Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Pulling the goalie

Expand Messages
  • Iain Fyffe
    ... Hold on, Bill, I wasn t railing against you. By the bit of info you provided it was not obvious how in-depth the study was. I m glad to hear it was very
    Message 1 of 17 , May 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      > Now, you can rail against me Iain but the Soviets were VERY
      > scientific on their approach to the game and studied this sort of
      > thing pretty copiously.

      Hold on, Bill, I wasn't railing against you. By the bit of info you
      provided it was not obvious how in-depth the study was. I'm glad to
      hear it was very scientific. Remember, you read it and I didn't, so
      I had to rely on what you said.

      I didn't not believe you, you just didn't provide enough info.

      Iain.
    • joe_gucciardo
      Guys, Just my observation here .. chime in if think I m totally off base here. The Soviet teams were structured to win World Championships and Olympic Medals.
      Message 2 of 17 , May 1, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Guys,

        Just my observation here .. chime in if think I'm totally off base
        here.

        The Soviet teams were structured to win World Championships and
        Olympic Medals. Goal differential is usually very critical in these
        short tournaments. It can mean the difference between winning a Gold
        or a Silver, or possibly even getting into a medal round. Unless
        they are playing a must win game, it's better to loose 4-3 than 5-3.
        In the NHL goal differential is totally meaningless.

        BTW - Does anyone remember if the Soviets pulled their goalie in
        1980 when they lost to the US? I seem to recall that they did not
        pull their goalie.

        Joe



        --- In hockhist@yahoogroups.com, "Iain Fyffe" <ifyffe@h...> wrote:
        > > Now, you can rail against me Iain but the Soviets were VERY
        > > scientific on their approach to the game and studied this sort
        of
        > > thing pretty copiously.
        >
        > Hold on, Bill, I wasn't railing against you. By the bit of info
        you
        > provided it was not obvious how in-depth the study was. I'm glad
        to
        > hear it was very scientific. Remember, you read it and I didn't,
        so
        > I had to rely on what you said.
        >
        > I didn't not believe you, you just didn't provide enough info.
        >
        > Iain.
      • William Underwood
        It went beyond the nats to their club league too. They just felt that the odds did not justify the gamble. ... From: joe_gucciardo
        Message 3 of 17 , May 1, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          It went beyond the nats to their club league too. They just felt that
          the odds did not justify the gamble.

          -----Original Message-----
          From: joe_gucciardo [mailto:joe_gucciardo@...]
          Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 11:16 AM
          To: hockhist@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [hockhist] Re: Pulling the goalie

          Guys,

          Just my observation here .. chime in if think I'm totally off base
          here.

          The Soviet teams were structured to win World Championships and
          Olympic Medals. Goal differential is usually very critical in these
          short tournaments. It can mean the difference between winning a Gold
          or a Silver, or possibly even getting into a medal round. Unless
          they are playing a must win game, it's better to loose 4-3 than 5-3.
          In the NHL goal differential is totally meaningless.

          BTW - Does anyone remember if the Soviets pulled their goalie in
          1980 when they lost to the US? I seem to recall that they did not
          pull their goalie.

          Joe



          --- In hockhist@yahoogroups.com, "Iain Fyffe" <ifyffe@h...> wrote:
          > > Now, you can rail against me Iain but the Soviets were VERY
          > > scientific on their approach to the game and studied this sort
          of
          > > thing pretty copiously.
          >
          > Hold on, Bill, I wasn't railing against you. By the bit of info
          you
          > provided it was not obvious how in-depth the study was. I'm glad
          to
          > hear it was very scientific. Remember, you read it and I didn't,
          so
          > I had to rely on what you said.
          >
          > I didn't not believe you, you just didn't provide enough info.
          >
          > Iain.



          To unsubscribe from this mail list, send a blank message to
          hockhist-unsubscribe@onelist.com

          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        • William Underwood
          I didn t mean this time Iain...I said it with a grin... I would have to look for those old notes but I recall the figures were under under 15 % for scoring
          Message 4 of 17 , May 1, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            I didn't mean this time Iain...I said it with a grin...

