What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Richter Award Discussion

B

BigAl

New member
Here are the semi finalists:

Ryan Bischel, Notre Dame
Magnus Chrona, Denver
Justen Close, Minnesota
Jakub Dobeš, Ohio State
Mitchell Gibson, Harvard
Devon Levi, Northeastern
Victor Ostman, Maine
Yaniv Perets, Quinnipiac
Blake Pietila, Michigan Tech


Here are the only two who should win:

Devon Levi
Yaniv Perets

Congrats to all the semifinalists
 
BigAl said:
Here are the semi finalists:

Ryan Bischel, Notre Dame
Magnus Chrona, Denver
Justen Close, Minnesota
Jakub Dobeš, Ohio State
Mitchell Gibson, Harvard
Devon Levi, Northeastern
Victor Ostman, Maine
Yaniv Perets, Quinnipiac
Blake Pietila, Michigan Tech


Here are the only two who should win:

Devon Levi
Yaniv Perets

Congrats to all the semifinalists
Click to expand...

I might agree with you if either of them played in a strong league this year. Levi is a very nice goalie, but being the MVP of the Beanpot doesn't make a season and I don't think he's head and shoulders above the rest. I actually think it's a much tighter race and would argue the guys on this list from stronger conferences are "in the mix" legitimately. GAA to me is not the best indicator given the inequities of the leagues talent and depth. SV % amongst these goalies are very even.

No doubt those two names are near the top and could very well deserve to win, I just don't think it should be a runaway for anyone as of yet. A clutch conference tourney could make the difference for one of these goalies.

*One I dont think belongs on the list is Dobes.
 
BigAl said:
Here are the semi finalists:

Ryan Bischel, Notre Dame
Magnus Chrona, Denver
Justen Close, Minnesota
Jakub Dobeš, Ohio State
Mitchell Gibson, Harvard
Devon Levi, Northeastern
Victor Ostman, Maine
Yaniv Perets, Quinnipiac
Blake Pietila, Michigan Tech


Here are the only two who should win:

Devon Levi
Yaniv Perets

Congrats to all the semifinalists
Click to expand...

Sorry, but my homer bias is going to come through. Blake Pietilia has as good of a case as Levi and Perets. His stats are inline with theirs.

If you took Perets off of Quinnipiac's team, they are still would challenge for the ECAC title. Maybe not #2 in PWR, but a top 3 ECAC team. If you are just into stats, this is your guy.

Levi is a great goalie and defiantly gives a boost to Northeastern. If conference name appeal and very good stats are what matters to you, this is your guy.

As anyone who has watched Michigan Tech could tell you, MTU would be garbage without Pietila. The first half of the year Michigan Tech's top 4 defenders were in and out of the lineup due to injury. Compound that with Tech having little to no depth defensively and lack of natural scorers. Pietila is most of the reason MTU is in a position to win the CCHA title and a strong QA position. Forget CCHA bias for this comparison as CCHA has a winning NC record against the ECAC (7-1) and split with HEA (1-1). Yes the sample size is small but it is what it is. When MTU's coach is asked why they are doing so well this year (picked to finished 5th in the CCHA pre-season poll) he says goaltending every time.
 
From the goalies I've seen this season the strongest one was UNO's Latkoczy. If Omaha would have started the season with him in net they'd have 5-6 more wins. Bischel was very good in his shutout against the Broncos this season, but we also beat him 4 times the next night. Perhaps we figured him out. Northeastern's Levi is also an S tier goalie, but I didn't see the game so I don't really know what happened there. MTU's Pietila didn't have a defense in front of him in the GLI, but even then he had a rough go of it. Haven't seen Chrona yet this season, but him and Denver as a whole are very darn good.
 
This is a crop of 10 with no one head and shoulders above the rest. It's going to come down to what schools have the ability to sell their candidate with the most PR and who the voters have name recognition with already. Probably going to be decided on reputation rather than balance of play this season. If it was, Pietila is the solid choice. I just don't think Michigan Tech and the CCHA have enough of a PR machine to get the vote their way.
 
Lost_Husky said:
Sorry, but my homer bias is going to come through. Blake Pietilia has as good of a case as Levi and Perets. His stats are inline with theirs.

