Game 25: Bruins @ Leafs 7:00PM TSN

[cw]

Great game... Until Schenn coughed up the puck in the third. Apart from that, I thought we (Schenn included) had a good game.

Even on that, I thought Schenn was a little unlucky. That puck was rolling on it's end which contributed to him not getting all of it or it coming off his stick funny when he tried to move it. It was not a pure whiff.

 

[maplesyrup]

Great game... Until Schenn coughed up the puck in the third. Apart from that, I thought we (Schenn included) had a good game.

Even on that, I thought Schenn was a little unlucky. That puck was rolling on it's end which contributed to him not getting all of it or it coming off his stick funny when he tried to move it. It was not a pure whiff.

Maybe not... But still. Ugh.

 

[cw]

I don't fault Gus on that game. Some have suggested he should have had Chara's shot.

Studies show reaction time to visual stimulus in good athletes is about .19 seconds. That equates to a 71 mph wrist shot from 20 feet (the red faceoff dots). The distance between Chara and Gustavsson was a little over 20 feet when that shot was released as Gus came out to cut down the angle. That reaction time doesn't always account for the time needed to make the full movement required after one reacts.

Goalies do stop those shots sometimes. Some of that can be due to sheer luck. Some stops can be related to good positioning and the puck just hits them. Some of it can be due to the read and anticipation prior to the shot being taken - that has been studied and observed in top athletes in various sports. Often, they make an educated guess and start moving before the shot is released.

When I watched the replay, a number of times in real time (before looking at slow motion), I had to look a few times just to see where the puck went. It wasn't obvious to me that Gus could read with any certainty where that puck was going beyond maybe the side of the goal where it went in. He came out and cut down the angle and his positioning seemed pretty square to the shooter as it should be - he didn't play it terribly.

My guess on that shot is that NHL goalies might stop it at best 50% of the time. Chara had the whole net to shoot at - a great angle that's tougher to anticipate where it's going. Therefore, I don't regard it as a soft goal or one that we should have expected to have been stopped with a high frequency.

Maybe the fact that we've seen a shot from that area of the ice stopped a number of times in our viewing past is boosting our expectations against the disappointment of the goal getting past Gus.

Therefore, in my opinion, I don't think it was a "bad" goal for Gus to let in.

 

[Mikhail Bloodnovsky]

Kulemin needs to sit for a game or two.

 

[lc9]

I don't fault Gus on that game. Some have suggested he should have had Chara's shot.

Studies show reaction time to visual stimulus in good athletes is about .19 seconds. That equates to a 71 mph wrist shot from 20 feet (the red faceoff dots). The distance between Chara and Gustavsson was a little over 20 feet when that shot was released as Gus came out to cut down the angle. That reaction time doesn't always account for the time needed to make the full movement required after one reacts.

Goalies do stop those shots sometimes. Some of that can be due to sheer luck. Some stops can be related to good positioning and the puck just hits them. Some of it can be due to the read and anticipation prior to the shot being taken - that has been studied and observed in top athletes in various sports. Often, they make an educated guess and start moving before the shot is released.

When I watched the replay, a number of times in real time (before looking at slow motion), I had to look a few times just to see where the puck went. It wasn't obvious to me that Gus could read with any certainty where that puck was going beyond maybe the side of the goal where it went in. He came out and cut down the angle and his positioning seemed pretty square to the shooter as it should be - he didn't play it terribly.

My guess on that shot is that NHL goalies might stop it at best 50% of the time. Chara had the whole net to shoot at - a great angle that's tougher to anticipate where it's going. Therefore, I don't regard it as a soft goal or one that we should have expected to have been stopped with a high frequency.

Maybe the fact that we've seen a shot from that area of the ice stopped a number of times in our viewing past is boosting our expectations against the disappointment of the goal getting past Gus.

Therefore, in my opinion, I don't think it was a "bad" goal for Gus to let in.

Your science explanation is insightful, but bottom line, any good goalie needs to stop that chara shot.  It was a wrist shot that he missed.

You can't give up 5 goals and say the goalie kept you in the game. That I find impossible.  It's like saying if my brother and I played goalie last night, me for the leafs and him for the bruins and the final score was 78-71 Bruins, that I would have kept the team in the game.  Just because the Leafs scored 3 goals shouldn't change the way we view the type of game Gus had.  If the score was 5-0 last night would anyone be saying he kept us in the game?  People get confused with this terminology.  The onus of keeping ones team in a game, from the goalie perspective, is singular, there is no duality.  The leafs scored goals last night, that kept us in the game.  Your goalie can't give up 5 goals and call it an OK game.

Gus played about as average as a backup can play, and did nothing to help the winning efforts last night. 

