Mike Smith's... woes? He blows? Eating crows? Who knows! (Also David Rittich exists!)

[GioforPM]

In those next few seasons where the unnamed goalie played 70 games, how many series did Calgary win? And did the said goalie ever have troubles towards the end of the season?

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

In those next few seasons where the unnamed goalie played 70 games, how many series did Calgary win? And did the said goalie ever have troubles towards the end of the season?

Okay, it was Kipper.

Now that he is named, do you wish to actually take a position that your questions imply?

Goalies can’t win playoff series by themselves. We all know that. Remember the 2007 Detroit series? How did Kipper play? That wasn’t a broken down goalie, my friend. That was a guy who kept a team in a series.

I think this goalie workload thing is no better than an old wives’ tale, unsupported by actual data.

Everything I have seen is just a general consensus that 55-60 games is a good place to be, but never any actual data supporting it.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/sports...oads-1.2592274

Holtby's workload was on Washington coach Barry Trotz's mind when he ran into Martin Brodeur at the NHL draft in June. Brodeur started 78 games for the New Jersey Devils in 2006-07 and 77 games in three other seasons. Only Grant Fuhr started more games in a single season with 79 for St. Louis in 1995-96, and Brodeur won two of his three Stanley Cups in seasons he started 72 and 73 games.
Trotz said Brodeur believed he got into a rhythm playing game after game, and off days hampered the run. Trotz saw how hard Brodeur worked on a day off in Nashville while coaching the Predators. Brodeur took part in the Devils' morning skate and kept working, still on the ice when Trotz returned from lunch stopping possibly 400 pucks compared to 25 he might have faced in the game.
Brodeur suggested most goalies can play 70 games a season, a number posted by many in the Hall of Fame.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

^ manageable?

Let me tell you a story.

There was a guy who got traded to a team one year, mid season. He had never played more than 22 games in a season. The coach gave him 17 of the next 19, after which he unfortunately sprained an MCL (not a fatigue related injury). When he came back he played 22 of 28. He played very well and the coach, recognizing this, played him in over 80 percent of the games for which he was available.

Then he backstopped his team to the Stanley Cup Finals. Some believe he should have won (it was in).

For the next 7 seasons he played at least 70 games a year. Won a Vezina trophy as well.

I remember that guy really well. I also remember watching him after those 70 game seasons attempting to do the impossible and will his team each year past the first round of the playoffs in a state of near exhaustion.

I also can't help but notice that four of the last five Stanley Cup winning goalies had played fewer 58 games in the regular season.

There was none of this ‘managing workload’ nonsense. He was the best goalie by far and they played him.

The Flames were also fighting tooth-and-nail for a playoff position all the way through to Game 81 of the 2004 season. In the seven years that followed, Kiprusoff's backup goalies accumulated a winning percentage of 0.289. That's a grand total of 22 wins in seven years. Riding Kiprusoff like a plough horse through 87% off the schedule each year was NEVER the plan—it was by necessity. Even with Smith's poor performances the Flames are now in a position in which they do not have to play their goalie four out of every five nights.

This "managing workload" is not nonsense. It is how good teams win. Unlike seemingly several posters I do not care who plays goal when the Flames win, so long as they do win. If the difference between a sharp, rested goalie and exhaustion by the second or third round of the playoffs is an additional seven or eights starts for Mike Smith, then so be it. It's the smart thing to do.

The only thing they didn’t have was an ego of a broken down warrior to massage...

The only "nonsense" I see is this bit of tripe. It is ridiculous to think that the GM and the coach would jeopardize the team's performance for the sake of a single player's ego.

Rittich has only let in more than 3 goals twice in all of his starts. Once in OT, and once with three goals last touched by his own team. Three of his losses were when his team failed to score.

With the other guy, it’s a coin toss if you do or do not have at least a softie when he starts. The guy is 36, injury prone, and inconsistent. And not only are some goals bad, the timing is worse. At this point, you can only hope (not expect) that he gives you a solid start, and hope is not a strategy.

Mike Smith wins at least half his games, even when he is playing poorly. It seems reasonable to expect about the same.

It is obvious to me and to many that it is time to give Rittich the vast majority of the starts.

Well, congratulations to you and the "many" who are so prescient. You have an opinion based on incomplete information. There is nothing "obvious" about that.

No benefit to managing Rittich here, if leadership wants to do what’s best for the team based on available evidence.

Management ensures adequate rest and preparation for a young goalie who has never experienced this level of work, nor anything close to this kind of pressure. The benefit seems to me very likely to pay off down the road—in April, May or June when I would hope the team is still playing.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

...I think this goalie workload thing is no better than an old wives’ tale, unsupported by actual data.

