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.
UNH 2020 Off-Season Thread: That Rinky-Shrinky Thang And Other Lively Banter :D
- Thread starter Scott
- Start date
- Status
Chuck Murray
WIS & Effingwoods Hockey Almanac
My read on 'Watcher's post about some of the other goalies who were coming out at the same time as TT is that, maybe it was a relatively weak recruiting class for goalies that year? If these guys were contemporaries and being measured and evaluated against their competition - i.e. each other - then if none of them was a standout, then maybe they all were just not that good?
Stuff like that can happen ... sometimes there's a slew of slick playmakers, sometimes there's a shortage of something else, you just never know. The best solution to the situation is to have a coaching staff that can further develop these recruits once they arrive on campus. But if you don't have that, and your recruits do not arrive as the finished product, then there's only so much upside you're going to be able to develop. At that point, you're pretty much reduced to running a very tight system and plugging in role players to play to their established strengths, and hope for the best.
I would observe that during the Umile era, there was definitely an offensive system in place, and it was a blessing at times (regular season) and a curse as well (playoffs), when an opponent could focus, scout and break down weaknesses to exploit them. Don't get me wrong, Umile had a lot of talented offensive players over the years, and I think even his detractors would have to concede they usually developed pretty well while on campus. Where Umile's best teams tended to fall down was if they were forced out of their "A" game, then sometimes Plan B either didn't exist OR wasn't particularly effective. I think as time went on, Umile became a more rounded coach, but as he figured that piece out, the incoming talent that McCloskey had produced at such a routinely high level began to slip when others became responsible for the recruiting. Had McCloskey been satisfied with the recruiting piece for a few more years, I'm pretty sure UNH would have eventually gotten over the hump.
Looking at the MS7 era to date ... there is no apparent signature UNH style or identity yet. And that's a problem. It's an obstacle that likely confuses the most talented recruits, and the high-flying offensive players who used to consider UNH see a static undefined system now in place, and then they look at BC, UMass, BU or even Northeastern, and they see a fit. And if you're a bigger physical forward, you probably look to Lowell or Providence (or even BU again).
Developing a recruiting identity for your program may be the biggest challenge MS7 still faces ...
NCAA watcher
Registered User
Sorry for not being clear. I was pointing out that being a 7th round NHL pick as a goalie means you are big (6'3 or larger) and had some success or promise in juniors. Nothing more. So much of it is opportunity and then confidence, and it's easy to lose it if you get stuck behind another guy. Mike Robinson was a 3rd round NHL pick who couldn't get playing time in the USHL and when he did, played poorly. Given the opportunity at UNH, he was able to make it as an above average goalie. I don't see it as a coaching issue. It happens, as the jump from juniors to college is large and my point was to show that it is littered with "failed" goalies, even NHL picks. But that's not the coach's fault... it just happens.
Taylor didn't quite grab the reigns when he was given a shot. That's not to say that if he goes elsewhere and is given a spot he can't make use of his tools.
Given where UNH is with a smaller than 4 year gap before Baliotti and Muszelik, they'll probably be looking for another unhappy goalie stuck behind someone looking for a fresh start for 2 years.
Chuck Murray
WIS & Effingwoods Hockey Almanac
Thanks for clarifying, 'Watcher. Yes, the deeper in the draft you go, the more speculative the picks get. I guess we found out over these last three seasons just how much of a reach TT turned out to be for his drafting organization. That he came back to UNH this season even may seem somewhat surprising, although that may have had to do with a lack of perceived alternatives, with transferring within a dwindling number of participating D-1 schools being challenging enough, and delays with some of the sub-NHL pro leagues as well? He couldn't wait to leave by the end.
Going back to Robinson ... I guess I've been defaulting to the "above average goalie" narrative without questioning it. But looking back at Robinson's numbers (save percentage primarily) ... I'm not sure he was ever that "above average goalie" at UNH, except maybe for his soph season (.915 with 3 shutouts). The last two seasons at UNH, Robinson posted .899 and .881, with only 2 shutouts (last season) in almost 50 games started combined as a junior and senior. That MS7 wouldn't give TT a better shot at the job these last two seasons only seems to reinforce that things between MS7 and TT may have broken irretrievably (sp?) sometime after his frosh season? Speculation, sure, but something doesn't add up ...
