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

[GioforPM]

Walmsley was 17-11-4 behind the best team in the league. For reference Vernon was 37-6-5.

I'm not sure Walmsley is the standard for backups we need.

[EldrickOnIce]

A .600 winning % gets you in the playoffs.
Mike Smith is at .575
It's not great. It's not a disaster.

[David Struch]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Walmsley was 17-11-4 behind the best team in the league.

And the following two seasons Wamsley went a respectable...

1989-90 18-8-6

1990-91 14-7-5

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by David Struch

And the following two seasons Walmsley went a respectable...

1989-90 18-8-6

1990-91 14-7-5

Yes. But I thought we were talking about getting the cup, so I talked about the cup year. But all in all, I don't think any backup was going to do poorly. Jeff Reese went 14-4-1 in 92-93. Kidd went 13-7-6 the next year.

In any event, the point is that it's not going to be that easy to get any improvement, and no goalie is going to be guaranteed to move the bar.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by David Struch

This is at least the 4th game now (without a doubt) that Smith has cost the Flames, that is 8 points!

I thought coach was surely gonna pull him after the 3rd goal tonight.

That's a lot of steam taken out of the boys this season already, this needs to end.

The Flames got 1 goal. It’s impossible to say he cost us 2 points.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

The Flames got 1 goal. It’s impossible to say he cost us 2 points.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Depends how you look at it. First and third goals are on him.

Second goal, some goalies try to stay somewhat upright and move laterally. He couldn’t stop it the way he played it.

If you believe the second goal has a chance of being stopped, it’s not impossible to say he cost the Flames 2. He did cost at least 1.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

The Flames got 1 goal. It’s impossible to say he cost us 2 points.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

One thing people ignore is how much easier it tends to be to score a goal in a tie game instead of trailing. The blues were allowed to tighten up because they led all game.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

One thing people ignore is how much easier it tends to be to score a goal in a tie game instead of trailing. The blues were allowed to tighten up because they led all game.

Really? I've never seen a stat like that. I thought teams with a bigger lead than a goal get scored on more, because they don't play a possession game any more.

[transplant99]

Wamsley

not

Walmsley.

You're welcome and Merry Christmas to all.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by transplant99

There is little question that Smith either needs to be better or get replaced somehow and at some point.

He is now the defacto back-up moving forward so he needs to put up those kind of numbers.

So where are his numbers in those regards?

Using those who have played at least 12 games (roughly a 1/3 of the schedule thus far) and assuming a backup plays 1/3 of a season (26 games)...lets extrapolate.

Smith is 36th in GAA.....so 5th among backups assuming the 31 starters are above him

47th in save %.....16th among backups assuming 31 starters are better.

21st in wins...again assuming other teams starters are better across the board he is way ahead of most. (I realize this is very flawed given his status at seasons start).

So, as a backup, and assuming he plays as he has all season, he is actually pretty good numbers wise even if the optics have been brutal.

Again, Rittich cant start them all and given what we have seen thus far, Smith is not a terrible option to play the backup role.

That should buy BT lots of time to see if he can address the issue this season or if he will have to wait until the draft when lots more options and certainly more value can be found.

Your assumption assumes that there are only 19 teams with backup goalies (as there are only 50 goalies that have at least 12 games). Using 12 games assumes that 12 teams do not have a backup goalie.

If you change it to 9 games played, so that you have 62 goalies in your sample he is tied for 55th in SV%. There are only 6 backup goalies in the league that are worse than him. He is the 25th best backup goalie in hockey by save percentage.

His GAA is better (41st) but that stat is more reflective of how solid the Flames are defensively (Rittich is 5th in GAA and 12th in SV%).

There is a pretty strong argument that Smith is one of the botttom feeders by for backup goalies.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

The skaters play 100% of the games, but the goalie generally plays 100% of each game they play.

A backup goalie who plays 1/3 of the games is on the ice for the same amount of time as a forward or d-man who plays 1/3 of each game.

