"Take that Calgary Puck!" — SN960 and Calgary sports media discussion

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Right. There isn’t a stat that exists that shows his stats haven’t gotten worse because his stats have gotten worse. That’s a fact.

We agree on that. It’s indisputable.

But the how and why is what matters to me

xSV% and GSAA take into account the quality of shot faced in the most objective fashion you're going to find.

So based on that the answer to your question is pretty easy ...

How and why? He's not playing as good as he was.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

What does Peter Maher have anything to do with what I said?

I think his point is that Maher managed to do the same job that Wills has without resorting to the same level of overt homerism. It's a fair comment, and one I also meant to bring up—yes, Wills gets the benefit of doubt for simply doing the job he was hired to do, but I don't think that all of his bias in the goaltender discussion is attributable to that. He goes above and beyond.

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

That is entirely subjective and debatable. But it bears pointing out that the only reason I brought up the Pittsburgh game is because it was ignored in an evaluation by a poster who is notoriously biased in the discussion of the Flames goalies:



On the first part, I agree. Rittich has been the better goalie, and I believe he will be the goalie who the Flames will win with in the playoffs.

But then you attempt to bolster your argument by exaggerating the "quality" argument in favour of Rittich. Rittich allowed a bad goal in the home game v. SJ, and then made another mistake that also resulted in a goal. It was a bad performance. It happens to every goalie, but for some reason a few posters continue to go out of their way to forgive him for them. Why can't we all just acknowledge that Rittich has not played especially well of late? Why can't we all recognize that he needs to be better?


And then you follow that up with this. Not only is Rittich forgiven for "awful efforts by his teammates," Smith is then denigrated for somehow turning in an acceptable performance in spite of himself. This is precisely the bias that I have been attempting to call out in this discussion. It's ridiculous.

On the first critique, here is my thought process on the SJ game. And feel free to disagree. Also - I made it pretty clear at the start of my post that I'm not saying Rittich's play hasn't fallen off, merely that I don't think people are framing things fairly. I lean more towards Pinder's take, less towards Wills, but generally I'm in the middle here and would like to see both guys succeed. What bothers me about the whole thing is that context is being lost. And when you start to talk about statistics, context is critical. Without it, there's no point in even starting the conversation. Anyways. In regards to the SJ game:

- First goal - not great. He needs to save that shot. Interestingly enough, he faced a very similar shot the next game, and kicked it to the corner. So, I don't dismiss that goal, but I don't think he shouldn't be getting roasted for it either. Things happen. Appears he learned from the shot, and made sure to stop that type of shot the next time he saw it.

- Second goal - good idea, bad execution. Context is important here. He reads the play correctly. But that play should never have happened if (I think it was Brodie?) doesn't make a terrible play 200 ft away to send the best defenseman in the league in on an almost breakaway. Burns makes a good play, Rittich should put it up the boards. But the boards are covered off by a Shark, so really, his only option was to go up the middle. Which, as it turns out, wasn't a great option. Bad overall play. If, instead, he lets Burns come in on a breakaway, and Burns scores, the conversation is about the turn over at the blue line. Not about Rittich. Context.

- Bonus coverage - Smith lets in the first shot he faces, because Smith. (Tongue firmly planted in cheek on this one).

Am I biased against Smith, I don't think so, really. I watch a lot of Flames games, and Smith is a goalie I see struggle to make routine saves. He makes it look more difficult than other goalies do. That's not me making pot shots or displaying bias. That's a statement based on my observations of Smith's goaltending.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Who are you talking about? Honestly? I haven't seen anyone suggesting Smith is anything other than maybe an equal choice to a struggling Rittich right now.

Why add hyperbole?

The struggling Rittich narrative is the one I don’t quite buy in to.

Yeah, the goals against SJ sucked, but again don’t reflect normal situations or projected ability to stop normal shots. Like many, I didn’t like the pull.

For Tampa, based on the last half seasons, putting up 5 is something they do more often than not. They killed the Flames, and I didn’t think he had a chance on the goals.

That’s kind of it. It’s really that simple.

Statistically, his last 3 games were bad. No argument.

But is he struggling? Is he a sketchy choice based on what went in?

On the ice, I think he has been a bit unlucky in terms of timing. Just don’t see a guy ‘struggling’ or inordinately fighting the puck. Goaltending fundamentals, positioning, rebound control, etc look fine.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Or you could just eliminate the last 3 games and all of those stats look fine. This entire discussion boils down to were these last three games the start of Rittich falling apart or were they just a fluke.

I could come up with an excuse for two of those games - pulled super early against San Jose may have rattled his confidence and then Tampa has been blasting everyone lately

I think ignoring the three most recent games is a far greater binning crime than splits after October or the Xmas break isn't it?

