[News] Practice notes [post # 5]—Rittich and Smith to split starting duties on the weekend

[Strange Brew]

Still no Stone. You have to work him in at some point, just to keep him halfway sharp don’t you?

Maybe this weekend.

[Gaskal]

I think the mandate is to leave the rookies in as long as they're playing well. And it has been well earned.

There is always that possibility that either Rasmus or Juuso will falter and have a craptastic game, at which point Stone should be good to sub in for a game or two. But we, along with the rest of Flames staff, are still going "Well, surely one of them by now... no? Okay."

[MisterJoji]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I would be perfectly fine if Smith were to bounce back to a semblance of how he played before injuring himself last Spring.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hell, I’d be ecstatic if he could just give the team stats around 2.75 GAA and .900 Sv%. He doesn’t need to be lights out, just be remarkably average.

[codynw]

A .900 is quite a bit below average. Around a .916 is more like an average goalie.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I would be perfectly fine if Smith were to bounce back to a semblance of how he played before injuring himself last Spring.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don’t disagree. But Id still want to test Rittich. Even better if both guys were doing well. Everyone keeps talking about bringing in goalies. It’s been what we’ve been doing forever. We need one to grow from within. When was the last time we got a really good long look at a goalie the Flames developed? Even when McBackup was here he never played enough to know if he was good or bad. Irving, Ortio I can still confidently say I never saw enough of to determine make a concrete decision on them. They all had some good some bad.

I want to know if Rittich or Gillies or Parsons is good or bad before spending more assets on goaltenders.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by MisterJoji

Hell, I’d be ecstatic if he could just give the team stats around 2.75 GAA and .900 Sv%. He doesn’t need to be lights out, just be remarkably average.

That would not be average though. Over the past 2 seasons 61 goalies have played in at least 41 games in a single season (basically half the games). Only 2 have had a worse save percentage than .900 (both last year, Anderson at. 898 and Darling at .888). So a .900 SV percentage would be closer to worst in the league type performance.

Remarkably average in the NHL is closer to a .915 SV percentage. Sadly Smith is so bad that I would agree most fans would be estactic if he was just worst or second worst in the league but close to 3rd worst. Right now he is really running away with that title amongst starters on the SV percentage side, next closest competitor is Jake Allen who is .007 ahead of him.

The gap between the best save percentage and the worst save percentage amongst starters this year (.068) is really historic though. The last time there was a gap that was even close (and this gap was bigger) was in 1993-1994 when Hasek had a .930 SV percentage and Craig Billington had a .859 SV percentage playing on the second year Ottawa Senators who finished 47 games below .500 that year. That difference was .071. So as Flames fans we may be watching something historic with Smith, the gap between best and worst starting goalie. Hard to believe he can compete with Billington's mark over a whole season, either because Smith becomes marginally better or Peters stops using him as the starting goalie, but it is possible at this early point in the season for that mark to be within reach.

[Samonadreau]

Originally Posted by codynw

A .900 is quite a bit below average. Around a .916 is more like an average goalie.

Splitting hairs here but .916 is probably above average in todays NHL, 3 or 4 years ago it was probably average. I think we are going to find a .912 is going to be about middle of the road moving forward.

That being said .912 Goaltending would get the Flames a top 3 spot in the Pacific this season.

[David Struch]

Originally Posted by Coach

Even when McBackup was here he never played enough to know if he was good or bad. Irving, Ortio I can still confidently say I never saw enough of to determine make a concrete decision on them.

I want to know if Rittich or Gillies or Parsons is good or bad before spending more assets on goaltenders.

Man, Brent Krahn had to be one of the most frustrating draft picks for me. There was so much potential, drafted 9th overall in the 2000 Entry Draft.

Then after all those years playing for the Lowell Lock Monsters, Omaha Ak-Sar-Ben Knights, Las Vegas Wranglers and Quad City Flames, he finally leaves in 2008, never playing a singe game for the Calgary Flames.

[bubbsy]

The goalie situation should just be win and you're in until a starter is established.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

That would not be average though. Over the past 2 seasons 61 goalies have played in at least 41 games in a single season (basically half the games). Only 2 have had a worse save percentage than .900 (both last year, Anderson at. 898 and Darling at .888). So a .900 SV percentage would be closer to worst in the league type performance.

Given the defensive gong show that was playing in front of Smith for most of October, a .900 save percentage would have been miraculous. It was almost like the puck had a cloaking device which made it invisible to the Flames' skaters when an opposing player had possession. No goalie looks good in those circumstances.