If you took Perets off of Quinnipiac's team, they are still would challenge for the ECAC title. Maybe not #2 in PWR, but a top 3 ECAC team. If you are just into stats, this is your guy.

Levi is a great goalie and defiantly gives a boost to Northeastern. If conference name appeal and very good stats are what matters to you, this is your guy.

As anyone who has watched Michigan Tech could tell you, MTU would be garbage without Pietila. The first half of the year Michigan Tech's top 4 defenders were in and out of the lineup due to injury. Compound that with Tech having little to no depth defensively and lack of natural scorers. Pietila is most of the reason MTU is in a position to win the CCHA title and a strong QA position. Forget CCHA bias for this comparison as CCHA has a winning NC record against the ECAC (7-1) and split with HEA (1-1). Yes the sample size is small but it is what it is. When MTU's coach is asked why they are doing so well this year (picked to finished 5th in the CCHA pre-season poll) he says goaltending every time.
Click to expand...

I saw this guy Pietila recently. I have no CCHA rooting interest, but Pietila overall has been excellent. He did catch some national attention recently for his performances against BSU. I think MTU gets swept if anyone lesser was in goal for that series.
 
Bronco said:
From the goalies I've seen this season the strongest one was UNO's Latkoczy. If Omaha would have started the season with him in net they'd have 5-6 more wins. Bischel was very good in his shutout against the Broncos this season, but we also beat him 4 times the next night. Perhaps we figured him out. Northeastern's Levi is also an S tier goalie, but I didn't see the game so I don't really know what happened there. MTU's Pietila didn't have a defense in front of him in the GLI, but even then he had a rough go of it. Haven't seen Chrona yet this season, but him and Denver as a whole are very darn good.
Click to expand...

WMU make everyone's goalie look bad HA!
 
I’ll amend my original statement. I find it VERY hard to imagine that anyone outside of Levi, Perets Bischel and Pietila aren’t the 3 finalists. Nothing against the rest of the goalies but with SV %’s bunched together at the top, GAA and shutouts become a factor. Also the fact that Levi and Perets were finalists last year and are having incredible seasons once again, likely cements them as finalists. That’s how these things work, like it or not.
 
BigAl said:
I’ll amend my original statement. I find it VERY hard to imagine that anyone outside of Levi, Perets Bischel and Pietila aren’t the 3 finalists. Nothing against the rest of the goalies but with SV %’s bunched together at the top, GAA and shutouts become a factor. Also the fact that Levi and Perets were finalists last year and are having incredible seasons once again, likely cements them as finalists. That’s how these things work, like it or not.
Click to expand...

Al- I think Close could sneak in there, but shouldn't "win". He's got a strong sv %, a very good GAA for playing in what is arguably this years strongest conference, and has 5 SO's which is more than Levi for example. Given the visability the B1G is getting this year it reminds me a lot of when Lafontaine won in 2021. I didn't think he would win, because other goalies #'s were better, but he seemed to get the nod based on conference and SOS. I think both Close and Perets benefit from having very strong defense and overall team where Levi, Bischel, and Pietila are probably carrying more of the load for their teams.
 
A majority of this comes down to the defense and system played in front of these goalies. Does Perets see many high scoring chance shots per game compared to some other offensive minded teams? Quinnipiac is allowing only 21 shots a game...how many of those are good quality? Not many I bet with their system...Some teams are giving up 35+ shots per game...more than 50% more than Perets sees on a given game. How many PP goals are a percentage of GAA....how many blocks a team has...it seems it has a lot more to do with system and team in front of them than actual goaltending ability.
 
Lemonade said:
A majority of this comes down to the defense and system played in front of these goalies. Does Perets see many high scoring chance shots per game compared to some other offensive minded teams? Quinnipiac is allowing only 21 shots a game...how many of those are good quality? Not many I bet with their system...Some teams are giving up 35+ shots per game...more than 50% more than Perets sees on a given game. How many PP goals are a percentage of GAA....how many blocks a team has...it seems it has a lot more to do with system and team in front of them than actual goaltending ability.
Click to expand...

I don’t have the stats handy to back it up, but as a Quinnipiac fan and watching most the games, the shots come from closer in than outside. Quinnipiac is excellent in packing it in and eating pucks that never get to Perets from the outside. That’s where they limit the SOG. Perets has to bail them out a couple times a game on some great opportunities, so I almost think the inverse could be possible. Whereas another goalie could see more shots from the outside but in more volume. Someone that has access to advanced analytics would have to answer those questions though, not my biased recollection.
 