His period after Xmas and before your three games is still below average starting goaltender by the way.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

The struggling Rittich narrative is the one I don’t quite buy in to.

Yeah, the goals against SJ sucked, but again don’t reflect normal situations or projected ability to stop normal shots. Like many, I didn’t like the pull.

For Tampa, based on the last half seasons, putting up 5 is something they do more often than not. They killed the Flames, and I didn’t think he had a chance on the goals.

That’s kind of it. It’s really that simple.

Statistically, his last 3 games were bad. No argument.

But is he struggling? Is he a sketchy choice based on what went in?

On the ice, I think he has been a bit unlucky in terms of timing. Just don’t see a guy ‘struggling’ or inordinately fighting the puck. Goaltending fundamentals, positioning, rebound control, etc look fine.

I'm just not going to go into excuses for goals you don't like as being his fault. It's a giant waste of time.

He hasn't had starting goaltending numbers since October if you include the last three games. You don't seem to want to either (becoming a theme), so if you ignore the last three games he's a .910 save percentage goalie since Xmas which would put him 18th in the league ... below average starter.

That's not struggling if you think he's a below average starter. You notice you're still defending Rittich without a bias right?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

The struggling Rittich narrative is the one I don’t quite buy in to.

Yeah, the goals against SJ sucked, but again don’t reflect normal situations or projected ability to stop normal shots. Like many, I didn’t like the pull.

For Tampa, based on the last half seasons, putting up 5 is something they do more often than not. They killed the Flames, and I didn’t think he had a chance on the goals.

That’s kind of it. It’s really that simple.

He played a game in Vancouver between the SJ home game and the game in Tampa. Rittich allowed the Canucks first shot on goal, which was a hell of a shot and on a defensive breakdown. That was on the defense. The second Canucks goal was bad: from just inside the blue line and with no screen. It was a bad goal of the type that he did not allow in the first two months of the season.

When you ignore the bad parts of Rittich's game, it goes to the charge that you harbour a bias.

Statistically, his last 3 games were bad. No argument.

But is he struggling? Is he a sketchy choice based on what went in?

These are different questions with different answers. I think it is abundantly clear that Rittich is not playing as well as he was. He is allowing goals—like in the SJ game and in Vancouver that he was consistently stopping before Christmas. Is he a "sketchy choice"? Not really, because these things happen, and because the Flames need to play him.

On the ice, I think he has been a bit unlucky in terms of timing. Just don’t see a guy ‘struggling’ or inordinately fighting the puck. Goaltending fundamentals, positioning, rebound control, etc look fine.

Right. And I think that this opinion is illustrative of your clear bias.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Bingo

xSV% and GSAA take into account the quality of shot faced in the most objective fashion you're going to find.

So based on that the answer to your question is pretty easy ...

How and why? He's not playing as good as he was.

But that explanation is not adequate for me.

XSv% is the one based on danger tiers, right?

There is no stat that can actually measure shot quality. The best available metrics are a high level probability of being a quality shot, based on the situation where it originated. And with nothing whatsoever to do with the shot that actually gets taken.

A Typical Stamkos one timer is I believe medium danger, given where it comes from and what happened prior (correct me if I’m wrong). If he drills it in to the logo, it’s a save. If he puts it top corner, it’s often in.

There is absolutely nothing being measured and used that classifies a shot based on whether the shooter puts it where he wants, or not.

For the stats to work, you need enough data so that this all works out in the wash.

It’s just that any conclusions being drawn from a statistical model needs context

I still look at 6 goals on 600 shots constituting a contribution of .010 on sv%, and wondering what Tampa goals the goalie “should have”.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I think ignoring the three most recent games is a far greater binning crime than splits after October or the Xmas break isn't it?

His period after Xmas and before your three games is still below average starting goaltender by the way.

Again though - you're just stretching out the sample to include the bad game against San Jose on December 31st.

I'm on the train that he's been an average starting goalie - I don't think he's elite but calling him a below average backup is way too strong.

I will say - I have no problem riding Smith right now while he's playing better.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

But that explanation is not adequate for me.

XSv% is the one based on danger tiers, right?

There is no stat that can actually measure shot quality. The best available metrics are a high level probability of being a quality shot, based on the situation where it originated. And with nothing whatsoever to do with the shot that actually gets taken.

A Typical Stamkos one timer is I believe medium danger, given where it comes from and what happened prior (correct me if I’m wrong). If he drills it in to the logo, it’s a save. If he puts it top corner, it’s often in.

There is absolutely nothing being measured and used that classifies a shot based on whether the shooter puts it where he wants, or not.

For the stats to work, you need enough data so that this all works out in the wash.

