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

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I think there are a couple things in play
- Willis' weird interpretation of the goaltending situation is just part of a pattern. I find his read of the game to be really odd. The conclusions he draws often don't pass the eye test or matched by data. So this isn't an isolated example
- Generally it is believed that conflict creates good radio. So he may be trying to hold a contrary view. Some broadcasters do this very well. Others do it less well. But I think he's trying to have a strong opinion to make for good radio.

It's a bit baffling. Listening to his call of the one goal the Rangers scored Friday, you'd think it was a leaky Smith special.

Then I get into my hotel room and watch the highlight, and Pionk has 30 feet to walk in unobstructed and blasts it far post. Not exactly a gimme.

Conflict is good when it arises naturally from competing viewpoints. It's not good when one side appears to have a poor understanding of the issue, and it's especially problematic if the guy with the baffling takes has had the best seat in the house for four years.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

It's a bit baffling. Listening to his call of the one goal the Rangers scored Friday, you'd think it was a leaky Smith special.

Then I get into my hotel room and watch the highlight, and Pionk has 30 feet to walk in unobstructed and blasts it far post. Not exactly a gimme.

Conflict is good when it arises naturally from competing viewpoints. It's not good when one side appears to have a poor understanding of the issue, and it's especially problematic if the guy with the baffling takes has had the best seat in the house for four years.

Yeah, it was actually a really nice shot. I had to look up who this Pionk guy was after seeing that.

It's at about 1:00 in the highlights video. I can watch that shot all day long. I don't like that it was against the Flames, but hard not to see that as a decent goal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w48X...feature=onebox

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I think there are a couple things in play
- Willis' weird interpretation of the goaltending situation is just part of a pattern. I find his read of the game to be really odd. The conclusions he draws often don't pass the eye test or matched by data. So this isn't an isolated example
- Generally it is believed that conflict creates good radio. So he may be trying to hold a contrary view. Some broadcasters do this very well. Others do it less well. But I think he's trying to have a strong opinion to make for good radio.

I agree whole heartedly with the 1st point, but the longer this situation has dragged on I think the 2nd is just how he honestly feels, unless he's a great actor.

Maybe it began as a bit, but he really brings it up all the time unprompted. Just based on his character I don't think he does it to disparage rittich(I dont think he would speak ill of anyone in the flames organization in general) more so than to...ahem, lower the bar to make smith not seem so bad in comparison

It is pretty ironic to have him blast what hes insinuating as fake flames fans who just want to see mike smith fail so they can be right while pushing this narrative that smith who has had a very poor body of work over the last calendar year + is the preferred option in net, and that rittich has struggled enough that there is a debate as to who the starter should be

[northcrunk]

Wills is no good. It's obvious he is either a fan or has a better relationship with Smith than Rittich because if it came down to watching the games and judging the goal tending based off on ice performance he wouldn't be such a homer for Smith.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

Wills is no good. It's obvious he is either a fan or has a better relationship with Smith than Rittich because if it came down to watching the games and judging the goal tending based off on ice performance he wouldn't be such a homer for Smith.

I think one of the reasons why Rick Ball is so good at his job is precisely because he is NOT an invested fan. At least, not a Flames fan.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Toonage

I'm not sure I have ever, in my 30+ years of watching hockey, been witness to something like the bizarre love affair that some Calgary media members have with a veteran goalie with a marginally above average career behind him who won't even be here next year.

I don't hate Smith, don't love the guy either. But if you look at this from the outside, what has he possibly done to earn this sort of admiration?

Loubardias basically chastised an entire fan base for not seeing things his way last week. Had he been more direct in his speech he would have called all of the listening audience morons.

Wills is doing a similar act.

Its genuinely puzzling.

It's not that simple though.

Smith had a rough start, and hasn't had a great season. But the emotional reaction against the guy has certainly been over the top from a certain percentage of the fan base.

I think a media member that deals with the team finds themselves pushing back on that extreme because it's been over the top.

We've seen it today on the site. Smith starts and a poster says something like he shouldn't start another game this season; this despite the guy being just short of 20 wins, and better numbers in the second half of the season.

To the rational fan they seem like homers, but I think they're work is against the extreme fan that they feel they need balance out.

All guessing on my part.

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I think one of the reasons why Rick Ball is so good at his job is precisely because he is NOT an invested fan. At least, not a Flames fan.

That's what made Mahr great too even though he was a fan he never called a game like the Flames were the only team.

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by Bingo

It's not that simple though.



Smith had a rough start, and hasn't had a great season. But the emotional reaction against the guy has certainly been over the top from a certain percentage of the fan base.



I think a media member that deals with the team finds themselves pushing back on that extreme because it's been over the top.



We've seen it today on the site. Smith starts and a poster says something like he shouldn't start another game this season; this despite the guy being just short of 20 wins, and better numbers in the second half of the season.



To the rational fan they seem like homers, but I think they're work is against the extreme fan that they feel they need balance out.



All guessing on my part.

My take is different.

There's always going to be extreme opinions, but for the most part, fans have been pretty balanced.

Most aren't saying Smith should never play a game again, and most aren't saying that Wills is a homer.

What is being said, on the most part, is that fans are more comfortable with Rittich starting more often than not.

Just my opinion, but Wills needs to have thicker skin. Because there are people who disagree with his support of Smith, he really, REALLY needs to tell them they're wrong.

He'll say things like "everyone has the right to their opinion" and "nobody is right or wrong" but mere seconds later, he'll try to use an appeal to authority by going extreme and saying that fans are saying that Smith is horrible at handling the puck (not true on the large part), which is not what he's heard from "hockey people", therefore implying that he is right.

