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

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Guess what else? Lots of other players underachieved too.

You know who underachieved the most last year? and for his entire career as a flame?

I'll let you fill it out here.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by 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.

See, the whole point of the analysis is breaking down
People say a goalie “should have had it”.

I question if that is actually realistic. There is a limit to human capability.

Whether a goalie saves a shot is based on
1) shot placement - where the puck is going
2) what part of the net the goalie is blocking (ie. is part of him in front of the puck?)
3) if he isn’t in the path of the puck, does the goalie have time to get in its path?

Again, you seem to very stubbornly refuse to even try understanding the case being made.

It is a fact that goalies can’t cover 100 percent of the net. Humans are not rectangular in shape
It is a fact that a puck shot by a NHLer moves very quickly
It is a fact that there is a lag between when an eyeball sees something, the brain processes it, and then sends the instructions to the body


It is pretty simple but you absolutely refuse to accept it.

I have previously looked at the case of an Ovechkin one timer at 100 mph from the dot. It takes less time to get to the net than it takes a human to see something and react to it. Positioning is all a goalie has in that case. If the shot is aimed at him, he saves it. If it is aimed at the part of the net he isn’t covering, it’s in.


So basically it breaks down like this
You say “ he should have had it”
I say “let’s take a closer look”, give you some pieces of data that can help break down what factors in to the goal, what the goalie can control, and challenge that with a pretty thorough analysis
You say “ you write up an essay of excuses, but… he should have had it”

If I come across as condescending, it’s because you prefer to focus on me and anything except for the actual case I am making

It has nothing to do with a specific goalie and everything to do with whether it is actually physically possible to adjust position to a perfectly placed puck


I’m open, seriously. You think I’m wrong? Tell me where I’m wrong

[dino7c]

Dude move on with your life...speaking of stubborn

[GioforPM]

I actually buy the “some open goals are just great shots” argument. Thing is it seems to apply inconsistently. The same people who’d excoriate Markstrom, or Elliot, or Hiller, don’t apply the same reasoning to Rittich, Talbot or Vladar.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by looooob

I didn't watch yesterday's game so I'm not in a position to challenge your observation


however if I look at it- through the 2 games (both played in Colorado, the 2nd where the Flames were in a real tough spot) even Colorado's goals have been mostly from their 'top line' with one from Burakovsky on the PP


in terms of forwards scoring but have their top line +1 (Kadri/mangiapane) in the 20 goal club, the another knocking on the door (Burakovsky/Toffoli) then one in the mid teens (Nikuschkin/Coleman)...then they have a few 11s we have a few 9s etc


forward depth seems not so far off offensively (ok sure this could change if Giroux etc are added)


now of course an issue is that Makar/Toews that is 30 goals from the back end right there- our D is contributing offensively but not like THAT

My point really was more of an observation than anything based more on a shift by shift basis. Perhaps 2 games isn’t enough to come out with any definitives, but it was the prevailing thought that I came away with after 2 games.

The Avs top line was definitely the more dangerous line without a doubt. But 10 Avalanche forwards did register a point in the 2 games whereas the Flames had 3 (top line). Even in the second game, Gaudreau and Lindholm probably had the most dangerous chances.

I’ll wait for the final game at home before I make any declarations, but it’s definitely something I’m going to keep my eye on.

[Stampede2TheCup]

Originally Posted by 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.

I completely agree. I think this was an elite play by MacKinnon, a tough spot for a goalie, but also potentially saveable. As a former goalie with tens of thousands of goals against experience, I feel there is room for a little more nuance and grey area than “should’ve” and “couldn’t’ve” goals. (Double-contraction FTW Textcritic!)

MacKinnon’s body, puck, and stick position all screamed pass. It was just incredible how lightning fast he went from having a fairly straight front leg, the puck away from his body and his stick angle to make a cross ice pass to pulling the puck in towards his body, dropping his weight, and dancing his feet into releasing an effective shot. This was all while closing on the net with some speed and looking away from the goal.

It also barely squeezed through a small opening. Even in great goals there is some element of luck because I doubt MacKinnon was aiming exactly where that one found a hole.

Vladar reacted a bit late due to the the deception but he still had pretty dang good position and coverage. I’m sure he will learn and grow from this one. Some things are just hard to learn in practice.

Just check out what Vladar is staring down a fraction of a second and a few feet from where the shot was released. If roles were reversed and the attackers were our top line guys, we’d be salivating over a potential goal. This wasn’t a simple goalie vs shooter from x feet away spot to my eye.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Here comes some more of your condescending BS...that post was just ridiculous, seriously get a life man.

Actually, he was absolutely correct (except for typos which do not affect the argument: 0.2 second = 200 milliseconds, 0.08 second = 80 milliseconds).

Goalies make those saves frequently because shooters are not 100 percent accurate, and because the goalie can begin moving before the puck leaves the stick – based on his reading of the play. If a shooter as good as McKinnon has the puck all alone at that distance, the goalie's only chance to react in time is if the shooter telegraphs the shot. As Stampede2TheCup breaks down the play above, McKinnon didn't.

The fact that other people use math and logic and you don't does not make them condescending.

[Tsawwassen]

Postgame links
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl...r-13-1.6383668
http://sportsstats.cbc.ca/hockey/nhl...cap140517.html
https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/games/2367571
https://scores.nbcsports.com/nhl/rec...=03&final=true
https://www.espn.com/nhl/recap/_/gameId/401350082