Injury Report: Petr Mrazek (Concussion/Neck) and James Reimer (Lower Body)

[TheReelChuckFletcher]

I like that Ned battled back yesterday, but he's a little too all over the place. Just a bit twitchy whatever you think of his long term abilities. Forsberg just seemed a bit better and calmer. I think that'll serve us better right now.

Most importantly, for all the flack the main guys take, hopefully they'll be taken for granted a little less now. Welcome back Petr.

Ned certainly proved to me that he has an NHL future. It's very possible that Mrazek is the one that they choose to move this offseason as a result, though Reimer's bonus structure could make his deal very enticing to cap floor teams.

On a side note, the De Haan deal isn't looking too bad, either. CDH's a very good player, but he's already out for the year and Chicago still has defensive issues. Forsling's having a career season in Charlotte and Forsberg is contributing, at least short-term, to our NHL club.

 

[A Star is Burns]

I'm still not sold on Ned, but time will tell. His best moments were still terrifying. However, I'll give both guys a benefit of the doubt as we played rather poorly in front of both until this weekend. While I like the complementary aspect of battler and calm guy in the long run just fine, if they thought Ned was the best guy right now, I can't imagine they'd truly send him down just because of that battler nature.

 

[TheReelChuckFletcher]

I'm still not sold on Ned, but time will tell. His best moments were still terrifying. However, I'll give both guys a benefit of the doubt as we played rather poorly in front of both until this weekend. While I like the complementary aspect of battler and calm guy in the long run just fine, if they thought Ned was the best guy right now, I can't imagine they'd truly send him down just because of that battler nature.

Brett Finger reports that the FO chose to send Ned down because he is exempt from waivers, not because of performance concerns. Forsberg will IMO likely be kept as a 3rd goalie when Reimer returns, as we've had a lot of space on our 23-man roster for a while now and they probably don't want to lose that solid goalie insurance to waivers.

 

[My Special Purpose]

I like that Ned battled back yesterday, but he's a little too all over the place. Just a bit twitchy whatever you think of his long term abilities. Forsberg just seemed a bit better and calmer. I think that'll serve us better right now.

Most importantly, for all the flack the main guys take, hopefully they'll be taken for granted a little less now. Welcome back Petr.

I thought Ned got better as he got more, um, shall we say, adventurous?

I'm far from a Ned expert, but I have seen him play a bunch and he is almost like a third defenseman out there. His first start up here, it was almost like somebody told him to stay in the net, and he didn't fare well. He got back to being "Ned" out there in the PIT game, aggressively and crisply playing the puck and breaking up several attempts for the Penguins to start a cycle.

It looked to me that as he got more confident in playing *his* game, he got better. Again, I'm not an expert, but I hope if he gets another chance he doesn't try to do anything differently than what got him here.

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

Brett Finger reports that the FO chose to send Ned down because he is exempt from waivers, not because of performance concerns. Forsberg will IMO likely be kept as a 3rd goalie when Reimer returns, as we've had a lot of space on our 23-man roster for a while now and they probably don't want to lose that solid goalie insurance to waivers.

Screw that guy, amirite guys?!

 

[A Star is Burns]

I thought Ned got better as he got more, um, shall we say, adventurous?

I'm far from a Ned expert, but I have seen him play a bunch and he is almost like a third defenseman out there. His first start up here, it was almost like somebody told him to stay in the net, and he didn't fare well. He got back to being "Ned" out there in the PIT game, aggressively and crisply playing the puck and breaking up several attempts for the Penguins to start a cycle.

It looked to me that as he got more confident in playing *his* game, he got better. Again, I'm not an expert, but I hope if he gets another chance he doesn't try to do anything differently than what got him here.

I agree to an extent, but he's a shot off a post away from that maybe being a completely different story. And while I'm excited from what I've seen and heard about that part of his game, I thought he was surprisingly clumsy on a few occasions trying to handle the puck. I'm willing to chalk that up to nerves and the play of the team around him at times.

Like I said, I think both guys did fine with what they were put into all things considered. But I didn't absolutely love what I saw from Ned, and I think it could be tough for him at the NHL level. Plenty of guys have proven me wrong before. Fleury has been much better recently that I thought he had in him. I'd be happy if Ned proved me very wrong.

 

[Chrispy]

Brett Finger reports that the FO chose to send Ned down because he is exempt from waivers, not because of performance concerns. Forsberg will IMO likely be kept as a 3rd goalie when Reimer returns, as we've had a lot of space on our 23-man roster for a while now and they probably don't want to lose that solid goalie insurance to waivers.