It is what it is and I don't expect Wills to change. This is who he is - some folks can't accept that their opinion is different from others.

[mikeecho]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

A cynic would say they are warming up the crowd in anticipation of what they believe will be a Smith start in game 1.

Or it's an ongoing vendetta against Pinder.

Either way I agree with you. The comments seem to come out of nowhere. Wills in particular just seems to bring it up himself.

Over the last few weeks, along with the old "unlike many, some of us just wanted both guys to succeed" schtick, he always seems to mention how enjoyable the goal tending conversation is with a certain someone (Pinder) on vacation.

[TheSquatch]

Wills is paid by the team, it's that simple. His take on Smith is wrong. Smith cost the team points and confidence early on. Has Smith improved? Yes. Has he had a good year? No. Is he a huge boon to the club? No. Is his save percentage acceptable, taken over the year? No.

But all that said, this is our goaltending tandem, so he's trying to make the best of it. That's cool.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I think there are a couple things in play
- Willis' weird interpretation of the goaltending situation is just part of a pattern. I find his read of the game to be really odd. The conclusions he draws often don't pass the eye test or matched by data. So this isn't an isolated example
- Generally it is believed that conflict creates good radio. So he may be trying to hold a contrary view. Some broadcasters do this very well. Others do it less well. But I think he's trying to have a strong opinion to make for good radio.

I think it's a lot simpler than that.

Wills, like much of the NHL community is just irrationally biased towards the older, more experienced player and elects to turn a blind eye to actual performance. Like how Gulutzan loved his Matt Stajan-Troy Brouwer unit on PK1 last year because "experience" when common sense would show a bunch of random AHLers could have killed penalties better.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by mikeecho

Over the last few weeks, along with the old "unlike many, some of us just wanted both guys to succeed" schtick, he always seems to mention how enjoyable the goal tending conversation is with a certain someone (Pinder) on vacation.

Everyone takes digs at Pinder when he's not there, though it does seem more pronounced between Derek/Lou and Ryan than the other guys.

Not since the days of Bryn Griffiths have I sensed such an undercurrent of tension between the hosts.

[DeluxeMoustache]

One thing you can’t argue with is the record Rittich has put up. 26-7-5 is a .750 points percentage. That is bordering on pretty darn special, if you look at the past decade.

Not too many goalies have done better in single seasons since the early 80s, when Fuhr and Billy Smith were playing for dynasty teams, and Roy went 33-5-4 the year the Flames won the cup.

Here are a few I can think of that are better, or at least in the neighbourhood, all from more recent years. A few were Washington goalies when they were killing it, and a handful of others. Not an exhaustive list, for sure

Nabokov 08-09: 41-12-7 .742
Theodore 09-10: 30-7-1 .802
Holtby 15-16: 48-9-3 .825
Holtby 16-17: 42-13-9 .727
Hellebuyck 17-18: 44-11-6 .770
Rinne 17-18: 42-13-4 .746
Vasilevski 18-19: 35-8-6 .776

Interestingly these guys were mainly given the lion’s share of their teams’ games.

Not too shabby company to be in.

[Strange Brew]

Personally I think there is some reasonable basis to look at Smith as your playoff starter. I know many don’t agree and that’s understandable.

To me it’s weird how Wills seems to talk about it all times even when it’s not overly relevant.

As Jiri has said maybe he just has an odd take or trying to create conflict. In either case, he could pick his spots a little better. It is like a campaign for him.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by mikeecho

Over the last few weeks, along with the old "unlike many, some of us just wanted both guys to succeed" schtick, he always seems to mention how enjoyable the goal tending conversation is with a certain someone (Pinder) on vacation.

Without knowing these guys at all, I get the sense Wills needs a little thicker skin.

[TheScorpion]

Might the Flames target Jacob Markstrom to run with Rittich next year?

[CMPunk]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Might the Flames target Jacob Markstrom to run with Rittich next year?

How would they pull that off and why would Vancouver do it?

[Moneyhands23]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Might the Flames target Jacob Markstrom to run with Rittich next year?

That would be awesome. But all the local Vancouver talking heads ate saying he will be locked up long term by the nucks as soon as the season ends

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by CMPunk

How would they pull that off and why would Vancouver do it?

Thatcher Demko is their guy going forward. He's 23, he's been seasoned in the AHL for ages, and I think they're looking at next year as his big coming out party.

Markstrom's deal expires after 2019-20. He's turning 30 next season and I don't think they'll be looking to bring him back as a UFA. I think the Flames might do well to reach out.

Edit -- moneyhands, if that is indeed the case, well, interesting. But with Demko as the presumed heir apparent, I really wonder what Benning's plan is. I would think they'd try to avoid a Schneider/Luongo situation.

[CMPunk]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Thatcher Demko is their guy going forward. He's 23, he's been seasoned in the AHL for ages, and I think they're looking at next year as his big coming out party.

Markstrom's deal expires after 2019-20. He's turning 30 next season and I don't think they'll be looking to bring him back as a UFA. I think the Flames might do well to reach out.

Edit -- moneyhands, if that is indeed the case, well, interesting. But with Demko as the presumed heir apparent, I really wonder what Benning's plan is. I would think they'd try to avoid a Schneider/Luongo situation.

Demko has played 6 games...I wouldn't be giving him the net yet. They might look at it at the end of next year if he proves himself next year and plays well in a tandem with Markstrom, but to trade your vet with a year left on his contract to run with a raw rookie is lunacy