HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Pittsburgh Penguins
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Best goalie while a Pen (Fans opinion)

View Poll Results: Best goalie while a Pen
Marc-Andre Fleury 21 29.17%
Tom Barrasso 48 66.67%
Other 0 0%
Not sure 3 4.17%
Voters: 72. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-03-2012, 03:46 PM
  #51
Don'tcry4mejanhrdina
Registered User
 
Don'tcry4mejanhrdina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: This space.
Country: Poland
Posts: 9,073
vCash: 500
Barrasso's latter seasons hurt his reputation among Pens fans (especially younger ones) and the fact that he's a jerk doesn't help much, either. He never had a playoff performance like Fleury last season though, that was the worst I've seen from a starting goaltender in the playoffs.

Fleury has flat out blown lately. He's a great guy and has the talent but it's incredibly frustrating watching him play. Barrasso takes this easily. Fleury needs to get his head out of his ass. He should be entering the prime of his career but he's seemingly getting worse as time goes by.

Don'tcry4mejanhrdina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 05:43 PM
  #52
#66
Registered User
 
#66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 10,280
vCash: 500
Does anyone remember the Andy Moog trade rumors? I've always wondered what happened with that. It might have been trading assets for Moog or Coffey. I'm happy it ended up with Coffey and then Barrasso.

#66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 09:26 PM
  #53
vikingGoalie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 873
vCash: 500
based on my observations and playing the position. I think that Fleury *IS* subjected to more then normal high quality scoring chances. Turnovers in DB's system where the puck is turned over near our own blue line and become a surprise 3-2 or breakaway happen with alarming frequency.

As a goalie facing a 3-2 that develops from the far blue line is one thing, one that develops at your own is quite another.

That said I still think Fleury needs to get a new goalie coach and throw away some of the awful save selections he has made, take that breakaway goal from briere (the one he's offsides on) why is fleury making a 2 pad stack!!!! totally bad choice there, but even though briere is waaay offsides it's perfect example how badly our D gets exploited at times.

Someone like Lundqvist doesn't face anywhere near the number of odd man rushes/breakaways that Fleury does. Based only on my watching games and no stats whatsoever

You want to get a goalie off even keel and second guessing himself, have him face too many odd man rushes, or too many point blank shots. Hard for the goalie to get settled in and just focus on the shot.

Still. as pointed out. there is no reason his stick handling/ventures from the net should be as big of an adventure as they are this far into his pro career.
There is no reason he should be using the one pad up, one pad down technique in some of the situations he does. and he should not be doing a 2 pad stack on a shooter that is not right up on him, that's an easy shot for most NHL forwards.

I think he has top top tier talent, but his save selection (at times), rebounds (at times) and stick handling are all things that reflect goalie coach not making headway or being ignorant. I just think from what I recollect of watching Barrasso is that I'm more impressed with Fleury's ability to steal a game then Barrasso's. We just haven't seen it often enough as of late. But I still have a kernel of hope that this next season (whenever that is) with Vokoun pushing him he'll have a great season and playoff run.

feel free to say told you so after he goes in the tank again next playoffs

vikingGoalie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 01:59 AM
  #54
Tender Rip
No cap on coaching!
 
Tender Rip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Shanghai, China
Posts: 12,290
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vikingGoalie View Post
I just think from what I recollect of watching Barrasso is that I'm more impressed with Fleury's ability to steal a game then Barrasso's
I am not going to claim myself an expert on the art of goal tending. Indeed, from your observations alone you would appear to have much more knowledge on that than I.

However, the stealing games part... outside of complete failing in the playoffs, my biggest grievance with Fleury is that I think it hardly ever happens.

We habitually outshoot and outchance teams, and by a good margin. While at our very worst Fleury is some times called upon to do way too much, the opposing goalie is pretty much always in that situation.

To me - the number of games lost explicitly because Fleury was horrible is clearly a lot higher than the number of games won because he was ace.

