Reviewing the Goals Allowed by Martin Brodeur: October 2009
by John Fischer on Jul 4, 2010 12:45 PM EDT
in Devils Issues, Views & Analysis
Email
Print
Back in the end of March, I wrote a commentary about groupthink and confirmation bias among New Jersey Devils fans. This is a construct that's suited for sports in general, if not much more, since it is a seemingly natural response to react to events good and bad by making sweeping claims. (e.g. this always happens, this never happens, etc.) When I inquired the community at large, one the most common subject that came up was Martin Brodeur. How many goals does he let in that are "soft?" Where is Brodeur often beat? How many come from long shots - and did Brodeur have a chance on any of them?
From here on out, I'm going to attempt to answer those questions via reviewing every goal allowed by Martin Brodeur in this past season. Thanks to NHL.com, every goal scored from this past season is saved and accessible by video. I will be going through all 168 of them month by month. Regular readers may remember that I've done this before, both for the goals allowed in February (may re-do those, not sure yet) and all 15 playoff goals allowed. This will be done in the same vein. Today, I will be going through all 27 goals allowed in October 2009.
Lastly, I'd like to provide this quote from Todd Denault's Jacques Plante, page 111, where he quotes Plante's book, Goaltending (p. i):
"In his book Goaltending, Plante wrote, 'From now on, if you have a tendency to point the finger at the goalie, try to replay each goal and you will notice the goalie is seldom guilty. Watch what goes on in front of the net and you'll get a better idea of why the goal went in.' "
Let's see if that's true or not. P.S. Please set your viewing to "Wide" so you can see the entire chart.
Just like I did in past analysis like this, I have provided a link to every NHL.com video of every goal reviewed. This way if you disagree with me on a certain goal, you can check it out for yourself. Let me know what you think, of course.
Also, here's how I'm defining a soft goal: I watch how the shot came through Brodeur and determine whether Brodeur really should have stopped the puck. This means he must have seen the shot coming, the shot was not deflected or change otherwise in motion, he was in position to actually make the stop, and whether Brodeur made an uncharacteristic mistake that led to the goal (meaning: it wasn't a difficult shot to stop). If all were true, then I deemed the goal as "soft." Again, I've included links to all the goals against so you can make your own judgment.
Let's get right to it, I give you the 27 goals allowed by Martin Brodeur in the month of October in the 2009-10 season.
The Chart for October 2009
| Date | GA# | Where Beaten? | Goal Description | Soft Goal? | Video Link |
| 10/3/2009 | 1 | Low, far side, Brodeur's left | Carter picks up rebound, Brodeur still standing, angles shot far post to beat him | Yes | Link |
| 10/3/2009 | 2 | Over right shoulder, top-shelf | Lapierre takes puck past circle, picks corner from sharp angle. | No | Link |
| 10/3/2009 | 3 | Off left pad, up and over Brodeur | Richards wraps around puck, jams it hard on low left side, puck bounces up and in. | No | Link |
| 10/3/2009 | 4 | High, over Brodeur's glove | Powe from right sideboards, fires it over glove, Brodeur too slow to react | Yes | Link |
| 10/3/2009 | 5 | Low, 5-hole on right side | Carle beats Mottau to get to right circle, fires it 5-hole | Yes | Link |
| 10/5/2009 | 6 | On flank - to his right | Brodeur stops Prospal on left circle; rebound goes wide to Del Zotto who has whole net empty - and scores - PPGA | No | Link |
| 10/5/2009 | 7 | Between right arm and leg | Kotalik takes hard slap shot from point, off post and in. Possibly screened? PPGA | No | Link |
| 10/5/2009 | 8 | Low, through legs | Pelley misses cross-ice pass. Gilroy takes it from high slot, goes to right circle, slap shot goes through legs | Yes | Link |
