[PGT] Flames lose in Colorado 3-0: Just wait until you get to Calgary, losers.

[Enoch Root]

Two games - both on the road - is hardly enough to make an assessment.

The Flames' depth has been good all year - especially with the addition of Tyler Foli

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Goalie should make a save from that far out with no traffic, I bet Vladar thinks he should have had it. Other goal is point blank off of a turnover and he made a bunch of saves that would have been no fault of his if they went in. Overall it was a very good game from Vladar, way better than his last start.

Its not a terrible goal like a shot from center ice or something but its not a good goal, no need to bend over backwards to defend it. Every goalie lets those in or worse. There was nothing magical about the shot though.

I’m going to offer some insight into my view of this which is based on science and math here

29.7 feet from the face off dot to the centre of the net on the goal line
The crease has a 6 foot radius

Say the shot at the point of MacKinnon’s release is 35 feet from the net and Vladar is 6 feet out. So the shot travels about 29 feet

Say the shot is 70 mph. 1 mph is 1.467 feet per second, so that is 102.7 fps. The shot arrives in .28 seconds

Now you know that a goalie at the edge of the crease doesn’t cover 100% of the net.

It has been documented that a typical hand eye lag is about 20 milliseconds, or .2 seconds. So given that, the goalie is constrained by how far they can adjust their position in 8 milliseconds

Long story short, I can not give credence to the feeling based statement ‘goalie should make a save from that far out’

It’s awesome when goalies make saves, but they rely on
- shot origin location and velocity, time the puck takes to get to them
- shot placement

And goalies are constrained by
- their initial position (they can influence this, but physically can’t cover 100% of the net, based on the differences between the shape of the net and the size and shape of the goaltender)
- time available to respond (time the shot takes to get from the stick to them, considering the eye to brain to physical response lag)
- how they then respond

Physics matter. Science matters

Feelings matter, but in a different way. They have nothing to do with whether shots become goals

A lot of whether a shot actually goes in is based on chance. Shot placement is in my view pretty much the most critical variable.

A goalie in decent position covers, I don’t know, say 80 percent of the net?

Save percentages for “low danger” shots aren’t 1.000 for a reason

Long story short, giving top skilled players time and space to assess the goalie position, and aim their shot, is one of the absolute worst things a team can do

And once the shooter hits the dot, a goalie is at their mercy. Goal or not pretty much matters almost exclusively on the shot placement as compared to their initial positioning

That’s why Sutter’s desire for a checking team matters. Aim on pressured shots drops significantly

Sorry, friend. It’s just science, man

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

I’m going to offer some insight into my view of this which is based on science and math here

29.7 feet from the face off dot to the centre of the net on the goal line
The crease has a 6 foot radius

Say the shot at the point of MacKinnon’s release is 35 feet from the net and Vladar is 6 feet out. So the shot travels about 29 feet

Say the shot is 70 mph. 1 mph is 1.467 feet per second, so that is 102.7 fps. The shot arrives in .28 seconds

Now you know that a goalie at the edge of the crease doesn’t cover 100% of the net.

It has been documented that a typical hand eye lag is about 20 milliseconds, or .2 seconds. So given that, the goalie is constrained by how far they can adjust their position in 8 milliseconds

Long story short, I can not give credence to the feeling based statement ‘goalie should make a save from that far out’

It’s awesome when goalies make saves, but they rely on
- shot origin location and velocity, time the puck takes to get to them
- shot placement

And goalies are constrained by
- their initial position (they can influence this, but physically can’t cover 100% of the net, based on the differences between the shape of the net and the size and shape of the goaltender)
- time available to respond (time the shot takes to get from the stick to them, considering the eye to brain to physical response lag)
- how they then respond

Physics matter. Science matters

Feelings matter, but in a different way. They have nothing to do with whether shots become goals

A lot of whether a shot actually goes in is based on chance. Shot placement is in my view pretty much the most critical variable.

A goalie in decent position covers, I don’t know, say 80 percent of the net?