Tender Rip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 02:32 AM
  #55
Illinest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Harrisburg
Country: United States
Posts: 1,134
vCash: 500
I'm not sure if I've got this straight...

It's not Fleury's fault that he has a bad save percentage - it's the coaches fault and the player's fault?

What would we say about this example then? Columbus sucked last year and they had two goaltenders who split the time pretty evenly. Steve Mason had an .894 percentage but Curtis Sanford had .911, while MAF had .913.

Are we saying that MAF's job was as tough as Curtis Sanford's, or is it that Curtis Sanford is just a better goaltender than MAF?

If Sanford is better than MAF then what business does anyone have comparing MAF to Barrasso? But if MAF's job was so tough that he couldn't outperform Curtis Sanford then how do we explain the fact that the Pens came within a few points of the President's trophy while Columbus had the worst record in the league. Are the chances against Fleury so much worse than anyone else's chances that they overwhelm all of the other advantages that he enjoys?




Do I seem mean spirited? I guess I must. I'm sorry - I'm just about done with being patient is all. By this time I expected MAF to be stealing playoff series, not giving them away. I wouldn't even care so much if he were just mediocre, but he has been BAD.

Illinest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 10:36 AM
  #56
mrzeigler
Geno and Juss '13
 
mrzeigler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: United States
Posts: 3,150
vCash: 500
The argument supporting Fleury is quality of shots, which is directly affected by a coach's system.

Look at it this way, before Bylsma, the Penguins had a reputation (which was built over two decades) of being a team that would pass on average or mediocre scoring opportunities in favor of high-quality scoring chances. You don't have a radio station create a "Shoot the puck" song in response to fan criticism of the powerplay, otherwise. The Pens would regularly be outshot — at times by ridiculous margins — and still be in games or even win. It wasn't unusual for the Pens to end games with 20 shots and 4 goals or 23 shots and 5 goals.

During the Bylsma era, the mindset of the team has been transformed to be "any shot is a good shot." A consequence of HCDB's stressing of constant offensive pressure is that when opponents counterattack, it's often in the form of odd-man breakaways, which are not easy for a goalie to defend against. I would wager $100 that the Pens have been out-odd-man-breakawayed for each of the past couple of regular seasons.

Combine that system with the noted deficiencies we had on defense last year, and you have a situation in which few goalies would post stellar stats.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Illinest View Post
I'm not sure if I've got this straight...

It's not Fleury's fault that he has a bad save percentage - it's the coaches fault and the player's fault?

What would we say about this example then? Columbus sucked last year and they had two goaltenders who split the time pretty evenly. Steve Mason had an .894 percentage but Curtis Sanford had .911, while MAF had .913.

Are we saying that MAF's job was as tough as Curtis Sanford's, or is it that Curtis Sanford is just a better goaltender than MAF?

If Sanford is better than MAF then what business does anyone have comparing MAF to Barrasso? But if MAF's job was so tough that he couldn't outperform Curtis Sanford then how do we explain the fact that the Pens came within a few points of the President's trophy while Columbus had the worst record in the league. Are the chances against Fleury so much worse than anyone else's chances that they overwhelm all of the other advantages that he enjoys?




Do I seem mean spirited? I guess I must. I'm sorry - I'm just about done with being patient is all. By this time I expected MAF to be stealing playoff series, not giving them away. I wouldn't even care so much if he were just mediocre, but he has been BAD.

mrzeigler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 10:55 AM
  #57
Le Magnifique 66
Let's Go Pens
 
Le Magnifique 66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,233
vCash: 500
Flower. Had absolutely no fate in Barasso

Le Magnifique 66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 11:59 AM
  #58
UnrealMachine
Registered User
 
UnrealMachine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,331
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illinest View Post
I'm not sure if I've got this straight...

It's not Fleury's fault that he has a bad save percentage - it's the coaches fault and the player's fault?

What would we say about this example then? Columbus sucked last year and they had two goaltenders who split the time pretty evenly. Steve Mason had an .894 percentage but Curtis Sanford had .911, while MAF had .913.

