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

[DeluxeMoustache]

^ In this one, I don’t think it’s on Brodie. I get what you are saying about where Brodie normally goes if Smith handles the puck successfully.

In this case, the guy who takes the puck from Smith passes to the shooter. Never mind Brodie, Smith has to make two moves to make the save, first getting ahead of the goal line, then moving left to cover the net. There simply isn’t enough time for him to be in a position with a high likelihood of a save, Brodie or no Brodie.

Definitely Smith made sure to mention Brodie though.

[Manhattanboy]

When this happens in the playoffs people are going to lose their minds.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

When this happens in the playoffs people are going to lose their minds.

Yup. And we're going to look back and say:

"We saw it coming. Hes been doing it forever. Why did they let him?"

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by 868904

The thing is the team, in particular the defense likes Smiths ability to move the puck. If Smith screws up, it’s not their fault it’s his, and his puck moving helps them out too. The team plays differently with Smith then with BSD. They seem to give up less shots with smith in net because he kills a lot of opposition forechecks. The team gets hemmed in more with BSD because he doesn’t move the puck out as much but he’s been better at actually stopping the puck.

Do they?

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

I understand where this belief would come from, but it’s simply not true.

Smith: 34 games / 894 shots against = 26.29 shots per game.

Rittich: 36 games / 966 shots against = 26.83 shots per game.

Negligible.

As Resolute says...

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Best to do it as a per-60 stat.

When Rittich is in net, the Flames have given up 29.41 shots per 60 minutes.

When Smith is in net, it's 27.80.

Even if we could attribute a reduction of 1.5 shots per game to Smith's stickhandling relative to Rittich's, it's not worth it. Not when he's that mentally weak.

However, we also need to take into account quality of competition...

Rittich has given up more shots per 60, but he also plays against tougher competition. If we factor in the expected shots of their opponents, we get the following:

Rittich: 32.45 shots per 60
Smith.: 31.32 shots per 60

In other words, based on the quality of competition (as measured by the shots they generate per game), we would expect Rittich to face 1.1 shots per game more than Smith, all else being equal.

Rittich has faced 1.6 shots per game more. Is 0.5 shots per game significant?

I would argue that 0.5 shots per game is about 1 goal every 20 games or so. How many goals is Smith giving up? Is it worth it?

I very much doubt it.

[Enoch Root]

The team also talks about hits per game. Do the defensemen take less hits with Smith in net? Let's assume they do.

However, if he loses one game because of play like last night, and a playoff series goes an extra game longer than it should have, that would result in substantially more wear to the defense (and whole team) than anything his puckhandling might be saving.

[Beninho]

Originally Posted by Locke

Yup. And we're going to look back and say:



"We saw it coming. Hes been doing it forever. Why did they let him?"

I really hope you are wrong but I have this feeling too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

How many goals is Smith giving up?

Statistically speaking, about one extra goal every 2-3 games.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Yes. This is why Francis and Gio need to check their once in 200 or 1000 numbers.

Francis is the Mark Spector of Flames media.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Gaskal

There actually is a clear and objectionable difference in the post-game comments you posted between the Montreal game and last night's game.

He is taking clear ownership of it in the Montreal game. He did not in his interview last night despite him bearing similar responsibility for the loss.

No. There is nothing wrong with what he said last night at all. You are reading stuff into his comments that I don't think are there.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The team also talks about hits per game. Do the defensemen take less hits with Smith in net? Let's assume they do.

However, if he loses one game because of play like last night, and a playoff series goes an extra game longer than it should have, that would result in substantially more wear to the defense (and whole team) than anything his puckhandling might be saving.

I think Smith likely plays the puck more frequently in games in which he faces fewer shots. I think it was Hrudy who has mentioned this once or twice, and talked about how important it can be in a game like last night v. Minnesota or last week at home v. NYI for Smith to get lots of touches, and help keep him focused while having to go through very long spells of time without facing a shot.

[David Struch]

Having Mike Smith in net for this seasons playoffs will hurt more than Trevor Kidd losing to the Sharks 4 games to 3 in '95.

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

No. There is nothing wrong with what he said last night at all. You are reading stuff into his comments that I don't think are there.

You have to hear what he said. Didn’t like his tone.