Forsberg was an emergency call-up, so he could go back down and bypass waivers.

However, if they keep Forsberg up after Reimer returns (emergency over) he would not be able to be sent down without waivers.

Once Reimer comes back I think it's likely Forsberg goes back down to Charlotte. But it's possible Reimer can't come back this season.

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

A lot of the fancystat guys say that every time a goalie plays a puck you might as well tack on like .01 or something to the team's expected goals against. I forget who it was (maybe EvolvingWild but not sure) that basically said there's never been a "puckmoving" goalie where the pros outweighed the cons.

I've been hyperattentive to goalies when they play the puck ever since I heard that, and I think I sort of agree. Even the ones that make good plays (Ned hit a sweet pass to the offensive blueline on the PP yesterday) aren't necessarily doing that as an alternative to something terrible happening (had he not hit that pass, he would've left it for Slavin or Gardiner and they would've just broken the puck out), whereas they screw up or leave themselves in a bad position a decent amount of the time, even the good ones.

As much as it's fun to talk about as a skillset, I don't know that it ever adds. Maybe you could convince me it doesn't actively subtract if a guy's good enough at it, but I don't know that it's ever a major plus.

 

[Chrispy]

I agree to an extent, but he's a shot off a post away from that maybe being a completely different story. And while I'm excited from what I've seen and heard about that part of his game, I thought he was surprisingly clumsy on a few occasions trying to handle the puck. I'm willing to chalk that up to nerves and the play of the team around him at times.

Like I said, I think both guys did fine with what they were put into all things considered. But I didn't absolutely love what I saw from Ned, and I think it could be tough for him at the NHL level. Plenty of guys have proven me wrong before. Fleury has been much better recently that I thought he had in him. I'd be happy if Ned proved me very wrong.

Well, he didn't fall backwards over himself trying to play the puck like Forsberg did, so that's a point in Ned's favor. I guess.

 

[TheReelChuckFletcher]

A lot of the fancystat guys say that every time a goalie plays a puck you might as well tack on like .02 or something to the team's expected goals against. I forget who it was (maybe EvolvingWild but not sure) that basically said there's never been a "puckmoving" goalie where the pros outweighed the cons.

I've been hyperattentive to goalies when they play the puck ever since I heard that, and I think I sort of agree. Even the ones that make good plays (Ned hit a sweet pass to the offensive blueline on the PP yesterday) aren't necessarily doing that as an alternative to something terrible happening (had he not hit that pass, he would've left it for Slavin or Gardiner and they would've just broken the puck out), whereas they screw up or leave themselves in a bad position a decent amount of the time, even the good ones.

As much as it's fun to talk about as a skillset, I don't know that it ever adds. Maybe you could convince me it doesn't actively subtract if a guy's good enough at it, but I don't know that it's ever a major plus.

I'm pretty trusting about how this FO has handled our goaltending after years of incompetence in that category from past regimes. Yes, we don't have elite goalies just yet, however, it takes a while for goaltending to really grab a foothold in this league, mainly because the market is so inelastic. Looking at our stats, as a team with elite shot suppression but simultaneously prone to high-danger chances, goalies will naturally have somewhat of a lower SV% in this system than others. It just shouldn't be so low that it's detrimental to the team (I.E. below .900).

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

I'm pretty trusting about how this FO has handled our goaltending after years of incompetence in that category from past regimes. Yes, we don't have elite goalies just yet, however, it takes a while for goaltending to really grab a foothold in this league, mainly because the market is so inelastic. Looking at our stats, as a team with elite shot suppression but simultaneously prone to high-danger chances, goalies will naturally have somewhat of a lower SV% in this system than others. It just shouldn't be so low that it's detrimental to the team (I.E. below .900).

I generally agree with all of this, just confused what it has to do with my post that you quoted.

 

[TheReelChuckFletcher]

I generally agree with all of this, just confused what it has to do with my post that you quoted.

It's related to the post in the sense that I, along with this FO as evidenced by their deadline decisions, believe that Ned has the athletic ability and, unusually, the playmaking ability to be a viable goaltender in the NHL. He will have to develop a unique type of game to stick around the highest level due to his smaller-than-average size, but I think that if anyone can develop a blueprint to do it, it's him. Just because it hasn't been done before doesn't mean that he can't start something new and different.

 

[A Star is Burns]

A lot of the fancystat guys say that every time a goalie plays a puck you might as well tack on like .02 or something to the team's expected goals against. I forget who it was (maybe EvolvingWild but not sure) that basically said there's never been a "puckmoving" goalie where the pros outweighed the cons.