Are we saying that MAF's job was as tough as Curtis Sanford's, or is it that Curtis Sanford is just a better goaltender than MAF?

If Sanford is better than MAF then what business does anyone have comparing MAF to Barrasso? But if MAF's job was so tough that he couldn't outperform Curtis Sanford then how do we explain the fact that the Pens came within a few points of the President's trophy while Columbus had the worst record in the league. Are the chances against Fleury so much worse than anyone else's chances that they overwhelm all of the other advantages that he enjoys?

Do I seem mean spirited? I guess I must. I'm sorry - I'm just about done with being patient is all. By this time I expected MAF to be stealing playoff series, not giving them away. I wouldn't even care so much if he were just mediocre, but he has been BAD.
Since we are speaking of systems, it would probably be more appropriate to limit the discussion to even-strength sv%. In that case for last season:

Sanford = 0.923, 21.64 EV shots/game
Fleury = 0.915, 21.85 EV shots/game

Not a good look.

UnrealMachine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 01:06 PM
  #59
wgknestrick
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,893
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnrealMachine View Post
Since we are speaking of systems, it would probably be more appropriate to limit the discussion to even-strength sv%. In that case for last season:

Sanford = 0.923, 21.64 EV shots/game
Fleury = 0.915, 21.85 EV shots/game

Not a good look.
Excellent point....It doesn't get much more objective than EVSV%. Removes most of the team affects of putting a goaltender in 5v4 situations that lower their SV% by drastically different amounts.



So where is MAF in these top 10s?
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1073663

I can't wait until the Pens have a good goaltender in Vokoun behind them. I also love to see MAF being called out finally for what he really is. Average - below average goaltender playing behind a very strong team.

wgknestrick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 01:23 PM
  #60
Double-Shift Lassé
Moderator
Just post better
 
Double-Shift Lassé's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Superurban Cbus
Country: United States
Posts: 17,584
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illinest View Post
What would we say about this example then? Columbus sucked last year and they had two goaltenders who split the time pretty evenly. Steve Mason had an .894 percentage but Curtis Sanford had .911, while MAF had .913.

Are we saying that MAF's job was as tough as Curtis Sanford's, or is it that Curtis Sanford is just a better goaltender than MAF?

If Sanford is better than MAF then what business does anyone have comparing MAF to Barrasso? But if MAF's job was so tough that he couldn't outperform Curtis Sanford then how do we explain the fact that the Pens came within a few points of the President's trophy while Columbus had the worst record in the league. Are the chances against Fleury so much worse than anyone else's chances that they overwhelm all of the other advantages that he enjoys?
I come to the Pens board to escape stuff like this...

__________________
"Every game, every point is a necessity." -- Ty Conklin, January 2007
"I'll have a chance to compete for the post of first issue. This is the most important thing." -- Sergei Bobrovsky, June 2012
Double-Shift Lassé is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 01:54 PM
  #61
vikingGoalie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 873
vCash: 500
sorry for the long post, but it's a slow day...

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnrealMachine View Post
Since we are speaking of systems, it would probably be more appropriate to limit the discussion to even-strength sv%. In that case for last season:

Sanford = 0.923, 21.64 EV shots/game
Fleury = 0.915, 21.85 EV shots/game

Not a good look.
On even strength is when the penguins tend to give up odd man rushes at a greater rate then most hockey clubs.

The thing is that I don't think I'm communicating well is this. Fleury was absolutely horrible last playoffs. I thought overall he played well in game 1 but the defense was really bad. That got into his head and things went further and further off the rails.

A goalie who faces predictable situations, where the defense prevents the other team from penetrating will have on average have better stats then one who faces turnover situations (can't predict those) and has people shooting at him from 15 feet away.

Being a goalie is a hugely mental position. If the goalie doesn't get settled, is thinking about how things could go unpredictable on him rather then just focusing on the shot. They will have a much tougher time making a save, and are more likely to make asinine mistakes.

