeit a bit more risky - even though his numbers aren't so good. I do think Ramo is the better road goalie, and Hiller is the better home goalie, FWIW. I still have no idea how the goaltending shakes out this year and who they end up keeping. I just don't think they will look at their respective stats and determine it from there.

10-02-2015, 10:01 AM	#42
Calgary4LIfe Franchise Player Join Date: Jun 2010 Exp:	The eye tests really need to be a big part of the picture. Just a few thoughts. Like Bingo stated, one guy may be erratic, but with a much higher ability. The other guy is more composed and steady, but just 'average'. What position is your team in? Entering a rebuild, leaving a rebuild? Entering contender status? That does factor in whether you want to gamble somewhat that you can help one goalie become less erratic and end up with a much higher caliber of goalie. Maybe you don't have the time - or his flaws are too great - and the steady but mediocre guy is the logical choice. Stats may not tell you who to choose. As for comparing goalies around the league, we must all remember Miika Kiprusoff. One bad (by his measure) and one great year. .933, .923,. .917, .906, .903, .920, .906, .920, .882. He had a few rough patches as a goalie here in Calgary - mostly late in his career. However, you can see his fluctuating stats. Why? I think it was not only a slightly different team in front of him every year, but a different play style with regards to commitment to defence. His numbers reflect that. This is an important consideration with respect to Edmonton especially, as the NYR have one of the top defensive groups in the NHL, and Talbot is going to - without question - the absolute worst. Did they really watch him and do the eye test, or are they just basing it off his consistent display? I mean, most goalies will have their numbers drop, but some goalies do better than others behind porous defensive groups than others. Talbot will without question drop statistically, but by how much? Was there a better option out there who was more poor statistically, but who was more experienced playing on a defensively inept team? Bryzgalov is a goalie that looked fantastic behind a solid system. Not so fantastic when he wasn't sheltered. The Scrivens example above is a good one, as is Dubynk. I think it was Bingo last year posted up an article about how a goalie can over-compensate in his position due to no longer trusting his teammates in front of him. They start to pick up bad habits. Dubynk is a goalie I had argued looked really good for Edmonton, and then he magically started getting worse. Scrivens I was never as high on, but he was a fairly reliable goalie more suited to a backup role - just like Cali said above - started out great and then started faltering. I think there is a certain truth to that article. Goalies like this will have horrible stats, but the eye test may show that they merely have bad tendencies that can be coached out again (like Dubynk) and with a bit of time behind a solid team-defensive structure. I think goaltending is like every other position in hockey. You can't rely on stats only. There is a reason that some prospects that don't get drafted one year, are drafted in the subsequent draft. Others who aren't drafted and go on to post some very good offensive numbers still don't get drafted. We all know why - there is a significant issue with the prospect's game, a size limitation without a significant enough strength to balance it out, or he was simply the recipient of another prospect(s) who drove that line. Without using the eye test, we will never know if a certain high-end offensive dynamo could translate to the NHL (like a Gaudreau, or a Kane) vs not translating well (like a Baertschi, or like a Brendl). Of course you are going to scout and base your decisions on the eye test, not just go by the stats. Goalies are exactly the same. It really matters what style they play, how good their composure is, how good the defence in front of them are, etc. It matters quite a lot, even on the same team. There are many good examples thus far. I expect there to be a few others as well. Interesting conversation. I still think Ramo is the better choice - albeit a bit more risky - even though his numbers aren't so good. I do think Ramo is the better road goalie, and Hiller is the better home goalie, FWIW. I still have no idea how the goaltending shakes out this year and who they end up keeping. I just don't think they will look at their respective stats and determine it from there. Last edited by Calgary4LIfe; 10-02-2015 at 10:07 AM.