On Goalies and Defense

by Preacher000 on Feb 2, 2010 1:48 AM CST

Given the great statistical work that gmh and others have done, I went back and watched all the goals scored against us in our last 8 game trip. I watched the highlight videos, and I think I got all my notes right. (It's late so I might have missed something.) While this is a small sampling, I found some interesting trends.

27 goals were scored against us.

8 were scored on either odd-man rushes or the PP.

14 goals were scored by men left uncovered or who were closer to our goal than our own defender. (And that's not counting the 8 above.)

8 goals were from rebounds or goal-mouth scrambles. (4 from each goalie.)

4 turnovers in our own end resulted in goals.

3 goals were scored when the goalie was totally screened.

Looking at this list, it's hard to blame the goalies for much of anything, unless you want to complain about the rebounds (and that's valid, to a point). You might also make an argument about positioning, though almost all the goals came from rushes, not set plays, so the goalie was scrambling most of the time. The big stat is the 14 goals scored by guys that were alone or had beaten our man to the net. That's a defensive problem, not goaltending. There were also a few redirections that you can't hold against the goalie.

Another interesting thing was to see how many VERY good saves our goalies made (Huet stopping a breakaway, Niemi making two saves on a 2-on-none chance).

While this isn't a scientific study, and it doesn't take into account game situations (a point some folks like to make where a "big" save might have changed the game (like Ottawa's goalie did to Hossa)), and it is only 8 games--it still makes me quite confident in our netminders moving forward toward April, May, and (!!!) June.

Let the arguments continue.

Tweet Comment 10 comments | 3 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Excellent work

I do have one question. I don’t have the advantage of reviewing the goals but I’d guess that there were around 8 goals that were redirected by the opposition or the Hawks. Is there anyway for you to provide that info? Sorry if I’m a pain.

Sucker! Competitive violence, that's why you're here!

by cdz3210 on Feb 2, 2010 2:27 AM CST reply actions

It all depends on what you mean by "redirection."

I was going to throw that stat in here too, but I was having trouble trying to differentiate between tip in and tap in, and then explain all that, while still remaining concise.

An example: the Sedins scored against us when Thing 1 shot the puck across the goal mouth and the puck went in off Thing 2’s skate. The puck was “redirected” into the net but I think this kind of goal would be considered a tap in. That’s different than the shot taken from the point in the Carolina game where the man in front tips the puck as it heads to the net, redirecting it between the goalie’s legs.

From my (admittedly spotty) memory, there were actually only 3 or 4 “true” redirections during the 8 game roadtrip. Hossa provided one, and there were two more in the Carolina game by Carolina players. I don’t consider redirected goals to be the goalie’s fault, since he was in position to block the shot had it stayed on its original trajectory (though on the Hossa redirection, Huet was totally screened anyway—he was in the butterfly trying to cover as much of the net as he could and never saw the shot).

The redirections in my small sampling were all covered in the 14 goals scored by uncovered men or in the 3 screened shots.

The gist of my posting here was to say that there really weren’t any “soft” goals allowed (except perhaps Nash’s goal when he came down and scored on a rush even though Huet had squared up to face him—but then again, he was left unchecked by our players).

Like I said, it’s hard to be concise in explaining all this.

by Preacher000 on Feb 2, 2010 9:21 AM CST reply actions

Your explanation

pretty much covers it. Once again I think you did an excellent job categorizing this. I work on a Non Conformance database and I know how it is to come up with descriptions / reasons / responsible parties / categories / sub categories and so on.

Sucker! Competitive violence, that's why you're here!

by cdz3210 on Feb 2, 2010 12:46 PM CST up reply actions

thanks for doing this!

Yeah, I sort of suspected something like this. I would consider goalies to be partially responsible for odd-man goals and goals off rebounds, as positioning, awareness and rebounds are something they can control, but the 14 uncovered-man goals is a bit damning toward the defense, at least on this road trip.

by gmh on Feb 2, 2010 12:09 PM CST reply actions

I was shocked

frankly, when I saw just how many of the goals came from guys that were open. If the “rule” is that the goalie is supposed to take the shooter, then that means the other guys aren’t covering very well.

The rebound issue is (at least in this sample) hard for me to pin too heavily on the goalie too, because I don’t know how much you can be expected to control a rebound when you’re reacting to a shot that’s coming from a cross ice pass. A lot of these were very bang-bang plays, and the goalie made the initial stop, but there was no one from his team to clear the rebound. Interestingly, in the Vancouver game (and the Detroit game too) when we shot and there were rebounds, the Canucks and Scum were pretty well surrounding their own net.