I would agree 100%, just as it had been with Robinson under Tirone, any time TT got a shot (albeit relatively few times), he never really did anything convincing. But it must be pointed out - and not to drag up a heated debate from a few years ago, but it's relevant here for comparison's sake - that Tirone was a superior D-1 goalie to Robinson, with all four seasons above .900, and with 10 career shutouts. Yet Robinson got more chances when Tirone was off, than TT got when Robby was off. Which (to me at least) points to something in the MS7-Taylor relationship going south at some point, last season or this.
Stats from Tirone, Robinson, and a "comp" UNH goalie often cited by Tirone's detractors:
https://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=170347
https://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=182215
https://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=99532
Dan, I'm honestly not trolling you, but I was truly surprised to see Robinson's stats for this year (and last, to a lesser degree). Not good ...
What an absolutely crappy recruiting strategy that would be, except (of course) it's sadly likely the reality of the situation as well. Beggars can't be choosers, etc. Remember when Drew Commesso and Tim Stutzle were on their way to Durham ... ???
I forgot that Mike Ayers' SV% dropped to 0.899 his last season.
https://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/....php?pid=51199
Chuck Murray
WIS & Effingwoods Hockey Almanac
To be honest, I'd forgotten that as well. Part of me believes Ayers left a little bit of his heart in Buffalo that early April weekend in 2003. He played great that season, almost all of the games IIRC, and right through the postseason as well, making a lot of folks (rightfully) forget about the UMaine FF semis fiasco a year earlier in St. Paul. He emptied the bucket during the 2003 stretch run, and deserved better than to be remembered as Thomas Vanek's punch line.
We'd all take a 2004 season right now in a heartbeat, but back at the time, it felt like a hangover from the prior two years, and a lot of good players had graduated.
Maybe someday Ayers will come back to Durham to finish the job he almost finished back in 2003 ...
NCAA watcher
Registered User
Save percentage is a team stat, not a goalie stat. Good shots yield low save percentage, good defense yield high percentage. Otherwise, Jeff Pietrasiak is one of the UNH all time best.
Chuck Murray
WIS & Effingwoods Hockey Almanac
I think that's an oversimplification, 'Watcher. You can argue the best team defenses prevent a lot of shots altogether, but at some point, your goalie is gonna be called upon to make saves. I'll agree with you, some credit should reflect on the team's defense - and that's every bit the 3 guys up front as the 2 guys at the back, all doing their jobs - but some credit also has to go to the last line of defense.
Some goalies are just better than others. In this age where guys like Ben Bishop can get the job done (to a degree) by his sheer mass and blocking space/angles with a limited amount of athleticism, he'll never be a Jonathan Quick or Dominic Hasek, who both succeeded with otherworldly agility. And they've got the rings to show for it.
I hate what the stats nerds have done in other sports, and I don't want to see that happen to hockey. Net-fillers are the worst advertisement for what is otherwise arguably the most athletically demanding team sport in the world. But they've intruded and proliferated, mostly due to stats-driven mindsets, and it's a scar on an otherwise beautiful game. It's why I come on here from time to time to advocate for raising the crossbar. Goalies sliding back and forth on their knees all game long is just a bad look for a great game. Everyone else on the ice needs to be a supreme athlete. Why give goalies with mass but marginal shot-stopping talent a pass?
Sorry, I get this way when goalies' performances become an issue. Sore spot, but it is what it is.
HockeyRef
Well-known member
I think that's an oversimplification, 'Watcher. You can argue the best team defenses prevent a lot of shots altogether, but at some point, your goalie is gonna be called upon to make saves. I'll agree with you, some credit should reflect on the team's defense - and that's every bit the 3 guys up front as the 2 guys at the back, all doing their jobs - but some credit also has to go to the last line of defense.
Some goalies are just better than others. In this age where guys like Ben Bishop can get the job done (to a degree) by his sheer mass and blocking space/angles with a limited amount of athleticism, he'll never be a Jonathan Quick or Dominic Hasek, who both succeeded with otherworldly agility. And they've got the rings to show for it.