| 10/8/2009 | 9 | Low, through legs | Stamkos gets puck in slot and fires it low through bodies. Brodeur didn't see it. | No | Link |
| 10/8/2009 | 10 | High over right shoulder | Stamkos takes one-timer in high slot from St. Louis. Brodeur had to go lateral, but it was just too fast and too high for him. | No | Link |
| 10/8/2009 | 11 | High, center of net | Wide open Fedoruk takes pass in left circle, fires it high over diving Brodeur who had to hope he went low | No | Link |
| 10/10/2009 | 12 | Over right leg, into center of net | Two on one with Weiss and Olesz, Weiss dishes it to Olesz, Olesz one-times it over and past sliding Broduer | No | Link |
| 10/10/2009 | 13 | Over glove, top left corner | Weiss beats Oduya, goes in close, fires it over glove to top left corner. PPGA | No | Link |
| 10/12/2009 | 14 | Top right corner | Close shot is stopped but is knocked out to right circle. Green fires it high through screen to pick top right corner | No | Link |
| 10/12/2009 | 15 | Off Brodeur's blocker and in | Knuble fires from left circle. Brodeur out to cut off angle, gets a piece of it off blocker, but shot overpowers it and drops into net | Yes | Link |
| 10/16/2009 | 16 | Low, right of Brodeur | Brodeur stops Afinogenov shot low and with right pad. Peverley right in front knocks rebound past him - PPGA | No | Link |
| 10/16/2009 | 17 | High, top left corner | Kane powers through to right circle, fires it high over Brodeur's left to pick top left corner | No | Link |
| 10/16/2009 | 18 | Low, right side, past right leg | Peverley fires low shot through screen, Brodeur stops it low Antropov takes rebound, fires it back to Peverley, who beats Broduer while on ground - PPGA | Yes | Link |
| 10/16/2009 | 19 | Low, center of net, off loose puck | Brodeur makes three stops, but puck is under unaware Brodeur; Thorburn beats White to puck, puts it in net. SHG | No | Link |
| 10/22/2009 | 20 | Between left arm and leg | Gaborik at top of right circle, fires shot through traffic to beat screened Brodeur - PPGA | No | Link |
| 10/22/2009 | 21 | Left side, just past glove | Kotalik is sprung for a breakaway, takes it in close, Brodeur goes down, whips out glove, but the shot's just past it | No | Link |
| 10/24/2009 | 22 | High, on Brodeur's left flank | Brodeur stops long Dupuis shot through traffic low, rebound bounces to Goligoski who puts it in empty net on left flank | No | Link |
| 10/28/2009 | 23 | Low, center of net, under diving Brodeur | Brodeur stops Rivet shot through traffic, MacArthur is right in front as screen, takes rebound, and puts it under stick of diving Brodeur | No | Link |
| 10/28/2009 | 24 | Low, through legs | Yes | Link | |
| 10/28/2009 | 25 | Low, through legs | Gaustad right in front of Brodeur takes pass from side boards and Brodeur has to slide across. Gaustad slides puck through legs during his slide |
Yes? | Link |
| 10/28/2009 | 26 | High, on left, over left shoulder? | Pominville unloads slap shot above left circle through screened Brodeur - PPGA | No | Link |
| 10/31/2009 | 27 | Low, through legs | Stamkos attempts pass across net deflects off Langenbrunner's stick. Changes direction, still fast, goes low through surprised Brodeur's legs | No | Link |
Commentary
There is one game missing on this chart: 10/17/2009 versus Carolina Hurricanes. That's because Brodeur got a shutout and therefore there was nothing to review.
Brodeur has allowed 27 goals in October and by my review, I would say that 8 goals were soft. The only one I'm not certain on is the 25th goal allowed. Paul Gaustad did knock the puck through Brodeur's 5-hole, which is usually results in a soft goal. However, Gaustad was right in front of Brodeur, and the play was on the side-boards. Brodeur's attention had to be where the puck was, not on Gaustad. Therefore, he had to slide laterally and when a goalie does that, it's very difficult to keep the legs totally together.