I've been hyperattentive to goalies when they play the puck ever since I heard that, and I think I sort of agree. Even the ones that make good plays (Ned hit a sweet pass to the offensive blueline on the PP yesterday) aren't necessarily doing that as an alternative to something terrible happening (had he not hit that pass, he would've left it for Slavin or Gardiner and they would've just broken the puck out), whereas they screw up or leave themselves in a bad position a decent amount of the time, even the good ones.

As much as it's fun to talk about as a skillset, I don't know that it ever adds. Maybe you could convince me it doesn't actively subtract if a guy's good enough at it, but I don't know that it's ever a major plus.

Chicks dig goals. That's a major plus for Ned at least.

Well, he didn't fall backwards over himself trying to play the puck like Forsberg did, so that's a point in Ned's favor. I guess.

Ned did have it slide awkwardly between his skates a few times in ways that would be detrimental if someone got in quicker than expected on the forecheck. As noted above, I'm not sure that I saw it add much on the occasions he did it either, but I saw him get in some sticky situations. I also have it on good authority you might take a flying elbow to the head if you get too aggressive playing the puck.

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

It's related to the post in the sense that I, along with this FO as evidenced by their deadline decisions, believe that Ned has the athletic ability and, unusually, the playmaking ability to be a viable goaltender in the NHL. He will have to develop a unique type of game to stick around the highest level due to his smaller-than-average size, but I think that if anyone can develop a blueprint to do it, it's him. Just because it hasn't been done before doesn't mean that he can't start something new and different.

Then you missed the point of my post. I’m not saying that a puck moving goaltender cannot be a viable goaltender in the NHL (look at Brodeur). I’m saying that the consensus in the fancy stats community is that the puck moving aspect of them is not a positive. Essentially, it’s not that Brodeur is a bad goalie (nonsense), it’s that he’d be better if he didn’t play the puck as much (or, at the very least, the fact that he plays the puck so much doesn’t contribute to him being a good goalie).

It was more of an aside than an indictment of Ned - I have (tempered) excitement for Ned as well.

 

[My Special Purpose]

A lot of the fancystat guys say that every time a goalie plays a puck you might as well tack on like .01 or something to the team's expected goals against. I forget who it was (maybe EvolvingWild but not sure) that basically said there's never been a "puckmoving" goalie where the pros outweighed the cons.

I've been hyperattentive to goalies when they play the puck ever since I heard that, and I think I sort of agree. Even the ones that make good plays (Ned hit a sweet pass to the offensive blueline on the PP yesterday) aren't necessarily doing that as an alternative to something terrible happening (had he not hit that pass, he would've left it for Slavin or Gardiner and they would've just broken the puck out), whereas they screw up or leave themselves in a bad position a decent amount of the time, even the good ones.

As much as it's fun to talk about as a skillset, I don't know that it ever adds. Maybe you could convince me it doesn't actively subtract if a guy's good enough at it, but I don't know that it's ever a major plus.

I believe all this is true, but my point wasn't that Ned playing the puck more helped us. My point was that it helped Nedeljkovic. In playing more of *his* game, and doing it confidently, it made him a better goalie, when he seemed to struggle when playing a more conservative style.

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

I believe all this is true, but my point wasn't that Ned playing the puck more helped us. My point was that it helped Nedeljkovic. In playing more of *his* game, and doing it confidently, it made him a better goalie, when he seemed to struggle when playing a more conservative style.

That I also agree with, meant my post as more of an aside and should’ve labeled it as such.

 

[geehaad]

it’s not that Brodeur is a bad goalie (nonsense), it’s that he’d be better if he didn’t play the puck as much (or, at the very least, the fact that he plays the puck so much doesn’t contribute to him being a good goalie).

When I first read your post about adding .01 to the xGA for goaltenders who play the puck, of course Brodeur is the guy who comes to mind. And what I don't understand is how you measure something like that. You can't control for [Brodeur with*out* puck retrieval], so how would one track stats for that? You can't simply count all the times he touched the puck and it went into his own net (without a d-zone clear), because there's nothing to say that wouldn't have happened anyway. Especially in the dead-puck/dump-and-chase era, Brodeur's puck-handling was a weapon; for realz though, they wrote a stupid-ass rule to combat its effectiveness. Anyway, I'd want to read the FAQ on that stat before buying into it.

Speaking of playing the puck illegally, anyone else notice that Jarry played it in the corner just before Williams' first goal? Rookie ref was watching in plain view, didn't make the call.

