Rob Grover wrote:
>
>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).  Maine's Marsh has a better save
>percentage than Allison, but Allison is an All-American goalie and has started
>in all but a handful of games(at least one Marsh start came because Ali had
>the flu-Maine/Brown).
 
Someone commented that wins are the ultimate criteria, but clearly wins and
GAA are so highly team-dependant that they don't make comparing two goalies
any easier.  Save percentage is better, although I would still expect a goalie
on a very weak team to have a lower save percentage due to rebounds and quality
of shots in general.  That said, a goalie (like Noble) who plays on a dominant
team and doesn't get much action does suffer from having a tougher time staying
mentally focussed.  When you're not seeing much rubber, it's tough when all of
a sudden a quality save is required.  Look at Curtis Joseph, who complained
last year that his team's sudden attention to the defensive end (after years
of run-and-gun and let CuJo bail us out) had left him *not* seeing enough
rubber to stay at the top of his game.
 
I think that the sample size may be too small in Marsh's case.  That, plus a
"backup" goalie is likely to see only the weaker teams.  As a result his stats
may look better than the number one guy.
 
>Some goalies challenge the shooter while others sit back and wait for a puck.
>Is there an advantage to either?  Does a particular style make one a bad/good
>goalie?  In SI a few years ago(last year?), there was an article about goalies
>who use the butterfly technique.  It appears that many young goalies are
>adopting this technique because successful NHL goalies use it.  Is it better
>to stay on your feet or drop into the butterfly?  Discussion of the Maine-Mass
>Lowell game seems to indicate that Fillion should not have dropped to the ice
>for Roenick's first shot attempt.
 
I wasn't trying to second-guess Fillion on that particular shot.  However, it
did seem in the game the previous night as well as early in that game that he'd
gone down too early and several times left the shooter with easy opportunities.
I must admit that when I watched the tape of the game (after I posted my
comments) a smile came to my face when the "sideline" reporter noted that UML
goalie coach Ed Walsh had sent a message to Fillion telling him that he was
going down too early.  Clearly I should be coaching Div 1 and not settling
for being a computer geek.  :-)
 
>game?  Does that make him a bad goalie?  At what point does a goalies
>leadership ability counteract his shot-saving ability?  In other words:  is it
>better to have a not-so-good goalie on the ice if he motivates the team?
 
I'd say that leadership in goalies is so insignificant compared to
puck-stopping that the leadership almost becomes irrelevant.  Yes, every team
needs leaders, and if one of them is a goalie, fine.  But if he's a mediocre
puck-stopper, then he'll probably do his leading from the bench.
 
DaveH
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.