As I'm sure you're aware, Hockey has a long and storied history of using one goalie for the postseason.
I'm just wondering when people will stop being uncertain of who is starting in net.
Game 5 - Do not go gentle into that good night.
- Thread starter TSC
- Start date
I'm just wondering when people will stop being uncertain of who is starting in net.
Neato. Starting goalies also often used to play more games in the regular season, and were now in Swayman playing more games than he ever has before. How does your answer actually respond to @Lose Remerswaal ’s point about Swayman being tired?
I agree it will be Swayman, but one counter to your historical point is that I cant imagine there is a long and storied history of a team having two legit #1 goalie options who truly split the load over the regular season.
In case the record needs to be set straight, if I were the coach, I'd start Swayman. I also liked the other 19 guys who were in last night's lineup. Best group I think they've rolled out all Playoffs
I am sure he is tired. He's also playing well. I am sure historically other goalies were tired. And I am honored to finally get one of your added snark words. I have certainly enjoyed reading them over the years.
Oh, I agree. And now the other guy hasn't played in awhile. Making it even harder to switch, in my opinion.
Isn’t it cool how multiple things can be true at the same time!
I think you give him the net with two nights off, but Ullmark is also an excellent goalie, and I think that they really missed an opportunity to use him earlier in the series, and that they made that decision less based on what is best for the team’s chances of winning, than what tradition and generally useless conventional wisdom dictate and therefore provide cover against second guessing. It’s unfortunate, because they’ve bucked those inclinations in the regular season. And the lack of courage/foresight to do the same in the playoffs has contributed mightily, IMHO, to two playoff series losses in the past four seasons.
Which game would a rested Ullmark have changed things? I also would have played him (game 4 I think) but I don't think the decision has affected things at all.Isn’t it cool how multiple things can be true at the same time!
I think you give him the net with two nights off, but Ullmark is also an excellent goalie, and I think that they really missed an opportunity to use him earlier in the series, and that they made that decision less based on what is best for the team’s chances of winning, than what tradition and generally useless conventional wisdom dictate and therefore provide cover against second guessing. It’s unfortunate, because they’ve bucked those inclinations in the regular season. And the lack of courage/foresight to do the same in the playoffs has contributed mightily, IMHO, to two playoff series losses in the past four seasons.
There's also a rust element with Ullmark. He's played 18 minutes total in 3 weeks and gave up 2 goals on 10 shots. It's a balance between fatigue and rust. They noted last season that beyond being late to pull Ullmark, they didn't think it was fair to put Swayman into an elimination game cold. So they do consider rust when making decisions.
I absolutely could've bought starting Ullmark for game 3 or 4 when there's still a safety net. But, ultimately, Swayman has saved 10.42 goals above expected in the post-season, nearly double #2 Shesterkin who is a little more than 5. I don't think they made the wrong choice, Swayman has been the proverbial hot goalie and we've reached ride or die with him.
I think they were prepared to rotate but Swayman just got unconscious and that was it.
I absolutely could've bought starting Ullmark for game 3 or 4 when there's still a safety net. But, ultimately, Swayman has saved 10.42 goals above expected in the post-season, nearly double #2 Shesterkin who is a little more than 5. I don't think they made the wrong choice, Swayman has been the proverbial hot goalie and we've reached ride or die with him.
I think they were prepared to rotate but Swayman just got unconscious and that was it.
I don’t think it necessarily would have affected an outcome in this series, though I would have started him in Game 4 probably. But that doesn’t mean that it was still the right decision. You can hit a 12 against a dealer’s six and pull an eight. But playing Tuukka Rask with his career ending injury didn’t affect the Bruins in 2021 Game 3–they won and only gave up one goal despite the fact that he could barely move—but it sure affected them in the next three games.
Yes. I should have quoted his prior post. Or not quoted a post. It was more in general response to people wondering who would be starting in net.Isn’t it cool how multiple things can be true at the same time!
I feel you. My surprise mostly evaporated when Swayman did Swayman things in the first eight games of the playoffs. I think they’re riding him until a wheel falls off. And, I mean, I get it. But, spectacular saves notwithstanding, I think that he was plainly showing his fatigue last night.
@cshea ‘s rust point is a good one, too. It’s a big part of why I thought that they should have stuck to a rotation all playoffs.
What in the fuck does playing a hurt Rask 4 years ago have to do with riding the world's hottest goalie this year? And it hasn't hurt them- yet? you're dealing with hypotheticals about the future Chris. Look, I'm happy to listen if you could explain how playing Swayman in any game this year has hurt their chances of winning this series...even if he gets lit up and lets in a bunch of softies, he'll be on extra rest.
Gotta let the past go sometimes man...I'm waiting for the inevitable lecture on the 2015 draft from someone here lol
Edit: and I know they fucked up last year and that's why they lost so it is a sore spot. No doubt. And I would have thrown 35 in at least twice since his lone appearence but I just don't see how that decision (which you say is wrong) has harmed them at all.