 

[Kin]

You can't give up 5 goals and say the goalie kept you in the game. That I find impossible.

I don't think anyone has said Gus singlehandedly kept them in the game. They've said that he gave the team a chance to win, which he did. GA is a statistic that reflects team play and last night was a perfect example.

 

[lc9]

You can't give up 5 goals and say the goalie kept you in the game. That I find impossible.

I don't think anyone has said Gus singlehandedly kept them in the game. They've said that he gave the team a chance to win, which he did. GA is a statistic that reflects team play and last night was a perfect example.

I just edited my post to further explain my point.

 

[lc9]

GA is a statistic that reflects team play and last night was a perfect example.

Not always.  I am not arguing this based on last nights game btw, I am just saying, sometimes a goalie is just awful.  And the leafs have seen plenty of that the past few years.

 

[Stronger Than All]

I only saw the first period so I can't really comment.  I just really wanted them to take this game.  It's unfortunate we're going for the split in Boston.

 

[Kin]

I just edited my post to further explain my point.

It really just restated some faulty absolutes. A goalie absolutely play well or ok or even spectacularly and give up five goals. To make that judgment would involve watching the game, judging the quality of the goals given up and the saves made and grading the actual, you know, performance of the goalie. That's what people are doing with Gus last night. The "chance to win" as I explain in my post, is just a reflection of how he played and how the goals Boston scored last night were a reflection of the actual game and not just one person's performance. I know it can be a hard concept to grasp but Boston did have some responsibility for the goals they scored.

 

[lc9]

I just edited my post to further explain my point.

It really just restated some faulty absolutes. A goalie absolutely play well or ok or even spectacularly and give up five goals. To make that judgment would involve watching the game, judging the quality of the goals given up and the saves made and grading the actual, you know, performance of the goalie. That's what people are doing with Gus last night. The "chance to win" as I explain in my post, is just a reflection of how he played and how the goals Boston scored last night were a reflection of the actual game and not just one person's performance. I know it can be a hard concept to grasp but Boston did have some responsibility for the goals they scored.

It seems like this argument is becoming rather prosaic.  How long can we go on, and not just with Gus, saying, "Well, he gave up 5 goals, but the other team did score them."  I didn't think the defensive coverage was bad last night, also I thought we forechecked rather well, which leads me to draw the conclusion that 5 goals last night was too many. 

At times I think you give an ornate explanation of our goaltending situation, when really the explanation is covered in vanilla. 

BTW, I am trying to speak in absolutes less, but it seems to commonplace for me. 

 

[Kin]

It seems like this argument is becoming rather prosaic.  How long can we go on, and not just with Gus, saying, "Well, he gave up 5 goals, but the other team did score them."  I didn't think the defensive coverage was bad last night, also I thought we forechecked rather well, which leads me to draw the conclusion that 5 goals last night was too many.

But the leap from that to "...so Gus played poorly" doesn't follow. Gus faced a lot of shots. Boston executed well. They caught some bad breaks as with the Schenn giveaway. All of those things go into the goals that the team gave up in addition to Gus' play. That's why a lot of people can see past raw GA. 

 

[lc9]

But the leap from that to "...so Gus played poorly" doesn't follow. Gus faced a lot of shots. Boston executed well. They caught some bad breaks as with the Schenn giveaway. All of those things go into the goals that the team gave up in addition to Gus' play. That's why a lot of people can see past raw GA. 

You're probably right, that leap isn't fair to make for lasts night game.  But in the grand scheme of things I don't find it that far-fetched.  Out of 42 qualifying goalies Gus ranks 35th in save percentage, which is a better stat for goalies and ranks 37th in GAA.  Now I am not looking for Gus to be overly meretricious, or any of our goalies, but I believe they need to do a better job. 

 

[Leaflifer]

I wouldn't pin this loss on Gus, even if RW does.

The Leafs do not work their half boards well enough against the Bruins. IMO, the game was lost there. RW can blame his goalie all he wants, but he has to make the proper adjustments.

The Leafs couldn't get any speed past the 3 guys lined up on the red line either.

I hate Lucic.

 

[lc9]

I wouldn't pin this loss on Gus, even if RW does.

The Leafs do not work their half boards well enough against the Bruins. IMO, the game was lost there. RW can blame his goalie all he wants, but he has to make the proper adjustments.

The Leafs couldn't get any speed past the 3 guys lined up on the red line either.

Is this what happened?  RW blamed Gus?

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

The Leafs do not work their half boards well enough against the Bruins. IMO, the game was lost there. RW can blame his goalie all he wants, but he has to make the proper adjustments.

Wilson blamed Gus?

 

[Kin]

Now I am not looking for Gus to be overly meretricious, or any of our goalies, but I believe they need to do a better job.