It’s just that any conclusions being drawn from a statistical model needs context

I still look at 6 goals on 600 shots constituting a contribution of .010 on sv%, and wondering what Tampa goals the goalie “should have”.

I'm certainly looking forward to an improvement of all of these counts into more tiers with more decision trees to separate truly high danger from just sort of high danger.

But until that day ... what we have is a better and fairer stat than just save percentage as a true high danger chance is defined as coming relatively in close and from a pass or tip that enters the range.

So it's something.

And it's clearly better than a Rittich fan sorting through recent goals and finding reasons why they're not his fault.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Again though - you're just stretching out the sample to include the bad game against San Jose on December 31st.

I'm on the train that he's been an average starting goalie - I don't think he's elite but calling him a below average backup is way too strong.

I will say - I have no problem riding Smith right now while he's playing better.

Actually I'm not.

I picked a moment in time in two cases. One was October as you suggested, the other was the break that seems to have a change in how he's playing. Want me to move it two games later and avoid the Sharks game and the excellent Jets game he had after the break?

Or maybe I should just sort all of his starts from bad to good and then ignore the 20 you don't like?

the below backup may be harsh, but the bottom line is a .896 save percentage in his last 14 games puts him in the neighborhood of the league's 47th best goaltender over the course of a season.

With 31 starters and 16 backups ahead of him he's heading into that territory.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by The Boy Wonder

Hyperbole is fun.

But there were people on this here forum in the summer preaching that smith is an elite goalie..

Were there?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Were there?

Hyperbole is fun.

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

What does Peter Maher have anything to do with what I said?

Peter was extremely levelheaded and levied criticism where it was warranted(more or less tried to focus on the bright spots instead of the bad ones if we are being honest) and when he called the games he tried to stay as impartial as he could. He often told the story about how his mentor always said that opponents of the team hes broadcasting might be listening so dont call a completely one sided game out of respect

More or less I take issue with your assertion that being on the radio broadcast automatically means they have to be an absolutely unbearable to listen to homer like wills or they will get fired, as peter maher occupied the same role for the vast majority of the franchises existence and was nowhere near as unlistenable outside of actually calling games as Wills is. Maher actually provided insight and wasn't just running defense for when meanies who use stats and logic to bad mouth poor performers

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by stone hands

...More or less I take issue with your assertion that being on the radio broadcast automatically means they have to be an absolutely unbearable to listen to homer like wills or they will get fired, as peter maher occupied the same role for the vast majority of the franchises existence and was nowhere near as unlistenable outside of actually calling games as Wills is. Maher actually provided insight and wasn't just running defense for when meanies who use stats and logic bad mouth poor performers

It might just be that this is the difference between a hall-of-fame broadcaster and a merely average game-caller.

[MolsonInBothHands]

This thread has made my head hurt.

Rittich's play and demeanor since the all star break has changed. He has made mental mistakes that didn't seem to be there before. He hasn't appeared as confident.

Smith has looked more confident lately, but I don't think he consistently faces the tougher opponents. Pittsburgh being the toughest lately.

We don't have either of them jumping out as the clear number one. It amazes me how twisted up this discussion has become.

By the way, does anybody know what the actual changes 960 is making?

[troutman]

Maher was sometimes guilty of putting lipstick on pigs. If the Flames were way behind in the score or the standings, he would lay out incredibly improbable scenarios on how the Flames could still come back. Still loved him though.

[Erick Estrada]

Peter Maher would seldom say anything negative about the Flames, rarely stated opinions about players or coaches, and wasn't much of an insider. He was great at PBP but outside of some really good stories that's kind of all he offered of substance.

[Jiri Hrdina]

The one concern there may be on Rittich is that teams are building a book on him. Identifying weaknesses and exploiting them.
I don't know if that is true, but sports is all about who can adjust and then who can re-adjust.
Have teams figured him out? If so, can he fill those holes?

[sa226]

I think I caught a bit of the goalie discussion yesterday.

One point that did stand out to me is that in the past calender year, the highest somewhat sustained level of goaltending has come from David Rittich. That can't be discounted.

Yes Smith is the veteran, yes he has playoff experience. But the best goaltending we have seen has been from Rittich. Its great that its starting to look like Smith is turning the corner, because you will need 2 goalies down the stretch and into the playoffs.

I do think that the organization is trying its very best to develop Rittich the right way. Not just throw him to the wolves when he struggles. If Rittich continues to falter and regress down the stretch and Smith continues to give consistent albeit unspectacular performances, I would expect Smith to start game 1.

If Rittich shakes off the slump and regains his form from November, I would expect him to start game 1.

If they both crap the bed, then we're doomed.