Games played by Mike Smith

[Aarongavey]

What do folks think would be the ideal number of games played by Smith by the end of the year. Assuming he plays tomorrow night he will have played in 35 of the first 41 games, on pace for 70 GP this year. His career high is 67 GP.

Since Rittich's first start (counting his first start against the Avs as game one) Smith has played in 14 out of 18 games (15 out of 19 if you assume he starts tomorrow). That would put Rittich on pace for 9 starts in the final 41 games and 32 for Smith, which would equal his career high.

I personally think you have have to try to get Rittich 14 starts, leaving 27 for Smith and leaving him with 62 GP (assuming Rittich does not get pulled) at the end of the year if Smith is going to have some gas for a potential playoff run.

What does CP think?

[N-E-B]

Ideally I would like him to play 60-65 games. Now, he'll likely finish with 65-70 because Lack was awful but with Rittich I think the coaching staff will have the confidence to rest Smith more often.

[Monahan For Mayor]

This is all going to come down to the standings. If we have to continue chasing a spot Smith will start more. If we can get into a spot it's a lot easier to justify back up starts.

[Strange Brew]

Going to be real hard to give Rittich 1/3 of remaining starts given the standings.

[Poe969]

Depends who gets hot. If rittich goes on a hot streak, I can see him getting a lot of starts, it looks like he has it in him to do it.

[CsInMyBlood]

At least Rittich has shown himself to be a viable option thus far.

Small sample size but he looks totally legit to me.

[Itse]

Rittich actually has the better stats of the two. Doesn't mean he's a better goalie overall, but I haven't seen any reason why he couldn't play quite a bit.

[burnitdown]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

What do folks think would be the ideal number of games played by Smith by the end of the year. Assuming he plays tomorrow night he will have played in 35 of the first 41 games, on pace for 70 GP this year. His career high is 67 GP.

Since Rittich's first start (counting his first start against the Avs as game one) Smith has played in 14 out of 18 games (15 out of 19 if you assume he starts tomorrow). That would put Rittich on pace for 9 starts in the final 41 games and 32 for Smith, which would equal his career high.

I personally think you have have to try to get Rittich 14 starts, leaving 27 for Smith and leaving him with 62 GP (assuming Rittich does not get pulled) at the end of the year if Smith is going to have some gas for a potential playoff run.

What does CP think?

I think heading into the season, 55 to 60 games would have been ideal given his age and injury history. I don't think his ideal number of games played should increase just because our backup G position is weak. It's a bit scary that he's on pace for 70 games...just 3 less than Talbot last year which was WAY too much. And Talbot is much younger and played less in his career up to that point. IF we get into the playoffs, will he be able to hold up??

[dino7c]

Playoffs are a big IF and that is why he needs to play...Rittich had done well but in mostly easy matchups. People worry too much... Talbot? He damn near got those bums to the west finals.

I would gladly take my chances with a tired Smith in the playoffs considering the standings right now

[Enoch Root]

70 games is too many.

And if that is in fact what is necessary to make the playoffs, it will all likely be for nought, as he'll be done.

There have been opportunities to play Lack and Riddich to this point, IMO, that Gulutzan chose not to utilize. I felt then that choosing to keep riding Smith would bite us in the ass later in the season, and now I think we are going to be facing exactly that.

I think Rittich has looked solid, and I would like to see the team go to the win-and-you-keep-playing strategy. I think most players and most goalies like that. And it's totally unbiased, nothing to get upset about - "he won, he plays again. When you win, you play again".

I think that sends a positive message to the team, and it provides the requisite breaks for Smith.

[Jiri Hrdina]

The win and keep playing approach is more when you have a 1a and 1b scenario. That's not the case here - Smith is the undisputed and clear #1. And I think he's a guy that generally likes to play a lot.
I think 65 games would be good. 70 is indeed too much. And I think they should be more proactive in getting Rittich into more games as he has shown to be good so far. But not sure the keep the net as long as your winning approach is the best one here.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Wild GM

The win and keep playing approach is more when you have a 1a and 1b scenario. That's not the case here - Smith is the undisputed and clear #1. And I think he's a guy that generally likes to play a lot.
I think 65 games would be good. 70 is indeed too much. And I think they should be more proactive in getting Rittich into more games as he has shown to be good so far. But not sure the keep the net as long as your winning approach is the best one here.

Yes I know, but they have painted themselves in a corner.

Win and you're in is a good message for the team. Playing Smith because he is the '#1' is a big part of the current problem with this team (not saying it's Smith's fault) and I want to see the team dynamics more focused on winning than seniority.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Smith has earned the right to have the net though. I think when and keep the net works in some scenarios but doesn’t exactly send a message that the team has confidence in their number one
I think most nights Smith gives them the best chance of winning

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Wild GM

Smith has earned the right to have the net though. I think when and keep the net works in some scenarios but doesn’t exactly send a message that the team has confidence in their number one
I think most nights Smith gives them the best chance of winning

Rittich has better stats. Yes, I know, small sample size. But we need wins, not loyalty.

And no, win-and-you're-in does not send the wrong message about confidence in the #1, it sends the message that the coaching staff is focused on winning. Smith can play all the games - all he has to do is win.

[Jiri Hrdina]

But he’s not going to win them all even when he plays well
And yeah Rittich has been good but if you ask me who gives the team the best chance every night it’s the number one guy.
How many teams with legit starters deploy the play until you lose approach?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Wild GM

But he’s not going to win them all even when he plays well
And yeah Rittich has been good but if you ask me who gives the team the best chance every night it’s the number one guy.
How many teams with legit starters deploy the play until you lose approach?

Obviously he is not going to win every game. JC.

It's not about every team. The Flames started the season with the "you're the #1 guy" approach. And it was the right call.

But now the situation has changed. It's all about doing whatever is necessary to make the playoffs. And playing Smith every night, because he is the #1, hasn't worked.

It's not always about absolutes. "This strategy is better than that strategy. This system is better than that system. This player is a top 6, not a bottom 6"

Coaching is about making adjustments on the fly, based on circumstances. Context matters.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Sure but you are advocating for just that - a very binary approach
I’m agreeing Rittich should play more but this isn’t a play until you lose situation in my view

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Wild GM

Sure but you are advocating for just that - a very binary approach
I’m agreeing Rittich should play more but this isn’t a play until you lose situation in my view

It's simply a strategy, like any other. And if it isn't working (because one of the goalies isn't getting it done, perhaps), you change the strategy.

That is the very nature of coaching.

Anyway, moving on.

[Poe969]

Originally Posted by Wild GM

The win and keep playing approach is more when you have a 1a and 1b scenario. That's not the case here - Smith is the undisputed and clear #1. And I think he's a guy that generally likes to play a lot.
I think 65 games would be good. 70 is indeed too much. And I think they should be more proactive in getting Rittich into more games as he has shown to be good so far. But not sure the keep the net as long as your winning approach is the best one here.

No, it's not the scenario yet. Rittich has been good and if they give him more chances, be might steal the job or create that 1a 1b situation. The sure fire way to know he won't do better is to not let him play enough. If he gets hot, let him play. If he stays hot why would you not want him to play? From what I've seen from him, he's good. We just won't know how good he is unless he gets a chance.

[Jiri Hrdina]

But he is getting a chance. Every game and every practice.
But you don't displace a #1 overnight. Particularly when that #1 hasn't done anything to lose the job.