3:35 mark of this video:

 

[GoCanes2015]

When I first read your post about adding .01 to the xGA for goaltenders who play the puck, of course Brodeur is the guy who comes to mind. And what I don't understand is how you measure something like that. You can't control for [Brodeur with*out* puck retrieval], so how would one track stats for that? You can't simply count all the times he touched the puck and it went into his own net (without a d-zone clear), because there's nothing to say that wouldn't have happened anyway. Especially in the dead-puck/dump-and-chase era, Brodeur's puck-handling was a weapon; for realz though, they wrote a stupid-ass rule to combat its effectiveness. Anyway, I'd want to read the FAQ on that stat before buying into it.

Speaking of playing the puck illegally, anyone else notice that Jarry played it in the corner just before Williams' first goal? Rookie ref was watching in plain view, didn't make the call.

3:35 mark of this video:

is it where the puck is, or the stick? Looked like his stick may have been on the line, which might imply without a better image, that the puck was touching the line as well?

 

[geehaad]

is it where the puck is, or the stick? Looked like his stick may have been on the line, which might imply without a better image, that the puck was touching the line as well?

Given the relationship of puck-to-line on all other calls, one would think a) it's gotta be the puck, not the stick and b) the puck has to be on the other side of the line.

But the NHL has probably crossed me up and written the rules inconsistent to the rest of the ice on this one.

 

[bleedgreen]

The fancy stat concept of a goalie playing the puck being always bad isn’t helping me get my head into fancy stats. A guy who can consistently get behind his own net to stop a ring around and calmly play it to his D is about as invaluable as it comes. The guy who races out all the time to make big plays? I can see the argument there.

I’m sure all the goalies who are not good at it skew the stats for the fewer that are good. Also, all the goalies just letting the pucks they should get to go to the other team are creating chances that would equally effect their stats. The goals are always going to go in from somewhere. So every time the puck goes basically right to the goalie and he turns it over that effects the stat, no? They have to play it per the ref. All the 50/50 pucks where the goalie has a moment to knock it aside or poke past or allow the guy to come in on a breakaway? I’d always want him to play that even if the second or third guy ends up scoring.

I’d also need to understand that stat a lot more to give it any credence.

As for the goalie battle Forsberg came off as more poised and overall better to me, but I admit I felt that way going in. I like Ned, if he had a more extended chance maybe he would settle down but he just doesn’t inspire confidence yet. He battles, but it feels like he’s battling a lot more than he should be. I get a mild comparison to Mrazek, but more to the very beginning of his career and Ned doesn’t have the same level of raw talent obviously. I definitely thought he improved as he went. Ive never seen a starter and I still don’t. I don’t see a starter in Forsberg either but I do trust him more to ride it out for a few games.

We need Mrazek to get hot anyways, welcome back.

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

This is the only post I was referencing, went back and found it to ensure I wasn’t spreading misinformation. I don’t think they went too much more into it than that, it just was the catalyst for me to start watching more closely. Looks like it wasn’t “.01” or anything, they just said the more they handle it, the worse it tends to be.

I doubt the conclusion is that it’s never the right play, just that there’s a positive correlation between playing it more and letting in more goals.

 

[cptjeff]

This is the only post I was referencing, went back and found it to ensure I wasn’t spreading misinformation. I don’t think they went too much more into it than that, it just was the catalyst for me to start watching more closely. Looks like it wasn’t “.01” or anything, they just said the more they handle it, the worse it tends to be.

I doubt the conclusion is that it’s never the right play, just that there’s a positive correlation between playing it more and letting in more goals.

I think this is a case of stats geeks finding things that correlate to a team's style of play rather than any actual quality inherent to the goalie. There are a lot of things the advanced stats world tries to quantify using a limited data set that don't actually translate to anything meaningful on the ice- this really smells like another one of those.

 

[stevewin]

A lot of the fancystat guys say that every time a goalie plays a puck you might as well tack on like .01 or something to the team's expected goals against. I forget who it was (maybe EvolvingWild but not sure) that basically said there's never been a "puckmoving" goalie where the pros outweighed the cons.

I've been hyperattentive to goalies when they play the puck ever since I heard that, and I think I sort of agree. Even the ones that make good plays (Ned hit a sweet pass to the offensive blueline on the PP yesterday) aren't necessarily doing that as an alternative to something terrible happening (had he not hit that pass, he would've left it for Slavin or Gardiner and they would've just broken the puck out), whereas they screw up or leave themselves in a bad position a decent amount of the time, even the good ones.

As much as it's fun to talk about as a skillset, I don't know that it ever adds. Maybe you could convince me it doesn't actively subtract if a guy's good enough at it, but I don't know that it's ever a major plus.

You never see David Ayres playing the puck - just sayin