Mark it 9, if you'd like, but I'm going with 8 soft goals or 29.39% of all goals allowed in October. Still, Plante's quote still holds true. The majority of the goals allowed were not solely Brodeur's fault. From observation, a good number of the 19 non-soft goals could have been prevented with proper defending. For example, GA# 17 where Evander Kane blows by two Devils to get close, and forced Brodeur to react before roofing it to the top left corner. You can argue that perhaps Brodeur shouldn't have reacted, but honestly it was a well-placed shot and, more importantly, someone should have tried to at least get in Kane's way. A little impeding, perhaps even taking a penalty, could have stopped that from ever being a shot, much less a goal.
Incidentally, look at GA #8 and GA #9 to see how much of a difference traffic in front of the net makes. #8 was one Brodeur should have stopped, I know Gilroy was on his flank but he got in position and just didn't close his legs in position. Yet, on #9, Stamkos fires a shot through traffic and it just beats him low; no chance to see where the shot was headed. Traffic in front makes a big difference. I noted 7 times, GA #9 included, Brodeur was screened in some way or form on a goal against. Nearly the same amount of soft goals, in fact. Add 2 goals off one-timers and a breakaway, and already we've got more goals where Brodeur had next to no realistic chance of stopping more.
Location of Goals Against
I've made an attempt to categorize where Brodeur's been beaten since that was one of the original questions presented. All locations are relative to Brodeur himself, not necessarily where the puck goes into the net. It's pretty simple, but it'll do:
| Location | Count | % Total |
| Low Left | 1 | 3.70% |
| Low Middle | 7 | 25.93% |
| Low Right | 3 | 11.11% |
| Middle Left | 2 | 7.41% |
| Middle Middle | 0 | 0.00% |
| Middle Right | 2 | 7.41% |
| High Left | 7 | 25.93% |
| High Middle | 0 | 0.00% |
| High Right | 5 | 18.52% |
Interestingly, in October, Brodeur was beaten nearly equally on high shots as low ones - 11 low ones to 12 high ones. Even more interestingly is that he was beaten completely equally to his left as well as his right: 10 to his left, 10 to his right. Yet, shots that go high to his left, such as over his shoulder, have been the most prolific locations for goals against in October. Given the amount of goals against to the high-right, I think it's fair to say that picking top corners was a good strategy against Brodeur; though it's probably a good one on most goaltenders.
As far as the low-middle, these were mostly 5-hole goals (exception: GA# 19). Again, the presence of traffic or a deflection (like in GA# 27) would make these mostly soft goals.
Your Take
I will be going through these month by month, so now is the time to tell me how you feel about the format of these posts. Is there anything you noticed from my findings that I didn't go over? Is there something I need to explain? What surprised you about these findings? What didn't surprise you? Please leave me your thoughts in the comments.
49 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Are you compiling this at the end for the entire season? i would be interested to see changes in the location chart or if it remains consistent.
That’s the plan. A post for each month, with a summary at the end.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
I think this is going to be difficult, particularly when the video of the goal doesn’t even have a replay attached to it.
Looking only what you’ve called soft goals:
Goal 1: Carter – He’s about 5-6 feet away, and Carter’s had attempt a pass I think, the puck came right back, and he fired it in. I have a hard time calling any goal from less than 6 feet soft, but this is a maybe for me.
Goal 4: Powe – Giroux was possibly screening Brodeur, no way to tell from that video – another maybe for me.
Goal 15: Knuble – Cross ice pass from Oveckhin to Knuble on a odd-man rush where Brodeur gets most of it, that’s soft? I think that’s overly critical.
Goal 18: Peverly – Pass to the guy into the slot, Brodeur goes down, pass back to Peverly for a mostly open net is soft? I don’t understand this one.