Everything I have seen is just a general consensus that 55-60 games is a good place to be, but never any actual data supporting it.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/sports...oads-1.2592274

If this was true, then I would expect it to happen more often than once every decade or so. Brodeur played in a different era, and he was also a freak. If the best course of action was for teams to maximize starts for one of their goaltenders I am sure that coaches would do this much more often than they do.

But even beyond that—it is one thing to start a seasoned NHL veteran in 60 games. It is entirely another for a goalie in his first year as a starter to do the same. It certainly appears like this is something that NHL coaches are concerned about, whether you agree with them or not.

[DeluxeMoustache]

^ Nice thoughts but a lot of comments based on feelings not data. Teams win the Stanley cup. Very few goalies make the difference in all 4 series and I think you know that.

You say Kipper was fatigued or near exhausted? I believe that in the immediate minutes after games i mentioned above against Detroit where he faced over 50 shots, he was tired. Never heard him say he was fatigued and that’s why they didn’t win, though. Team got outscored by the other team too many times, and there were 5 other guys on the ice most of the time.

Teams don’t necessarily win by resting goalies. That just happens to be how many games their goalies played.

Show me causation. Not correlation (and pretty much statistically insignificant correlation).

Marty Brodeur could win 3 cups playing 70 plus games. Roy won playing over 60 and wanted to play more.

Reference the article I linked above. I think most goalies want to play every night. Why shouldn’t they? Is being a goalie harder than playing top minutes every night? If so, why?

I think there is a lot of risk mitigation necessary by the team, in that if your number 1 guy falters, you need a number 2. That to me is more of a reason to get a guy who can play 20-30 and be relied on.

Much more than the ‘common sense’ feeling that goalies need time off that their teammates don’t.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

If this was true, then I would expect it to happen more often than once every decade or so. Brodeur played in a different era, and he was also a freak. If the best course of action was for teams to maximize starts for one of their goaltenders I am sure that coaches would do this much more often than they do.

But even beyond that—it is one thing to start a seasoned NHL veteran in 60 games. It is entirely another for a goalie in his first year as a starter to do the same. It certainly appears like this is something that NHL coaches are concerned about, whether you agree with them or not.

Appeal to authority.

You are right. I don’t agree with them. If one goalie is demonstrably better, I say ride him.

[Gaskal]

I think Rittich ends up with 50 games or so when all is said and done. He's been getting more and more starts.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Appeal to authority.

You're god damned right.

In numerous instances appeals to authority are the most valid means by which we can judge various decisions. Amid the vast vacuum of information that we have about the decisions coaches are making with their goalies, it is pretty persuasive.

I'll take the coach's decision over the musings of some internet schmuck ten times out of ten when the coach has his team in first place in the Division by Christmas.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

^ Nice thoughts but a lot of comments based on feelings not data...

Says the guy who thinks Flames coaches and management are walking on eggshells around Mike Smith and worried about hurting his feelings.

So, where is your data? You claim that goalies can plough through +70 games without missing a beat. Who are all these goalies, and how successful have they been in the Stanley Cup playoffs over the past decade?

[Cecil Terwilliger]

The Kipper argument also ignores the fact that he spent most of his career alternating between lights out and well below league average stats.

Using him as the example that GP has no negative effect on performance doesn’t exactly do much to further that argument.

[browna]

I truly don’t think Rittich is out of the woods with his consistency and confidence issues. Better than last year when he fell apart when given the starter role with Gillies, but the Columbus game he degenerated quickly in the first period, and Peters properly pulled him without hesitation. So the coaches are very aware and sensitive to how Rittich reacts to bad goals.

Smith is fighting the yips, no question.

Treliving likely thought that Smith was to be the least of his concerns this year, and it’s probably now his biggest, because of the fact that Rittich is unproven for much longer than a month at a time in his career, but also doing the dressing room tap dance. I think the room really likes both guys, and Smith being a fiery kind of guys and a leader as demonstrated last year in and off the ice, the room is pulling for him.

Neal came here on the advice of Smith etc, and he’s proven last year he can pull the team through games by himself.

But bringing in a 3rd goalie effectively means the end of one of the other 2, and that’s a tough team dynamic thing to mess with for a top end team in the conference.

Treliving obviously hopes that Smith can pull it back, and I think he has until the all star or league mandated break, maybe a week or so after, to make the final call if Smith and Rittich are going to make it through the season and into the playoffs playing confident enough, or, if another option has to be brought in.

Last year Treliving didn’t pull the trigger at the deadline when Smith got hurt but that’s as he likely knew the season was hanging by a thread and he was going to be firing the coach, so as not to waste an asset to get that goalie.

Interesting month ahead, assuming this team can stay mostly ahead of the pack with its offensive prowess at very least.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

You're god damned right.

In numerous instances appeals got authority are the most valid means by which we can judge various decisions. Amid the vast vacuum of information that we have about the decisions coaches are making with their goalies, it is pretty persuasive.

