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

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Yes, Rittich has had some bad games.
And some good ones where the team in front was essentially doomed
And some unlucky ones.
And some good ones where he threw his own SV% out the window letting in a meaningless late goal.

That's all true.

But the reason not many feel Rittich has cost us points is because he's been clutch in some very tight games and come away with, well, points.

Mike Smith has been a liability in some key tight, winnable games (Montreal, Nashville, Washington, Minnesota).

That's what their SV% (5v5) in tied scenarios reflects:

Spoiler!

Considering Smith was -16.00 for his GSAA last time I checked. I think getting down to -8 seems like a step in the right direction. Also, it is weird seeing Jones and Bob there. Statistical neighbours.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

When your opening salvo includes portioning blame on the goalie for the game where TB took Calgary to the woodshed, it is tough to take the rest of the argument, whatever it is, seriously.

So, completely blameless, then? Rittich was not the least bit culpable for a single of the six goals he allowed on 27 shots that night in Tampa?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Robbob

Considering Smith was -16.00 for his GSAA last time I checked. I think getting down to -8 seems like a step in the right direction. Also, it is weird seeing Jones and Bob there. Statistical neighbours.

Martin Jones's season has been arguably as bad as Mike Smith's. The difference for SJ is that they do not have another option.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Robbob

Considering Smith was -16.00 for his GSAA last time I checked. I think getting down to -8 seems like a step in the right direction. Also, it is weird seeing Jones and Bob there. Statistical neighbours.

Bob and Jones have had pretty abysmal seasons. They're also bunched together in hdsv%

I am not at all sure why some people are vehemently fighting against regular statistics, advanced statistics, and the eye test when all are clearly pointing to BSD as the superior goalie. It's an easy choice who should be starting in playoffs. Mike Smith's "improvement" still has him in the bottom 5 statistically lol. We have to rank them relative to the rest of the league not against former months of their own play.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by tkflames

And if Tampa doesn't win the league...Vasilevskys injury will be the reason why...oh wait...

Over an 82 game season where the team won the majority of the games, a single player is not the reason. The flames lost some games because the 1st line has been a non factor the last 6 weeks. The flames lost some games because their goaltending was poor. The flames won some games where the offense was opportunistic and the flames won some games that each goalie stole. Picking individual games as the difference over an 82 game schedule and blaming those on the overall team average is more you looking for a scapegoat than anything.

Would the Flames be better if they had Fleury over Smith by 4-8 points? Probably...would they also be better with Stamkos over Neal by the same margin?...probably.

I'm am talking about games Smith absolutely blew by letting in goals no NHL goalie should ever allow when the team is totally dominating. Like the game at home VS. Montreal.

Not expecting a star just an average NHLer

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by CanadaMatt

Maybe Smith just wasn’t trying his hardest and is saving himself for the stretch and the playoffs...

A goalie is a little different than a forward going to the tough areas or not depending on the significance of the game. In case you haven't noticed the give a #### meter has increased greatly in the NHL over the last few weeks. Players are playing harder, there is no debate....they even say it in interviews.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

...I am not at all sure why some people are vehemently fighting against regular statistics, advanced statistics, and the eye test when all are clearly pointing to BSD as the superior goalie. It's an easy choice who should be starting in playoffs. Mike Smith's "improvement" still has him in the bottom 5 statistically lol. We have to rank them relative to the rest of the league not against former months of their own play.

Which poster is arguing that Rittich has not been better than Smith this season?

I have seen a handful of posters say that they believe the coaches will choose Smith to start games in the playoffs, but don’t think that anyone has argued in favour of this as their own preference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

So, completely blameless, then? Rittich was not the least bit culpable for a single of the six goals he allowed on 27 shots that night in Tampa?

I never said completely blameless, those are your words.

I don’t recall every goal off the top of my head.

What I do know is that the reaction time from when your eyes see something, and your brain reacts to implement a physical response is 200-400 milliseconds.

When a Stamkos one timer goes past your ear, the only way you stop it is if
- you are already positioned in front of the shot, or
- you can deliberately move a body part there in time

A 100 mile per hour shot (probably close to the speed of an ideal Stamkos one timer) goes about 147 feet per second.

If a shot is taken from 49 feet out, it is in the net in a third of a second. Right in that 200-400 millisecond window.

So basically it is in around the time the goalie starts to react.

If you are familiar with the dollar drop trick, then maybe that can help you understand goaltending

Brain Games on Netflix has used it. Basically, one person says that he is going to hold a 100 dollar bill. The other person has his fingers on either side of the bill. If the person can catch it once it is dropped, he or she keeps it.

The catcher never wins. Considering acceleration due to gravity, and the brain’s lag, you can run the numbers, it is not possible. (Unless the person guesses ahead of the drop, which is statistically really, really unlikely).

Back to hockey. The goalie blocks some percentage of the net.

Where the shot actually goes is not under the goalie’s control. If it’s at him, he stops it. All they can control is their initial positioning, and their response, which is limited by their capacity to process the event and their response.