I guess I’d say without better replays from the Philly game, I’d have 6 soft goals. I think this exercise would be a good one to start on the 2010/11 season from the start after seeing replays. I remember more than a couple that looked soft on first look, but that got slight deflections in close that made the difference.
Anyway, not to be overly critical myself, thanks for the post.
I can only make do with what NHL.com has in terms of video. Still, it’s better than nothing. But don’t apologize, these are criticisms.
On GA#1 – Brodeur was standing up and was back in his crease. Why wasn’t Brodeur down in the first place? Why wouldn’t he go down after the initial shot? He gave up space and Carter caught him.
On GA#4 – We may have to agree to disagree on this one, I don’t think Giroux really got in front of Brodeur.
On GA#15 – Brodeur did the right thing to come out to challenge Knuble. Problem is that he went out too out and wide and Knuble caught him. Brodeur used his blocker on it, which was what he could do, but it wasn’t enough to stop the shot. If he wasn’t out so wide or even played a little deeper, then he could have had his body in position and stop the shot.
On GA#18 – Brodeur unnecessarily went down when Antropov had it and went too hard at middle. He didn’t react quick enough when Antropov dished it back and Brodeur knew he was beat.
On those four, I’d say that Brodeur should have done better on the shots – hence, I deemed them soft.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
- 1 and 4 without replays, I can’t really argue. Like I said, I’m giving you those based on what we have.
- - It isn’t easy with the NHL.com video, but if you pause at about 00:47, when the puck hits him (I think, again not easy with the video), Brodeur’s still in the crease, and about at the post. He did have to use his blocker, but I credit that to a Knuble shot that was going high far side. Any shot from the near post to about mid-net hits Marty in the chest. I think it looks like he overplayed, or was out too far, because of the quality of the shot. Many, if not most, players go shortside on this type of play. I chalk this up to unlucky more than soft. We’ll have to disagree.
- - I guess I don’t understand why you argue Brodeur went down unnecessarily when Antropov had the puck all alone not even a foot outside his crease. I think he has to expect a shot from him there, and he went down to cover as much as possible. Since Antropov was on his backhand, and moved out towards the slot slightly, Marty had to reach out with his glove to try and smother any shot. (About 00:05) The pass out to Peverly was a one-timer, that I think went under Marty’s pad as he reached out his leg to cover the post. I chalk this goal up to the defense allowing someone all alone in front of him with the puck on the power play – few good things happen next.
I’d say I’d agree with you on 1 and 4 at about 80% without further replays. 15 I can see both arguments and would go 50-50. But 18, if Brodeur doesn’t go down, Antropov scores on the backhand. If he does, then we get Peverly’s goal.
Again, thanks for the reply.
Great post. Might want to add the number of goals that involved an immediate team breakdown (such as #5). Also, on the goals off a rebound, can you determine if it was poor rebound control or the more typical screened shot leads to a juicy rebound?
We need to convince a Canucks blog to do this for Luongo.
Looking at how the team broke down on each goal would be instructive, but I think it takes away from the focus on Brodeur. Tell you what, if you list which goals you’d like to see a further breakdown on (no, not all of them, like a few), then I’ll look at them more closely in the future.
As far as rebounds are concerned, if I feel that the rebound was the result of an error or not. Most of the rebound goals in October (#6, #22, #23) were due to the goal scorer in the right place and right time. Brodeur, or any goalie, really couldn’t have been expected to control it. #1 was the only bad one but not because of rebound control, but poor positioning, in my opinion.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
Oh sure
Give the rest of the league pointers on how to beat Marty :-)
But seriously, this must take a lot of effort, and we appreciate your work. Do you suspect that any of the Devils staff read this blog and perhaps Marty will actually see some of this analysis?
Go Jets
Go Devils
Like sports betting, sign up with centsports and do it for free
http://www.centsports.com/ref/200493
My hunch is this kind of film study is EXACTLY what the goalies and the coaching staff do between games and in the off-season. I wouldn’t be surprised if they took a look at ALL shots against to check his positioning and see where teams are trying to beat him – goalies can make mistakes and still manage to keep the puck out of the net.