In many ways, I thought that shot from Giroux in game 6 was one of his worst goals in that series. Because it was from a safe(r) spot and it was before any crazyness of the game could start getting into his head, not making that save totally deflated the team. It was a great shot, but it's a save that MAF has to make. He saw the puck the whole way and just had it blown by him.

Quote:
I am not going to claim myself an expert on the art of goal tending. Indeed, from your observations alone you would appear to have much more knowledge on that than I.

However, the stealing games part... outside of complete failing in the playoffs, my biggest grievance with Fleury is that I think it hardly ever happens.

We habitually outshoot and outchance teams, and by a good margin. While at our very worst Fleury is some times called upon to do way too much, the opposing goalie is pretty much always in that situation.

To me - the number of games lost explicitly because Fleury was horrible is clearly a lot higher than the number of games won because he was ace.
I agree to an extent. We out shoot (sometimes out chance) but % wise the quality of good chances fleury faces are higher. Perhaps not every game, but certainly in the ones we lose.

Thing is it's hard to prove this stuff with stats as a lot of it simply isn't recorded in a way to do analysis. The closest is to look at giveaways, but not every odd man rush seems to fall into that, nor cover some of the other d fallacies. Look at game 1 against philly. We out shot them 28-26, we had 8 giveaways compared to 3 from philly. What isn't reflected there is what happened after the giveaway so that might not be a good # to look at. Fleury's save % in that game was a horrible 84%. but you take away that biere breakaway and the OT winner that was caused by Letang tipping it over near Staal who couldn't be bothered to box out the crease or lift a stick and his save % becomes a respectable 92.3%.
(just to illustrate how quickly a goalie goes from a good save % to a bad one)

Fleury has to get more consistent, mainly he has to play his game and not let the odd man rush stuff not get to him. That's why there are people who hate him, and some people think he still can turn it around. I think he has the ability to win a Veznia, but I think to get there he needs a new goalie coach. I still point at Smith, he didn't get magically different going from Tampa to Phoenix. He had a goalie coach work with him on a few minor things, and he had a defensive system in front of him that limited high quality chances.

MAF is on a short leash next season. I think he goes in the tank, no matter the reason, he's gone.

To the point of this thread. I think the SCF runs Fleury had huge roles in getting the team there. The cup year he totally stole some games and helped us get past Washington and Philly. (although I thought he was not good the first 2 games against washington) While he got pulled in game 5 against detroit game 6 and 7 he was as a big reason we won those games.

vikingGoalie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 06:43 PM
  #62
UnrealMachine
Registered User
 
UnrealMachine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,331
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vikingGoalie View Post
On even strength is when the penguins tend to give up odd man rushes at a greater rate then most hockey clubs.
How can you possibly know this to be true unless you have watched, at a minimum, every game of at least half of all NHL teams?

Quote:
Originally Posted by vikingGoalie View Post
The thing is that I don't think I'm communicating well is this. Fleury was absolutely horrible last playoffs. I thought overall he played well in game 1 but the defense was really bad. That got into his head and things went further and further off the rails.
I understand what you are trying to say, but it comes across strictly as your opinion and is not substantiated by any data (that I know of). His last playoff performance though isn't even all that relevant to the discussion. A small piece of a much bigger picture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vikingGoalie View Post
A goalie who faces predictable situations, where the defense prevents the other team from penetrating will have on average have better stats then one who faces turnover situations (can't predict those) and has people shooting at him from 15 feet away.
We already compared Fleury to a goalie on the worst team in the league last season. Two other bad teams, in this case two with horrible defenses, still turned in performances that were at least comparable to Fleury:

Reimer, EVSV% = 0.918
Garon, EVSV% = 0.909

And just for laughs,

Steve Mason, EVSV% = 0.911

Is the Penguins team defense, in terms of shot quality against, really worse than Columbus, Toronto & Tampa Bay? Really?!?

