HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > San Jose Sharks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Depth at center and defense strengths of San Jose Sharks system

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-31-2012, 06:31 PM
  #26
Clowe Me
Registered User
 
Clowe Me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 530
Country: Uzbekistan
Posts: 19,467
vCash: 500
Yeah, thank you for taking the time to write this and post it here. Everyone has varying opinions, but thanks for your article.

Clowe Me is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2012, 10:50 PM
  #27
domon
Registered User
 
domon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 851
vCash: 500
So is O'Reagan 5'11 or 5'9?

domon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 03:19 AM
  #28
Craig Fischer
Hockey's Future Staff
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: YYC
Country: Canada
Posts: 464
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by domon View Post
So is O'Reagan 5'11 or 5'9?
I've got him at 5'9 from a few different sources, did I write 5'11 in the article (just checked, I didn't but if I've got it wrong anywhere let me know and I'll let my editor know and he can fix it.)


To everyone: It was my pleasure taking the time to really dig deep and find out about the Sharks prospects. I'm really glad some of you liked it.

It's been said a million times, but we all see the game differently (I've sat in on a few scout meetings, and there are always varying opinions of most prospects) and my prognostications could very well turn out to be wrong (I truly hope they do with anything negative I write, I hate saying someone can't do something), that's just the nature of the beast. Don't take my word as gospel, but rather as an informed opinion that can help you learn a bit more about Sharks prospects to allow you to develop your own unique views.

Craig Fischer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 10:42 AM
  #29
stalockrox
Registered User
 
stalockrox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,788
vCash: 500
Craig - I'm still curious what you base your opinions on. Are you able to watch all of the prospects play, if so how often? The scouts you 'sit in' with, are they pro, amateur, junior, regional, NCAA, etc scouts? Do you get insight from the Sharks org or scouts?

As you mentioned, people see prospects very differently - I'm just wondering if your opinions are based on video, live viewings, info from others, etc.

stalockrox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 08:09 PM
  #30
Patty Ice
Best in the World
 
Patty Ice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: OxNard
Country: Northern Ireland
Posts: 10,261
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Patty Ice Send a message via MSN to Patty Ice
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Fischer View Post
It's been said a million times, but we all see the game differently (I've sat in on a few scout meetings, and there are always varying opinions of most prospects) and my prognostications could very well turn out to be wrong (I truly hope they do with anything negative I write, I hate saying someone can't do something), that's just the nature of the beast. Don't take my word as gospel, but rather as an informed opinion that can help you learn a bit more about Sharks prospects to allow you to develop your own unique views.
Very well said.

__________________
Patty Ice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-04-2012, 06:56 PM
  #31
210
Registered User
 
210's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Worcester, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,699
vCash: 500
Five out of six points this weekend...must be more luck.

210 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2012, 02:05 AM
  #32
Craig Fischer
Hockey's Future Staff
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: YYC
Country: Canada
Posts: 464
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stalockrox View Post
Craig - I'm still curious what you base your opinions on. Are you able to watch all of the prospects play, if so how often? The scouts you 'sit in' with, are they pro, amateur, junior, regional, NCAA, etc scouts? Do you get insight from the Sharks org or scouts?

As you mentioned, people see prospects very differently - I'm just wondering if your opinions are based on video, live viewings, info from others, etc.
I've seen the vast majority of the players in the Sharks system this season (I find it difficult to find college footage--if anyone here has some tips that would be great) and for those I can't, I speak directly with respected people who have. I also have a constant dialogue going on with some friends I knew from school who are more statistically inclined with the game and study that side of the game almost religiously.

I don't want to touch on that one question, but I will say I am unaffiliated with the Sharks organization.

In a perfect world it would be amazing to be able to see all of these guys in person and to be able to converse with them directly, but it's just not feasible. I have seen a number of these guys when they were younger like Gogol (quite possibly my favourite prospect to watch right now). Unfortunately I can't give you that kind of coverage, but what I will give you is real honest analysis with hopefully a few different views that will make you think and discuss.