Exactly right. This is what teams analyze and scout for; might as well take advantage of the material available to see if we can prove something or not.
But seriously, this must take a lot of effort, and we appreciate your work. Do you suspect that any of the Devils staff read this blog and perhaps Marty will actually see some of this analysis?
I do not suspect that Devils management and players read this site. I know they do. Just trust me on this.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
Oh, I believe you. You have access to the hidden data. I’m sure you know exactly who it is as well. That and I guess they, having their own film and are paid to live, think, and breathe hockey, would take their opinions over those of a bunch of bloggers anyway. :-)
Go Jets
Go Devils
Like sports betting, sign up with centsports and do it for free
http://www.centsports.com/ref/200493
Oh great, now I’ll feel bad when I call someone out for playing poorly.
To "resign" is to voluntarily leave a position; retire. To "re-sign" is to sign again. When talking about free agents, please use the correct one.
Don’t be. Part of the job. Though it helps if you can back it up.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
marty"s softies
First of all, thanks for doing all this swell research. Why don’t you just give every other player on the other 29 teams a friggin blue print on how to beat Marty Broduer.
He’s is absolutly not the same goalie he was 10 years ago. It’s nature, it does that to people, even Marty.
What I have noticed is A: his defense since 2005 is fair at best. and B: He seems to be flopping around on his stomach and rear ens alot these days. Not looking like a
standup/buterfly hybrid goalie at all.
Is this some new technique he learned from the goalie coach ? Or is he just not the same Marty he was at 30 years old.
Lets see how he does this year with a reliable defense in front of him.
AND LETS NOT BRING UP THE jENNINGS TROPHY AGAIN, iF YOUR WHOLE TEAM WAS PLAYING DEFENSE 90% OF THE TIME YOU WOULD WIN IT ALSO. tHATS WHY OUR OFENSE IS SO POOR.
First of all, thanks for doing all this swell research. Why don’t you just give every other player on the other 29 teams a friggin blue print on how to beat Marty Broduer.
Brodeur. B-R-O-D-E-U-R. Brodeur. But seriously, virtually every team in the league scouts their opposition. Though, you wouldn’t look at what goals Brodeur gives up to beat him, you’d look at his tendencies, his strengths on his saves, and then target shots accordingly. That said, a good number of the goals allowed in October would have been allowed by most goalies regardless.
What I have noticed is A: his defense since 2005 is fair at best. and B: He seems to be flopping around on his stomach and rear ens alot these days. Not looking like a
standup/buterfly hybrid goalie at all. Is this some new technique he learned from the goalie coach ? Or is he just not the same Marty he was at 30 years old.
I think you’re only noticing what you want to notice? He’s not flopping around unless there’s no other option. It’s also not a technique per se; it’s really desperation, usually. Though, this analysis isn’t going to show that. Also, given your point “A” and…
Lets see how he does this year with a reliable defense in front of him.
AND LETS NOT BRING UP THE jENNINGS TROPHY AGAIN, iF YOUR WHOLE TEAM WAS PLAYING DEFENSE 90% OF THE TIME YOU WOULD WIN IT ALSO. tHATS WHY OUR OFENSE IS SO POOR.
So if his team plays defense 90%, yet it isn’t reliable or just “fair” (wouldn’t a fair defense be reliable), then how…you know, forget it.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
by the way..
Tim kennedy for goal scored 24… not tyler
Correct and, er, corrected. Thanks.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
by John Fischer on Jul 5, 2010 12:01 AM EDT up reply actions
Hmm, the wisea— commentary about giving the rest of the league pointers must be a characteristic of being named Frank.
Marty flops after he’s made one or two saves in the sequence already and because of how the puck bounces, can not get back into position. There was another goaltender recently that did that a heck of a lot more often as Marty. Maybe you’ve heard of him, Dominick Hasek?
