[Signing] Flames sign Jacob Markstrom. (6 yrs, $6mil AAV)

[Yamer]

All kinds of Canucks vibes with that set.

[SportsJunky]

I wish I could find a good photo from the Penguin's game last night. I'd love to see Markstrom go with a mask that is similar to what DeSmith wore. It was all black with thin yellow stripping for the design. I could see Markstrom doing something similar with orange/yellow/black.

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by Inferno

This could have went in the mask thread but Markstrom's blasty gear.

Would be sick if not for the retro van similarities.

I wonder if the dark pads will help shooters pick spots like we theorized with Elliotts red pads.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Yamer

All kinds of Canucks vibes with that set.

It because the flames put the snot horse on a black Canucks jersey and called it success.

[Textcritic]

I posted this in the Canucks thread, but there is lots of talk about Markstrom which belongs here as well.

Kevin Woodley—Canucks beat-reporter for [I]The Athletic, and regular contributor to In Goal magazine (maybe he is an editor?)—was on Pinder's show this AM:

https://www.sportsnet.ca/960/the-nin...ing-islanders/

His assessment matches pretty closely with what I have seen in the early going: Markstrom covered a lot of warts on the Canucks roster that are being badly exposed now. While he thinks both Demko and Holtby have been quite good, the Canucks defence is an absolute tire-fire that is bleeding high-danger chances, and forcing their goalies into making saves well above what they should be expected to make. The big difference this year is that Markstrom made a lot of those saves in Vancouver, and we saw just what sort of effect this can have in the Flames's last game where they took a full period to start playing.

He also has an interesting bit about Markstrom's new retro-gear, and hints at Rittich's set, which he says looks even better. While I was sure these looked like a set that Markstrom had made for a Canucks retro night, Woodley says that Canucks goalie coach Ian Clark has strict rules prohibiting the use of dark-edged pads and gloves. He also insinuates since Markstrom was so quick to order up a dark set as soon as he was out of the Canucks organization that he probably doesn't buy into the same line of thinking.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I posted this in the Canucks thread, but there is lots of talk about Markstrom which belongs here as well.

Kevin Woodley—Canucks beat-reporter for [I]The Athletic, and regular contributor to In Goal magazine (maybe he is an editor?)—was on Pinder's show this AM:

https://www.sportsnet.ca/960/the-nin...ing-islanders/

His assessment matches pretty closely with what I have seen in the early going: Markstrom covered a lot of warts on the Canucks roster that are being badly exposed now. While he thinks both Demko and Holtby have been quite good, the Canucks defence is an absolute tire-fire that is bleeding high-danger chances, and forcing their goalies into making saves well above what they should be expected to make. The big difference this year is that Markstrom made a lot of those saves in Vancouver, and we saw just what sort of effect this can have in the Flames's last game where they took a full period to start playing.

He also has an interesting bit about Markstrom's new retro-gear, and hints at Rittich's set, which he says looks even better. While I was sure these looked like a set that Markstrom had made for a Canucks retro night, Woodley says that Canucks goalie coach Ian Clark has strict rules prohibiting the use of dark-edged pads and gloves. He also insinuates since Markstrom was so quick to order up a dark set as soon as he was out of the Canucks organization that he probably doesn't buy into the same line of thinking.

I was saying this all last year, as well as before and after we signed him. He is an elite goalie, that made VAN look much better than they were, and masked the fact that they were actually quite bad.

Frankly, I have been amazed, during discussions since the signing, at how many people did not believe this to be the case.

[Scroopy Noopers]

As a goalie and a person with eyes, I’ve always thought the pad colour arguments were dumb. First of all, the shooters eyes are at least 6 feet from the puck. Take a look at some obstructions in your house, and then lay down on the ground looking at the same spot...

Shooters shoot for spots in the net, knowing where the net is and the best spots to score on a typical shot. They don’t “shoot where they see white”, they do their best to evaluate the situation in a split second and put it in a spot they practice shooting at. Even then, it’s the goalies entire job to block that shot... the colour of the gear doesn’t change this... the whole thing is silly.