Save percentages for “low danger” shots aren’t 1.000 for a reason

Long story short, giving top skilled players time and space to assess the goalie position, and aim their shot, is one of the absolute worst things a team can do

And once the shooter hits the dot, a goalie is at their mercy. Goal or not pretty much matters almost exclusively on the shot placement as compared to their initial positioning

That’s why Sutter’s desire for a checking team matters

Sorry, friend. It’s just science, man

lol this guy

speaking of Sutter he thinks it's a bad goal...I take his word over yours.
Goalies make that save all the time

You have dedicated your life to defending backup goalies and Sam Bennett...looking at the Markstrom thread though I don't think your goalie takes don't often age well.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Lol

That’s what you’ve got

Yeah. Sorry, it does require ability to comprehend logic to understand.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Lol

That’s what you’ve got

Yeah. Sorry, it does require ability to comprehend logic to understand.

Here comes some more of your condescending BS...that post was just ridiculous, seriously get a life man. The lengths you go to to defend anything even slightly negative about the backup goalie or Sam Bennett is really something else.

Darryl Sutter thinks it was a bad goal, as do I. Seems I am in good company. Are you going to send him a message about logic? If you have to write an essay to defend a goal maybe he could have made a save. Had he stopped that it wouldn't have even made the highlight package. Its not the worst goal of all time or anything but goalies make saves from that location all the time. Pretty sure Vladar himself would say he should have had it.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Sorry. Feelings can’t trump science

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Sorry. Feelings can’t trump science

you making up numbers isn't science, clean shots from that location are saved often

I am going to go with one of the best coaches in hockey history who also had a 40 goal season in the NHL himself over yours

Now make your dumb comment to get the last word in because I am done, send Sutter your spreadsheets and pie graphs and see what he thinks

[DeluxeMoustache]

*sigh*

Reporting data and calculating numbers isn’t “making up numbers”

Yes clean shots are saved often because they hit the goalie. At the very least 80 percent of the time. Because goalies are there and cover most of the net,

I honestly will ask you to try your best to read and think about what I have said.

I personally enjoy reading opinions of people who have put some thought in to everyday things, as it helps me understand why things happen, and I believe approaching things in that way makes me a better person

If you want an old man fight by a flagpole, I’m not your guy, but I think there is one around here for you lol

Best wishes to you

[dino7c]

If I wanted hot goalie takes from you I would jump on over to the Markstrom/Talbot thread...ouch, those aged poorly.

Its hilarious you used the same kinda science and condescending tone there.


Its odd you bend over backwards to defend every little thing with Vladar but with Markstom he isn't very good and if his numbers say otherwise its all Sutter.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by dino7c

If I wanted hot goalie takes from you I would jump on over to the Markstrom/Talbot thread...ouch, those aged poorly.

Its hilarious you used the same kinda science and condescending tone

Jesus. Markstrom had a visually and statistically poor year last year, guy. The team stunk, and he was nothing spectacular.

In your reality did the Flames do well last year?

And surprise, with roster tweaks and a training camp, a full season, Sutter radically overhauls their play and he gets better too. You don’t see a correlation between goalies under Sutter and under other coaches? I’ve posted some observations on that too

I’m not apologizing for observing what happened last year in front of all of our eyes, friend. Your call out is meaningless

Guess what else? Lots of other players underachieved too. The list of improved players this year includes almost every Flame not named Monaghan or Dube.

I’m done. Back to your flagpole brawl buddy with you

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Jesus. Markstrom had a visually and statistically poor year last year, guy. The team stunk, and he was nothing spectacular.

In your reality did the Flames do well last year?

And surprise, with roster tweaks and a training camp, a full season, Sutter radically overhauls their play and he gets better too. You don’t see a correlation between goalies under Sutter and under other coaches? I’ve posted some observations on that too

I’m not apologizing for observing what happened last year in front of all of our eyes, friend. Your call out is meaningless

Guess what else? Lots of other players underachieved too. The list of improved players this year includes almost every Flame not named Monaghan or Dube.

I’m done. Back to your flagpole brawl buddy with you

You were talking about Markstrom's career...we have post history guy

just saying, its odd you are so defensive with Vladar but constantly threw Markstom under the bus even though he played on terrible teams his entire career. People that know hockey knew he was a top goalie...that is why he is paid like one and thank god he chose the Flames and not the Oilers.