There are lots of players on the team I want to see play better. The issue with Gus is that he's out of position and being judged by faulty standards.

 

[Kin]

The Leafs do not work their half boards well enough against the Bruins. IMO, the game was lost there. RW can blame his goalie all he wants, but he has to make the proper adjustments.

Wilson blamed Gus?

He did say that Gus probably should have had a few of the goals.

 

[Erndog]

The Leafs do not work their half boards well enough against the Bruins. IMO, the game was lost there. RW can blame his goalie all he wants, but he has to make the proper adjustments.

Wilson blamed Gus?

Well he didn't come out and say "we lost because of Gus" but he did say Gus 'probably should have had a few of their goals.'

Not entirely pinning it on him but doesn't sound like a ringing endoresment.

 

[cw]

I don't fault Gus on that game. Some have suggested he should have had Chara's shot.

Studies show reaction time to visual stimulus in good athletes is about .19 seconds. That equates to a 71 mph wrist shot from 20 feet (the red faceoff dots). The distance between Chara and Gustavsson was a little over 20 feet when that shot was released as Gus came out to cut down the angle. That reaction time doesn't always account for the time needed to make the full movement required after one reacts.

Goalies do stop those shots sometimes. Some of that can be due to sheer luck. Some stops can be related to good positioning and the puck just hits them. Some of it can be due to the read and anticipation prior to the shot being taken - that has been studied and observed in top athletes in various sports. Often, they make an educated guess and start moving before the shot is released.

When I watched the replay, a number of times in real time (before looking at slow motion), I had to look a few times just to see where the puck went. It wasn't obvious to me that Gus could read with any certainty where that puck was going beyond maybe the side of the goal where it went in. He came out and cut down the angle and his positioning seemed pretty square to the shooter as it should be - he didn't play it terribly.

My guess on that shot is that NHL goalies might stop it at best 50% of the time. Chara had the whole net to shoot at - a great angle that's tougher to anticipate where it's going. Therefore, I don't regard it as a soft goal or one that we should have expected to have been stopped with a high frequency.

Maybe the fact that we've seen a shot from that area of the ice stopped a number of times in our viewing past is boosting our expectations against the disappointment of the goal getting past Gus.

Therefore, in my opinion, I don't think it was a "bad" goal for Gus to let in.

Your science explanation is insightful, but bottom line, any good goalie needs to stop that chara shot.  It was a wrist shot that he missed.

You can't give up 5 goals and say the goalie kept you in the game. That I find impossible.  It's like saying if my brother and I played goalie last night, me for the leafs and him for the bruins and the final score was 78-71 Bruins, that I would have kept the team in the game.  Just because the Leafs scored 3 goals shouldn't change the way we view the type of game Gus had.  If the score was 5-0 last night would anyone be saying he kept us in the game?  People get confused with this terminology.  The onus of keeping ones team in a game, from the goalie perspective, is singular, there is no duality.  The leafs scored goals last night, that kept us in the game.  Your goalie can't give up 5 goals and call it an OK game.

Gus played about as average as a backup can play, and did nothing to help the winning efforts last night.

I look at it differently. If a goalie stops the shots he reasonably should stop, where he doesn't have to defy science to do so, then I think he's pretty close to having done his job.

If he lets in softies or goals most goalies would stop, then I question whether he has done his job.

I don't care whether he let in one or ten goals when making that assessment. If his club gave up ten scoring chances that were no-chance slam dunks, I'm looking at the skaters who gave those chances up - not the goalie.

GAA or the number of goals doesn't have a lot to do with it. His performance in stopping shots based upon the quality of scoring opportunities his team gave up has everything to do with it.

Last night, the Leafs skaters gave up a bunch of good quality scoring opportunities. Gus robbed Horton on one of them for example so he wasn't beyond making some good stops on great scoring chances.

By far, the worst goal let in was by Thomas on Frattin's shot.

The Leafs were within one goal with less than five minutes left in the game. So in spite of a number of good scoring chances allowed, Gus still had them within reach of tying it up or winning it. I saw no one propose Lucic's goal that effectively ended their chances was due to Gus's bad play.

The Bruins were too strong for our Leafs last night. The Bruins skaters vs the Leafs skaters had far more to do with the outcome than Gus's goaltending in my opinion. Thomas made some great stops but also blew Frattin's shot so I'm not sure there was a gigantic difference in goaltending on the night there because the Leafs didn't seem to have as many quality chances or as much luck with them.

To say "he let five in and must have been awful" ignores how a goalie actually performed. I think you have to look more closely at how those five went in before blindly blaming the goalie. When I did that, I didn't come away feeling Gus blew the game.