Bad Goaltending vs Bad D

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by troutman

It is far more likely there is something wrong with 18 people, than 1. More variables with the team than the individual.

In general, I would say all goalie stats are 20/80 (the team factor being the most important).

I appreciate your viewpoint, and in general I would say this is accurate, but I really question whether you've been watching the goalies this year or not.

20/80 is being ridiculously generous to the goalies.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by troutman

It is far more likely there is something wrong with 18 people, than 1. More variables with the team than the individual.

In general, I would say all goalie stats are 20/80 (the team factor being the most important).

But something being wrong with one that causes a much bigger impact would explain the huge difference in results highlighted in the original post. Also, it's not uncommon for a guy to play worse one season than he did the year before. It's a simplistic example, but Ryan Getzlaf has 0 goals this year.

Literally every measure is telling us how badly the goalies have performed, including just watching them. Why wouldn't you be inclined to believe all observable evidence?

Adjusted save percentage takes into account defensive performance, at least to some extent, by adjusting for the number of shots in high-danger areas vs lower danger or perimeter shots. There are 37 goalies this year who have played at least 300 minutes (~5 games). Of those,

-Karri Ramo is 35th out of 37 in adjusted save percentage with a .891;
-Jonas Hiller is 37th out of 37 in adjusted save percentage with a .865.

Even if defense is a problem, it's just not possible for even an all-star d corps to dig out of a hole like that.

[PeteMoss]

Defense looks bad because the goalies suck/don't make saves. If these goals didn't go in, no one would say the defense looks bad and the goalies are saving the team.

[Joborule]

If the goalies aren't going to make tough saves, then what are they doing in the NHL, and why are we paying them big bucks for it?

Defense has a small impact on this team goals against woes. When you can expect at least one bad goal against before the game even starts, you got a bad goaltending problem.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

But something being wrong with one that causes a much bigger impact would explain the huge difference in results highlighted in the original post. Also, it's not uncommon for a guy to play worse one season than he did the year before. It's a simplistic example, but Ryan Getzlaf has 0 goals this year.

Literally every measure is telling us how badly the goalies have performed, including just watching them. Why wouldn't you be inclined to believe all observable evidence?

Adjusted save percentage takes into account defensive performance, at least to some extent, by adjusting for the number of shots in high-danger areas vs lower danger or perimeter shots. There are 37 goalies this year who have played at least 300 minutes (~5 games). Of those,

-Karri Ramo is 35th out of 37 in adjusted save percentage with a .891;
-Jonas Hiller is 37th out of 37 in adjusted save percentage with a .865.

Even if defense is a problem, it's just not possible for even an all-star d corps to dig out of a hole like that.

Fine. Explain why these same goalies were ok last year.

We've seen plenty of goalies put up bad numbers in Edmonton, and perform much better on other teams.

I do think there is blame to go on the goalies. 20/80. For one person to be responsible for 20% of that equation is significant.

If Price were our goalie, how many more points would we have? A few I think, but we would still be struggling.

[Gaskal]

That first goal last game vs the Panthers makes me sick. Less than a foot wide of net to shoot at from that angle, and he still loses the puck after the initial save which trickles towards the net. Gio tries to bail him out, shovelling the puck into Ramo hoping for a freeze.

It made our PK'ers all look stupid because everyone's expecting, "Oh, Gio's got it. We're good." Instead, Ramo's flopping like a fish and the puck actually slides under him right onto Trocheck's tape while no one has time to react.

Can you imagine the reaction if the initial shot trickled in? Jesus.

[rehsifylf]

Wait. Goalie issue is resolved. Looks like Management agrees. Poulin has an. 899 career save %. Almost a full one percent better than Ramo. Nevermind that he is 3rd string for that AHL team.

In all seriousness. . Does that suggest that Ortio is coming up and Ramo is heading out?

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

[adc]

Originally Posted by troutman

Fine. Explain why these same goalies were ok last year.

We've seen plenty of goalies put up bad numbers in Edmonton, and perform much better on other teams.

I do think there is blame to go on the goalies. 20/80. For one person to be responsible for 20% of that equation is significant.

Hiller was the only goalie that was ok. I think the overall goaltending from last year is getting a little overblown.

Ramo is a below average goalie so him having s bad year isn't all that surprising.