And no, not any defense would win the Jennings even if the team was overly defensive. The Devils have a good number of two-way forwards as well, so they help out, but 90%?, um, no. I’d say if the Oilers from the 80’s focused more on defense, they still couldn’t have come close. While the Devils defensive corps as a whole may not be the best in the league, I don’t think they were close to the worst either. Aside from Mottau, who was overused, and Martin who could be considered amongst the league’s top third, the Devils defense simply is steady and reliable. The rest of them would probably be able to compete for at least the second pairing on most teams in the league. Barring further moves by Lou, they’ll have a more defensive-focus next year than recently, we’ll have to wait and see if not having a couple puck-carriers will affect them too badly.
Go Jets
Go Devils
Like sports betting, sign up with centsports and do it for free
http://www.centsports.com/ref/200493
I’d be interested to see if this accelerates later in the year, I’m not a Devs fan but it always seems like they overwork Marty. The playoffs the last few years may not have been his fault, but in years past I think he might have done better and I think they need to give him a rest every now and then. Granted one of those years he missed a lot of time so I doubt rest was an issue then.
Formerly... "You don't have to be sweet, to be good"
That’s certainly something we may see or not. Though given the playoffs, I would venture against that notion.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
true, but goaltending is highly affected by the mental aspects of the game. Maybe Marty has the ability to crank up his focus in the playoffs to somewhat compensate for some physical tiredness… Obviously they wouldn’t have signed Hedberg if there wasn’t at least a little concern about him possibly slowing down and being more fatigued toward the end of the season.
Go Jets
Go Devils
Like sports betting, sign up with centsports and do it for free
http://www.centsports.com/ref/200493
The Hedberg signing was just to give Johnny Mac and Lou stability in goal. I feel more comfortable with Moose then with Danis. Marty will start probably start atleast 70 games this season pending no injuries. I wonder what Hedberg’s numbers were this season with this analysis.
Piece by piece we are slowly turning into the 2000 Devils team, anyone up for the A-Line: The Sequel?
by RolliePollieKovy on Jul 4, 2010 6:04 PM EDT up reply actions
I wonder what Hedberg’s numbers were this season with this analysis.
They are what they are. This analysis has nothing to do with Hedberg, Danis, or any one other than Martin Brodeur and the goals he allowed last season.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
I know it is just about Marty but I am saying how many “soft” goals did Hedberg give up. You don’t have to do a post about this just a thought.
Piece by piece we are slowly turning into the 2000 Devils team, anyone up for the A-Line: The Sequel?
by RolliePollieKovy on Jul 4, 2010 6:13 PM EDT up reply actions
D-playing D and Fowards playing offense
What I meant by playing defense 90% of the time was this. If you have a good strong defense , your fowards shouldn’t have to play defense as much. I seem to remember a comment Patrick Elias made after one of the Devils playoff losses in which he made a comment about that very thing. He said "we spend so much time playing defense we have little time for offense “. And I agree. Case in point Kovalchuck with out a doubt a gifted goal scorer, isn”t what you would call a great 2 way player, neither was Pavel Burie. Given the chance if the Devils defense did their job a little better, and the offense focused on offense rather then defense what do you think the result would be ?
As far as Marty going down on his stomach, I have noticed this tendency much more this year, and not after a shot has been taken, he seems to sprawl out even before the initial shot is taken. I’m sure I’m not te only one who has noticed this. The point was always brought up that if Marty’s defense was not as good as it was ( Stevens, Neidermyer,Rafalski and Dano. Would he be as good ? Well since the lock out have we gotten past the second round ? Not to put the blame on Marty, but put it squarely on the fact that # 1 defense men left the Devils and were replaced with WHAT?
Given that this is the only part of the comment that has anything to do with the post, I’m only going to respond to it (pro-tip: stay on topic.
