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

[Jiri Hrdina]

^beats me but knowing how much science is applied to sports now if teams think there’s something to it there probably is
But the same questions could be raised about how teams manage pitchers in mlb

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by timbit

Sorry to hear about your stress, except the discussion was on physical and mental workload capacity regarding the optimum number of games for a starting goalie in the NHL.

Silly me. I thought the question was about how much I fly, without the help of sleep coaches, nutritionists, sports psychologists, and sycophant broadcast commentators blowing smoke up my ass every time I colour inside the lines

[timbit]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Silly me. I thought the question was about how much I fly, without the help of sleep coaches, nutritionists, sports psychologists, and sycophant broadcast commentators blowing smoke up my ass every time I colour inside the lines

You brought a ridiculous personal comparison to the discussion. I successfully rebutted it.

No need for acrimonious comments.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by timbit

You brought a ridiculous personal comparison to the discussion. I successfully rebutted it.

No need for acrimonious comments.

Haha. If you consider that successful, then good for you.

I said I don’t get more tired in than out and gave you data for a dozen goalies who actually played between 70 and 75, showing they didn’t wear out over the year.

Some other guy threw out 3-4X for how much effort is involved in goaltending. You didn’t take issue with that bizarre claim

I don’t even know what points you actually made.

[chummer]

If only some of you knew what you don't know.

[memphusk]

Originally Posted by New Era

This is bull####, and I think this is extremely insulting. In my world, there are no practices. I am expected to be "on" every single day. The days I am not, those are the days I could be fired. No guaranteed contract, my boss can take me out at any time, just because he doesn't like the tie I am wearing with the short I've selected to wear on that given day. I wish I had a bull#### guaranteed contract like NHL players have working in their favor, because my livelihood and retirement hang over my head every single day and I have to perform at optimum levels every single ####ing day. So save your bull#### about practices, because most people don't have opportunities to have "practices" to get their #### right on any given day, or in any given instance. People have school to get their practice sessions down, but after that, they are are performing or dying every single day of their lives.

So you have a job like the rest of us?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

I posted another look long ago at goalies month by month who played 70 plus games. This was not their trend.

I remember that post. Your assessment of a handful of “workhorse” goalies did nothing to alter the fact that the vast majority don’t play more than 55-60 games in the regular season. Playing 70 is the exception, not the norm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I remember that post. Your assessment of a handful of “workhorse” goalies did nothing to alter the fact that the vast majority don’t play more than 55-60 games in the regular season. Playing 70 is the exception, not the norm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sure. And the issue was whether the idea of workload management is tribal wisdom, risk mitigation, or actually scientifically necessary.

Just because most people want their goalie to play 55-60 at most, and just because they do, doesn’t mean they can’t play 70-75.

[powderjunkie]

I posted this in the Big Save Dave thread a few weeks ago; seems relevant at the moment:

Off the top of my head, my suspicion was that not many recent cup winning teams had their starting goalies win all 16 playoff games. Turns out I was wrong, but I also looked at whether they were the defacto #1 for that whole season or not (lower GP might also have been due to injury)

Playoff wins by starting goalies in cup winning seasons: (reg season GS that year)

Holtby: 16 (54)
Murray: 7 in 2017 (47), 15 in 2016 (13)
Crawford: 13 in 2015 (57), 16 in 2013 (28)
Quick: 16 & 16 (68, 49 in '15 - injury?)
Thomas: 16 (55)
Niemi: 16 (35)
Fleury: 16 in 2009 [and 9 in 2017] (61 - 2008 + 34 & 46 in '17 and '18)
Osgood: 14 (40)
Giguere: 13 (56 GP - no GS stat on hockey ref before this year)
Ward: 15 (28 GP)
Khabibulin: 16 (55 GP)


Looking at the times 'elite workhorse ' goalies got to the finals, their GS was lower than typical:
in '12 when Brodeur started only 59 that year (he was 39 yo...)
Lundqvist started 62 in '14
Luongo 60 in '11.

Rask (34 - lockout year), Bishop (60), Jones (65), Rinne (59), Fleury (46).

In most cases, these guys have started 65+ in other seasons, yet their teams didn't achieve the same levels in those years. Of course you can't definitively say it's causation and not just coincidental correlation, but the evidence is growing that it's the former.

Conclusion: Riding one goalie for 60+ starts in a season is unlikely to end with him raising the cup over his head. Even if you have a bonafide #1, their best playoff runs come when their reg season GS were kept under control. You rarely need your backup to win more than 1-2 playoff games, but you want them to take at least 25 reg season starts.

Right now we have the privilege to piss away some trivial points in the middle of the season, which is more likely to help than hinder in late May. The worst case scenario might be losing a game 7 on the road. Then again, we might lose a game 7 at home with a tired goalie...

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Sure. And the issue was whether the idea of workload management is tribal wisdom, risk mitigation, or actually scientifically necessary.



Just because most people want their goalie to play 55-60 at most, and just because they do, doesn’t mean they can’t play 70-75.

And I am happy to believe you the moment you manage to convince a NHL coach to adopt your 82-game schedule for his starting goalie. Until then, I don’t see anything remotely credible to suggest that fatigue is not an issue that the vast majority of goaltenders deal with.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Sure. And the issue was whether the idea of workload management is tribal wisdom, risk mitigation, or actually scientifically necessary.