Much of the love from Ortio comes from him being young (and Finnish) but at the NHL numbers aren't overly impressive so not surprising a young goalie struggles.

So the outlier is Hiller who is having by far his worst year but it is a small sample size and he is aging so some regression could be expected just not to this level.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by troutman

Fine. Explain why these same goalies were ok last year.

We've seen plenty of goalies put up bad numbers in Edmonton, and perform much better on other teams.

I do think there is blame to go on the goalies. 20/80. For one person to be responsible for 20% of that equation is significant.

If Price were our goalie, how many more points would we have? A few I think, but we would still be struggling.

The D are allowing meaningfully less high quality scoring chances against (compared to last year), but the puck is in the back of the net twice as much. How do you explain this?

If Price was our goalie we'd be in a playoff spot, no question at all in my mind. Possibly leading the division.

[Erick Estrada]

The Flames dominated the Habs in their own end at times when they played earlier in the season and the difference was that Condom (.938) made the timely saves while Ortio (.806) made few big saves and let in a few softies in a 6-2 loss in a pretty evenly played game that you could argue the Flames actually were the better team. You can't say it's defense when other teams have the same breakdowns as it's pretty evident that most NHL goaltenders make big saves and tough saves on a routine basis hence all the goaltenders near or above .920 SV%. This is in a nutshell why the Flames are as bad as they are. It doesn't matter if they are playing better than last year according to Corsi because their goaltenders have been so horrendous that there is no foundation for success.

[drewtastic]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

I think it's even worse than your data shows. I assume that any goal that goes in counts as a 'High Danger Scoring Chance'. I'd say at least 15 goals against this year wouldn't even count as 'High Danger Scoring Chances' if they were saved. Because they should have been routine saves, but Hiller/Ramo/Ortio turned them into goals against by not making the save.

I completely agree with your assessment on this front, Mike, despite the fact that I think the problem is a combination of mediocre goaltending and a terrible lack of awareness in the defensive zone. That is--I probably put a little more emphasis on the "team-defence" problem than you do.

Nevertheless, what I extrapolate most from your post(s) in this thread is the fact that these "15 goals" make the overall perspective on the goaltending worse, no matter what the team's problems are defensively. Said differently: the team's defensive struggles are exacerbated by shoddy goaltending.

You need to be able to forgive your goalies for goals that are the direct result of poor defensive play. With the softies our goalies have been allowing, it's harder to give them this leeway, because the "weak" goals have often put the team in "chase" situation. When your team is already struggling, you simply cannot let in terrible goals. And, you don't get the leeway you normally would because you've already contributed to putting the team at a disadvantage.

In the Florida game, I thought the first and last goals were weak goals against. The Ekblad goal reflected the Oiler-esque lack of defensive-zone awareness that has somehow infiltrated the team this season. Combined, these two elements are making for a very frustrating season so far.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by troutman

It is far more likely there is something wrong with 18 people, than 1. More variables with the team than the individual.

I'm not sure that this logic is correct. Wouldn't it be less likely that 18 guys are collectively having a defensive problem than 1 (or more accurately 3, since all 3 goalies have been equally as bad)?

More variables should mean that the problem isn't as persistent.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by troutman

Fine. Explain why these same goalies were ok last year.

Sure... they're playing worse than they did last year. Pucks are getting through them that last year would have been stopped. Are you asking me to go into mechanics and playing style? Eg, whether they should be playing deeper in the net or are holding the blocker too high? If so, I'm not qualified to assess goalie performance in that way, so I can't help.

We've seen plenty of goalies put up bad numbers in Edmonton, an
If Price were our goalie, how many more points would we have? A few I think, but we would still be struggling.

Doing some really basic math, Price's all situations save percentage is .936 (Calgary's as a team is .871). If you take .936 and multiply by the 481 shots the Flames have faced, that's 30.7 goals against; call it 31 (the Habs have in fact allowed 32 goals). Instead, the Flames have let in 62 goals.

Would the Flames be in better shape letting in 50% as many goals? Er, yes. Yes they would. Shorthand from previous large-sample analysis suggests that 3 goals is worth a standings point. So, we're talking about 10 points in the standings in terms of the difference between Price's save percentage and Calgary's team save percentage, just this season so far.

Obviously there are other factors that account for this. But that gap is just so huge that it's hard for me to say that, e.g., Dougie Hamilton turnovers are worth a 100% increase in goals against.

