Is changing goalies mid-series a good thing? | Page 3 | HFBoards - NHL Message Board and Forum for National Hockey League

Is changing goalies mid-series a good thing?

  • If you are having issues logging in, we have found opening the log in page in a new tab/window rather than using the pop out should resolve these issues. We are working to get this resolved and thank you for patience.
  • Sportsbook will reset after the Cup is won
For a former goalie, some of his takes are....out there.
Or he's right and the fans who think of themselves as experts are off the mark?

I'm not a proponent of the theory that those who play/ed or coach at the NHLlevel are infallible but you have to admit it's a funny take for someone who never played or coached at thr NHL level to assume their take is for sure the correct one.

At the very least maybe it should give pause for reconsideration?
 
I've obviously never played goalie at a high level, but played goalie throughout my school years up until university, in football, floorball, and hockey, and to me its nothing weird that this goes in waves.
You have to be so perfectly in the zone all the time that when you're even a bit rattled everything breaks down.

I've gone from games where I posted shutouts on wave after wave of offense, to other games where just about every shot took a weird, slow bounce, or the opposing team's worst player somehow got off a perfectly aimed laser at the possibly worst moment for my team.

For me it would just have been nice to rotate immediately when I noticed that my brain wasn't functioning perfectly.
Yep. Different sport but when I had to play in net in soccer it could even vary half to half. I could look like prime Tim Howard one half and then turn around and look like the town drunk trying to defend against the France national team out there in the second half. And of course we're so competitive that we'd never ask to be subbed off when something's up shy of a serious injury.
 
  • Like
Reactions: D1az
Yep. Different sport but when I had to play in net in soccer it could even vary half to half. I could look like prime Tim Howard one half and then turn around and look like the town drunk trying to defend against the France national team out there in the second half. And of course we're so competitive that we'd never ask to be subbed off when something's up shy of a serious injury.
Being a psychology aficionado I have alwsys wondered if there os some kind of test thst has yet to be discovered thst can be used to ascertain whether a player is "in the zone."

Everything is a pattern and correlation is always there so I would think it would come down to whistling down to the relevant correlations.

Perhaps diet...sleep pattern...Even just one alcoholic drink...allergies..

It's amazing how our diet and even allergies affect how we feel and perform.
 
  • Like
Reactions: D1az and DaveG
I think so too, specifically the number of times the Carolina forecheck beats Vegas defenders to a puck when Vegas defenders have a head start is ridiculous. That’s the single biggest issue I’ve seen with Vegas all series and I don’t get how it hasn’t been corrected. I don’t know if they’re just too slow or what but there has been some comically bad lost puck races by Vegas dmen
The Gilles Meloche Effect.

A goalie can play great but his team is so bad defensively he ends up looking like a sieve based on numbers.

Goaltending really is a very context-based assessment. Bruder says no soft goals surrendered but he's given up 4 goals per game; but then it comes down to determining how dangerous the chances are since HDZ shots see a much lower Save % (not to say this is the case for Carter but as an example).
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaveG
Or he's right and the fans who think of themselves as experts are off the mark?

I'm not a proponent of the theory that those who play/ed or coach at the NHLlevel are infallible but you have to admit it's a funny take for someone who never played or coached at thr NHL level to assume their take is for sure the correct one.

At the very least maybe it should give pause for reconsideration?
He only looks at it from the goalie's perspective. How confident is the team in front of Hart? Can't be high. They know any mistake is in the back of the net.
 
He only looks at it from the goalie's perspective. How confident is the team in front of Hart? Can't be high. They know any mistake is in the back of the net.
Possibly.

But then he has insight into how teams respond to that in general and Tortorella likely has insight into that in particular.

It's fun to play armchair coach but to assume one has more insight and better understanding than former and current professionals is an arrogant take.
 
If your goalie has been playing awful for a while it's time to step out he isn't helping the team win. Pretty much any backup can at least get hot and play good enough to win a series in this league.
 
Change up goalies to reset the team, but that only works if the goalie comes out and stands on their head. If they give up goals from goal, quickest way to kill them team.
 
A very amusing psychological bias that people partake in but are never aware of.

If Vegas goes out and wins the next two, Tortorella will be hailed as a genius.

It ultimately makes sense. If you win, you at least did enough correctly over enough time to be better than the other team enough of the time. That's really all that matters. Which tends to lead to complacency. That's why Vegas is so outside the box. They'll fire you today or tomorrow, trade you now or whenever, sign you to whatever contract, etc. They're the one example of that in the entire league though. Of course they also have no history outside of pretty much nothing but success. We'll see how Vegas acts when they have an actual down period as a franchise. A decade of crap. They might hang onto a few guys a little longer than they should then. But, maybe they won't, and they're an exception in all of a sports, not just the NHL. They might be that special. Only time will tell.

If you lose, every choice made goes under the microscope. It starts at the most immediate ones, but then goes back further and further into time.
 
It ultimately makes sense. If you win, you at least did enough correctly over enough time to be better than the other team enough of the time. That's really all that matters. Which tends to lead to complacency. That's why Vegas is so outside the box. They'll fire you today or tomorrow, trade you now or whenever, sign you to whatever contract, etc. They're the one example of that in the entire league though. Of course they also have no history outside of pretty much nothing but success. We'll see how Vegas acts when they have an actual down period as a franchise. A decade of crap. They might hang onto a few guys a little longer than they should then. But, maybe they won't, and they're an exception in all of a sports, not just the NHL. They might be that special. Only time will tell.

If you lose, every choice made goes under the microscope. It starts at the most immediate ones, but then goes back further and further into time.
That's the tricky part. Kinda have a general model of what kind of moves will increase the chances of success but at the end of the day it's at best increasing the odds nd never a guarantee.

Re: game time decisions I saw someone cite the Penguins as an example of how changing goalies lead to their success....but what gets forgotten is hiw many times did a change lead to nothing?

And even then any decision made can be a cause but it could just as likely be a coincidence.
 
It ultimately makes sense. If you win, you at least did enough correctly over enough time to be better than the other team enough of the time. That's really all that matters. Which tends to lead to complacency. That's why Vegas is so outside the box. They'll fire you today or tomorrow, trade you now or whenever, sign you to whatever contract, etc. They're the one example of that in the entire league though. Of course they also have no history outside of pretty much nothing but success. We'll see how Vegas acts when they have an actual down period as a franchise. A decade of crap. They might hang onto a few guys a little longer than they should then. But, maybe they won't, and they're an exception in all of a sports, not just the NHL. They might be that special. Only time will tell.

If you lose, every choice made goes under the microscope. It starts at the most immediate ones, but then goes back further and further into time.
I will be curious to see how much fan support they get when the inevitable down period commences.
 
Just saw a bit where Kelky Hrudey stated he agreed with Tortorella about keeping Hart in because despite the numbers he thinks he's playing well and hasn't seen a lot of soft goals and per Tortorella the biggest provlem is the defensive coverage

He said that the Canes should have gonna back to Freddy in game four too!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Ad

Ad