Post-Game Talk: Cole's Plus Minus: Pens vs. Preds - Face to face with the demons and the demons win again

[ChaosAgent]

Perspective from a fan who didn't watch the game:

In a tight playoff race with Malkin out, we take 2 points however we can get them.

Didn't watch either. Nashville's a good team, too. Nice game.

 

[UnrealMachine]

Did I not say that Murray was great for most of the game? All but that squeaker in fact?
Did I not point out that Murray's save percentage has increased every month this year?
Why don't you give a factual argument on the Nashville game on how Murray was better then Rinne? he had 4 high danger chances against the whole game to Rinne's 12. Personally I *did* think he was very good in this game (see said it again). I am guessing you don't get the whole how a late bad angle real stinker of a goal is just, um, not good?

Are you saying that you are 100% confident in Murray in a 1 goal contest in the final few minutes of a game right now? I am not saying there is a better solution and I do like DeSmith but Murray is flat out better now. I am merely pointing out that yea, several times now we are still playing a good defensive game, keeping shots to low % areas and we are giving up the goal. Slice that however you want that is a fact.

I did also say (reading is kinda important) that the other demon here is we just gotta put the puck in the net. We got 12 high danger chances and scored 1 time. That stinks. I did think that Rinne had some spectacular saves in this (as did Murray).

How many Fleury bashers on here that that was the thing with him? That he would make spectacular save after save, and then go mishandle the puck behind the net in OT against columbus and lose us the game? How is this scenario any different? I challenge you to go look at the stats in that game and compare them to this, you won't see us dominating the jackets, quite the opposite in fact. Still when a player takes a routine play and fails in such a way that costs (or almost costs) the game it kinda stands out. Whether it's letang being 50 feet out of position or a Murray letting in that goal. It takes their body of work for the game and tarnishes it a little.

You can hold our stupid PP up as a big reason we are in these positions late, whoever thinks our zone entry is good needs to be fired. That drop pass zone entry is just not working but we keep trying.

So yea, the stars are not putting the puck in the net like they should, they are accountable for that.
Does that mean that Murray is completely unaccountable for a really bad goal because he played great otherwise? Is that really your whole argument? Still (once again I'm saying it) Murray is our best chance in net, he has a sparkling save percentage in March, partly because he is just flat out more focused and better, partly because our team defense is better. But these little lapses in concentration that give up bad goals, they lose playoff series if they happen at the wrong time. We do not have a better option Murray is playing well enough for us to win, especially if we start scoring more.
But if you are not at least a tad bit concerned then you are not a student of the game and you are ignoring our own history in the playoffs.

Hahaha, you do the same thing over and over again where you make a mountain out of a molehill of a goal in a game where Murray stopped 28/29 including a SH breakaway chance. You should go into the most detailed breakdown ever of the goal against to show us all exactly what Murray did wrong? From my perspective (ex-goalie who went to several camps, clinics & private lessons) he used proper technique and was in the proper position but the puck took a bad bounce off of his body and squeaked through an opening barely the size of a puck. It was a statistically improbable goal and there wasn't much more that Murray could have done, unless you believe that 100% of shots are savable and a goalie can occupy 100% of the net 100% of the time. Throwing out that Murray played well to feign a level of objectivity is unconvincing to say the least.

 

[ChaosAgent]

You are essentially a verbose, smoke & mirrors version of Ragamuffin Gunner (who has a great gimmick, btw). Murray has given up 4 regulation goals over the last 3 game while the Pens have scored 4 themselves yet you just can't help yourself.

That's unfair to the argument that he made. I like MM and the board likes MM, but if you can't call the goal he allowed bad then this really is just a board where the preferred players can do no wrong and the non-preferred players can do no right.

I have faith in the guy and would certainly prefer him over #29 for the playoffs. But call the goal yesterday what it was.

 

[ncm7772]

That's unfair to the argument that he made. I like MM and the board likes MM, but if you can't call the goal he allowed bad then this really is just a board where the preferred players can do no wrong and the non-preferred players can do no right.

I have faith in the guy and would certainly prefer him over #29 for the playoffs. But call the goal yesterday what it was.

Exactly how I look at it. Huge Murray fan. Overall, he was great last night, .966 Save %, stopped all 3 in the SO, but the goal he did allow was simply awful.

And five times in the past 14 games, he's allowed a tying goal late in the 3rd. Regardless of the circumstances, that's highly concerning. I honestly believe it's something mental.

Happy he got some redemption in the SO.

 

[UnrealMachine]

That's unfair to the argument that he made. I like MM and the board likes MM, but if you can't call the goal he allowed bad then this really is just a board where the preferred players can do no wrong and the non-preferred players can do no right.

