Enough is enough - Bring up Wolf.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Minnesota loses the tiebreaker to the Flames.

Are you sure?
Isn't regulation wins the 1st tie breaker?

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Are you sure?
Isn't regulation wins the 1st tie breaker?

Yes but presumably if the flames make up a 4 point deficit they will have to do it by winning at least two more games than the Wild. I suppose it is possible that the 4 extra points they need to makeup all come from Overtime games but that seems unlikely. As long as the Flames win one more regulation game than the Wild down the stretch and they actually get enough points to tie them, they would likely win the 2nd tiebreaker.

[Caged Great]

It was great that the Flames were able to get the win.

3 goals on 9 shots when you have over 30 is beyond inadequate.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Wolf gave up 5 in tonight's loss to Henderson.

[Burning Beard]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Wolf gave up 5 in tonight's loss to Henderson.

Perfect time to call him up...

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Wolf gave up 5 in tonight's loss to Henderson.

Was his save percentage better than .786?

[Mr.Coffee]

It’s a no brainer in my mind, so the Flames won’t do it. If Markstrom gets claimed on the way down it’s a gigantic win. Time to pull the trigger.

[Draug]

^^^No movement clause. Markstrom cannot be sent down or traded in any way unless he agrees

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

It was great that the Flames were able to get the win.

3 goals on 9 shots when you have over 30 is beyond inadequate.

Lol. Vladar maybe had a chance on the two on one.

One goal was knocked into the net by his defenceman. Another was a cross crease wide open pass on the PP combined with an excellent shot.

The low save percentage was 100% the product of the Flames style of play. They are totally stiffling the other team for most of the game but then giving up ridiculously good chances every once in a while.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by blankall

Lol. Vladar maybe had a chance on the two on one.

One goal was knocked into the net by his defenceman. Another was a cross crease wide open pass on the PP combined with an excellent shot.

The low save percentage was 100% the product of the Flames style of play. They are totally stiffling the other team for most of the game but then giving up ridiculously good chances every once in a while.

100%

Even the 2 on 1 is a shot where Toffoli is looking skywards, a D falls down, and it’s end to end. Shooter has all the time and literally no pressure, and the shot is placed perfectly

This is not an average shot. Time and space, and well placed. And so close, it’s physically impossible for the goalie to materially adjust his position after the shot is taken

I seriously can’t help the people that don’t get it

[Flames1217]

Agree with you both above.

Vladar made the easy saves yesterday, something that Markstrom has struggled with.

His save percentage was crap last night but honestly couldn't expect too much more.

[Enoch Root]

Yes, on the 2 on 1, the shooter had lots of time and was in relatively close. However, the pass was eliminated. I thought Vladar was very deep in his net, and lost his angle. The short side was WIDE open and was an easy target.

Against NHL goaltenders, shooters who come in all alone (breakaways) only score something like 25-30% of the time. It shouldn't be as easy as that was.

[sketchyt]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Yes, on the 2 on 1, the shooter had lots of time and was in relatively close. However, the pass was eliminated. I thought Vladar was very deep in his net, and lost his angle. The short side was WIDE open and was an easy target.

Against NHL goaltenders, shooters who come in all alone (breakaways) only score something like 25-30% of the time. It shouldn't be as easy as that was.

He wasn’t deep in his net.

Modern NHL goaltending coaching now says you want to be in/around top of crease. In fact, he was at a near perfect depth… especially with the high danger play with low potential potential pass.

Where the mistake was he hedges his bet late in the play and doesn’t close off short side as the shooter gets closer. He’s either not confident in his dman’s ability to stop that pass (kind of fair with how the team is playing), over confident to stop the short side shot (which was perfect), or was reading glove side (which would be a bad read).

I kind of think it was all three. Dustin Wolf gets beat that side at the AHL level.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Yes, on the 2 on 1, the shooter had lots of time and was in relatively close. However, the pass was eliminated. I thought Vladar was very deep in his net, and lost his angle. The short side was WIDE open and was an easy target.

Against NHL goaltenders, shooters who come in all alone (breakaways) only score something like 25-30% of the time. It shouldn't be as easy as that was.

Using the 25-30% rule after the fact is pretty meaningless. What percentage of breakaways result in no shot or a missed shot? If you're going to use some kind of hindsight statistic, then you should at least qualify it with breakaways where the shooter gets a high end shot off and has lots of time to place their shot.

As I stated above, Vladar did have a chance to stop that 2 on 1, but it would have required a massive save where he would have had to guess perfectly what the opponents intentions were and when they were going to shoot. Definitely not an easy save, and that's the only one of the 3 where you can remotely fault him on. It was a near perfect game.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by sketchyt

He wasn’t deep in his net.

Modern NHL goaltending coaching now says you want to be in/around top of crease. In fact, he was at a near perfect depth… especially with the high danger play with low potential potential pass.

Where the mistake was he hedges his bet late in the play and doesn’t close off short side as the shooter gets closer. He’s either not confident in his dman’s ability to stop that pass (kind of fair with how the team is playing), over confident to stop the short side shot (which was perfect), or was reading glove side (which would be a bad read).

I kind of think it was all three. Dustin Wolf gets beat that side at the AHL level.

Yes, he was deep in the net. He also lost his angle, exposing the short side.

I don't know how to post a pic of his positioning as the puck went in, but I am sure someone can.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Yes, he was deep in the net. He also lost his angle, exposing the short side.

I don't know how to post a pic of his positioning as the puck went in, but I am sure someone can.

It was a well placed shot in the best spot to score. He’s in white paint, and clearly realizes that the pass is taken away as he is fully challenging the shooter. He got beat. From the other lens, you expect your forwards to score there. That’s what they’re supposed to do. Somebody has to win, it’s not always multiple mistakes.

[Enoch Root]

thanks, Scroopy

Not very far out for a guy who has to shoot. But it was primarily that he lost the angle.

[Enoch Root]

Look how small he makes himself - this is the same thing I have been saying about Markstrom all year. In that situation, with a guy his size especially, the shooter should not be able to see net

[Enoch Root]

My theory is that the coaches are telling them to collapse into themselves in order to trap the puck in their body, so there is no rebound. The problem is that they are making themselves smaller, thus making the net bigger.

Also, look where his butt is in the first picture - basically on the crease line. But in the second pic, he has collapsed backwards, with his pads on the crease line and his butt a foot or more in from the crease line.

[Scroopy Noopers]

The camera angle is also significantly to the left of the shot angle. It’s closer than it looks.