GDT: caning

[HisIceness]

Aho on the winner was all "f*** boys I score let's go home"

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

It’s funny to claim that he “caused” that last goal. Say he had stayed in the net and Sprong simply sniped one past on the breakaway. Would he still be the cause of that goal?

He took a situation where he had a ~70-80% chance of making a save and turned it into 0% chance. The team in front of him putting him in a situation where he has to make a save doesn’t absolve him.

Similar to the first goal. Losing his stick and sitting on his ass in the net turned a high danger chance into an almost freebie.

In the end, it didn’t matter as they got 2 points and gave up 1 to a WC team, but he has to learn.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

He took a situation where he had a ~70-80% chance of making a save and turned it into 0% chance. The team in front of him putting him in a situation where he has to make a save doesn’t absolve him.

Similar to the first goal. Losing his stick and sitting on his ass in the net turned a high danger chance into an almost freebie.

In the end, it didn’t matter as they got 2 points and gave up 1 to a WC team, but he has to learn.

It doesn’t absolve him, but it isn’t accurate to say he “caused” the goal. I’d also argue about semantics of calling it a 0% chance, since we’ve seen him successfully pull that move off in the past (Raanta has as well in the Canes uniform, IIRC), but I assume you’re simply being hyperbolic for dramatic effect.

I don’t disagree that he has to learn, but as I said originally, I don’t think the lesson is “stop doing that” and more “choose the right times to do that.” The times he’s been burnt by it have come in the third period, when the opposing team had all the momentum. Not the best time to be trying the high risk play, though perhaps he believe(s/d) that succeeding on the high risk play would spark his team/demoralize opposing teams.

 

[Lempo]

Aho on the winner was all "f*** boys I score let's go home"

I don't like him calling teammates f*** boys.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

It doesn’t absolve him, but it isn’t accurate to say he “caused” the goal. I’d also argue about semantics of calling it a 0% chance, since we’ve seen him successfully pull that move off in the past (Raanta has as well in the Canes uniform, IIRC), but I assume you’re simply being hyperbolic for dramatic effect.

I don’t disagree that he has to learn, but as I said originally, I don’t think the lesson is “stop doing that” and more “choose the right times to do that.” The times he’s been burnt by it have come in the third period, when the opposing team had all the momentum. Not the best time to be trying the high risk play, though perhaps he believe(s/d) that succeeding on the high risk play would spark his team/demoralize opposing teams.

He made a choice, and it was a poor choice in that moment, period. There’s really no debating that. That choice left him with almost no chance of stopping a goal. Thus the statements about “causing” it.

Whether he was successful trying something similar in the past is irrelevant because the situations aren’t the same. He misjudged this particular situation, gambled and got burned. Even his coach said he gave up a freebie, which is essentially what many are saying here with the phrase “causing it”.

I never suggested he needs to stop doing it, he just needs to learn from it. He made some great saves as well.

 

[Ole Gil]

He made a choice, and it was a poor choice in that moment, period. There’s really no debating that. That choice left him with almost no chance of stopping a goal. Thus the statements about “causing” it.

Whether he was successful trying something similar in the past is irrelevant because the situations aren’t the same. He misjudged this particular situation, gambled and got burned. Even his coach said he gave up a freebie, which is essentially what many are saying here with the phrase “causing it”.

I never suggested he needs to stop doing it, he just needs to learn from it. He made some great saves as well.

We don't really know how likely the move is to be successful, so it's tough to say without the benefit of hindsight. It's kind of uncharted territory statistically.

I think the flamboyance of it makes the choice seem more dramatic than it is? Like the Vancouver goalie 'gambled' in OT, and Aho scored a much easier goal than the Canucks did off the Pyotr play. But guessing forehand doesn't involve skating out to center ice and sliding around like a fool, so nobody bats an eye.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

We don't really know how likely the move is to be successful, so it's tough to say without the benefit of hindsight. It's kind of uncharted territory statistically.

That's the case with most everything in hockey. Players have to take calculated risks and get judged in hindsight. it's their job to make that judgement and when successful, it's positive and when unsuccessful, it's a negative.

Same can be said of a defenseman when they pinch (or in this case, Orlov and Chatfield letting the guy get behind them), a forward taking a bad angle shot that goes around the boards and leads to an odd man rush, etc...

I think the flamboyance of it makes the choice seem more dramatic than it is? Like the Vancouver goalie 'gambled' in OT, and Aho scored a much easier goal than the Canucks did off the Pyotr play.

How did he gamble? He was squared up on the shot, which got deflected by Aho so the rebound came right to Aho who was all alone in front of him. I don't see those as remotely similar.

But guessing forehand doesn't involve skating out to center ice and sliding around like a fool, so nobody bats an eye.