This may speak to our team’s penchant for attacking so aggressively in the offensive zone that many of the goals scored against us are on rushes that we don’t cover in time. Again, it’s only a tiny sample.

by Preacher000 on Feb 2, 2010 12:33 PM CST up reply actions

While I understand what you're trying to do......

most goals can be blamed on something/someone other than the goaltender. There are always mistakes made by defensemen, lackluster backchecking, turnovers, etc, that lead to goals against. As many have pointed out, the defense has been lackluster lately, but ultimately the goalie is the only guy on the ice with 1 responsibility…..keep the puck out of the back of the net.

This is not a comment intended to start a goalie debate, because I think both of our goaltenders had highs and lows on the trip. Maybe when I get the chance, I’ll go back and take a look at each of the 27 goals and categorize them as:

-should have been stopped
-could have been stopped
-nothing the goalie could do

These categories are of course, very subjective, but most reasonable fans will be able to agree on the quality of the shot/chance. For example:

San Jose goal against #1 – could have been stopped
San Jose goals #2 and 3 – nothing the goalie could do

This is not to say that all good goalies stop 100% of the should have(s) or could have(s), but it would be interesting to look at.

"In an ideal world I would have all 10 fingers on my left hand so my right hand could just be a fist for punching."

by Hack on Feb 3, 2010 8:19 AM CST reply actions

"These categories are of course, very subjective..."

And that IS the point. I don’t think there was a “soft” goal on the trip, but others will disagree. For instance, is this goal one that should have been stopped? Certainly it could have, but it was made possible because 2 Hawks went to the same man and left a player wide open right in front of the net.

Is this a good or bad goal for a goailie? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv-MNXCr-uc

by Preacher000 on Feb 3, 2010 11:02 AM CST reply actions

see I would qualify that one as.....

nothing the goalie could do about it, and I think that is a fair assessment.

My point is that categorizing the goals as you have categorized them gives us no clue as to whether the goalie could have done anything about the goal. Sure there were powerplay goals, but “the goalie is your best penalty killer.” All I’m saying is that it is a two way street.

Like the Ottawa wrap-around goal (not sure what category you put this in). Yes, campbell got undressed a bit, but I put that goal on Huet as he wasn’t even in the zip code he needed to be in to make that stop. I’d say that one should’ve been stopped.

"In an ideal world I would have all 10 fingers on my left hand so my right hand could just be a fist for punching."

by Hack on Feb 3, 2010 11:18 AM CST up reply actions

Opionated / Complex Explanation To a "Soft Goal"

Here’s a link to the wrap around goal in Ottawa and my opinion of what was a soft goal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2u9i8nYRhCU

Before you read any of the following, this is just what I saw and who I thought was responsible on the play.
Campbell attempted a poke check and missed both the puck and Regin. This enabled Regin to skate around Campbell and get in position for a shot. Huet comes out and goes down early at a somewhat bad angle. Regin skates behind the net and with Huet being way out of position, puts the puck into an empty net. Voila, easy goal.
If Campbell makes a sucessful poke check or cuts off Regin’s angle to the net, this play stops right then and there. As for Huet, he cannot recover from the position he put himself in. To me both Huet and Campbell misplayed this badly and each contributed to the goal.
As for grading the responsibilities I’d say Campbell 10-15% & Huet 85-90%. I’ve based my percentages on what went wrong and the responsibility of the players involved. Let’s face it, Campbell made a bad decision and even a worse play on the poke check But what I find worse than this is Huet and how far he put himself out of position. Of course this is all my opinion.
Right or wrong, it’s plays like these that give the Huet and Campbell haters ammunition for some of the comments that are posted here.
By the way, I don’t agree with the announcer’s comment about Hammer. There was a guy positioned in front of the net that he was responsible for.

Competitive violence, that's why you're here!

by cdz3210 on Feb 3, 2010 1:29 PM CST up reply actions

Agreed and Agreed

You’re right—I don’t give you any clue on the “stoppability” of a goal. My post was simply in response to what gmh had done with the numbers, and his suggestion that the D didn’t play as well on the second trip. My little analysis simply agreed with what he was suggesting. The big number is still that 14 goals were scored by guys that were left uncovered at even strength. That is a defensive letdown, regardless of whether the goalie should have stopped the shot. The shot should never have been allowed in the first place.

I also agree with you on the Ottawa goal being on Huet. Like I said in the original post, you could argue about proper positioning of the goalie. And if I recall correctly, that particular goal doesn’t show up in the numbers I posted. I think it was included in the comment about almost all the goals coming on rushes, because that was a skate-into-the-zone-circle-the-net-and-score. It wasn’t a “set” play or the result of a sustained possession in the offensive zone. It was a bang-bang play where the goalie had to move from one side to the other very quickly. It’s on Huet for being too far out to get back in time.

I appreciate your comments on this. I’m just trying to figure out if we really DO have a goaltending issue or not. From this, I’d say not. If we play defense like we can (and have) our goalies will do their job too. I’m not worried.

And some will call me unrealistic about that, but, hey, the sky is a beautiful color in my world and I enjoy living here :)

by Preacher000 on Feb 3, 2010 11:45 AM CST reply actions