As far as Marty going down on his stomach, I have noticed this tendency much more this year, and not after a shot has been taken, he seems to sprawl out even before the initial shot is taken. I’m sure I’m not te only one who has noticed this
So far, you are the only one who has brought it up. Moreover, unless I’m mistaken, this has happened, what, once in October that led to a goal against where Brodeur made an error (GA# 18), and two goals against where it wasn’t really his fault since it was all he could do in process (GA#19, GA#11)? I wouldn’t be so concerned about it.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
guys...
the 15th isnt his fault i mean NO WAY its his fault… you have ovechkin coming down how can yuo not think shot… he goes across kind of overplays the pass but the shot hits him and he almost gets it but it unfortunately went in. Definitely not a softy
The puck was passed to Mike Knuble, Brodeur turned and came across to face and challenge him. Brodeur over-committed, and Knuble fired it hard far-post. Brodeur got a blocker on it, but because he took himself too far wide, it wasn’t enough to stop it. It’s soft because he should have been in position, Brodeur made the error.
Ovechkin had nothing to do the goal other than feeding Knuble cross-ice. Which Brodeur didn’t have to worry about.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
by John Fischer on Jul 5, 2010 12:18 AM EDT up reply actions
Hey John, I did a similar type of piece for Marc-Andre Fleury that you might find helpful. I looked at his ES performance throughout the whole year and defined a soft goal as one that was scored outside the chance area with no mitigation. I think this helps to objectify soft vs. not soft as best as we’re able to.
I won’t go into more detail here because it’s all in the article, but feel free to ask me something if you have any questions.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
Gotta disagree entirely with your definition of a soft goal in your analysis. A soft goal isn’t determined by the position on the ice of the shooter, but by the mitigating circumstances that lead up to the puck crossing the goal line.
To "resign" is to voluntarily leave a position; retire. To "re-sign" is to sign again. When talking about free agents, please use the correct one.
Did you happen to read through my entire article? Because I spoke about mitigating circumstances as they relate to non-chance goals.
And are you proposing that the only way to go about defining a goal is to look at it and ask “should he have saved that?” That sounds like it would create nothing but endless disagreement. I opted for an objective measure that took rebounds and mitigating circumstances into account, and it worked quite well.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
Yes, I read it. And I disagree.
A “soft” goal is entirely subjective no matter how you slice it, so there will always be disagreement.
Consider Patrick Kane’s GWG against the Flyers in Game 6 of the Finals. It wasn’t in your “chance area,” nor did it qualify for any of your four mitigating circumstances (an own team goal, an odd-man rush, a deflection or a tip-in, or a screen in front of the goalie), yet I, and many others, would consider that a soft goal.
It has nothing to do with where it’s taken from and everything to do with the goalie’s reaction (or lack thereof) and/or positioning.
To "resign" is to voluntarily leave a position; retire. To "re-sign" is to sign again. When talking about free agents, please use the correct one.
And yes, after posting I realize that that goal would fit your definition (it’s been a long day and there may have been some beer involved). So, if he were 3 feet to his right and that same shot had gone in, it wouldn’t be a soft goal by your criteria.
That’s disagreeable.
To "resign" is to voluntarily leave a position; retire. To "re-sign" is to sign again. When talking about free agents, please use the correct one.
There are going to be marginal cases that spark some disagreement, but I think my definition is very workable in the long-run. It’s a lot more consistent than looking at every goal and surveying people to see if they think a goalie should have stopped it.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
Every goal is unique and requires individual assessment. If that works for you, that’s peachy, but I’m of the opinion that there are more than just a few marginal cases. A soft goal can happen at any time on any shot.
To "resign" is to voluntarily leave a position; retire. To "re-sign" is to sign again. When talking about free agents, please use the correct one.
And are you proposing that the only way to go about defining a goal is to look at it and ask "should he have saved that?" That sounds like it would create nothing but endless disagreement.