Cheddar Bobrovsky goes to bed every night knowing he drops his stick at a sign of trouble quicker than Kendrick Lamar can drop diss tracks.
I went to bed knowing both Sway and Linus can get the job done in Game 6. If the Bruins are constantly shorthanded or their D assists on Panther goals by turning the puck over or failing to clear or generally sucking, then it won't matter who is in net. The B's are supposed to lose anyways. My gut says play Ullmark in Game 6, but I won't be disappointed either way.
I went to bed knowing both Sway and Linus can get the job done in Game 6. If the Bruins are constantly shorthanded or their D assists on Panther goals by turning the puck over or failing to clear or generally sucking, then it won't matter who is in net. The B's are supposed to lose anyways. My gut says play Ullmark in Game 6, but I won't be disappointed either way.
I literally explained how I think they’re related. I think that this team, come playoff time, previously made goaltending decisions (by the same front office and goalie coach) based on conventional wisdom that was anything but wise, got bit in the ass by it twice in three years, and that the current outcome of that way of thinking is not an effective measurement of the wisdom of that way of thinking. It doesn’t strike me as super complicated.
OK, so, I can’t talk about what happened literally last year or three seasons ago, because that’s the past, and I also can’t talk about whether a decision was an optimal one this past week because I don’t know for sure whether it would have made a specific difference in that particular game, and I can’t talk about how that continued similar thinking pattern might affect future events, because they haven’t happened yet? How do you suggest we talk about sports strategy, then; view every occurrence as a completely independent event and then assess it solely after he fact based on outcome, luck and variance be damned?
You’re not leaving me with a ton to talk about, but given that your responses to complaints about specific things that Montgomery has done in his two years as coach have been deep insights like complaining that people were merely calling for a sacrifice due to the failures of a mediocre team, I guess I shouldn’t be too surprised?
So, you’re unhappy that I’m not defending an argument that I didn’t make? Cool. This has been a lot of fun.
Last edited:
Honestly, this place would be more interesting if the Vanguard of the Reasonable didn’t trip over their own dicks so often fucking up telling other people how to think about the sport. You guys look great tut-tutting from up on that wall, though.
I was on record as would have played Ully in game 6 of the last series, and game 3 or 4 of this series.
That being said, they made it to the two day break, so I'm all aboard the Sway train for games 6 and 7.
That being said, they made it to the two day break, so I'm all aboard the Sway train for games 6 and 7.
FWIW---
1970-71 Rangers. Giacomin (56%) and Villemure (44%) split time and shared the Vezina. Giacomin got 90% of the playoff time.
Following year, Johnston and Cheevers split time in reg. season AND playoffs. And beat the Rangers in the Finals. (NYR had same reg. season goalie split as previous yr; Giacomin played 10/16 playoff games).
Appreciate the history lesson here, thanks!
You know you've watched Seinfeld too many times when your first thought after reading your post was "Dad, you and John Cheever?!"
Small, nuanced nitpick here - I don't think Sway "got unconscious", I think this is who he is. The bigger the game/stage, the more he seems to relish it. I think we are going to be spoiled in net for playoff runs to come. I really hope Don & team can help Pasta with some additional scoring top end talent and depth because I believe Swayman is a goalie who can go a long way in helping a club with the Cup.
This was overly harsh to @Dummy Hoy , who is a good dude, a fun hang, and probably has above average hygiene relative to the rest of you troglodytes. Sorry for the overreaction, buddy.
It's a model that attempts to assign a game score to each player to assess their contribution to the game. Right is good (positive) left is bad (negative). The data is coming from Natural Stat Trick and includes events like shot attempts for an against, scoring chances, high danger chances, expected goals, actual goals etc. These are both individual stats (individual shots and scoring chances) and on-ice stats (all the events that happen when a player is on the ice). So at a high level if McAvoy gets a shot on goal it goes both to his individual and his on-ice impact. If McAvoy is on the ice and Pasta gets a shot on goal, that goes to McAvoy's on-ice.
The different color shades are meant to visualize exactly what area of the game the player was impactful. Individual offense and defense, on-ice offense and defense, penalty kill, power play. My eyes suck so sometimes it's hard for me to differentiate the colors but that's what they're going for.
If we're looking at the card from Tuesday, McAvoy was a monster offensively. He had a game score of almost 3. Part of that is because he scored a goal. His defense wasn't as good but wasn't terrible. He was a slight postive individually, negative on-ice. On the flip side, Beecher had very little impact and was a negative offensively but positive defensively.
Edit: Probably a crappy explanation but hope it helps a little bit.
I was loving the alternating Bruins and Celtics games every night but it wasn’t doing my liver any favors.