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

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by Wolfman

Smith is officially the worst with decent games played


http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?repo...&sort=savePctg

Did you make 18 games the cutoff just so he could be last?

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

I'm not so sure... ^

More from the article above

Are you kidding? That was your takeaway?

*sigh*

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Are you kidding? That was your takeaway?

*sigh*

?

What is your takeaway?

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Robbob

Did you make 18 games the cutoff just so he could be last?

You don't have to go out of your way to emphasize his stats are bad. He's got the worst save percentage of all goaltenders that have played more than a handful of games;

http://www.espn.com/nhl/statistics/p...vePct/count/41

Right behind Cam Ward at 49th. That's no good.

[crapshoot]

I have the same views on Mike Smith as general consensus here on the boards, but I'm just gonna say one thing that crossed my mind. If David Rittich were to go down with an injury just before or during the playoffs I would actually be more comfortable in rolling the dice with Mike Smith in net rather than any random backup goalie that would be available for a reasonable price.


Smith has been crap this season, but he has also had a bunch of really good games. The ability to play well is not the main issue, but consistency is, and he's a battler who plays with tons of emotion and has a tendency to rise with the challenge througout his career. He has also put his team on his back during the playoffs before. In a desperate situation I'd rather sink or swim with a guy like that than a Curtis McElhinney or whoever might be available, no matter what the regular season stats might say.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Old wives tale.



https://www.fearthefin.com/2013/10/3...rnout-playoffs



Number of games played in regular season doesn’t appear to have a statistically significant impact on playoff performance.

That article is almost six years old, and it factors in conditions that are clearly different from how the game has changed. I don’t find datasets featuring Antij Niemi particularly relevant nor convincing. Moreover, a simple comparison between regular season and post season save percentages is missing the point since the vast majority of all goalies perform better in the playoffs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by crapshoot

I have the same views on Mike Smith as general consensus here on the boards, but I'm just gonna say one thing that crossed my mind. If David Rittich were to go down with an injury just before or during the playoffs I would actually be more comfortable in rolling the dice with Mike Smith in net rather than any random backup goalie that would be available for a reasonable price.


Smith has been crap this season, but he has also had a bunch of really good games. The ability to play well is not the main issue, but consistency is, and he's a battler who plays with tons of emotion and has a tendency to rise with the challenge througout his career. He has also put his team on his back during the playoffs before. In a desperate situation I'd rather sink or swim with a guy like that than a Curtis McElhinney or whoever might be available, no matter what the regular season stats might say.

It's possible he could rise to the occasion for a short period of time like Craig Anderson did a few years back for the Senators in the playoffs. If only he tried earlier to change his style of playing so deep in the net. I just don't see how he's going to be able to shut the door on teams when he's playing right in front of the goal line with his now mid-30's reflexes. He's still pretty good at stopping close in chances around the net but he's getting beat on the long shots and I don't see that changing as long as he continues to play as deep in the crease as he does.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

?

What is your takeaway?

Some goalies perform better and some worse in the playoffs, that play over 60 games. It is close to a coin toss.

Similar numbers for goalies that play less. No significant difference.

So my takeaway is that there is no strong correlation between playoff performance and regular season games played

Interestingly, save percentages are marginally worse in the playoffs across the board. (You could argue that they are playing against all playoff teams, not getting the boost to their stats from non playoff opponents)

Teams win the cup. The goalie (whether he plays 40, 55 or 70) is only one piece of the puzzle so it doesn’t make sense to isolate cup winning as the metric. There are not enough data points for that to be meaningful

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

That article is almost six years old, and it factors in conditions that are clearly different from how the game has changed. I don’t find datasets featuring Antij Niemi particularly relevant nor convincing. Moreover, a simple comparison between regular season and post season save percentages is missing the point since the vast majority of all goalies perform better in the playoffs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Didn’t read the article, did you?

Save percentages are lower in the playoffs.

And guess what? To get statistically significant data, you have to use multiple seasons which means data from the past. In this decade is recent and reasonable

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by Robbob

Did you make 18 games the cutoff just so he could be last?

No I did not. It came up automatically when I picked SV%, even if you put in 26 games he is last

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Didn’t read the article, did you?

Save percentages are lower in the playoffs.