Craig Fischer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2012, 02:09 AM
  #33
Craig Fischer
Hockey's Future Staff
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: YYC
Country: Canada
Posts: 464
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 210 View Post
Five out of six points this weekend...must be more luck.
Four out of four. Sateri played in the IceCaps game.

Craig Fischer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2012, 06:06 AM
  #34
210
Registered User
 
210's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Worcester, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,699
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Fischer View Post
Four out of four. Sateri played in the IceCaps game.
I was referring to the team...

210 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2012, 03:13 PM
  #35
WTFetus
Moderator
Most popular combo
 
WTFetus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 12,069
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 210 View Post
I was referring to the team...
And he was referring to Stalock in his luck argument... ... ...


Last edited by WTFetus: 11-05-2012 at 03:24 PM.
WTFetus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2012, 03:39 PM
  #36
210
Registered User
 
210's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Worcester, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,699
vCash: 500
Yes he was, and that actually makes the comment even sillier. Since the debacle in Lewiston Stalock has started 4 games and relived in a 5th...he's 4-0, with about a 1.50 GAA and a save% in the .950 neighborhood.

Must be luck.

210 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2012, 06:08 PM
  #37
ChubbChubby
My life is a gym
 
ChubbChubby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 3,074
vCash: 500
Someone needs to get off his high horse.

5 games is impressive, but you make it sound like it's definitive proof. Luck certainly could have played a part in it, and you didn't need to sound condescending or snarky about it.

Heck, Boucher has the shutout streak record at 5 games. Goalies can be judged based on their skill and abilities, but luck and the players in front of them have a ton to do with their performance.

Craig is arguing that Stalock has certain issues that may hinder him from being successful in the NHL, and whether or not you agree, he has put forth some evidence to back it up. You, on the other hand, have done nothing but insult him and make backhanded, passive-aggressive comments without any attempt for real discussion. Argue your point and prove Craig otherwise if you want, but short, childish remarks add nothing to the conversation.

ChubbChubby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2012, 06:16 PM
  #38
210
Registered User
 
210's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Worcester, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,699
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chubbs View Post
Someone needs to get off his high horse.

5 games is impressive, but you make it sound like it's definitive proof. Luck certainly could have played a part in it, and you didn't need to sound condescending or snarky about it.

Heck, Boucher has the shutout streak record at 5 games. Goalies can be judged based on their skill and abilities, but luck and the players in front of them have a ton to do with their performance.

Craig is arguing that Stalock has certain issues that may hinder him from being successful in the NHL, and whether or not you agree, he has put forth some evidence to back it up. You, on the other hand, have done nothing but insult him and make backhanded, passive-aggressive comments without any attempt for real discussion. Argue your point and prove Craig otherwise if you want, but short, childish remarks add nothing to the conversation.
No, he actually hasn't.

210 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2012, 06:23 PM
  #39
210
Registered User
 
210's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Worcester, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,699
vCash: 500
And BTW, the sample size for Stalock is really 125 games, not just the five I pointed out.

We'll use 107 as the number of games played because that's the number of regular season games he played entering this season and has numbers easily available without doing any math...

61-37-6 2.60 .908

All luck, right?

210 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2012, 07:20 PM
  #40
Speed
Registered User
 
Speed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Holden, MA
Posts: 1,087
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chubbs View Post
Someone needs to get off his high horse.

5 games is impressive, but you make it sound like it's definitive proof. Luck certainly could have played a part in it, and you didn't need to sound condescending or snarky about it.

Heck, Boucher has the shutout streak record at 5 games. Goalies can be judged based on their skill and abilities, but luck and the players in front of them have a ton to do with their performance.