[troutman]

Your math assumes Price faces the same quality of shots that Flames goalies are. I don't know if that is true. I suspect not.

My eyeballs tell me opponents are having a free ride in our slot.

Imagine Ramo gets traded to another team, and his stats suddenly improve. Is he just playing better?

[northcrunk]

It sucks the life out of a team fast when you battle back to tie the game up and your goalie lets in a softy. Also speaks of trust. If you don't trust your goaltender to make the east saves you start trying to do more to stop the puck from the net and leave coverage open. To me this starts with Ramo and effects the rest of the team from him. Ramo is NOT an NHL quality goaltender anymore.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I'm not sure that this logic is correct. Wouldn't it be less likely that 18 guys are collectively having a defensive problem than 1 (or more accurately 3, since all 3 goalies have been equally as bad)?

More variables should mean that the problem isn't as persistent.

I take your point - I thought about how to word that too.

There are more moving parts in team defence. A goalie's mechanics and skills should not change drastically from year to year.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by troutman

Your math assumes Price faces the same quality of shots that Flames goalies are. I don't know if that is true.

My eyeballs tell me opponents are having a free ride in our slot.

Well, let's look at that. Of 37 goalies who have played more than 300 minutes this year:

1. Ramo and Hiller are 35th and 36th respectively in high-danger save percentage (e.g., chances in the low slot);
2. Ramo is 32nd and Hiller is 36th in medium-danger save percentage (which would include the high slot); and
3. Hiller is 14th and Ramo is 16th in low-danger save percentage.

So, if all the shots were coming from the perimeter, the Flames' goaltending would be average. The problem, as your eye test may have revealed to you, is in fact goals from higher-danger areas rather than stinkers. Unfortunately, the Flames' goalies are abysmal at stopping quality scoring chances and really bad at stopping even just decent scoring chances, compared to other goalies in the league. So it appears to be a matter of never getting the "good" or "great" save, based on the data I'm looking at here.

Do they face significantly more of those high-danger shots compared to other teams? Apparently not: Hiller has faced 42 such shots and Ramo 49. Compare that to Roberto Luongo, who's faced 91 in 11 games (Ramo and Hiller have played 7 each). Since we're talking about comparing to the Habs' goalies, Price in 9 games faced 49 high-danger shots, and Condon has faced 49 in 8 games. Pretty much the same as the Flames' tendys - they've just saved far, far more of those shots, compared with Hiller and Ramo.

[GranteedEV]

Flames Goaltender Saves
Low Danger (Perimeter) 200/209
Medium Danger (Slot) 122/140
High-Danger (Crease) 98/131

= 60 goals against (16GP)

Carey Price's saves with Montreal
121/124
83/89
61/70

= 18 goals against (9GP) or a pace for 32 goals against over 16 games

Carey Price's projected saves if he were a Flame
Low Danger (Perimeter) 204/209
Medium Danger (Slot) 131/140
High-Danger (Crease) 114/131

= 31 goals against

[troutman]

That is interesting - does "high danger" distinguish between different kinds of shots? - ex. rebounds, odd man rushes, rushed or unopposed. If it only talks about where shots are taken, it may not be as useful as we need.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by troutman

That is interesting - does "high danger" distinguish between different kinds of shots? - ex. rebounds, odd man rushes. If it only talks about where shots are taken, it may not be as useful as we need.

Shots don't, but "high-danger scoring chances" statistics do include shots taken very soon after a zone entry or shots after a rebound or a blocked shot. The Flames' scoring chance statistics are not especially bad either. The one thing that isn't taken account by data is backdoor plays, but from the eye test the Flames haven't been burned back door much more than most teams. Some frustrating breakdowns, but every team has those.

Scoring Chances Against / 60 minutes:
Philly - 31.2
Montreal - 28.0
NY Rangers - 26.8
Flames - 26.5
Flames since Detroit - 25.3
LA - 24.6
St. Louis - 25.6
Nashville - 22.1

High-Danger Scoring Chances Against / 60 minutes
Philly - 15
Montreal - 10.5
NY Rangers - 10.6
Flames - 11.0
Flames since Detroit - 8.7
LA - 10.1
St. Louis - 9.7
Nashville - 7.4

Basically we've been playing contender defensive hockey minus goaltending since the Detroit game.