[red sky]

Whoa whoa whoa? You're supposed to shoot with your eyes open?

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

As a goalie and a person with eyes, I’ve always thought the pad colour arguments were dumb. First of all, the shooters eyes are at least 6 feet from the puck. Take a look at some obstructions in your house, and then lay down on the ground looking at the same spot...

Shooters shoot for spots in the net, knowing where the net is and the best spots to score on a typical shot. They don’t “shoot where they see white”, they do their best to evaluate the situation in a split second and put it in a spot they practice shooting at. Even then, it’s the goalies entire job to block that shot... the colour of the gear doesn’t change this... the whole thing is silly.

You're thinking about it the wrong way.

If you're on the ice screaming down towards the net on a 2-1, you're keeping your head up looking at the net but also checking out the player going down with you to see if a pass will result in a better opportunity than your own shot. If you're attention is momentarily averted to your linemate and the goalie shifts in anticipation with colourful pads on (e.g. yellow or red) you're very likely to notice the shift and potential opening in your peripheral vision and be able to make that split second decision to shoot. We're talking on the order of miliseconds where that decision is made, and if you have a better idea of where the goalie is because he's extra noticeable then you have an advantage.

The noticeability of these colours is the exact reason they are used in traffic lights- even if you're not 100% focused you are likely to notice and spot them.

[Enoch Root]

Also, the entire discussion about yellow being the most eye-catching, on down to the least noticeable, is really only applicable on a one-off basis (i.e. new information to your eyes/brain)

When you are looking at the goalie all game, one colour of pads is no different than another. Your brain doesn't notice black pads more than red pads or white pads or whatever, it has already registered the goalie as a recognized item in your field of vision.

The whole topic appears to be mis-applied information I think.

It is similar to the tail light argument, when they added a third tail light in the back window. They added it, then surveyed people to see if it was more noticeable. Well yeah, there's a brand new ####ing red light that wasn't there before. Yes, it is noticeable. However, once used to the light being there, it makes little difference. It's better than it not being there (marginally), but the entire testing of it was horribly flawed.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

You're thinking about it the wrong way.

If you're on the ice screaming down towards the net on a 2-1, you're keeping your head up looking at the net but also checking out the player going down with you to see if a pass will result in a better opportunity than your own shot. If you're attention is momentarily averted to your linemate and the goalie shifts in anticipation with colourful pads on (e.g. yellow or red) you're very likely to notice the shift and potential opening in your peripheral vision and be able to make that split second decision to shoot. We're talking on the order of miliseconds where that decision is made, and if you have a better idea of where the goalie is because he's extra noticeable then you have an advantage.

The noticeability of these colours is the exact reason they are used in traffic lights- even if you're not 100% focused you are likely to notice and spot them.

The colours were chosen because the differences between them are noticeable, and easy to interpret. When yellow changes to red, you will see it in your peripheral vision. And you are very unlikely to mistake it for green (unless you are colourblind).

But there is also a reason that all traffic lights are in the same order. The placement is also information that your brain can instantly process.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Also, the entire discussion about yellow being the most eye-catching, on down to the least noticeable, is really only applicable on a one-off basis (i.e. new information to your eyes/brain)

When you are looking at the goalie all game, one colour of pads is no different than another. Your brain doesn't notice black pads more than red pads or white pads or whatever, it has already registered the goalie as a recognized item in your field of vision.

The whole topic appears to be mis-applied information I think.

It is similar to the tail light argument, when they added a third tail light in the back window. They added it, then surveyed people to see if it was more noticeable. Well yeah, there's a brand new ####ing red light that wasn't there before. Yes, it is noticeable. However, once used to the light being there, it makes little difference. It's better than it not being there (marginally), but the entire testing of it was horribly flawed.