UnrealMachine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 07:28 PM
  #63
mrzeigler
Geno and Juss '13
 
mrzeigler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: United States
Posts: 3,150
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnrealMachine View Post
How can you possibly know this to be true unless you have watched, at a minimum, every game of at least half of all NHL teams?
if you've watched a majority of Pens games during the Byslma regime and an occasional nonPGH game here and there, you should have a pretty good general sense of if Eastern Conference teams, at least, have a tendency to give up more or fewer quality chances. Especially since this argument is comparing them to the Pens, not NHL standard that the Pens may or may not represent.

mrzeigler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 07:31 PM
  #64
wgknestrick
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,893
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnrealMachine View Post
How can you possibly know this to be true unless you have watched, at a minimum, every game of at least half of all NHL teams?



I understand what you are trying to say, but it comes across strictly as your opinion and is not substantiated by any data (that I know of). His last playoff performance though isn't even all that relevant to the discussion. A small piece of a much bigger picture.



We already compared Fleury to a goalie on the worst team in the league last season. Two other bad teams, in this case two with horrible defenses, still turned in performances that were at least comparable to Fleury:

Reimer, EVSV% = 0.918
Garon, EVSV% = 0.909

And just for laughs,

Steve Mason, EVSV% = 0.911

Is the Penguins team defense, in terms of shot quality against, really worse than Columbus, Toronto & Tampa Bay? Really?!?
(In other poster's voice)
But this data does not agree with my opinion so (with the assumption that my opinion is never incorrect), I must try to disprove this data. The data is wrong, not me.


(In my voice)
MAF has posted just 2 years of playoff SV% over .900 in the last 9 years of professional hockey. Both years the Pens went to the SCF. I wonder what the weak link is in the Penguins chain? This is supposed to be our best franchise goaltender ever?

Yes, MAF faces higher quality shots than most goaltenders. How many of those are his own doing from poor rebounds, misplayed pucks behind the net, or from him giving tough to receive passes high on the boards to wingers that quickly turn into a scoring chance? He isn't the only goalie to face an odd man rush, break away shots, or wristers in the crease. They all face them. The biggest significant difference comes from how often a team puts a goaltender on the PK and their skill defending that PK. I would say that the Pens rank near the top in both of those categories so IMO they are sheltering MAF's weak SV% even more than an average team would.

A goaltender is not off the hook for any shot quality effect. I think they are the biggest contributor with how well they control rebounds or how quickly they freeze the puck. Do you honestly think MAF is anywhere near average with puck control after he makes a save? He is anything but a puck magnet.


Last edited by wgknestrick: 12-04-2012 at 07:44 PM.
wgknestrick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 07:00 AM
  #65
Tender Rip
No cap on coaching!
 
Tender Rip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Shanghai, China
Posts: 12,290
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vikingGoalie View Post
We out shoot (sometimes out chance) but % wise the quality of good chances fleury faces are higher. Perhaps not every game, but certainly in the ones we lose.
Tough argument to substantiate though... Sounds more like someone having made up ones mind that it is so...

Tender Rip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 09:52 AM
  #66
vikingGoalie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 873
vCash: 500
oye...

I did say that no one really records good statistical data to assert things one way or the other. As far as using a small example. I think most agree that Fleury was solid last season up until the last few weeks before the playoffs and of course the debacle against Philly. I don't think it's coincidence that the two SCF runs where Fleury had his best save % were under MT, and under DB while MT's system was largely in place still.

I would think the fact that a new coach comes in puts in a new system and afterwards we see the downward trend (esp in the playoffs) of Fleury's save pct should tell us something.

I look at games like this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzhIoLKwwN4
You look at stats, fleury is awful in this game, 21 shots, 4 goals.

However look at the goals scored, and how they are scored.

goal 1, 3rd wack at the puck.
goal 2, back door total d breakdown
goal 3, once again fleury makes first save, in that scenario the goalie's responsibility is the first shot, after that it's on the D to box out. Our D gets totally out worked/muscled and the 3rd swing at the puck goes in.
goal 4, breakaway 1-0, malone takes a slapper that blows by. This one of all of them I fault fleury on he was off his angle just slightly.