Craig is arguing that Stalock has certain issues that may hinder him from being successful in the NHL, and whether or not you agree, he has put forth some evidence to back it up. You, on the other hand, have done nothing but insult him and make backhanded, passive-aggressive comments without any attempt for real discussion. Argue your point and prove Craig otherwise if you want, but short, childish remarks add nothing to the conversation.
Um, I'm disregarding all the other stuff here - 210 can handle himself
But, while I appreciate Craig going into quite a bit of detail on the prospects, I totally disagee on his evaulation of Stalock as well. He hasn't provided evidence. As he stated himself - it's his opinion.

At the time, I didn't agree that Sateri is the front runner in goalie prospects, nor did I feel Stalock was struggling more. Not even close on either observation. Neither one was getting support from the team around them. Both were trying to do way too much than they should have - and it made them look bad.

Here's his opinion with my comments in bold:

Stalock's positioning and reflexes are a huge concern and at 25 years of age, even at the goaltending position (where you expect a longer process) this is a bit of a positional outlier.

For the sampling of the games Craig saw this year, positioning was an issue due to trying to do too much. I have no idea where there's a concern about reflexes. Below he talks about "highlight-esque saves". How can you do that with bad reflexes?

He's constantly caught off-guard with shots from the outside to the point (it's not even just on screened shots) where I believe puck tracking is a significant issue. Notice how he makes a lot of "highlight-esque saves"? I feel it's because he's out of position or he's just not picking up the puck in the first place to the point where a normal routine "blah" save could have just as easily gotten the job done.

If anything, he's one of the more focused and best in picking up the puck I've seen come through here. Better than Greiss, and up there with Roloson when he was in Worcester.

From my perspective the wins have come from luck. Luck in that when he's out of position he's getting shots flung directly at him with wide open nets, and through strength of opposition--Bridgeport is not a very good team, especially on the offensive end-- and I feel like by late Novemeber those statistics (which aren't very good even from a statistic point of view) could get worse (they might actually get better first though, considering the Sharks play Providence twice in a short stretch and they have real problems). I think there needs to be changes in his game if he's ever going to be an NHL goaltender.

His overall stats don't show that he has issues with positioning or reflexes. His overall stats don't come from luck - especially on a particularly bad 2010-2011 team. You also don't make the all-star team with bad positioning or relfexes.

The only thing Stalock did early on was he tried to do too much. Don't be surprised if he's an all star again this year, and in San Jose next season.

Speed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2012, 07:27 PM
  #41
The Nemesis
Global Moderator
Semper Tyrannus
 
The Nemesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Langley, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 48,230
vCash: 500
watch the attacks please. Argue the points without getting personal.

__________________

"Do you know what "nemesis" means? A righteous infliction of retribution manifested by an appropriate agent."
'14-15 Sharks CI Tracker: 23 GP, 9-10-4 (home-away-Nat'l/In-Region)
Sorry, I am not taking signature requests at this time.
The Nemesis is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2012, 07:29 PM
  #42
WTFetus
Moderator
Most popular combo
 
WTFetus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 12,069
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed View Post
As he stated himself - it's his opinion.
Evidence was probably the wrong word. It was Craig's opinion, but at least he had the courtesy to elaborate on it. 210 didn't even do that (you did though Speed, which was all 210 had to do in the first place). All he did was act extremely condescending and attack Craig personally by saying he doesn't watch the games.
Posts like these especially rub me the wrong way (along with all the ellipses)
Quote:
When you watch Friday's and Sunday's games compare them to the Albany loss and Saturday's game...the obvious difference is the reason why the WorSharks beat Bridgeport twice. Come back and report what that difference was
That's practically saying, "You're wrong, but I'm not going to tell you why I think you're wrong". Craig asked for people to critique his articles, but how is he even supposed to respond to a post like this?


Last edited by WTFetus: 11-05-2012 at 07:37 PM.
WTFetus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2012, 07:49 PM
  #43
210
Registered User
 
210's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Worcester, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,699
vCash: 500
He can respond by telling us what the obvious difference was in those games. Anyone that watched the games would know. It's a glaring difference. In fact, it's something that didn't happen at all this weekend.

Oh, and this post is ellipse free just for you (although it did require an edit or two ).