            I would have to look for those old notes but I recall the figures were
            under under 15 % for scoring and over 50 5 for being scored against.
            I'd really have to do some searching. It might be in "The Road to
            Olympus" also, I'll have to look.

            -----Original Message-----
            From: Iain Fyffe [mailto:ifyffe@...]
            Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 8:09 AM
            To: hockhist@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [hockhist] Re: Pulling the goalie

            > Now, you can rail against me Iain but the Soviets were VERY
            > scientific on their approach to the game and studied this sort of
            > thing pretty copiously.

            Hold on, Bill, I wasn't railing against you. By the bit of info you
            provided it was not obvious how in-depth the study was. I'm glad to
            hear it was very scientific. Remember, you read it and I didn't, so
            I had to rely on what you said.

            I didn't not believe you, you just didn't provide enough info.

            Iain.





            To unsubscribe from this mail list, send a blank message to
            hockhist-unsubscribe@onelist.com

            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
            http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          • jpdornberger
            But Michael, about 10-20% of the time goalies are off the ice are for delayed penalties not end of game. In the delayed penalty scenario a goal only your own
            Message 5 of 17 , May 1, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              But Michael, about 10-20% of the time goalies are off the ice are for
              delayed penalties not end of game. In the delayed penalty scenario a
              goal only your own player can put it in your goal (pretty rare).
              Also, from the stats i have seen it can be difficult to ascertain
              whether empty net minutes are for delayed penalties especially when
              it's a one goal game or an overtime game. It's not an easy
              undertaking with most general game stats.

              Jim Dornberger


              --- In hockhist@yahoogroups.com, michael.poplawski@s... wrote:
              > If someone wants to take this on, the best place to
              > start would be for the most recent NHL season, if
              > the following information is available:
              >
              > Total minutes played by NHL teams
              > Total minutes played by NHL goaltenders
              > Goals scored with an extra attacker
              >
              > This information might be harder to find the further
              > back in history we go.
              >
              > --
              > Mike Poplawski
              > Victoria, BC
              >
              > PS Does anyone know which year offsetting minor
              > penalties began created 4-on-4 skater situations
              > again? Somebody at work asked me and I guessed it
              > was about 7-8 years, but maybe someone knows for sure.
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > ----- Original Message -----
              > From: John Matthew IV <john.matthew@r...>
              > Date: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 9:30 am
              > Subject: [hockhist] Pulling the goalie
              >
              > > Has anyone ever conducted a survey to
              > quantitatively determine the
              > > effectiveness of pulling the goalie? I.e., just
              > how often does it
              > > work? I'm
              > > guessing 10% at best.
              > >
              > > This seems like a strategy that has been around
              > for ever but has
              > > someonecranked the numbers on it?
              > >
              > > Thank you.
              > >
              > > John Matthew IV
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              > --------------------
              > > -~-->
              > > Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To
              > Life's Important
              > >
              > Questions.http://us.click.yahoo.com/O10svD/Me7FAA/AG3JAA/jswolB/TM
              > >
              > -------------------------------------------------------------------
              > > --~->
              > >
              > > To unsubscribe from this mail list, send a blank
              > message to
              > > hockhist-unsubscribe@onelist.com
              > >
              > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
              > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              > >
              > >
              > >
            • jpdornberger
              Boy, did i butcher this. That s what i get for starting, then checking the stats and then go back to finishing it and immediately hitting send. ... for ... a
              Message 6 of 17 , May 1, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Boy, did i butcher this. That's what i get for starting, then
                checking the stats and then go back to finishing it and immediately
                hitting send.