BigAl said:
I don’t have the stats handy to back it up, but as a Quinnipiac fan and watching most the games, the shots come from closer in than outside. Quinnipiac is excellent in packing it in and eating pucks that never get to Perets from the outside. That’s where they limit the SOG. Perets has to bail them out a couple times a game on some great opportunities, so I almost think the inverse could be possible. Whereas another goalie could see more shots from the outside but in more volume. Someone that has access to advanced analytics would have to answer those questions though, not my biased recollection.
Click to expand...

I tried to find some adv stats for us...here's what I came up with. QU is actually #1 in the country in spread between the close shots they take vs the close shots they give up. QU is also #2 in the country in close shots given up (Cornell #1). The % of close shots vs total attempt against may be a good indicator of what the goalies face in terms of quality looks vs total shots. Bischel gets peppered!
[TABLE="width: 1161"]
[TR]
[TD]Team[/TD]
[TD]Shot Attempts for[/TD]
[TD]Shot Attempts Against[/TD]
[TD]Blocks[/TD]
[TD]"Close Shots" for[/TD]
[TD]"Close Shots" Against[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63"]% of close shots vs total attempt against[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63"]Close shot spread %[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]QU[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1928[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1296[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]326[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]959[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]585[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]45.1%[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]62.1%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]MN[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1913[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1617[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]388[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1048[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]867[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]53.6%[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]54.7%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Northeastern[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1576[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1776[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]407[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]904[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]997[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]56.1%[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]47.6%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]MTU[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1811[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1637[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]361[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1018[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]884[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]54.0%[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]53.5%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Notre Dame[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1643[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]2017[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]468[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]844[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1158[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]57.4%[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]42.2%[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
 
StateofHockey78 said:
I tried to find some adv stats for us...here's what I came up with. QU is actually #1 in the country in spread between the close shots they take vs the close shots they give up. QU is also #2 in the country in close shots given up (Cornell #1). The % of close shots vs total attempt against may be a good indicator of what the goalies face in terms of quality looks vs total shots. Bischel gets peppered!
[TABLE="width: 1161"]
[TR]
[TD]Team[/TD]
[TD]Shot Attempts for[/TD]
[TD]Shot Attempts Against[/TD]
[TD]Blocks[/TD]
[TD]"Close Shots" for[/TD]
[TD]"Close Shots" Against[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63"]% of close shots vs total attempt against[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63"]Close shot spread %[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]QU[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1928[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1296[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]326[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]959[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]585[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]45.1%[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]62.1%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]MN[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1913[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1617[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]388[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1048[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]867[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]53.6%[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]54.7%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Northeastern[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1576[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1776[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]407[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]904[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]997[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]56.1%[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]47.6%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]MTU[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1811[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1637[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]361[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1018[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]884[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]54.0%[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]53.5%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Notre Dame[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1643[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]2017[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]468[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]844[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1158[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]57.4%[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]42.2%[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Click to expand...

Interesting stuff. Its crazy that in this example ND goalies are seeing 1158 close shots thus far and Quinnipiac goalie is only seen 585.
 
StateofHockey78 said:
I tried to find some adv stats for us...here's what I came up with. QU is actually #1 in the country in spread between the close shots they take vs the close shots they give up. QU is also #2 in the country in close shots given up (Cornell #1). The % of close shots vs total attempt against may be a good indicator of what the goalies face in terms of quality looks vs total shots. Bischel gets peppered!
[TABLE="width: 1161"]
[TR]
[TD]Team[/TD]
[TD]Shot Attempts for[/TD]
[TD]Shot Attempts Against[/TD]
[TD]Blocks[/TD]
[TD]"Close Shots" for[/TD]
[TD]"Close Shots" Against[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63"]% of close shots vs total attempt against[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63"]Close shot spread %[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]QU[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1928[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1296[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]326[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]959[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]585[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]45.1%[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]62.1%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]MN[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1913[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1617[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]388[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1048[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]867[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]53.6%[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]54.7%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Northeastern[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1576[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1776[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]407[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]904[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]997[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]56.1%[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]47.6%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]MTU[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1811[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1637[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]361[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1018[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]884[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]54.0%[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]53.5%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Notre Dame[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1643[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]2017[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]468[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]844[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1158[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]57.4%[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]42.2%[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Click to expand...