I watch all the penguins games. I watch some of the games of other teams in our conference, and of course I watch as much as I can during the playoffs.

I base my observations on whether a goal was truely the goalies fault or not. I agree that Fleury is NOT, NOT at the level he should be at for getting 5M and being a #1 overall pick. I think the system has effected him mentally in the position more then it maybe should. That 4th goal he gave up against tampa in link above, that first 1 against Giroux in game 6 last year those are signs of a goalie that's thinking too much IMO.

You have games like that against tampa where you come out with a 80% game and you start thinking what should I be doing different. When in reality there is not much that he should be doing different. I would like it if he recovered a little quicker, but I get why he's still down in those situations as that close in the angles and such dictate that that's where the puck is gonna go, and when you go to pop up that's when they are going to fire it.

But he also is not as bad as some might think. You can not just look at stats. Yes he ended up against Tampa with a sub .90 save pct for the series. But when you have games like this one it will destroy your stats and that game was not Fleury's fault. I think that Fleury's weakness is that he is over thinking due to the nature of the system around him. Perhaps a different goalie it wouldn't effect in the same way.

ok i will just say this. We have vokoun on board now, his career save % is better then Fleury's.

Let's see where we are stats wise with both goalies at the end of next season.

vikingGoalie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 10:22 AM
  #67
#66
Registered User
 
#66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 10,280
vCash: 500
Fully agree with everything viking is saying and I'll back MAF as being an elite goalie in the NHL. Every goalie has their ups and downs but when MAF has his down stretches, like the start of '11 and last years playoffs, its mostly because of sloppy defensive zone coverage.

These breakdowns on defense make him over extend and overcompensate for whats going on around him. Any butterfly goalie needs a strong box and support system in front of them so that they can go down into the butterfly, lock up to make that first save and control the rebound. MAF seems so worried about whats going on behind him that he's trying to play the shot and pass at the same time.

Can anyone really explain the Pens defense? Its a zone defense but we see two defenseman on one side of the ice, two defensemen behind the net and gets a lot of backdoor goals scored on them. I don't get it? I've never seen a zone defense where the goalie has to go side to side as much as MAF does.

Another thing is that MAF had his two best playoff runs while Hall Gill was a Pen and Scuds upped his game to become a great defensive defenseman. Further supporting that MAF needs that strong play around and in front of him.

#66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 10:51 AM
  #68
Til the End of Time
Registered User
 
Til the End of Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Buenos Aires
Posts: 6,995
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by #66 View Post
Fully agree with everything viking is saying and I'll back MAF as being an elite goalie in the NHL. Every goalie has their ups and downs but when MAF has his down stretches, like the start of '11 and last years playoffs, its mostly because of sloppy defensive zone coverage.

These breakdowns on defense make him over extend and overcompensate for whats going on around him. Any butterfly goalie needs a strong box and support system in front of them so that they can go down into the butterfly, lock up to make that first save and control the rebound. MAF seems so worried about whats going on behind him that he's trying to play the shot and pass at the same time.

Can anyone really explain the Pens defense? Its a zone defense but we see two defenseman on one side of the ice, two defensemen behind the net and gets a lot of backdoor goals scored on them. I don't get it? I've never seen a zone defense where the goalie has to go side to side as much as MAF does.

Another thing is that MAF had his two best playoff runs while Hall Gill was a Pen and Scuds upped his game to become a great defensive defenseman. Further supporting that MAF needs that strong play around and in front of him.
i agree the pens defensive zone has been a mess lately (and that they miss gill/scuderi), but i just cant agree that MAF is elite.

an elite goalie doesnt deliver one of the all-time worst playoff series ever like fleury just did, nor do they continually post sub-.900 save percentages in the playoffs.

he's a nice guy and i want him to succeed, but i'm losing faith in him. the breakdowns are bad, but an elite goalie would do a better job than fleury has.