210 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2012, 09:38 PM
  #44
ChubbChubby
My life is a gym
 
ChubbChubby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 3,074
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed View Post
Um, I'm disregarding all the other stuff here - 210 can handle himself
But, while I appreciate Craig going into quite a bit of detail on the prospects, I totally disagee on his evaulation of Stalock as well. He hasn't provided evidence. As he stated himself - it's his opinion.

At the time, I didn't agree that Sateri is the front runner in goalie prospects, nor did I feel Stalock was struggling more. Not even close on either observation. Neither one was getting support from the team around them. Both were trying to do way too much than they should have - and it made them look bad.

Here's his opinion with my comments in bold:

Stalock's positioning and reflexes are a huge concern and at 25 years of age, even at the goaltending position (where you expect a longer process) this is a bit of a positional outlier.

For the sampling of the games Craig saw this year, positioning was an issue due to trying to do too much. I have no idea where there's a concern about reflexes. Below he talks about "highlight-esque saves". How can you do that with bad reflexes?

He's constantly caught off-guard with shots from the outside to the point (it's not even just on screened shots) where I believe puck tracking is a significant issue. Notice how he makes a lot of "highlight-esque saves"? I feel it's because he's out of position or he's just not picking up the puck in the first place to the point where a normal routine "blah" save could have just as easily gotten the job done.

If anything, he's one of the more focused and best in picking up the puck I've seen come through here. Better than Greiss, and up there with Roloson when he was in Worcester.

From my perspective the wins have come from luck. Luck in that when he's out of position he's getting shots flung directly at him with wide open nets, and through strength of opposition--Bridgeport is not a very good team, especially on the offensive end-- and I feel like by late Novemeber those statistics (which aren't very good even from a statistic point of view) could get worse (they might actually get better first though, considering the Sharks play Providence twice in a short stretch and they have real problems). I think there needs to be changes in his game if he's ever going to be an NHL goaltender.

His overall stats don't show that he has issues with positioning or reflexes. His overall stats don't come from luck - especially on a particularly bad 2010-2011 team. You also don't make the all-star team with bad positioning or relfexes.

The only thing Stalock did early on was he tried to do too much. Don't be surprised if he's an all star again this year, and in San Jose next season.
That's the kind of response that I would have liked to have seen and actually encourage. You gave your stance on the subject and pointed out where you disagree. Like I said earlier, I have no opinion on the subject and I'm not going to pretend like I know anything, but what irks me is when people add nothing to the discussion and are merely in it to gloat or act superior.

ChubbChubby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2012, 01:19 AM
  #45
Craig Fischer
Hockey's Future Staff
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: YYC
Country: Canada
Posts: 464
vCash: 500
I like to look at the positives, and I'm considering it a huge win that my views on Stalock (who isn't even a Sharks "prospect" in a HF sense) are the only real pitchfork and torch worthy ones--haha.


Speed, I'll summarize my answer and then give you individual answers. I'm looking at these players from an NHL lens. I'm trying to project players into the future and determine given their skillset and tools if I feel like they can succeed in the NHL. I think you'd agree that the AHL is a different creature than the NHL (it's of the same species/kingdom/whatever) and success at the AHL level doesn't always correlate to the NHL (A quick look at past Baz award winners is a great indicator of this). That being said, I think I was called out because I essentially said Stalock was struggling so far this season. He was, I think he's improved over the few games since then, but I still see flaws in his game, and stand by my belief that he's benefited from lesser offensive opposition. I don't things are as dire as they were how I saw things early on, but I still do not see Stalock as an NHL calibre goalie (I hope he proves me wrong!).

Reflex/Highlight: Luck. He's making saves because of poorly placed shots. At the NHL level I feel like he'd be burned.

Tracking: We'll have to disagree here--funny enough this is one of the biggest points of arguments amongst scouts because of how hard it is to actually "track" this haha.