I'll take the coach's decision over the musings of some internet schmuck ten times out of ten when the coach has his team in first place in the Division by Christmas.

Haha , testy?

Goddamned right, you are free to appeal to authority. As you did with Gulutzan who was an awful coach.

Like I said, if you have 2 capable goalies, there is risk mitigation in not having to rely on one. That is very much common sense. And that to me holds way, way more water than workload. In fact, I would suggest that the concept of using workload can be a useful tool to manage the ego of the number one guy. Simply doesn’t need to ask as many questions when they want to go with the other guy.

As you note, Kipper was head and shoulders better than his backups, necessitating his play. And he was consistent. Really didn’t have significant slumps.

I see this as very close to the same situation.

The Flames have won a hair over half of Smith’s starts, and some in spite of him.
Meantime, even with Rittich’s overwhelmingly better record, there are three losses where he stood on his head and they didn’t even score!

These two goalies are not even close to comparable when you supplement your very basic stats with a bare minimum of context.

You are relying on a win-loss record, and I am relying on context framing the decisions, and a 35 point differential in save percentage. (!)

I am basically saying that I discount your position (and those of other internet schmucks, if you will) about expectations for Smith to win.

In addition, people contend that games get tighter in the second half. That does not project well either for the guy who gives up softies, as presumably his team will have more trouble scoring at will to save his butt.

Here’s some playoff goalie data. 50 percent of starting goalies that enter the playoffs don’t even win a round, no matter how many games they started. As half the goalies don’t even make the dance, roughly 75 percent of all starting goalies don’t win a round.

One guy wins, and winning four rounds depends on all 20 plus guys on the ice, coaching strategy for 4 matchups, and many factors that are not the goalie.

About three percent of starting goalies win the cup. Doesn’t have a thing to do with regular season starts. What likely dictated regular season starts was the differential between starter and backup reliability, and overall risk mitigation.

You have data as to how often NHL coaches start goalies. You have an explanation that they use, that they need to be rested. Like I said, I think that is largely team risk mitigation, not player fatigue.

My appeal to authority is to Brodeur and other goalies that want to start all the time. I can point out goalies that have started over 70 several years in a row. I have never heard a goalie say they wish they played less, never seen stats correlating increased starts and decreased performance.

Go ahead and explain why you think that playing goal, you need more rest than skaters playing top minutes. That doesn’t make sense to me.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

The Kipper argument also ignores the fact that he spent most of his career alternating between lights out and well below league average stats.

Using him as the example that GP has no negative effect on performance doesn’t exactly do much to further that argument.

The issue with this argument is simple.

Does shot quality exist? Was Keenan’s team defense equal to Darryl’s?

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

So, where is your data? You claim that goalies can plough through +70 games without missing a beat. Who are all these goalies, and how successful have they been in the Stanley Cup playoffs over the past decade?

Never mind the Stanley Cup winner portion of your argument. Most goalies don’t win the Cup.

Here is some data. If fatigue was an issue, presumably towards the end of a 70-75 start season, goalie stats would falter.


http://brodeurisafraud.blogspot.com/...tigue.html?m=1

The justification for the importance placed on games played seems to be that it is more difficult to play more games. I remain unconvinced that playing additional games is significantly more difficult. I think that virtually every goalie in the NHL is capable of handling the workload. If they weren't, then they would have failed on some lower level (junior, college, minor-league) when they were asked to play 70-75 games a season.

But what do the numbers say about it? Yahoo Sports provides breakdowns of month-by-month stats, so I thought it would be interesting to see if goalies tired as the season went on, which is what would be expected if fatigue is an issue. To ensure that I had a full selection of statistics and that era issues wouldn't come into play, I chose a group of goalies that have played a lot of minutes in recent years and that began their careers relatively recently (e.g. late '90s or later).

Here is the list of goalies in the sample: Roberto Luongo, J.S. Giguere, Marty Turco, Tomas Vokoun, Evgeni Nabokov, Miikka Kiprusoff, Jose Theodore, Nikolai Khabibulin, Rick DiPietro, Marc Denis, Ryan Miller, and Henrik Lundqvist.

I broke down their statistics by month to see what the results were (minutes, win %, GAA, save %, shutouts):

October: 543 GP, 2.71, .905, .497 win %, 28 SO
November: 730 GP, 2.53, .912, .531 win %, 53 SO
December: 774 GP, 2.48, .914, .547 win %, 54 SO
January: 768 GP, 2.58, .910, .521 win %, 53 SO
February: 653 GP, 2.56, .912, .535 win %, 53 SO
March: 817 GP, 2.53, .913, .539 win %, 53 SO
April: 242 GP, 2.52, .913, .566 win %, 14 SO

You can see that there is no discernible dropoff in performance over the course of a season.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

You're god damned right.