I seem to remember one of the coaching staff saying that there was no point even trying to evaluate the goaltenders until the team got their defensive play together. I think that's reasonable. On that basis, I'm prepared to throw out everything up to and including the Pittsburgh game. That leaves a six-game body of work, with Smith getting four of those starts and Rittich two.

For me personally, Smith's poor performance in the last two weeks is the main cause for worry. I agree that he's earned a demotion to backup; I'm just not sure yet if Rittich has earned a promotion. We'll have to see if Rittich can handle the heavier workload this time around.

[DeluxeMoustache]

^ when Hartley had Brodie hurt, Gio returning from a major injury and new Hamilton, that was accurate. Add in 3 goalies. Ramo and Hiller both were in the .800s

Interestingly, Hiller never recovered, and with Ramo, before he got his knee blown out, he had worked his way up to respectable stats including that horrid start. Which meant that body of work once the team settled was actually very good.

In this case, with multiple games from 2 guys, this approach requires that you simply decide as well to ignore .925 vs .875. Did the D just fluke their way to helping only one goalie?

I mentioned, for Smith to get to respectable numbers, he would need 5 shutouts with an average of 27 saves. That is a big hole.

Right now hope is unfortunately part of the strategy with Smith. If he were to have another game or two where he let in goals like last game, he should be assigned to the A for a conditioning stint, and figure it out there, where it doesn’t hurt the team you are paying 70 million dollars.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

The gap between the best save percentage and the worst save percentage amongst starters this year (.068) is really historic though. The last time there was a gap that was even close (and this gap was bigger) was in 1993-1994 when Hasek had a .930 SV percentage and Craig Billington had a .859 SV percentage playing on the second year Ottawa Senators who finished 47 games below .500 that year. That difference was .071. So as Flames fans we may be watching something historic with Smith, the gap between best and worst starting goalie...

It’s the second week of November. I would be shocked if the current disparity between top and bottom of goaltenders remains this sharp. These numbers will all normalize over the next few months.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

In this case, with multiple games from 2 guys, this approach requires that you simply decide as well to ignore .925 vs .875. Did the D just fluke their way to helping only one goalie?

That's not the question. The question is whether Rittich can continue that quality of play if you give him the starter's job. Last year he couldn't.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

That's not the question. The question is whether Rittich can continue that quality of play if you give him the starter's job. Last year he couldn't.

Well Smith can't, so that question is moot. Smith hasn't been that good goalie in his career (5 out of 14 seasons above league average save %). He's been awful for 40 plus games now. Rittich can't be worse, so let him play

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Well Smith can't, so that question is moot. Smith hasn't been that good goalie in his career (5 out of 14 seasons above league average save %). He's been awful for 40 plus games now. Rittich can't be worse, so let him play

Mike Smith’s last 40-games takes us all the way back to 11 Dec. Mike Smith played a bunch of quality games in December, January, and February las season.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Karl]

Smith is not the goalie that he used to be. I can't see him getting much better than he is now, nevermind getting back to the level he used to be able to play at.

Smith seems to be going the way of Hiller.

Unless the Flames can somehow find a goalie upgrade which will be unlikely, it's Rittich or bust.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

That's not the question. The question is whether Rittich can continue that quality of play if you give him the starter's job. Last year he couldn't.

You mean when they shut guys down, Gully was dead man walking, and the team quit? That wasn’t a goalie situation. That was the end of a crap year equivalent of the first 20 you say can’t be used to evaluate a goalie.

[Macindoc]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

You mean when they shut guys down, Gully was dead man walking, and the team quit? That wasn’t a goalie situation. That was the end of a crap year equivalent of the first 20 you say can’t be used to evaluate a goalie.

I think the reference was to when Smith was injured and the Flames were still in the hunt.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

I'd start Rittich in LA. If he shows he's better than Smith (hard not to do at this point TBH), then I'd start him against the Sharks too. If he gets smoked in LA, then Flames have a real goaltending problem on their hands.

One bad game does not erase the fact that Rittich has had a really good season so far.

Nor would one good game erase Smith being on average terrible for a long time now.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I am leery about this because the Flames have tried it twice already this season, and lost both games. One was because of a bad performance by the goalie (v. StL), and the other was because of a bad performance by the team (v. Mtl).

Did you miss the part where Lil Pedro said "if Rittich plays well in LA on Saturday and gets the win"?

You can't lose both games after winning? No?