I have faith in the guy and would certainly prefer him over #29 for the playoffs. But call the goal yesterday what it was.

More than half of the post I quoted was throwing shade on a player and performance that most teams would kill for. It isn't a unique posting either, feel free to check out his posting history if you aren't convinced. I posted my thoughts on the goal against in question. Feel free to go into detail on what technical/positional difference Murray could/should have made. I'll hang up and listen.

 

[Tom Hanks]

We get a lot of high danger chances, but most of them are contested shots against a set goaltender who's frequently free to come to the top of his crease. Still good chances, but its not a huge surprise if they're not flying in.

What we're not getting is a lot of 2 v 1s, 1 on 1s, juicy rebounds where the goaltender is completely out of position... chances where its easier to score than not unless the goaltender performs a miracle (like Mrazek denying Cullen that rebound).

Sure, with better finishing things would be going better... but better chances would make it even better than that.

I see us make good plays in the o zone to get goalies go east to west and still miss the good chances. I checked and we are consistently bad at converting HD chances.

2016 - 22nd 15.42%
2017 - 18th 16.44%
2018 - 31st 13.74%
2019 - 27th 15.51%

Our best year was when Letang was out for half the year and we’re basically the same as 2016 (slightly better) and better than last season so the effect from the D might not be as pronounced as you think.

 

[ncm7772]

Hahaha, you do the same thing over and over again where you make a mountain out of a molehill of a goal in a game where Murray stopped 28/29 including a SH breakaway chance. You should go into the most detailed breakdown ever of the goal against to show us all exactly what Murray did wrong? From my perspective (ex-goalie who went to several camps, clinics & private lessons) he used proper technique and was in the proper position but the puck took a bad bounce off of his body and squeaked through an opening barely the size of a puck. It was a statistically improbable goal and there wasn't much more that Murray could have done, unless you believe that 100% of shots are savable and a goalie can occupy 100% of the net 100% of the time. Throwing out that Murray played well to feign a level of objectivity is unconvincing to say the least.

Dude, just admit was a bad goal. He recovered and they won. There's no sense in getting into analytics. Bad goal in a key moment. Not sure how it can be rationalized any other way.

Yes - he was outstanding the rest of the game. But I'm specifically speaking on the goal he allowed.

 

[Mr Jiggyfly]

But call the goal yesterday what it was.

Ok. It was bad luck.

 

[Old Gregg]

More than half of the post I quoted was throwing shade on a player and performance that most teams would kill for. It isn't a unique posting either, feel free to check out his posting history if you aren't convinced. I posted my thoughts on the goal against in question. Feel free to go into detail on what technical/positional difference Murray could/should have made. I'll hang up and listen.

He could've stayed tight to the post instead of leaning off of it for one....

 

[UnrealMachine]

Dude, just admit was a bad goal. He recovered and they won. There's no sense in getting into analytics. Bad goal in a key moment. Not sure how it can be rationalized any other way.

Yes - he was outstanding the rest of the game. But I'm specifically speaking on the goal he allowed.

Then it shouldn't be difficult to state what Murray should have done differently, right? Because almost every goalie in the league would have used the same positional technique as Murray on that shot. So simply state what he should have done differently keeping in mind that he has no control over the spin of the puck and how the puck bounces off of his body/equipment.

 

[Empoleon8771]

That makes no sense to me. Hornqvist's struggles would be less pronounced if playing with linemates who took more dmen away from the front of the cage/dmen who actually have good slap shots. Kessel's struggles would be less pronounced if he was playing with guys/a system that produced breakaway chances regularly.

No, Hornqvist's struggles would be less pronounced if he'd put the puck in the damn net. Kessel's struggles would be less pronounced if he'd just put the puck in the damn net. It's really not that hard to figure it out with these guys. These guys are playing poorly because they're just not playing well enough, it's not because of who they're playing with.

And Schultz will probably play better with a d partner who doesn't slow the game down and can activate in the offensive zone and isn't constantly making him the outlet so its easy for the opposition to predict.

Or maybe Schultz would play better if he'd actually be playing to his capabilities, instead of blaming all of his problems on his D partner? Pettersson was miles better than Schultz was when playing with a much worse Johnson on his off-side. Schultz just hasn't been good enough, I really don't get why people here try to defend him from any criticism and blame all of his problems on Johnson, who has played well on a pair with him.

I think if you're actually denying that environment affects performance, or that linemates count as environment, you need to take a step back from defending Johnson as you're it looks like you're just saying whatever defends him rather than what makes sense.

No, I think some people in here just refuse to criticize some players and try to blame everything else for their play just not being up to par. You need to take a step back from defending Schultz because it looks like you're just saying whatever defends him rather than what makes sense.

