Who should be our Game 1 Goalie?

Who is our best option?


  • Total voters
    98

Gentle Man

09/12
Nov 15, 2011
40,081
31,645
Ontario, CA
Let's get it done!


Getting rid of the context for the data might be why you are misunderstanding and minimizing the impact those numbers have on on-ice result.
Since you are clearly not reading what I'm writing, go look at their glossary and you'll see that it's not a raw data.


What math are you doing? saves x rebounds per save? 847 x 0.059 ?

Let's assume your math is relevant, minimizing those 20 chances is foolish. This stats "rebounds" is shots within 3 seconds of each others and they are 4 times more likely to result in goals. Those are 20 very dangerous opportunity that an average goalie wouldn't give up.

Just for fun: 0.044, 0.041, 0.043, 0.063, 0.059
If you had to guess, where do you think the major drop off in play occurred?


You missing the point, or intentionally avoiding it is also quite tiresome. You want people to consider Bob good after one game despite his body of work over the season or even just the last month. That's silly because you'd never call Yandle good if he had one good game because you are not blind to the 50 prior games where he was bad. But for Bob, he's always as good as his last good game, no matter how few and far in-between they are.


I am referring to the money puck stats, not natural stat trick. Moneypuck doesnt explicitly use the 3 second metric. And you are playing too much importance/placing too much blame on just the goalie.

Yes, Driedger has outperformed Bob, rebounds included. I have said this many times. But for some reason, you cannot accept that Bob faces more difficult shots during his games? You cannot explicitly just lay blame on him because you feel his inability to control rebounds is leading to his tougher times in net. He has a tougher time in net because he faces more difficult chances and is generally busier than Driedger.

I understand what you are trying to get at. Other team takes a shot, rebound is produced. Team regains control and resets and they cycle and they produce another shot after the 3 seconds. So on, and so forth. Rebound clearing is not just a goalie thing....this is a TEAM thing. I mean, if you are going to create this scenario, what if I ask "What if there are more icings that occur when he is in net." What if Driedger received favorable starts? What if Driedger got the games after losses occur? So on and so on.

And no, I am not minimizing the 20 shots. I am saying the 20 shots is not enough to sway the math when factoring in all the shots faced through a whole season.

Ill leave you with this.

If a goalie gives up more rebounds than this model predicts, it may be a sign that the goalie has poor rebound control or that goalie plays for a team that struggles clearing out the front of the net. Cole Anderson of Crowd Scout Sports has also done research into expected rebounds, with a focus on the goaltending side.

Yes, both can be true. And yes, Ill agree both has been true for this team. I wouldnt call it a struggle, but it has been a challenge. And even if you remove the 20 extra shots from Bob's totals, he still faced more shots and high danger chances than Driedger. Plus, who's to say the shot following the scenario you keep on hammering about (after the 3 seconds thing), isnt a lower quality than the original shot. The follow up shot 5 seconds after could be from the point which is low danger.

Plus you arent even factoring that Bob may give up more rebounds because he faces tougher shots? You aren't considering the original shot was already a difficult chance. Too much singular blame is being placed by your scenario.
 

CursedCats

Registered User
Mar 10, 2020
630
557
I am referring to the money puck stats, not natural stat trick. Moneypuck doesnt explicitly use the 3 second metric. And you are playing too much importance/placing too much blame on just the goalie.

Yes, Driedger has outperformed Bob, rebounds included. I have said this many times. But for some reason, you cannot accept that Bob faces more difficult shots during his games? You cannot explicitly just lay blame on him because you feel his inability to control rebounds is leading to his tougher times in net. He has a tougher time in net because he faces more difficult chances and is generally busier than Driedger.

I understand what you are trying to get at. Other team takes a shot, rebound is produced. Team regains control and resets and they cycle and they produce another shot after the 3 seconds. So on, and so forth. Rebound clearing is not just a goalie thing....this is a TEAM thing. I mean, if you are going to create this scenario, what if I ask "What if there are more icings that occur when he is in net." What if Driedger received favorable starts? What if Driedger got the games after losses occur? So on and so on.

And no, I am not minimizing the 20 shots. I am saying the 20 shots is not enough to sway the math when factoring in all the shots faced through a whole season.

Ill leave you with this.

If a goalie gives up more rebounds than this model predicts, it may be a sign that the goalie has poor rebound control or that goalie plays for a team that struggles clearing out the front of the net. Cole Anderson of Crowd Scout Sports has also done research into expected rebounds, with a focus on the goaltending side.

Yes, both can be true. And yes, Ill agree both has been true for this team. I wouldnt call it a struggle, but it has been a challenge. And even if you remove the 20 extra shots from Bob's totals, he still faced more shots and high danger chances than Driedger. Plus, who's to say the shot following the scenario you keep on hammering about (after the 3 seconds thing), isnt a lower quality than the original shot. The follow up shot 5 seconds after could be from the point which is low danger.

Plus you arent even factoring that Bob may give up more rebounds because he faces tougher shots? You aren't considering the original shot was already a difficult chance. Too much singular blame is being placed by your scenario.

Good research on your part.

Hopefully the trend continues tonight and we play better in front of Driedger in Game 2.
 

austropanther

Registered User
Jul 21, 2015
2,824
2,411
Bregenz
No blame for Driedger for the goals he gave up, he looked fine last night - but so did Bob in the first game. Bob had the bigger saves to make, saw a lot more shots and breakaways. So strange how differently this team plays in front of either one of them, and impressive how opposing teams change their strategies according to our goalie choice.

Tbh last game after Tampa was up one goal, I did not have the feeling we could rally. The overall game looks so much more disciplined on the offensive and defensive side when Driedger plays, so our players take less chances. When Bob is in net, anything is possible - our players take a lot more risks at both ends of the ice. This season it panned out most of the times, even when Bob gave up more goals.

If I could choose:
- in case we score the first goal, I'd prefer Driedger in net
- in case the opposition scores first, I'd prefer Bob in net
 
  • Like
Reactions: teravaineSAROS

zeroG

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Jul 5, 2006
8,157
1,731
Somerville, MA
No blame for Driedger for the goals he gave up, he looked fine last night - but so did Bob in the first game. Bob had the bigger saves to make, saw a lot more shots and breakaways. So strange how differently this team plays in front of either one of them, and impressive how opposing teams change their strategies according to our goalie choice.

Tbh last game after Tampa was up one goal, I did not have the feeling we could rally. The overall game looks so much more disciplined on the offensive and defensive side when Driedger plays, so our players take less chances. When Bob is in net, anything is possible - our players take a lot more risks at both ends of the ice. This season it panned out most of the times, even when Bob gave up more goals.

If I could choose:
- in case we score the first goal, I'd prefer Driedger in net
- in case the opposition scores first, I'd prefer Bob in net

we were not very good in the first last night but i get your point and kinda agree.

at this point, though, it has to be bob's net, win or lose.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->