So many around the world saves are goalie glove moves after the puck goes in his glove.

Goaltending has to do with reading the play, having probabilities based on positioning, speed of shot, shot placement and goalie reaction.

It’s just physics. Numbers don’t lie.

Goalies get blamed too much for well placed shots. If you disagree, I have a 100 dollar bill that you can keep if you catch it when I drop it.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Duffalufagus

What about the points Rittich has cost the Flames with his below average play in January and February?

Which games specifically has he cost the team? A lot of his regulation losses have come when the team has been shut out or have been shut down offensively. He has a tremendous ROW to loss ratio, so I’m curious to see which games you’re referencing to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dino7c]

23-7-5

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Robbob

Considering Smith was -16.00 for his GSAA last time I checked. I think getting down to -8 seems like a step in the right direction. Also, it is weird seeing Jones and Bob there. Statistical neighbours.

Sure you're not comparing apples (5v5) to oranges (all situations) on that GSAA stat?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

I never said completely blameless, those are your words...

And these are yours:

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

When your opening salvo includes portioning blame on the goalie for the game where TB took Calgary to the woodshed, it is tough to take the rest of the argument, whatever it is, seriously.

So either you take issue with apportioning some blame on the goalie for the loss in Tampa, or he is not completely blameless. You can't have it both ways.

Personally? I have maintained for a long time now that your bias is so strong that you simply cannot see mistakes that one of the Flames goalies makes. That, or you otherwise choose to ignore them, or deflect as you have once again done in your "dollar drop trick" tangent.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

And these are yours:

So either you take issue with apportioning some blame on the goalie for the loss in Tampa, or he is not completely blameless. You can't have it both ways.

Personally? I have maintained for a long time now that your bias is so strong that you simply cannot see mistakes that one of the Flames goalies makes. That, or you otherwise choose to ignore them, or deflect as you have once again done in your "dollar drop trick" tangent.

Whatever. You’ve been wrong for a long time now, I guess. My bias is perhaps being an admitted goaltender apologist, and that bias is rooted in science and logic. I will take science and logic as my arbiter of what is physically possible over what appear to be other peoples’ use of statistics neglecting context , or their feelings.

[Manhattanboy]

If both goalies would just stay in the net (not too far back mind you) we would be fine.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Whatever. You’ve been wrong for a long time now, I guess. My bias is perhaps being an admitted goaltender apologist, and that bias is rooted in science and logic. I will take science and logic as my arbiter of what is physically possible over what appear to be other peoples’ use of statistics neglecting context , or their feelings.

This assertion literally made me laugh out loud.

More often than not the things that you call "science" and "logic" are little more than rhetorical exercises in validating your own predetermined suppositions about both Flames goaltenders. You have been called on this numerous times, and this one is no different.

As I pointed out above, you cannot both take issue with apportioning some blame on Rittich for the loss in Tampa, while simultaneously maintaining that he is not completely blameless.

[Duffalufagus]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Whatever. You’ve been wrong for a long time now, I guess. My bias is perhaps being an admitted goaltender apologist, and that bias is rooted in science and logic. I will take science and logic as my arbiter of what is physically possible over what appear to be other peoples’ use of statistics neglecting context , or their feelings.

edit: bias is antithetical to science and can never be "rooted" in it.

[Duffalufagus]

I am not confident in either guy heading into the playoffs, where you need your goalie to lock it down and let in 2 or less a lot of nights.

Smith: inspires no confidence, hasn;t all year, really.

Rittich: inspires a hair more? His positioning on that fourth goal last night was awful. Guy was shooting into a wide open net. He just looks like he is really struggling with confidence. He lets in a lot of savable goals.

[djsFlames]

Teams are literally making game plans around catching smith out of his net. If he was intelligent and wanted the net in playoffs he would adjust and reduce the aggressive handling attempts. If it weren't for that unnecessary awfulness in the minny game he would have put together a really solid stretch of play.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Sure you're not comparing apples (5v5) to oranges (all situations) on that GSAA stat?

Very well could be, looked at it a while back. GSAA is something I am still trying to wrap my head around. It just seems to carry a lot of weight in advanced metric circles.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Duffalufagus

edit: bias is antithetical to science and can never be "rooted" in it.

(Chuckle). Ok.

I’m fine trying to work with these guys and admit I have a bias ... it is “informed” by science and logic, I suppose.

My bias is basically having a firm belief that, statistics be damned, there are some shots a goalie (any goalie) can’t physically react to in time to adjust their position to stop. The numbers check out.

When a fast enough shot is taken from sufficiently close, and it is directed at open net available around the outline goalie, it is going in. Physics dictate that it is so.

Something seems very hard for some people to understand. Either that there are such shots, or that there were more such shots one game specifically than is statistically usual, and is mystifying as to why.

Maybe we have a poster called ScienceCritic or StatisticsCritic somewhere that can accept it without resorting to silly accusations of bias