Just because most people want their goalie to play 55-60 at most, and just because they do, doesn’t mean they can’t play 70-75.

You should really read my last post. Since the '05 lockout only two guys have made the finals starting more than 62 games (Quick 68 and Jones 65).

Not sure before then when the last 70+ starter to make the finals was, but I'd be surprised if there were many not named Brodeur.

[midniteowl]

Originally Posted by chummer

If only some of you knew what you don't know.

Sorry couldn't resist, you mean like this?

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Donald Rumsfeld is that you?

[1qqaaz]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I posted this in the Big Save Dave thread a few weeks ago; seems relevant at the moment:



Right now we have the privilege to piss away some trivial points in the middle of the season, which is more likely to help than hinder in late May. The worst case scenario might be losing a game 7 on the road. Then again, we might lose a game 7 at home with a tired goalie...

Rittich isn't going to be getting over 50 starts, never mind 60 +, so maybe I'm missing the main point of the argument.

Another problem I have with Smith is that he's wasting a valuable development spot. A lot of goalies develop as backups and end up gradually becoming starters. Look at how the Capitals, Lightning, Kings, Sharks, Ducks, etc. have been developing goalies. It would be nice if our backup had at least some upside, rather than an extremely sharp decline.

You want to give Rittich a rest? Good, I largely agree. But why not give starts to someone who has potential and can grow. I hope the Flames don't acquire any goalies on the wrong side of 30. Definitely no one on the wrong side of 35 (like Smith, Howard, or Anderson), except maybe McElhinney if he's dirt cheap.

People are saying the Flames shouldn't trade Smith, but I think that's silly. It's clearly the biggest whole in the organization by a mile. Why not fix it.

[chummer]

Originally Posted by 1qqaaz

People are saying the Flames shouldn't trade Smith, but I think that's silly. It's clearly the biggest whole in the organization by a mile. Why not fix it.

I think people are saying who is going to take him?

[gamesaver]

Originally Posted by AC

Yep, 100%.

The coaches usually take a goalie's recent success against specific teams to heart. Rittich was recently great in a lopsided Carolina game and managed to get the win.

Just like using Smith once again vs Detroit, who he had beaten a few weeks prior as well.

If we just ran with Rittich until we face an "easier" team, it would have been Feb 14th in Florida, almost an entire month after Smith's last start (Jan 18 vs DET). Like it or not, Smith is going to get games until there's a better option simply so Rittich doesn't get run into the ground.

There are a bunch of difficult matchups this month that Rittich likely gets all of: SJ, @VAN, @TB, @PIT, NYI, ANA, @NYI.

On the flip side there are some more favourable teams that Smith will likely get most of the starts against: @FLA, ARI, @OTT, @NJ (back to back).

Even if Rittich starts every single game till the end, he will end up with 50 starts, more or less. Last year Gulutzan planned to play Smith 70 games or so and noone was concerned about that. I mean noone from within to organisation, not the CP posters. With every start Smith gets, chance at facing Vegas in 1st round increases. I would better risk burning out Rittich than letting Sharks catch up on me because I have a soft spot for Smith.

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by chummer

I think people are saying who is going to take him?

A team in the east that is a seller and needs a warm body in a swap.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

And I am happy to believe you the moment you manage to convince a NHL coach to adopt your 82-game schedule for his starting goalie. Until then, I don’t see anything remotely credible to suggest that fatigue is not an issue that the vast majority of goaltenders deal with.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree with how you approach the first half, it is a well played argument but to me because a team, due to risk mitigation, should absolutely have 2 goalies ready to go. I think more due to disaster recovery than to impact of fatigue. We just won’t get that data, realistically.

You can’t have a backup you trust and give him 8 games. We will never know because most teams have good enough backups

The only reasonable case to play a goalie over 70 is when the gap between starter and backup is so severe (Kipper and (insert backup name here))

The question is whether the gap between Rittich and Smith is that bad. But whether it is or isn’t is, I agree, a moot point. Fortunately this team can outscore Smith’s tending, while a tight Sutter team could not.

TLDR; playing a goalie 70 plus games is too risky, because it is basically risking having one goalie. I say not due to fatigue, more due to the absurdity of effectively having only one goalie

[Itse]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

A team in the east that is a seller and needs a warm body in a swap.

A team looking to tank the rest of the season might also be interested in getting one of the statistically worst goalies in the league that's gone at the end of the season.

There might even be bonus optics points, as Mike Smith still gets a lot of undeserved love from media.

[smiggy77]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Yeah, there are a lot of claims I don’t buy with respect to the physical toll.



I think if players can play 82, goalies can too. Data supports it for 70-75 game seasons.



I also don’t buy the ‘this team is tired because they played so much hockey last year’, when they went deep in the playoffs. 2-3 months off should be ample time to recover, no?

If that’s the case, why haven’t we seen goalies playing 82 games? The reason why coaches and players repeatedly talking about resting or managing a goalies time is because it’s a fact regardless of what you think.

Also in your analysis you failed to mention Cam Talbot. To present your points as correct facts when you’ve got a few outliers as data points and skipping out on players is clear indication of a biased thought.

Also so you know, players might be able to play 82 games at 20-25min a game, to say a goalie to be on and playing for the full 60 minutes and playing 82 games is the same is hilarious.