Like I said, even the coach said he gave them a freebie and can't be doing that. Not sure why some are making it more complicated than it needs to be. Every goalie that has ever played the game has gambled at one point or another. Pyotr's style is on the more aggressive side. Nothing wrong with that, just needs to learn to pick his spots better IMO.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

Like I said, even the coach said he gave them a freebie and can't be doing that. Not sure why some are making it more complicated than it needs to be. Every goalie that has ever played the game has gambled at one point or another. Pyotr's style is on the more aggressive side. Nothing wrong with that, just needs to learn to pick his spots better IMO.

Well, I can answer that. There's an extra day between games, so the discussion continues.

The initial discussion point included commentary about how moves like that are why he can't be trusted as a starter. But as I pointed out initially and you pointed out here, every goalie has had their brain fart moments. So doing something like that shouldn't affect the decision to start games, especially when it's not like he's not successfully pulled off the move in the past.

 

[Ole Gil]

That's the case with most everything in hockey. Players have to take calculated risks and get judged in hindsight. it's their job to make that judgement and when successful, it's positive and when unsuccessful, it's a negative.

I think that's how it's been judged for most of history. I think analytics has shown it's the wrong way to go about it.

 

[Discipline Daddy]

All this talk reminds me of the days when we had Irbe and we'd joke about chaining Irbe's leg to the post.

Or, worse, when Michael Leighton that time allowed a goal and he was like 15 feet out of the crease at that point. Made me laugh thinking back on it.

Kochetkov will give and will take away. I'm ultimately not worried about it. What honestly concerns me way more with him are the mental lapse goals where he immediately lets a soft floater in right after a break or right after another goal. Like another poster said, I was impressed that he made a nice stop on Jake DeBrusk shortly afterwards. It was a positive development that maybe Kochetkov is learning to move on.

 

[chaz4hockey]

Pyotr’s aggressiveness and the occasional faux pas don’t bother me.

More concerning is his tendency in past years to “play small” and also frequently be too deep in the net coupled with mental weaknesses (thus, allowing goals).

After his poor St Louis game, he did seem to come out further to play the angles in the next game. With Freddie out, hopefully he gets on a good run and mental issues and technical fixes are imrproved. .

 

[A Star is Burns]

Easy to act like we don't think it's a big deal in the regular season. He makes that move in a game 7 or some other important playoff game and he'll get torched by many fans harder than Freddie last year.

 

[bleedgreen]

It doesn’t absolve him, but it isn’t accurate to say he “caused” the goal. I’d also argue about semantics of calling it a 0% chance, since we’ve seen him successfully pull that move off in the past (Raanta has as well in the Canes uniform, IIRC), but I assume you’re simply being hyperbolic for dramatic effect.

I don’t disagree that he has to learn, but as I said originally, I don’t think the lesson is “stop doing that” and more “choose the right times to do that.” The times he’s been burnt by it have come in the third period, when the opposing team had all the momentum. Not the best time to be trying the high risk play, though perhaps he believe(s/d) that succeeding on the high risk play would spark his team/demoralize opposing teams.

I don’t think anyone disagrees with your second paragraph. I agree with it 100%. I do think he “caused” two of those goals by being over aggressive when it wasn’t necessary in either case, like BBA said he dramatically lowered his chance of success by making those choices. He didn’t have to be aggressive at all on the wraparound, and him ending up on his wallet as a result of his effort put that goal in the net imo. It was an easy save if he’s on his feet. The wandering out of the net blew up in his face, but it could’ve worked. It didn’t though so of course he would be held responsible for it. I don’t think it’s overdramatic to say he caused two goals. We won and it’s over, he has all season to prove he’s ready. I don’t think if Rod had to choose today for a playoff game he’d choose Koochie though, he needs to put this one behind him and make good choices for awhile.

 

[Svechhammer]

Kooch is Kooch. He's going to make a couple head scratching plays every once in a while, but you will take that because he'll also back that up by completely standing on his head making some absolutely ridiculously good plays the rest of the time. The kid is chaos personified, but 90% of the time that chaos is contained and harnessed for good.

Him going for that pokecheck works 9 times out of 10, you don't want to train it completely out of his game because of that 1 time it doesn't. If this becomes a regular thing and he's letting in ridiculous goals every night like Raanta did last year, then ok its time to worry, but that's just never been the case with him.

Unfortunately, that hasn't stopped quite a few in the fanbase from projecting that kind of consistent issues with him, jumping at any chance to latch onto any hiccup to proclaim worry about his overall play, despite a growing list of accomplishments and stats that prove otherwise.

 

[AhosDatsyukian]

Easy to act like we don't think it's a big deal in the regular season. He makes that move in a game 7 or some other important playoff game and he'll get torched by many fans harder than Freddie last year.

Sure but that's true of any player with any move/decision in big time moments and it goes both ways. If he does the Tkachuk poke-check in a game 7 Cup finals penalty shot in OT and succeeds like that with us ultimately winning he would get a banner hung with the action shot on it lol. Although fans generally get hung up on individual plays the reality is individual plays never win or lose you games/series'. It's on the entire team.