Til the End of Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 11:36 AM
  #69
#66
Registered User
 
#66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 10,280
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Til the End of Time View Post
i agree the pens defensive zone has been a mess lately (and that they miss gill/scuderi), but i just cant agree that MAF is elite.

an elite goalie doesnt deliver one of the all-time worst playoff series ever like fleury just did, nor do they continually post sub-.900 save percentages in the playoffs.

he's a nice guy and i want him to succeed, but i'm losing faith in him. the breakdowns are bad, but an elite goalie would do a better job than fleury has.
Would you agree that a lot of his problems stem back to how he was raised as a Pen?

#66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 11:48 AM
  #70
Shady Machine
Registered User
 
Shady Machine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by #66 View Post
Would you agree that a lot of his problems stem back to how he was raised as a Pen?
That's irrelevant to whether or not he is "elite" (a term that is thrown around far too often it seems) and no I can't buy that. Maybe he was thrown into the NHL a bit too soon, but he has had plenty of support and opportunity over his career to improve. Can you she some light on what you mean?

Shady Machine is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 11:54 AM
  #71
Til the End of Time
Registered User
 
Til the End of Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Buenos Aires
Posts: 6,995
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by #66 View Post
Would you agree that a lot of his problems stem back to how he was raised as a Pen?
yes i would.

Til the End of Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 06:51 PM
  #72
Illinest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Harrisburg
Country: United States
Posts: 1,134
vCash: 500
I dont care why he's a failure (i see that's where the argument has shifted)
I just want better play from the position. Im optimistic that vokoun will do better.

Illinest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 09:53 PM
  #73
UnrealMachine
Registered User
 
UnrealMachine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,331
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vikingGoalie View Post
oye...

I did say that no one really records good statistical data to assert things one way or the other. As far as using a small example. I think most agree that Fleury was solid last season up until the last few weeks before the playoffs and of course the debacle against Philly. I don't think it's coincidence that the two SCF runs where Fleury had his best save % were under MT, and under DB while MT's system was largely in place still.

I would think the fact that a new coach comes in puts in a new system and afterwards we see the downward trend (esp in the playoffs) of Fleury's save pct should tell us something.
Fleury's best regular season is arguably 2 season ago under Bylsma in which, after a horrendous start, finished the season with a 0.918 sv%. The only better season for him in terms of sv% was one in which he only played 35 games.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vikingGoalie View Post
I look at games like this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzhIoLKwwN4
You look at stats, fleury is awful in this game, 21 shots, 4 goals.

However look at the goals scored, and how they are scored.
I don't believe isolating one game will tell us much, but I will offer my opinion here. Furthermore, you didn't really provide much of a technical breakdown of what Fleury did correct or incorrect on each goal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vikingGoalie View Post
goal 1, 3rd wack at the puck.
There is a lot more to this goal than 3 wacks at the puck. Fleury way overcommits to the shooter here and comes out of the crease to an almost Tim Thomas level of roaming. Additionally, he is not entirely square to the shooter or on the perfect angle. The major problem though is the roaming and it prevents him from having much of a shot on a rebound or a one-timed pass. This problem is compounded by him running into his own teammate while trying to re-position for the unfortunate bounce the puck took on the way to the net (notice I blame Fleury here for the collision since that is an additional risk you run when coming that far out of the net). In addition to improper technique, it showed impatience and over-commitment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vikingGoalie View Post
goal 2, back door total d breakdown
Pretty much. That withstanding, I'd like to see Fleury refine his technique a little more here. A little over-committment to the right post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vikingGoalie View Post
goal 3, once again fleury makes first save, in that scenario the goalie's responsibility is the first shot, after that it's on the D to box out. Our D gets totally out worked/muscled and the 3rd swing at the puck goes in.
Again, no mention of Fleury's technique on this play. Did you miss Roloson's multiple saves (with constant re-positioning) before this? Compare that with what Fleury did on this play. He essentially gave himself no chance after over-committing with the poke check and losing his balance. Instead of being able to make a lateral adjustment from the butterfly, he has to spread eagle and puts himself at a huge disadvantage. Can't blame the Pens D for going for the dive here. Perhaps he was trying to cover for Fleury's 5-hole?