If 98% of the goalies in the league are wearing white pads every game, then these coloured pads are definitely going to be "new information" every time they're used.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

If 98% of the goalies in the league are wearing white pads every game, then these coloured pads are definitely going to be "new information" every time they're used.

True, but 98% aren't. And even if that were the case, the effect would quickly dissipate once the brain adjusted to the new information.

With these sorts of things, the onus is on the argument that it actually does make a difference (vs the nul argument that it does not), and I have yet to see any kind of information that shows that goalies are getting lit up more when they where coloured pads.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

You're thinking about it the wrong way.

If you're on the ice screaming down towards the net on a 2-1, you're keeping your head up looking at the net but also checking out the player going down with you to see if a pass will result in a better opportunity than your own shot. If you're attention is momentarily averted to your linemate and the goalie shifts in anticipation with colourful pads on (e.g. yellow or red) you're very likely to notice the shift and potential opening in your peripheral vision and be able to make that split second decision to shoot. We're talking on the order of miliseconds where that decision is made, and if you have a better idea of where the goalie is because he's extra noticeable then you have an advantage.

Do you? Or does the goalie then force you to shoot because you think you see net, and he makes an easy save?

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Also, the entire discussion about yellow being the most eye-catching, on down to the least noticeable, is really only applicable on a one-off basis (i.e. new information to your eyes/brain)

When you are looking at the goalie all game, one colour of pads is no different than another. Your brain doesn't notice black pads more than red pads or white pads or whatever, it has already registered the goalie as a recognized item in your field of vision.

The whole topic appears to be mis-applied information I think.

It is similar to the tail light argument, when they added a third tail light in the back window. They added it, then surveyed people to see if it was more noticeable. Well yeah, there's a brand new ####ing red light that wasn't there before. Yes, it is noticeable. However, once used to the light being there, it makes little difference. It's better than it not being there (marginally), but the entire testing of it was horribly flawed.

Well, when your lights are on, with an old car, you have 2 taillights that are on. Hitting the brakes brightens them a bit

In a new car with a third light, it is off when you are driving. Then it comes on with the brakes.

It is really quite different and much more noticeable

[bagofpucks]

As a former goalie and goalie coach that used to fire thousands of pucks a session, I believe it really is overblown. I found the darker sets made goalies look smaller in the net, but that space would be taken away as the goalie moved or reacted to the puck. The biggest thing is the “player’s eye” and the “puck’s eye” are very different, so the players just learn where to shoot based on situation. From my playing days, I liked my dark based sets because players didn’t seem to be able to read rebounds coming off them as well and I found that coaching as well.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by bagofpucks

As a former goalie and goalie coach that used to fire thousands of pucks a session, I believe it really is overblown. I found the darker sets made goalies look smaller in the net, but that space would be taken away as the goalie moved or reacted to the puck. The biggest thing is the “player’s eye” and the “puck’s eye” are very different, so the players just learn where to shoot based on situation. From my playing days, I liked my dark based sets because players didn’t seem to be able to read rebounds coming off them as well and I found that coaching as well.

That's the thing. And black would be advantageous in scrambles. Also, varied lines and angles would also help in scrambles.

These things would offset the any advantage that white pads might have against peripheral vision (assuming there is any advantage to either one at all).

It is most likely that all of it is just perceived to be advantageous.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

That's the thing. And black would be advantageous in scrambles. Also, varied lines and angles would also help in scrambles.

These things would offset the any advantage that white pads might have against peripheral vision (assuming there is any advantage to either one at all).

It is most likely that all of it is just perceived to be advantageous.

Fair enough, but as we know with goalies perception can be reality. It's all in the mind for these cats.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Inferno

This could have went in the mask thread but Markstrom's blasty gear.

Looks a bit too much like this for my liking:





Maybe he put the order in before the trade?

[Scroopy Noopers]

How many colour schemes are the Canucks allowed to lay claim to? Just because they don’t have an identity, doesn’t mean we can’t tinker with a colour palette that we’ve used continuously since the 90s.