I bring up your past terrible takes because you post some ridiculous numbers and then get all condescending and insult peoples intelligence because they don't agree. Just pointing out you have been wrong multiple times. Maybe don't act like a jackass and say people that don't agree "can't comprehend" your amazing point.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Sorry. Feelings can’t trump science

Are you serious with the “science” thing. You just made up a whole bunch of numbers. “It is documented that”….”let’s say that”…..

You can’t just make stuff up and then use that as your evidence that you’re correct. Well I guess you can but it doesn’t really lend credence to your argument.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

["Science: and "Math"!]

Anyone who has "typical hand eye lag" will never be a NHL goalie.


Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by heep223

Are you serious with the “science” thing. You just made up a whole bunch of numbers. “It is documented that”….”let’s say that”…..

You can’t just make stuff up and then use that as your evidence that you’re correct. Well I guess you can but it doesn’t really lend credence to your argument.

About this claim of “making up numbers”. There is a big difference between using information available to you to arrive at reasonable numbers, and simply fabricating unjustifiable numbers

Rink dimensions are well known. Typical shot velocities are known. There are many studies by neuroscientists that analyze the typical reaction time of the brain to visual stimuli.

Those are the pieces of information that you need. Distance, velocity and response time. It is actually quite simple to get decent enough estimates of these

Observing the position of the shooter (above the face off dot - which is 20 feet from the goal line and 22 feet from the middle of the rink, or 29.7 feet from the centre of the net) and goalie (if he is on the edge of the crease, and the edge of the crease has a 6 foot radius, that one is pretty easy) you can get a decent enough estimate of distance. You can also use a reasonable estimate for a shot velocity based on typical values, or record the shot in real time and look at time stamps to see how long it took to get from the stick to the net

But the point isn’t to nitpick the precise accuracy of those values, it is to use known information to generate reasonable and justifiable estimates, and work through the logic

The point is simple.

It takes time for a brain to observe a visual stimulus and respond. While a goalie’s brain is processing the shot being taken, the shot is moving towards the net. By the time he can physically respond, the puck is a lot closer (or even possibly already past him)

I find it interesting and it makes sense

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Anyone who has "typical hand eye lag" will never be a NHL goalie.


Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

Sure. So for a more precise calculation you can use a number at the lower end of the documented range.

[Ryan Coke]

I will add that a goaltenders reaction time includes prior to puck release, assessing angle of stick blade and movement trajectory of the stick, which allows more time to react.

However it doesn’t change the assessment that allowing a top shooter time from the face off dot, with cross crease passing options (preventing the ability to challenge aggressively), is a high percentage scoring opportunity.

We know with the heater that Lindholm has been on, with his shooting ability, that if he has a similar opportunity to what Mackinnon had, he will often score, regardless of goalie.

Top shooter, prime opportunity. Not unsaveable, but not weak either.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Anyone who has "typical hand eye lag" will never be a NHL goalie.


Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

Ken Dryden talks in his book 'The Game' about learning that he actually had pretty average reaction reflexes, and his wife's were better.

Goaltending isn't about having unusual hand-eye reaction time, it's about reading plays, reading the shooter's stick, positioning, rebounding, and - with respect to physicality - being flexible.

[CroFlames]

You give an elite player like MacK that kind of time and space, he'll make a goalie work at the very least.

Vladar should have had it, but guess what, elite players will score from there from time to time against any goalie.

I'm sure opposing fans have rued how many goals Monahan has scored from the slot area thinking their goalie should have had it. But elite players* will find a way given enough opportunities.


*2015-2019 Monahan.

[GioforPM]

I don't think Sutter blames the loss on Vladar. and yes, every goalie will allow a well placed shot from time to time, especially from guys like that. The only thing is that Markstrom was blasted for allowing these kinds of goals every now and then, both in the Markstrom v. Talbot thread and by people who somehow opined that Vladar was better (at the beginning of the year).

[dino7c]

Nobody is saying it's a terrible Dan Cloutier from half goal... simply "he should have had it". Vladar more than made up for it though.

No need to make up an essay of excuses...we can also disagree without getting all condescending. I will go with Sutter on this one, he holds goaltenders to a high standard and I think both our guys hold themselves to the same high standard.