That’s exactly what I’m doing here. It’s a qualitative review, not quantitative. I’ve done it before (twice) and it worked out. Will there be a few disagreements? Sure. No more than your method as prior comments have indicated, really. The larger point to prove is to get an idea of how often Brodeur has let in a soft goal, where is he beaten, etc.
The definition of a soft goal in my analysis is, I think, fairly clear – did Brodeur see it, was he in a position to make the right decision, was the shot unimpeded in a meaningful way. Your analysis only focuses on whether the goal came from a “scoring chance” or not.
I opted for an objective measure that took rebounds and mitigating circumstances into account, and it worked quite well.
Your measure, which is all well and good, has a completely different definition than what I’m doing – goals allowed by shot location. It assumes, and as elesias noted it’s a bigger assumption, that anywhere outside that polyhedron that makes up the slot is not a high scoring area. I’m not saying that’s false, that area is where a majority of goals are scored.
I’m exploring something completely different; subjective as it may be, but just because a shot originates from that slot area doesn’t mean Brodeur or any goalie is absolved from the goal allowed. Likewise, just because a shot comes from the point or outside the dots and outside of the slot or whathaveyou, doesn’t mean the goaltender gave up a soft one.
I’ll review your analysis and if I think I can do it, I’ll do something like that after this project’s (which includes PPGA and SHGA as well) complete.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
Jacques Caron
To me, Marty does play differently than he did about 5 years or so ago. So my question is, when did Jacques Caron become less and less of an influence on Marty? He became our Goalie Coach in 1993, not coincidentally when Marty became a starter.
Correct me if Im wrong here (and I most likely am), but it seemed to me that once Terreri came aboard, Brodeur became less effective.
Chris Terreri really became the goaltending coach last season, slowly coming in to replace Caron. So unless you think Brodeur became less effective last year (and what does that even mean?), I don’t think the coaching has been an issue.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
Plus you wouldn’t really expect Brodeur to change the way he plays his position 16-17 years into his career just because of a goaltender coach change, specifically while keeping in mind the fact that we’re talking about arguably the best goaltender of all time.
"We aim above the mark to hit the mark." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
I was at first asking how much (or little) influence Caron was having on Marty, and asking to see if there was a correlation. We know how close Brodeur and Caron have been, and how Brodeur credits Caron for much of the succss in his career.
I see ‘less effective’ as a combination of several factors; including, but not limited to, fewer game-changing saves, less ‘intimidation’ of opponent shooters, more ‘soft’ goals against, etc.
Come to think of it, maybe the ‘trapezoid’ has something to do with my perception of his level of effectiveness.
I am not trying to state this as fact, just posturing to understand what others may think of my opinion.
Deflections
Are you also checking to see if any of those goals are due to deflections by our own players?
I’ve noticed that a large number of soft goals in the past have been due to deflections, which often do not show up in the replay but are mentioned later on either by the announcers or in an interview.
Goals are recorded by shot type, and deflections and tip-in’s are options for the scorer to choose.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
Eh, I’ve never seen any studies that show the scorers today miss a lot of things. Sometimes the shot type is debatable because we don’t have the technology to determine it conclusively. But I wouldn’t think they do a terrible job overall.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
Yep. The last one, GA#27, was definitely a pass tipped by Langenbrunner. Fortunately, while the scorer may not record the deflection, the play by play with the goal itself usually catches it.
There were a few own-deflections among all of the deflections in November, but not too many. You’ll have to wait until Sunday to find out, though. (TEASE).
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- The Chicago Blackhawks’ seven-game losing streak is bad for everybody
- According to NHL, here’s why Dominic Moore escaped suspension for Fedotenko hit
- How Mats Sundin’s no-trade clause controversy made fans reconsider loyalty in NHL
- Nordiques Nation invades Hockey Day in Canada
- Youth hockey coach, parents clash over alleged tirade over 9-year old’s 200th goal puck
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