 

[ZeroPucksGiven]

We get a lot of high danger chances, but most of them are contested shots against a set goaltender who's frequently free to come to the top of his crease. Still good chances, but its not a huge surprise if they're not flying in.

What we're not getting is a lot of 2 v 1s, 1 on 1s, juicy rebounds where the goaltender is completely out of position... chances where its easier to score than not unless the goaltender performs a miracle (like Mrazek denying Cullen that rebound).

Sure, with better finishing things would be going better... but better chances would make it even better than that.

Or maybe we're not converting because we have a generational center missing from the lineup?
PDO will eventually normalize...the high danger chances can't get stoned forever

 

[Shrimper]

Who called it?

 

[Old Gregg]

Then it shouldn't be difficult to state what Murray should have done differently, right? Because almost every goalie in the league would have used the same positional technique as Murray on that shot. So simply state what he should have done differently keeping in mind that he has no control over the spin of the puck and how the puck bounces off of his body/equipment.

If he stayed tight to the post it's an easy save. When the shot is taken, Murray moves his arm and glove off the post and it bounces off him and into the net.

 

[ChaosAgent]

More than half of the post I quoted was throwing shade on a player and performance that most teams would kill for. It isn't a unique posting either, feel free to check out his post history if you aren't convinced. I posted my thoughts on the goal against in question. Feel free to go into detail on what technical/positional difference Murray could/should have made. I'll hang up and listen.

Your posting: "From my perspective (ex-goalie who went to several camps, clinics & private lessons) he used proper technique and was in the proper position but the puck took a bad bounce off of his body and squeaked through an opening barely the size of a puck. It was a statistically improbable goal and there wasn't much more that Murray could have done, unless you believe that 100% of shots are savable and a goalie can occupy 100% of the net 100% of the time."

I get that you have more experience with this position than I do obviously, but I find it hard to believe that goal wasn't save-able. And the title of this thread is hand-wringing that the Penguins as a team failed to protect a lead. If MM makes that save and we hold on after that (a huge IF, but go with me here), the posting is "yeah Nashville had shots, but they were on the perimeter and bad angles; easy for Murray to handle. Great team defense at the end."

Edit: Also, from that angle the goalie can occupy 100% of the net. Or at least 100% of the lower 3/4 feet of the net. I've seen Sid and Geno roof the puck in those situations where it gets above the goalies' shoulders and that would have been understandable. But that isn't what happened.

 

[Empoleon8771]

You can probably throw Corsi out when analyzing this team. When I’ve seen the heat maps teams are kept out wide for most of their shots. Schultz coming back from injury so that’s fine but thought he was disappointing last year. Hopefully that’s not a trend and opens up discussions of Phil for D and Schultz for a winger.

Yeah, looking at Johnson-Schultz as a pair, their Corsi is way worse than their HDCF% stats. That makes me think that they're giving up the shots on the outside to keep the high danger chances clear, which I've seen people throw out here as a strategy that the team is running with. Their stats as a pair also seem to be improving, with them being near 50% in most shot categories (49% CF%, 49.72% FF% and 49.21% SF%) and being massively positive in GF% and HDCF% (62.5% GF% and 61.54% HDCF%) in their last 10 games. Pettersson and Gudbranson are an even better version of this, where they have really good basic shot stats (55%-60% across the board) but incredible HDCF% stats (75.93%).

With that said, Schultz and Pettersson really needs to step it up offensively and it would be really nice if Johnson and Gudbranson stopped being so incompetent offensively. It's really tough to win when you have 1 effective OFD, which is all the Penguins have right now.

 

[Tom Hanks]

Yeah it was a bad goal for Murray but we still won and he was a huge reason for the win, the biggest reason actually. On that goal Schultz made a weak clear that didn’t get out as well.

You could also say we had 34 scoring chances of which half were high danger chances and only produced 1 goal. Gotta be better at converting.

We won and did so as a team but we also lose as a team. There is 60 minutes (usually) and everything can contribute to a win/loss even if it’s not as memorable as a bad goal. Missing an easy chance can have just as big of effect.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Who called it?

I really hate Yohe. What a clown.

 

[UnrealMachine]

If he stayed tight to the post it's an easy save. When the shot is taken, Murray moves his arm and glove off the post and it bounces off him and into the net.

And you are completely ignoring the context of the shot where there was a wide-open player for a one-timer at the faceoff circle. Goalies can't be statues in a dynamic environment. If he stays 100% completely glued to the post a one-timer (easily) beats him far side. Add to that, the announcers (like you) are greatly exaggerating how much he moved/flinched on the shot.

 

[Peat]

I see us make good plays in the o zone to get goalies go east to west and still miss the good chances. I checked and we are consistently bad at converting HD chances.