Your 3rd line centre can't be playing more than 20 minutes (1/3rd of the game) because then he would be the 1st line centre.

I'm not saying the backup is as important as first line players, but 2nd line/2nd pairing is about where I'd put it.

The market strongly suggests otherwise. Backup tenders make a fraction of what a second line or second pairing defensemen

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

What we need is Rittich to continue to channel his inner Kipper and then have Mike Smith channel his inner 04 Turek once Kipper cane along. I don’t want us to need to ride Rittich like we did Kipper, but Turek became the ultimate back up (price tag aside) down the stretch in 04.

Also Merry Christmas all!!!

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

The Flames got 1 goal. It’s impossible to say he cost us 2 points.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Depends how you look at it. My thoughts were, Flames could have tied it in the third had he not let in the third stinker. It deflated any momentum for a comeback after that. So yes, in my mind, Smith cost them that game.

[sekimet]

I was at the game the energy was sucked out of the flames and the building with that 3rd rebound goal. The building didn't have much energy to begin with but it was a afternoon game with a whole lot of families.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

The Flames got 1 goal. It’s impossible to say he cost us 2 points.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This is an incorrect use of the term impossible.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Depends how you look at it. First and third goals are on him.

Second goal, some goalies try to stay somewhat upright and move laterally. He couldn’t stop it the way he played it.

If you believe the second goal has a chance of being stopped, it’s not impossible to say he cost the Flames 2. He did cost at least 1.

The whole game changes after a first goal, had Calgary got the first goal they just may have "blue" out the blues again

[jonkaupp]

I despise Mike Smith as a player for this team but for me the issue isn’t trading or acquiring another goalie. If someone comes available at a reasonable cost then of course they need to make a move, my issue is how many starts he gets in the meantime. The most recent bias shows that he’s likely the true backup now, but he still did start 6 of 11 games in December so far. That number needs to be more like 2-3 going forward.

[dino7c]

Hey there Mr. Mike Smith, Merry ####ing Christmas...

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by jonkaupp

I despise Mike Smith as a player for this team but for me the issue isn’t trading or acquiring another goalie. If someone comes available at a reasonable cost then of course they need to make a move, my issue is how many starts he gets in the meantime. The most recent bias shows that he’s likely the true backup now, but he still did start 6 of 11 games in December so far. That number needs to be more like 2-3 going forward.

That would have Rittich on pace to start 55-60 games. He has never even played 50 at any time in his career. Smith needs a lot more starts than just 2 or 3 of ten, just to keep Rittich’s workload at a manageable number.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DeluxeMoustache]

^ manageable?

Let me tell you a story.

There was a guy who got traded to a team one year, mid season. He had never played more than 22 games in a season. The coach gave him 17 of the next 19, after which he unfortunately sprained an MCL (not a fatigue related injury). When he came back he played 22 of 28. He played very well and the coach, recognizing this, played him in over 80 percent of the games for which he was available.

Then he backstopped his team to the Stanley Cup Finals. Some believe he should have won (it was in).

For the next 7 seasons he played at least 70 games a year. Won a Vezina trophy as well.

There was none of this ‘managing workload’ nonsense. He was the best goalie by far and they played him.

The only thing they didn’t have was an ego of a broken down warrior to massage. And if they did, Darryl would do what he had to do. He was the boss

Rittich has only let in more than 3 goals twice in all of his starts. Once in OT, and once with three goals last touched by his own team. Three of his losses were when his team failed to score.

With the other guy, it’s a coin toss if you do or do not have at least a softie when he starts. The guy is 36, injury prone, and inconsistent. And not only are some goals bad, the timing is worse. At this point, you can only hope (not expect) that he gives you a solid start, and hope is not a strategy.

It is obvious to me and to many that it is time to give Rittich the vast majority of the starts.

No benefit to managing Rittich here, if leadership wants to do what’s best for the team based on available evidence.