Insert Homer Simpson gif retreating into the bushes
 
Obviously my blue & gold glasses cloud things but I'll just add that sometimes a goalie that doesn't see a lot of rubber needs to be more focused in net. In the case of Perets, and Petruzelli, Shortridge, and Gartieg before him, making saves when he hasn't been able to establish any rhythm can't be easy.

I agree that goalies live or die by the system in front of them. Perets has stood tall in both his seasons thus far. He bails us out most of the time when we faulter in front of him.

Unfortunately I realize that the Richter, like most other awards, are sometimes very subjective.
 
Another interesting stat, team related. 11 of the top 16 teams in CF% (the spread between your close shots and your opponents) are currently Pairwise top 16. No coincidence being effective and keeping teams outside is a key to success regardless of the goalie, and right now QU is the best at it.

The teams outside the top 16 in this stat that are in pairwise top 16 are - Mich State, Michigan, St. Cloud State, Notre Dame, Northeastern
 
StateofHockey78 said:
I tried to find some adv stats for us...here's what I came up with. QU is actually #1 in the country in spread between the close shots they take vs the close shots they give up. QU is also #2 in the country in close shots given up (Cornell #1). The % of close shots vs total attempt against may be a good indicator of what the goalies face in terms of quality looks vs total shots. Bischel gets peppered!
[TABLE="width: 1161"]
[TR]
[TD]Team[/TD]
[TD]Shot Attempts for[/TD]
[TD]Shot Attempts Against[/TD]
[TD]Blocks[/TD]
[TD]"Close Shots" for[/TD]
[TD]"Close Shots" Against[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63"]% of close shots vs total attempt against[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63"]Close shot spread %[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]QU[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1928[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1296[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]326[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]959[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]585[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]45.1%[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]62.1%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]MN[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1913[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1617[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]388[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1048[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]867[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]53.6%[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]54.7%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Northeastern[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1576[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1776[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]407[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]904[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]997[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]56.1%[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]47.6%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]MTU[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1811[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1637[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]361[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1018[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]884[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]54.0%[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]53.5%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Notre Dame[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1643[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]2017[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]468[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]844[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1158[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]57.4%[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]42.2%[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Click to expand...

Do you have a link you can share for where these stats came from? Thanks in advance!
 
BigAl said:
Insert Homer Simpson gif retreating into the bushes
Click to expand...

Don't retreat Al - these are only a few stats and don't tell the full story. Keep in mind these stats are shot attempts and so that is a reflection of "opportunities" and perhaps the level of "stress" being put on the goalie when the opponents are constantly in the house.
 
Lemonade said:
Interesting stuff. Its crazy that in this example ND goalies are seeing 1158 close shots thus far and Quinnipiac goalie is only seen 585.
Click to expand...
Well, those are attempts. Here are the actual shots numbers:

[TABLE="width: 605"]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl63"]Team[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63"]Shots for[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63"]Shots Against[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63"]Blocks[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63"]"Close Shots" for[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63"]"Close Shots" Against[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63"]% of close shots vs total shots against[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63"]Close shot spread %[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl63"]QU[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64"]818[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64"]539[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl64"]453[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64"]289[/TD]
[TD="class: xl65"]53.62%[/TD]
[TD="class: xl65"]61.05%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl63"]MN[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64"]855[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64"]709[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl64"]537[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64"]420[/TD]
[TD="class: xl65"]59.24%[/TD]
[TD="class: xl65"]56.11%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl63"]Northeastern[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64"]769[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64"]778[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl64"]486[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64"]488[/TD]
[TD="class: xl65"]62.72%[/TD]
[TD="class: xl65"]49.90%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl63"]MTU[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64"]848[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64"]753[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl64"]550[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64"]482[/TD]
[TD="class: xl65"]64.01%[/TD]
[TD="class: xl65"]53.29%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl63"]Notre Dame[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64"]744[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64"]925[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl64"]436[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64"]608[/TD]
[TD="class: xl65"]65.73%[/TD]
[TD="class: xl65"]41.76%[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


Sean
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top