>>Rob Grover quoth:
 
>>People always seem to talk about goalies.  I have a question though- what
>>makes a goalie a good goalie?  The easy answer is save percentage.  However,
>>many critics make comments and say that a goalie isn't that good because he
>>doesn't face tough shots(i.e. BU's Noble).
 
I don't think that a goalie can be judged by particular statistics. If you
see numbers that show a goalie has a great record, and a high save
percentage, generally you can assume he's a "good goalie." Likewise, you
can look at numbers that show a poor record, and a poor percentage, and
CANNOT assume that he's a "bad goalie."
 
Regarding BU's Noble, I've been waffling on my opinion of his goaltending.
When I saw his first start last year, I moaned and groaned as I saw Noble
allowed a goal on the first shot he faced in his college career. He
proceded to have a horrible game (was put in at the beginning of the 3rd as
BU had a 5- or 6-goal lead; Parker likes to wean these guys that way) and
his save percentage was AWFUL. Later in the year, I was overwhelmingly
thrilled to see the freshman goalie play an outstanding game to win the
national championship.
 
This year, while BU's defense is playing fairly strong (limiting most
opponents to 20-25 shots a game, methinks), the defense is playing fairly
inconsistently. Playing Merrimack, BU allowed a number of 2-on-1 situations
and even a 2-on-NONE situation.
 
Such situations usually produce tough shots and good opportunities for the
other team, and most would agree that on a breakaway or a 2-on-1 the goalie
doesn't stand much of a chance. This has happened repeatedly to Noble this
season.
 
Many critics sit back and look at the total shots a goalie faces, and then
the save percentage, and then make up their minds. If that was the case, a
goalie making 50 saves, and allowing 5 goals would be "just as good" as a
goalie making 10 saves and allowing 1 goal (both .900). From all my years
watching hockey, I think a (college) goalie forced to face 55 shots is
doing a DAMN good job if he only gives up 5 goals. Meanwhile, I often feel
that if a goalie faces only 8 or 10 shots in a period, and gives up a goal,
then he really has a need to concentrate or practice more.
 
>>Some goalies challenge the shooter while others sit back and wait for a puck.
>>Is there an advantage to either?
 
Anybody remember Scott Cashman, BU netminder? This guy would chase pucks
into the corners and make guest appearances at his own blue line. Uggggh.
While Cashman was a skilled netminder, it was limited to the time he spent
in front of the net. During his freshman (and his best) year, he stayed in
net. After nearly leaving college for a direct line to an NHL bench, he
gained a lot of -- er, confidence? -- and began venturing WAAAAAY out from
the net. I saw him make MANY mistakes which led to goals, a number of them
costing BU the game.
 
>>[snip]
>> ...Is it better to stay on your feet or drop into the butterfly?
 
I don't think there's anything wrong with a butterfly "style," as long as
you don't drop to the ice too soon. Cashman had difficulty in his later
years because he never learned when to drop; many a puckhandler would feint
the Cash-dog into dropping to his knees early, allowing for wide open top
shelf.
 
 
>> [snip]
>>Is it better to have a not-so-good goalie on the ice if he motivates the team?
 
I think this question will be answered this season by watching J.P.
McKersie's (BU) time in net. I was at his first game back this year (after
his near-fatal injury 20 months ago), and both the emotion of the sold-out
crowd and the team was absolutely unbelievable. I don't think I'm
disrespecting him by saying that his skill is definitely not what it used
to be, but in that first appearance the BU defense played better than I've
seen it play in years. I'm still waiting to see the box on the Dartmouth
game, where he played the first period and allowed no goals -- It'll be
interesting to see how many shots Dartmouth got off in that period, as
compared to the other two periods when Laroque and Noble sat in net.
 
But what about a "good" goalie being on the ice that doesn't seem to
motivate the team? To cite an example from the pros (sorry), I've seen the
three Avalanche games that Patrick Roy has started. Colorado has lost two,
and they weren't pretty.
 
My question is, with a "solid" netminder behind them, will a team alter its
play, perhaps forechecking more or keeping winger on the blue line to
cherrypick? If a team knows their goalie is a sieve, will they concentrate
more on defense, and on protecting him?
 
 
Greenie
 
S P O O N ! !
(go BU)
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.