                --- In hockhist@yahoogroups.com, "jpdornberger" <jpdornberger@c...>
                wrote:
                > But Michael, about 10-20% of the time goalies are off the ice are
                for
                > delayed penalties not end of game. In the delayed penalty scenario
                a
                > goal only your own player can put it in your goal (pretty rare).
                > Also, from the stats i have seen it can be difficult to ascertain
                > whether empty net minutes are for delayed penalties especially when
                > it's a one goal game or an overtime game. It's not an easy
                > undertaking with most general game stats.
                >
                > Jim Dornberger
              • Jean-Patrice Martel
                I have a question which is (I think) on a very similar subject: When a forward breaks his stick in his defensive zone (or gives his stick to a defenceman on
                Message 7 of 17 , May 2, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  I have a question which is (I think) on a very similar subject:

                  When a forward breaks his stick in his defensive zone (or gives his
                  stick to a defenceman on his team who has broken his), should he
                  waste 5-6 seconds, and dash to his bench, get a new stick, and come
                  right back? Or should he, like they all do now, skate around empty-
                  handed for 20-30 seconds, usually until either a goal is scored, or
                  he gets a penalty for holding?

                  Did the Soviets study that too?

                  Jean-Patrice


                  --- In hockhist@yahoogroups.com, "William Underwood" <wausport@b...>
                  wrote:
                  > All of which is obvious. The Soviets did that and said "NYET". The
                  > bottom line that they saw is that more times than not it doesn't
                  work
                  > and more times than not you end up 2 in the can rather than one.
                  Hence,
                  > had you kept the goalie in and they didn't score the odds would
                  even be
                  > better that you COULD tie as you are usually down just one goal.
                  >
                  > Now, you can rail against me Iain but the Soviets were VERY
                  scientific
                  > on their approach to the game and studied this sort of thing pretty
                  > copiously. You would LOVE to sit in on a symposium by their coaches!
                  > They not only hit you with logic and philosophy but numbers out the
                  > wazzoo! I remember one where they actually had studied the amount of
                  > time that it took the eye to see a shot, get the message to the
                  brain
                  > and then out to the muscles. They concluded that if a shot is
                  moving at
                  > 65 MPH form 20 feet in front of the net, it is unstoppable unless
                  the
                  > goalie is in position. I've been to them with Tarasov and
                  Chernischev
                  > speaking, with Jan Horsky of Czechoslovakia. Iain, you would be in
                  > paradise! Numbers, numbers and more numbers explaining why the do
                  almost
                  > anything...
                  >
                  > After seeing the sort of research they use that delves right into
                  > kinesiology and physics I learned not to question the Sovs much on
                  > numbers...
                  >
                  > They constantly harped that more often than not it is folly to pull
                  the
                  > goalie. That more times than not you end up 2 goals down rather
                  than one
                  > with time left on the clock where you could be attacking with the
                  real
                  > chance at a tie.
                  >
                  > So why do we do it? One, I think that we maybe are more of a
                  society of
                  > gamblers. Two, entertainment. If the coach doesn't pull the goalie,
                  the
                  > masses scream as if he blew the only chance to tie. These are the
                  same
                  > masses that boo whenever that empty net goal is scored. Three,
                  > custom/tradition. Keep in mind, the Soviets didn't really have a big
                  > time tradition in their development of the game. They had a book by
                  > Lloyd Percival, some old films and their scientific analysis when
                  they
                  > took up the game in 1945. Finally, I think that we love crowding
                  the net
                  > more. Now there is a plus and a minus here. Sure you have an extra
                  guy
                  > but quite often he isn't in front. Two, it often creates SUCH a
                  crowd
                  > that the puck never can find its way through.
                  >
                  > It would be interesting to see further research. But like I say, the
                  > Soviets were pretty thorough on these things. And plain old common
                  sense
                  > tells us something. Of al of the hockey games that we watch, how
                  often
                  > do we see the man up team get the tying goal versus the empty netter
                  > opening up a fatal 2 goal deficit? It really isn't even close...and
                  when
                  > you add in all of the times where NO ONE scores...it seems like a
                  not
                  > very effective tactic overall.
                • William Underwood
                  Nope. The only guy who ever gave it enough thought to even coin a phrase to it was Pierre Bouchard who said the only thing worse than a goalie without a stick
                  Message 8 of 17 , May 2, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Nope. The only guy who ever gave it enough thought to even coin a phrase
                    to it was Pierre Bouchard who said "the only thing worse than a goalie
                    without a stick is a goalie without a jock." There is little choice, it
                    may take more than six seconds to get back and you can always get in the
                    way without holding somebody.