Quote:
Originally Posted by vikingGoalie View Post
goal 4, breakaway 1-0, malone takes a slapper that blows by. This one of all of them I fault fleury on he was off his angle just slightly.
This isn't me trying to be a contrarian, but I again disagree with your assessment here. A goalie can't cover 100% of the net. If someone blows a 90 mph slapshot from 15 ft out into an uncovered part of the net, it's going in no matter who is in goal. There simply isn't enough time to react. His positioning was fine, good depth, and his angle was about as close to perfect as you can get (puck was directly in the middle of the hash marks). Perhaps you can argue that Fleury drops his glove slightly just as the shot was being taken, but that seems harsh given the circumstances and not dropping the glove would just mean that that part of the net would now be open instead.

Don't take my analysis as Fleury being at fault for all of those goals. Instead, I'm just demonstrating that he has culpability here in that he made his own mistakes on the plays that gave him a lower chance of making the saves. Ironically, his technique was closest to perfect on the last goal in my opinion.

UnrealMachine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 11:05 PM
  #74
vikingGoalie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 873
vCash: 500
Quote:
There is a lot more to this goal than 3 wacks at the puck. Fleury way overcommits to the shooter here and comes out of the crease to an almost Tim Thomas level of roaming. Additionally, he is not entirely square to the shooter or on the perfect angle. The major problem though is the roaming and it prevents him from having much of a shot on a rebound or a one-timed pass. This problem is compounded by him running into his own teammate while trying to re-position for the unfortunate bounce the puck took on the way to the net (notice I blame Fleury here for the collision since that is an additional risk you run when coming that far out of the net). In addition to improper technique, it showed impatience and over-commitment.
The collision was because the D lost his balance and fell forward into fleury who was already established at that spot. Fleury did not initiate contact in that.

Is he far out, yes. Did he roam out some, sure. You alude to Tim Thomas level of roaming, he won a Veznia and a Conn Smythe because of his Defense and was at record levels of save %. Just shows what Defense that works *with* the goalie can do. Is some of this maybe just bad luck? Sure I can go with that.
But I don't see anything here imo that says, omg every other goalie in the league would've made that series of saves, fleury is terrible!

Goal 2, I will give you that he held the post a hair to long, but with that level of D break down that's a goal 99/100.

Goal 3.
a very very bad turnover along the boards with too many passengers watching results in a pass to downie all by himself with Fleury.


Fleury makes an extermely good save.


notice how fleury was on angle with the puck in the first image, downie pulls it from his back hand and fires it from forehand fleury makes a point blank save. I don't see how you can fault the goalie in anyway for this. technique or otherwise.
This was a surprise opportunity/turnover.



The defense is once again laying face down on the ice, while Downie is 2 feet from the goalie free to wack at the puck again.
You can not realistically expect a turnover in your own zone that goes straight to guy a few feet from the goalie firing a one timer to have perfect technique on the save. I *DO* expect the defense to stay on their feet and at least box the crease out or impede them in some way.

However the reason this goes in is because it goes between the pads and fleury doesn't have the paddle 90 degree to the ice covering the 5 hole, why?
hard to prove but I believe because said face down defenseman is on his paddle with his left arm. But it's a mute point as the whole sequence was a series of breakdowns by the team, turn over, 2 guys stuck on the wall, Defense just looking dumbfounded.



Goal 4, yes he is off his angle.


it's not a lot, but it's enough. When the goalie is that far out on and the puck doesn't got through him it's almost always because he is off a little.

I will agree just examining one game is pointless in some regard. I was trying to use it as in illustration of just how save % which is the barometer most here use doesn't tell the story of how good/bad your goalie in and of itself. I'm certain someone can dig up a few examples of awful play.

I think Tim Thomas is a great example. You put fleury in a system like that you will see his save % go up .10 % guarenteed (or more).

Hopefully everyone doesn't mind my rather long posts.

vikingGoalie 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 12:16 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.