I do agree with AC that booing him at home is not helpful.

I was there. As for the fourth goal, as soon as they scored I immediately left my seats in disgust so missed the likely loudest jeers.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

You have to hear what he said. Didn’t like his tone.

I do agree with AC that booing him at home is not helpful.

I was there. As for the fourth goal, as soon as they scored I immediately left my seats in disgust so missed the likely loudest jeers.

People are interpreting things that they hear from him and what they read and making judgments based on this about his teammates's perception of him within the dressing room. I suspect that his teammates do not care whatsoever about his "tone" in an interview. It's the stuff that is said on the ice, on the bench, in the dressing room, and during practice that matters.

[Inglewood Jack]

I personally don't like the cumulative effect that Smith's plays have on zone breakouts. when a defenseman retrieves the puck behind the goal line, he can survey the ice to see where everyone is while accelerating out to get the unit moving forward. he can then pass to the clearest target or carry out himself (or spinorama first if Brodie).

when Smith intercepts the puck, the D on both sides tend to freeze at the half wall because they're not entirely sure which direction he's going to fire it. so by that point the forecheckers have already read the situation and will be on top of the defense as soon as the puck comes around to them. this results in them having to get rid of the puck quickly before it gets poked or bodied off them. the resulting breakout ends up looking all chippy and not as controlled as it could be.

in fact I'm suspicious that Smith's puck plays don't do much to prevent physical contact on D so much as move the hitting zone from behind the goal line to the half wall or points. the few times his passes do result in a clean breakout, I think Smith proponents remember those above all else to justify the strategy, but on aggregate they get cancelled out by a whole lot of scratchy breakouts and a handful of disastrous turnovers.

either way, as soon as Boudreau let the cat out of the bag that Smith is now being targeted for turnovers, to me that means the gig is up and it's all over. sucks that it had to happen on Iggy night, but going forward it means they are going to have to make serious adjustments, or face the consequences of much better opposition taking advantage of the systemic flaw.

[Fan in Exile]

Originally Posted by DazzlinDino

This a good example, both players approach on either side of Smith (which is part of the game plan); This one fails because Brodie gets caught between Smith and the net. I may be wrong but that was part of the reason Smith get gets frustrated during that play. The incident on the Wild game is that Hanifin gets tangled up with Smith instead of stopping on either side, which is why Smith refuses to leave because Hanifin is in the wrong spot. This may be why Smith doesn't directly own up to it because there was a communication issue on the ice.

The issue is poor decision-making and Mike Smith trying to do too much when it's unnecessary leading to goals where there was never even any sniff of a scoring opportunity in the first place.

The purpose of a goalie handling pucks is to help the defence, not take over their role. Smith oversteps that line. Bad enough when the Flames are comfortably in front, but in a tight tie game in the 3rd period, he had no business playing that puck, and absolutely no business staying there. He absolutely gave two points away that we have if he is just doing the bare minimum of what is expected of him. That is a backbreaker. That is why we got rid of Elliott. I don't want to see him in the playoffs.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Inglewood Jack

I personally don't like the cumulative effect that Smith's plays have on zone breakouts. when a defenseman retrieves the puck behind the goal line, he can survey the ice to see where everyone is while accelerating out to get the unit moving forward. he can then pass to the clearest target or carry out himself (or spinorama first if Brodie)..

I noticed this as early as last year when Smith was "carrying us". So many games I felt our D instead of playing their position that they're pretty damn good at started facing suicide passes while being pulled out of position.

[Gaskal]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

No. There is nothing wrong with what he said last night at all. You are reading stuff into his comments that I don't think are there.

That's not the question.

Is there, or is there not, a distinct and marked difference in the way he addresses his performance between the Montreal games and last night against the Wild?

[David Struch]

I'd sooner takes my chances with Jon Gillies as the back-up, he's at 136 pro games played now and looking decent the past couple weeks.

*signed to a one way contract next season.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by David Struch

I'd sooner takes my chances with Jon Gillies as the back-up, he's at 136 pro games played now and looking decent the past couple weeks.

*signed to a one way contract next season.

They aren’t going to do that. This is the tandem. Right or wrong

[Flash Walken]

Ugh, no, Gillies is not the answer.

That's the whole point.

This is it now. These are the guys.