                    But it was one of the few things they never seemed to give thought to at
                    some point! These symposiums were fascinating! The way that they thought
                    things out! But no, this was a thing that never came up. I guess
                    Bouchard was translated into Russian at some point!

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: Jean-Patrice Martel [mailto:jpmartel_18@...]
                    Sent: Friday, May 02, 2003 4:01 PM
                    To: hockhist@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: [hockhist] Re: Pulling the goalie

                    I have a question which is (I think) on a very similar subject:

                    When a forward breaks his stick in his defensive zone (or gives his
                    stick to a defenceman on his team who has broken his), should he
                    waste 5-6 seconds, and dash to his bench, get a new stick, and come
                    right back? Or should he, like they all do now, skate around empty-
                    handed for 20-30 seconds, usually until either a goal is scored, or
                    he gets a penalty for holding?

                    Did the Soviets study that too?

                    Jean-Patrice


                    --- In hockhist@yahoogroups.com, "William Underwood" <wausport@b...>
                    wrote:
                    > All of which is obvious. The Soviets did that and said "NYET". The
                    > bottom line that they saw is that more times than not it doesn't
                    work
                    > and more times than not you end up 2 in the can rather than one.
                    Hence,
                    > had you kept the goalie in and they didn't score the odds would
                    even be
                    > better that you COULD tie as you are usually down just one goal.
                    >
                    > Now, you can rail against me Iain but the Soviets were VERY
                    scientific
                    > on their approach to the game and studied this sort of thing pretty
                    > copiously. You would LOVE to sit in on a symposium by their coaches!
                    > They not only hit you with logic and philosophy but numbers out the
                    > wazzoo! I remember one where they actually had studied the amount of
                    > time that it took the eye to see a shot, get the message to the
                    brain
                    > and then out to the muscles. They concluded that if a shot is
                    moving at
                    > 65 MPH form 20 feet in front of the net, it is unstoppable unless
                    the
                    > goalie is in position. I've been to them with Tarasov and
                    Chernischev
                    > speaking, with Jan Horsky of Czechoslovakia. Iain, you would be in
                    > paradise! Numbers, numbers and more numbers explaining why the do
                    almost
                    > anything...
                    >
                    > After seeing the sort of research they use that delves right into
                    > kinesiology and physics I learned not to question the Sovs much on
                    > numbers...
                    >
                    > They constantly harped that more often than not it is folly to pull
                    the
                    > goalie. That more times than not you end up 2 goals down rather
                    than one
                    > with time left on the clock where you could be attacking with the
                    real
                    > chance at a tie.
                    >
                    > So why do we do it? One, I think that we maybe are more of a
                    society of
                    > gamblers. Two, entertainment. If the coach doesn't pull the goalie,
                    the
                    > masses scream as if he blew the only chance to tie. These are the
                    same
                    > masses that boo whenever that empty net goal is scored. Three,
                    > custom/tradition. Keep in mind, the Soviets didn't really have a big
                    > time tradition in their development of the game. They had a book by
                    > Lloyd Percival, some old films and their scientific analysis when
                    they
                    > took up the game in 1945. Finally, I think that we love crowding
                    the net
                    > more. Now there is a plus and a minus here. Sure you have an extra
                    guy
                    > but quite often he isn't in front. Two, it often creates SUCH a
                    crowd
                    > that the puck never can find its way through.
                    >
                    > It would be interesting to see further research. But like I say, the
                    > Soviets were pretty thorough on these things. And plain old common
                    sense
                    > tells us something. Of al of the hockey games that we watch, how
                    often
                    > do we see the man up team get the tying goal versus the empty netter
                    > opening up a fatal 2 goal deficit? It really isn't even close...and
                    when
                    > you add in all of the times where NO ONE scores...it seems like a
                    not
                    > very effective tactic overall.