Stats: I'm a big believer in statistics because I do feel like they help illustrate the story (I'm always reading articles on NHLE and the like, and a big fan of fenwick/corsi work being done in the NHL), but it's not the whole story, and you have to dig a little deeper (or look at more advanced stats--which are all either theoretical or too complex) and I think his overall stats so far have benefited from weaker opposition. I believe the next three games (The Pirates are rolling right now), will be a fantastic indicator of where the defense/goaltending of the Sharks actually is at.

I feel like I wrote a bunch here haha--so hopefully that creates some good old fashioned discussion. I appreciate your insights.

Craig Fischer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2012, 06:17 AM
  #46
210
Registered User
 
210's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Worcester, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,699
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Fischer View Post
Reflex/Highlight: Luck. He's making saves because of poorly placed shots. At the NHL level I feel like he'd be burned.

Tracking: We'll have to disagree here--funny enough this is one of the biggest points of arguments amongst scouts because of how hard it is to actually "track" this haha.
If these two things are true why did San Jose re-sign him and not Sexsmith?

(Another ellipse free post just for WTFetus )

210 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2012, 10:01 AM
  #47
stalockrox
Registered User
 
stalockrox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,788
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Fischer View Post
I like to look at the positives, and I'm considering it a huge win that my views on Stalock (who isn't even a Sharks "prospect" in a HF sense) are the only real pitchfork and torch worthy ones--haha.


Speed, I'll summarize my answer and then give you individual answers. I'm looking at these players from an NHL lens. I'm trying to project players into the future and determine given their skillset and tools if I feel like they can succeed in the NHL. I think you'd agree that the AHL is a different creature than the NHL (it's of the same species/kingdom/whatever) and success at the AHL level doesn't always correlate to the NHL (A quick look at past Baz award winners is a great indicator of this). That being said, I think I was called out because I essentially said Stalock was struggling so far this season. He was, I think he's improved over the few games since then, but I still see flaws in his game, and stand by my belief that he's benefited from lesser offensive opposition. I don't things are as dire as they were how I saw things early on, but I still do not see Stalock as an NHL calibre goalie (I hope he proves me wrong!).

Reflex/Highlight: Luck. He's making saves because of poorly placed shots. At the NHL level I feel like he'd be burned.

Tracking: We'll have to disagree here--funny enough this is one of the biggest points of arguments amongst scouts because of how hard it is to actually "track" this haha.

Stats: I'm a big believer in statistics because I do feel like they help illustrate the story (I'm always reading articles on NHLE and the like, and a big fan of fenwick/corsi work being done in the NHL), but it's not the whole story, and you have to dig a little deeper (or look at more advanced stats--which are all either theoretical or too complex) and I think his overall stats so far have benefited from weaker opposition. I believe the next three games (The Pirates are rolling right now), will be a fantastic indicator of where the defense/goaltending of the Sharks actually is at.

I feel like I wrote a bunch here haha--so hopefully that creates some good old fashioned discussion. I appreciate your insights.
I actually don't agree with quite a few of your assessments which is why I asked how you come to your opinions on players, especially how long / often you've watched them play. I've already stated the reasons in another thread so I won't bore people with another long post about it.

Regarding Stalock, had he not been injured I'm pretty confident in saying he would've been in the NHL, if not last year then this year. You mentioned in your article that the Sharks goaltending prospects went from good to not good (I'm paraphrasing here) over the course of a summer and somewhere between 5 -10 games depending on where the prospect is playing - you'll have to forgive me but making any kind of assessment on a players in that small of a sample size is a mistake.

Goalies are very hard to scout, they always have been. Where you say players have poor shot placement, others will say the goalie is positionally sound. You talk about his athleticism (hilight saves) as if it's a problem and about his vision/tracking skills being below average, where his play over the course of his career has shown that to not be true.

Making any kind of definitive statement on a goaltender who had just missed an entire year of training, playing, etc. on his first 5 games doesn't make any sense to me.

And this all coming from someone who thinks Sateri will be the better goalie long term.


