Without getting into a heated debate, we are not talking about a uniform distribution of responsibilities here. The fact that there are 6 players on the ice does not imply that their potential responsibility for a goal against is equal. No matter what, the last line of defense is almost always the goalie. If he makes an error the result is probably a goal. If the right wing makes an error there are generally lots of potential remedies before a goal happens.
Yes, I know you are clever enough to know I was matching the sophistication of my argument to the post I was tongue-in-cheek responding to.
And you know I am clever enough and masochistic enough to know that nearly every single error I make ends up in the back of the net. But you also know that many more will make it into the back of the net, whether I make an error or not.
That's why goalies HATE errors, we bank 'em, we analyze them, we ruminate on them for days after the game ends... all of mine, even the ones you didn't see or won't agree to let me own, and many of yours too. And the standards are unreasonably high... that moment of self-doubt, where your brain says "I hope he doesn't shoot... here... f***" that's an unforgivable one, if you had time to doubt yourself you weren't really concentrating.
My personal attribution model, which dawned on me, with stoner's euphoria, during our 2006 run, and has been tested in real life obversational studies and 20 years of on-ice experimental testing ever since is summarized as follows:
1) It always takes at least two mistakes for a goal against - the two biggest mistakes prior to a goal are errors, worth discussing, the rest... there are usually more... not worth your present focus.
2) Two mistakes, back to back, will result in a goal against nearly 100% of the time
3) But mistakes can also be mitigated by strong team plays: a compensatory backcheck, a well played 2on1, a 10-bell save, etc.
4) In this way, I think about mistakes as having a large immediate impact, an echo which requires a compensatory response, and in ideal team-play-conditions they naturally dissipate and then disappear.
5) On any good team, you talk about mistakes such that they don't become systematic errors...
- in real time to request help/coverage
- immediately after goals "that's mine", "shoulda had that guy", "it would help if you" etc
- At intermissions sometimes in hushed, vieled tones, other times with far more direct language
6) On good teams, physical mistakes (it was too fast, I was too slow, I stumbled, etc) are never errors, our physical limitations don't determine the outcome of the game... they exist, cannot be changed, and everyone's got 'em.
7) On good teams, what you focus on are mental errors, emotional errors, tactical errors... all of those are reasonably within our control.
8) Over time, teams that own their errors, make fewer of them and win more games
9) In broad strokes, you can tell the level of play a guy made it to/coaching they received/or generally their head for the game based on how they handle their own errors and those of their teammates
10) Sadly, even on good teams, with responsible teammates all around, you can almost always find that one prima donna who can't admit or adjust to their own errors. It's best to drop that guy before he ruins the dynamic, unless he's really, really good... in which case you move him to right wing and all silently agree to discount pretty much anything he ever says.
There you have it.