                    To unsubscribe from this mail list, send a blank message to
                    hockhist-unsubscribe@onelist.com

                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  • Richard Spiegel
                    Is it just my imagination, or do game-tying-goals with the goalie pulled seem to be much more common in the playoffs than in the regular season (much like 9th
                    Message 9 of 17 , May 3, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Is it just my imagination, or do game-tying-goals with the goalie pulled
                      seem to be much more common in the playoffs than in the regular season (much
                      like 9th inning comebacks in baseball)?
                      R.S.
                    • John Matthew IV
                      ... (much ... They do seem very common when Vancouver trails Minnesota. John Matthew IV
                      Message 10 of 17 , May 3, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Richard Spiegel wrote:

                        > Is it just my imagination, or do game-tying-goals with the goalie pulled
                        > seem to be much more common in the playoffs than in the regular season
                        (much
                        > like 9th inning comebacks in baseball)?

                        They do seem very common when Vancouver trails Minnesota.

                        John Matthew IV
                      • Philip Sutton
                        Not sure on any stats but recently seen a coach Chris McSorley pulling his netminder on a 5 on 3 in the first period with the score 0-0 also he did the same
                        Message 11 of 17 , Jul 14, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Not sure on any stats but recently seen a coach Chris McSorley pulling his
                          netminder on a 5 on 3 in the first period with the score 0-0 also he did the
                          same when losing 1-0 at the beginning of the third on a 5-3. In the 0-0 game
                          the opposition cleared the puck the goalie came back on and then McSorely's
                          team regained the puck and scored. In the 1-0 game the tactic worked and the
                          game finished 1-1. Told by fellow supporters he often does this. Any one
                          else know of this?
                        • Jean-Patrice Martel
                          ... Of course there s the (in)famous example of April 5, 1970, where the Canadiens (playing the Blackhawks) needed at least a tie or 5 goals to make the
                          Message 12 of 17 , Jul 14, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            > --- In hockhist@yahoogroups.com, "Philip Sutton" <p.a.sutton@t...>
                            > wrote:
                            > Not sure on any stats but recently seen a coach Chris McSorley
                            > pulling his
                            > netminder on a 5 on 3 in the first period with the score 0-0 also
                            > he did the
                            > same when losing 1-0 at the beginning of the third on a 5-3. In the
                            > 0-0 game
                            > the opposition cleared the puck the goalie came back on and then
                            > McSorely's
                            > team regained the puck and scored. In the 1-0 game the tactic
                            > worked and the
                            > game finished 1-1. Told by fellow supporters he often does this.
                            > Any one
                            > else know of this?

                            Of course there's the (in)famous example of April 5, 1970, where the
                            Canadiens (playing the Blackhawks) needed at least a tie or 5 goals
                            to make the playoffs, after the Red Wings let the Rangers beat them
                            in the afternoon (game mentioned recently on another post).

                            Down 5-2 in the third period, coach Claude Ruel came to the
                            conclusion he wouldn't get the tie, so he went for the goals, and
                            started pulling his goalie every time the Canadiens took control of
                            the puck.

                            The tactic failed miserably, and Chicago scored five times in an
                            empty net, the first goal coming at 12:27 of the third period, and
                            the last one at 19:57 (with three seconds left, did they really think
                            they could still score 3 goals??).

                            Oddly, Pit Martin got a hat trick, but not a single goal in an empty
                            net.

                            The game ended 10-2 for Chicago, even though the shots on goal were
                            very even: 38-37 for Chicago.

                            The game is described in detail in "The Game I'll Never Forget"
                            (published 2002), it is Tony Esposito's entry (the Blackhawks were
                            tied with Boston for first place going into the game, so the game
                            meant a lot to them too).

                            Jean-Patrice
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.