In numerous instances appeals got authority are the most valid means by which we can judge various decisions. Amid the vast vacuum of information that we have about the decisions coaches are making with their goalies, it is pretty persuasive.

I'll take the coach's decision over the musings of some internet schmuck ten times out of ten when the coach has his team in first place in the Division by Christmas.

That’s the Christmas spirit TC!

Questioning coach’s and GM decisions are pretty much what these boards are about but I hear you on overplaying Rittich. I am one of those fans that is worried about both goaltenders and whether they are truly good enough for the roles we will need them for.

[FlamesAddiction]

The questions I have are if Rittich can keep it up for the second half if he has to play at least 2/3rds of the games. I hope so, but I wouldn't bank on it. And can Smith raise his game if Rittich starts to get a little shaky. Again, I wouldn't bank on it. In fact, I would bet that Smith deteriorates even further.

I am really uneasy about the idea of Rittich being able to continually offset Smith's poor play.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Haha , testy?

Goddamned right, you are free to appeal to authority. As you did with Gulutzan who was an awful coach.

Appeal to authority is not a fallacy unless the authority is irrelevant to the question. The best practices of generations of coaches in the NHL and at every level of professional hockey are highly relevant to this question, and an appeal to their authority is not, as such, fallacious. Your own personal opinion carries no such relevance, and given the choice between the two of them, I know which one I would rather go with.

Since it became normal for teams to carry backup goalies and give them starts – that is, roughly since the 1967 expansion, when the season simply became too long for one goalie to start every single game as Glenn Hall used to do – the vast majority of coaches have managed their goalies’ workloads to give some starts to the backups and some rest days to the starters.

Your quote from the ‘Brodeur is a fraud’ website is of no relevance, since the data were self-selected: that is, the same professional coaches who are responsible for managing their starters' workload decided that those particular starters were fit to play in that number of games. Moreover, the data are for regular-season games only, whereas fatigue is generally said to become a significant factor in the playoffs. A goalie in top condition can often play 70 or 75 games in a season – but if he has played them all in the regular season, the wear and tear on his body will be such that he will not be at his best in the postseason. Ex hypothesi, one would not even expect to see a dip in performance before the regular season ends.

Incidentally, a website called ‘Brodeur is a fraud’, when it publishes an article intended to show that there was nothing special about Brodeur's endurance, can hardly be regarded as an unbiased source. The entire blog existed so one particular blogger could grind his axe. The argument is half-baked, because the author was far too eager to yank it out of the oven and fling it in Martin Brodeur's face.

[Eubee]

If you think Kipper didn’t burn out, you were not watching the Flames back then. Clearly. Anyone who lived through that that feels otherwise....you were not watching the team.

[Jason14h]

Anyone who has ever played a high level of sports knows the grind a season and playoffs takes on the body.

Why is this even an argument ?

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Appeal to authority is not a fallacy unless the authority is irrelevant to the question. The best practices of generations of coaches in the NHL and at every level of professional hockey are highly relevant to this question, and an appeal to their authority is not, as such, fallacious. Your own personal opinion carries no such relevance, and given the choice between the two of them, I know which one I would rather go with.

Since it became normal for teams to carry backup goalies and give them starts – that is, roughly since the 1967 expansion, when the season simply became too long for one goalie to start every single game as Glenn Hall used to do – the vast majority of coaches have managed their goalies’ workloads to give some starts to the backups and some rest days to the starters.

Your quote from the ‘Brodeur is a fraud’ website is of no relevance, since the data were self-selected: that is, the same professional coaches who are responsible for managing their starters' workload decided that those particular starters were fit to play in that number of games. Moreover, the data are for regular-season games only, whereas fatigue is generally said to become a significant factor in the playoffs. A goalie in top condition can often play 70 or 75 games in a season – but if he has played them all in the regular season, the wear and tear on his body will be such that he will not be at his best in the postseason. Ex hypothesi, one would not even expect to see a dip in performance before the regular season ends.

Incidentally, a website called ‘Brodeur is a fraud’, when it publishes an article intended to show that there was nothing special about Brodeur's endurance, can hardly be regarded as an unbiased source. The entire blog existed so one particular blogger could grind his axe. The argument is half-baked, because the author was far too eager to yank it out of the oven and fling it in Martin Brodeur's face.

Do you have a contribution in terms of info?

That guy changed his site to contrarian goaltender, and he seems to have taken decent looks at lots of data. In fact he took a look at Smith’s one good Phoenix season.

Generally, I really don’t follow your logic.

Goalies get fatigued due to workload but only and suddenly in the playoffs? Jay Random indeed.

Data reflecting the performance of goalies who play 70-75 games is not relevant for assessing effect of fatigue on the goalies because their coaches elected to play them?