And guess what? To get statistically significant data, you have to use multiple seasons which means data from the past. In this decade is recent and reasonable

It’s not from this decade, though. Most of the data in that article is gleaned from more than ten years ago. My point stands. Current trends show that goalies going deep in the playoffs are those that play in fewer than 65 regular season games.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Shazam]

Rittich playing 65 games has nothing to do with Mike Smith. The remainder of the games could be played by any goalie. Perhaps a goalie that's not one of the worst in the NHL.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Rittich playing 65 games has nothing to do with Mike Smith. The remainder of the games could be played by any goalie. Perhaps a goalie that's not one of the worst in the NHL.

Who is that, what does Calgary pay to get him, and why does another team trade him?

note: I've asked this a bunch of times and no one can answer it.

[Split98]

Originally Posted by crapshoot

I have the same views on Mike Smith as general consensus here on the boards, but I'm just gonna say one thing that crossed my mind. If David Rittich were to go down with an injury just before or during the playoffs I would actually be more comfortable in rolling the dice with Mike Smith in net rather than any random backup goalie that would be available for a reasonable price.


Smith has been crap this season, but he has also had a bunch of really good games. The ability to play well is not the main issue, but consistency is, and he's a battler who plays with tons of emotion and has a tendency to rise with the challenge througout his career. He has also put his team on his back during the playoffs before. In a desperate situation I'd rather sink or swim with a guy like that than a Curtis McElhinney or whoever might be available, no matter what the regular season stats might say.

Obviously spending major assets on your backup is silly, but I'd imagine a goalie like Talbot or McE can be had for very little.

McE showed at points this season that he can win you games, and we've see what Talbot can do in front of a tire-fire. IMO, for a 4th (5th even?) the gamble that Talbot is suffering from a case of the 'get me out of here's, seems very worth it if this can be had.

Playing games with Detroit over-valuing Howard, giving up assets for the dice-roll in Bob or anything else that would re-estabilish a 1A-1B is a problem for next year. While this debate has raged on, Rittich has solidified himself as a #1 more and more.

The lost cost to upgrade goaltending for 8-10 games needs to be low. But, if it's one of those type of guys, there's a chance one of them can run with it infront of this team. Smith has played better, but the offence still gets a gift every game.

Smith just physically can't do it anymore.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by crapshoot

I have the same views on Mike Smith as general consensus here on the boards, but I'm just gonna say one thing that crossed my mind. If David Rittich were to go down with an injury just before or during the playoffs I would actually be more comfortable in rolling the dice with Mike Smith in net rather than any random backup goalie that would be available for a reasonable price.


Smith has been crap this season, but he has also had a bunch of really good games. The ability to play well is not the main issue, but consistency is, and he's a battler who plays with tons of emotion and has a tendency to rise with the challenge througout his career. He has also put his team on his back during the playoffs before. In a desperate situation I'd rather sink or swim with a guy like that than a Curtis McElhinney or whoever might be available, no matter what the regular season stats might say.

See, I feel the complete opposite. With Smith, we already know what we're going to get. He's going to let the team down with weak goals, and his typical "throw up my arms" demeanor afterwards that we have seen from Smith all season. If that's what I'm getting, I'd much rather roll the dice on a random backup. Backup could be crap, or he could be decent. That's still better than definite crap. I have no confidence whatsoever that Smith will be anything but bad.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Who is that, what does Calgary pay to get him, and why does another team trade him?

note: I've asked this a bunch of times and no one can answer it.

Just because you or I don't have an answer doesn't mean there isn't one out there.

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

But I hear he's been visually better lately.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Just because you or I don't have an answer doesn't mean there isn't one out there.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Split98

McE showed at points this season that he can win you games, and we've see what Talbot can do in front of a tire-fire. IMO, for a 4th (5th even?) the gamble that Talbot is suffering from a case of the 'get me out of here's, seems very worth it if this can be had.

Why is Carolina trading McE? They are 3 points out. And Mrazek ain't so special.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

What's the thing to focus on?

Right now I'm thinking the bottom pairing ... I think it's more likely a defenseman gets hurt than a goalie, and they're already leaning too much on the top two pairs.

He doesn't trust Kylington, and Valimaki hasn't played in months.