2016 - 22nd 15.42%
2017 - 18th 16.44%
2018 - 31st 13.74%
2019 - 27th 15.51%

Our best year was when Letang was out for half the year and we’re basically the same as 2016 (slightly better) and better than last season so the effect from the D might not be as pronounced as you think.

Fair enough if that's what you're seeing. But I'm really not.

I should also point out that the term Higher Danger can be very misleading (apols if you already knew) as it refers to area rather than the actual danger level. Remember that Vegas game where Kessel had two breakaways on Subban? At least one of them wasn't classified as High Danger. Or in other words, a lot of the best chances won't be referred to as High Danger. The chances that good transition D create, all those 2 on 1s? A fair amount of those won't be High Danger.

It would be interesting to look closer on our finishing of those chances. My guess if we go to the crease a lot and keep whacking, which means we generate a lot of those chances but they aren't great ones. But I don't know for sure.

Or maybe we're not converting because we have a generational center missing from the lineup?
PDO will eventually normalize...the high danger chances can't get stoned forever

The problem existed before Geno got injured. It sure doesn't help, but its not the reason why.

And I think things will normalise quicker if the team create better chances.

No, Hornqvist's struggles would be less pronounced if he'd put the puck in the damn net. Kessel's struggles would be less pronounced if he'd just put the puck in the damn net. It's really not that hard to figure it out with these guys. These guys are playing poorly because they're just not playing well enough, it's not because of who they're playing with.

Or maybe Schultz would play better if he'd actually be playing to his capabilities, instead of blaming all of his problems on his D partner? Pettersson was miles better than Schultz was when playing with a much worse Johnson on his off-side. Schultz just hasn't been good enough, I really don't get why people here try to defend him from any criticism and blame all of his problems on Johnson, who has played well on a pair with him.

No, I think some people in here just refuse to criticize some players and try to blame everything else for their play just not being up to par. You need to take a step back from defending Schultz because it looks like you're just saying whatever defends him rather than what makes sense.

But I'm clearly not blaming everything on Schultz's partner when I'm saying you're both right. You're not even reading what I'm saying anymore and are instead arguing with a strawman.

If you think linemates have nothing to do with form, that is a completely logically indefensible position. If that's not what you think, you need to use less hyperbole. Obviously large amounts of it is on the player themselves but the idea its completely just on them is just incompatible with the evidence.

Finally - people pointing at Johnson disagree with the idea he's playing well.

 

[ChaosAgent]

And you are completely ignoring the context of the shot where there was a wide-open player for a one-timer at the faceoff circle. Goalies can't be statues in a dynamic environment. If he stays 100% completely glued to the post a one-timer (easily) beats him far side. Add to that, the announcers (like you) are greatly exaggerating how much he moved/flinched on the shot.

Rewatched the replay. Yes, that player was open which is bad team defense but Murray would not have had to move very far to get square to him. He had a clear line of vision to what the shooter/passer was doing, couldn't he have waited until the guy decided to pass to begin moving off?

Also, it's not like the shooter in the circle would have been able to make the far side shot 100% of the time. If it was, say, #81 he probably has about a 1-in-17 shot of hitting it right now.

 

[madinsomniac]

Murray is 0.0% of this teams issues right now... every goalie gives up odd goals now and then. Last night was a seeing eye puck for sure... the bigger issues are a team not built for pure defensive play unable to score... one goal last night was the issue... if you expect a shutout every game you are doing things wrong..

Also this team has to be more selfish in shots... they need the cliche “shoot first mentality”. Don’t pass up shots trying to bust a guy out of a slump or get someone a milestone... the struggling guys are defering to tge other stars and the stars are forcing stuff to them...

That is 90% of this teams empty net struggle s too....

I keep saying this is a quick game... fast play doesn’t let the opposition settle in and do what they plan... when the other team is playing everyone for shots again then make the passes... but we pass up too many good shots looking for a better one

 

[ChaosAgent]

Also this team has to be more selfish in shots... they need the cliche “shoot first mentality”. Don’t pass up shots trying to bust a guy out of a slump or get someone a milestone... the struggling guys are defering to tge other stars and the stars are forcing stuff to them...

I don't disagree but then the people on this board who claim Simon is trying to game CORSI by shooting when it's available need to stop.

 

[K Fleur]

It’s hard to believe that people can’t see the difference between Murray playing great, getting minimal goal support then letting in a goal late and MAF actively killing this team’s chance at a victory with AHL quality goaltending.

But then again MAF is like some sort Yinzer Jesus so I guess it’s not that hard to believe.

Also f*** Yohe. Go sell ice cream with Rossi.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

A lot must have happened with Schultz last game. I've been very happy with his performance since his return after being injured for over half the season.