I hate what the stats nerds have done in other sports, and I don't want to see that happen to hockey. Net-fillers are the worst advertisement for what is otherwise arguably the most athletically demanding team sport in the world. But they've intruded and proliferated, mostly due to stats-driven mindsets, and it's a scar on an otherwise beautiful game. It's why I come on here from time to time to advocate for raising the crossbar. Goalies sliding back and forth on their knees all game long is just a bad look for a great game. Everyone else on the ice needs to be a supreme athlete. Why give goalies with mass but marginal shot-stopping talent a pass?
Sorry, I get this way when goalies' performances become an issue. Sore spot, but it is what it is.
Worse than SOG's?
NCAA watcher
Registered User
Because the game has devolved into pinball where deflections and clogging the netfront means making saves is more random than a skill. And so being a goalie means staying in the position most likely to block a deflection -- percentages. Stay centered, take up the most space, and hope the puck hits you. The larger you are, the more likely it is to hit you.
Playing goalie is less random the more time and space there is. At lowest levels, players have lots of time and so playing goalie is the one-on-one challenge you like. At more competitive levels like even college, players can buy time and space, but even there, a lot of goals are "throw the puck at the net and hope it deflects in." The proverbial "create traffic and get pucks on net" mindset.
To me, the solution is not to make the net bigger. Yes, a few more deflections will get goals, but that still doesn't accentuate talent -- it's still random but the success rate of the random distribution is slightly higher. The solution is to create more space so players get greater looks at the net, and goalies have more movement. Take one skater away on each side and make the game 4 X4.
And its not just because it showcases skill, but it means as a fan, it means the "better" team is more likely to win, rather than have a low-scoring slog fest in which you can lose a game due to a fluke deflection.
Chuck Murray
WIS & Effingwoods Hockey Almanac
There's so much in your post that I agree with, 'Watcher. Making the ice surface bigger and/or reducing the amount of players on the ice at the same time, yes - sign me up. But as you know, the challenging logistics of retrofitting arenas to adjust to larger surfaces, and the pressure from the financial sides for less seats AND less players means none of this is likely going to happen in our lifetimes. On arena retrofits, realize this ... with all the crap UNH has encountered with plans to change the size of The Whitt's ice surface ... that would be a relatively easy one, compared to NHL arenas. Only if the sport goes down the tubes would urgency be created to force those issues through all of the resistance they're likely to encounter.
The reason you make the net bigger is to get the GD goalies off their knees, and force them to be athletes on par with the rest of the guys on the ice. Many of them play on their knees because their body frame (knees to shoulder) fits snugly under the crossbar. So raise the crossbar then, from 4 ft. to 5 ft., and see how it works. Worst case, widen the goal from 6 ft. to 7 ft.
I still think you can differentiate truly skilled goalies and net-fillers based on what they do with their arms. I would definitely pare down the catcher, there's really no good excuse for it being as big as it is these days ... but even with those ginormous catchers in use today, there are many goalies who really don't know how to catch. Everyone has been so drilled to take away the lower half of the goal, and using your glove or blocker to cover the corners has become an afterthought, with way too many goalies and their coaches willing to concede the top corners. Many goalies never so much as use their catchers, as opposed to having shooters "find" their catchers for them with lower shots maybe a foot or two off the ice.
I've never run any kind of a study on shot locations or qualities, but my operating assumption is that pretty much any goalie with a modicum of positional sense - as it is taught in this era of net-fillers - should be able to carry an .880-.890 save pct. as pretty much the baseline. Decent goalies at a given level should be at .900 or a little over, and above-average goalies who can cover areas the net-fillers can't tend to come in at .910-.920. The truly gifted ones come in at .930 (and to support your earlier point, they probably have an above-average defensive team playing in front of them too).