Last edited by stalockrox: 11-06-2012 at 10:42 AM.
stalockrox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2012, 01:08 PM
  #48
hohosaregood
Drunken Snacking
 
hohosaregood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Fischer View Post
I like to look at the positives, and I'm considering it a huge win that my views on Stalock (who isn't even a Sharks "prospect" in a HF sense) are the only real pitchfork and torch worthy ones--haha.


Speed, I'll summarize my answer and then give you individual answers. I'm looking at these players from an NHL lens. I'm trying to project players into the future and determine given their skillset and tools if I feel like they can succeed in the NHL. I think you'd agree that the AHL is a different creature than the NHL (it's of the same species/kingdom/whatever) and success at the AHL level doesn't always correlate to the NHL (A quick look at past Baz award winners is a great indicator of this). That being said, I think I was called out because I essentially said Stalock was struggling so far this season. He was, I think he's improved over the few games since then, but I still see flaws in his game, and stand by my belief that he's benefited from lesser offensive opposition. I don't things are as dire as they were how I saw things early on, but I still do not see Stalock as an NHL calibre goalie (I hope he proves me wrong!).

Reflex/Highlight: Luck. He's making saves because of poorly placed shots. At the NHL level I feel like he'd be burned.

Tracking: We'll have to disagree here--funny enough this is one of the biggest points of arguments amongst scouts because of how hard it is to actually "track" this haha.

Stats: I'm a big believer in statistics because I do feel like they help illustrate the story (I'm always reading articles on NHLE and the like, and a big fan of fenwick/corsi work being done in the NHL), but it's not the whole story, and you have to dig a little deeper (or look at more advanced stats--which are all either theoretical or too complex) and I think his overall stats so far have benefited from weaker opposition. I believe the next three games (The Pirates are rolling right now), will be a fantastic indicator of where the defense/goaltending of the Sharks actually is at.

I feel like I wrote a bunch here haha--so hopefully that creates some good old fashioned discussion. I appreciate your insights.
I thought a lot of things about Tim Thomas' game was just luck honestly. He had so many great saves and spectacular saves but they made for some bad positioning for the rebound but he got his butt saved because someone whiffed a shot or Chara managed to clear the puck before someone else got to the puck. But, in the end, Thomas's performance over the last couple years showed some elite goaltending skills.

This "luck" stuff is probably just an implicit part of smaller goaltenders who have to play more aggressively, it seems kind of strange because there are so many shots that should go in the net but they don't.

About tracking, I've always thought it was an experience thing. The more a goaltender plays and they start to learn how the puck moves from player to player, it becomes somewhat more instinctual following the puck. So, to me, tracking is a lesser issue for goaltenders.

hohosaregood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2012, 02:42 PM
  #49
Craig Fischer
Hockey's Future Staff
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: YYC
Country: Canada
Posts: 464
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hohosaregood View Post
I thought a lot of things about Tim Thomas' game was just luck honestly. He had so many great saves and spectacular saves but they made for some bad positioning for the rebound but he got his butt saved because someone whiffed a shot or Chara managed to clear the puck before someone else got to the puck. But, in the end, Thomas's performance over the last couple years showed some elite goaltending skills.

This "luck" stuff is probably just an implicit part of smaller goaltenders who have to play more aggressively, it seems kind of strange because there are so many shots that should go in the net but they don't.

About tracking, I've always thought it was an experience thing. The more a goaltender plays and they start to learn how the puck moves from player to player, it becomes somewhat more instinctual following the puck. So, to me, tracking is a lesser issue for goaltenders.
Great points.

(I think tracking is a greater issue, but it is an experience thing. One of the greatest features of watching video, is pause. I've been taught to pause constantly when viewing a goaltender and pay attention to where the mask is angled (obviously a goalie is going to take his eyes off the puck to check the play, but if there is a constant issue it could be worrisome, and Stalock [unless he's looking out of his mask hella weird, which I don't believe is the case] is having issues with this. I believe it's the root cause of the need to make so many "leaps" across his net. Again though, great point on Thomas).

Craig Fischer is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:53 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.