If folks recoil at the additional offense that might be created by increasing the size of the goal, hey ... look at the 1980's NHL there was a lot of great hockey being played back then, lots of goals, lots of wide-open play, and lots of excitement. We're not likely to get back there anytime soon with just improving player skills - heck, players have never been more skilled than they are today - so you have to nibble at the edges. Ice size and 4 x 4 per you, and making goalies' jobs more challenging per me (and I used to pretend to be a goalie!). The balance of the game has been steadily trending away from offense for several decades now, it's gone too far in one direction, and it's time to pull things back to seek a more entertaining balance.
JMHO.
Watcher and Chuck are on a roll with goalie talk, so I think no need to distract with SOG (or FOW) just yet, HR.
HockeyRef
Well-known member
Watcher and Chuck are on a roll with goalie talk, so I think no need to distract with SOG (or FOW) just yet, HR.
I do what I can....
Chuck Murray
WIS & Effingwoods Hockey Almanac
Watcher and Chuck are on a roll with goalie talk, so I think no need to distract with SOG (or FOW) just yet, HR.
You guys can and should add whatever you want, any time you want, Snives.
Please just avoid Corsi and Fenwick though ...
I also have no interest in rehashing any debates, but my problem with past goalies has been getting beaten when squared up to shooters, on long range shots, or when playing themselves out of position. More recently they’ve been at the goal mouth, by opponents in alone, on one timers or back door plays...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pKbFmh99bQQ
At that point it becomes about bigger issues than save percentage.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pKbFmh99bQQ
At that point it becomes about bigger issues than save percentage.
Even with our new off-season thread started by Darius (thanks, Darius), these old threads live on, perhaps forever in the "new system.' But, after 1314 posts and 92,542 views, I just want to say thanks to Scott for starting this thread, and all of you folks who have posted here during this most challenging season. Thanks also to our players moving on, and best wishes to them in their future career paths.
Chuck Murray
WIS & Effingwoods Hockey Almanac
It's at this time of the year, this time of the D-1 college hockey season, where the downfall of UNH Hockey really hits home. This used to be a great time for traveling to Boston and beyond to see exciting, spirited and highly competitive hockey, along with having a home-town rooting interest. Will the 'Cats make it to Boston? How will they fare at the HE Tourney? Will they be selected for the big tourney, and if so (and not long ago, it usually wasn't an if), where will they be sent, and who will they be facing? Can they win a couple of tough games over a single weekend, and get to the Frozen Four?
And getting to the FF, 4 out of 6 seasons around the turn of the century ... will they win it this time?
This all used to be part of being a fan of UNH Hockey. It was great fun, at least while it lasted.
It began to slowly slip away, piece by piece ... first, the trips to the FF became elusive. OK, but we're close, it takes some luck to get there, just keep qualifying, right? Then, getting to the HE Finals became more and more elusive ... but hey, we still usually qualify for the big tourney, right? And then, trips to Boston became less regular ... and finally, trips to the big tourney got less and less regular, until there were no more trips. Not to Regionals, and nowadays, not even to Boston.
Hats off to Blue Skies + Infinity for the super fantastic "job" you've done in killing UNH's golden goose.
Can you at least have the dignity of retiring ASAP before you wreck the rest of UNH Athletics?
Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency???? ...
And getting to the FF, 4 out of 6 seasons around the turn of the century ... will they win it this time?
This all used to be part of being a fan of UNH Hockey. It was great fun, at least while it lasted.
It began to slowly slip away, piece by piece ... first, the trips to the FF became elusive. OK, but we're close, it takes some luck to get there, just keep qualifying, right? Then, getting to the HE Finals became more and more elusive ... but hey, we still usually qualify for the big tourney, right? And then, trips to Boston became less regular ... and finally, trips to the big tourney got less and less regular, until there were no more trips. Not to Regionals, and nowadays, not even to Boston.
Hats off to Blue Skies + Infinity for the super fantastic "job" you've done in killing UNH's golden goose.
Can you at least have the dignity of retiring ASAP before you wreck the rest of UNH Athletics?
Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency???? ...
HockeyRef
Well-known member
Aww....thanks Snives!!
Happy to oblige...just wish we could have these convos in person standing with 11.00 (which I would gladly pay) Bud Lights (ha!) in our hands between periods at the TD...sigh.
Last edited:
- Status