Goaltending Showdown - Reimer vs. Bernier

[Redleaf]

I have to disagree with your puck handling assessment having a minimal role. You can't quantify it, but when a team has a goalie who is bad at puck handling like Reimer, the opposition knows they can skate in harder and apply more pressure which leads to pressure on both the goalie and the defense. When you have a goalie that can play the puck well the opposition knows they can't pressure as much because more often than not the goalie can make the safe play. Its the reason the team looks a lot more calm playing in front of Bernier. Like I said its not something that you can quantify with stats as it affects the flow of play.

The problem with your argument is, if you can't quantify it, you can't really be sure it actually exists or has any actual impact. The other teams may feel that by applying a more aggressive forecheck on a goalie that doesn't move the puck well will result in more turnovers than doing so on one that doesn't, but that doesn't make it true. I mean, let's be honest, the overwhelming majority of times a goalie plays the puck (regardless of how good they are with it), the opposition is not in the forecheck. They're in the middle of a change, or they're exiting the zone because they're offsides, etc. Even a goalie that is good with the puck will tend to err on the side of caution when they feel the opposition has a chance to come in on the forecheck, because, without clear lanes to move the puck, there's just as much chance they'll turn over the puck as a goalie who isn't very good with it.

I don't know. Did the fact that Brodeur could stop the puck and make outlet passes up to his forwards cause people to believe he a was better player because of that ability? You can't quantify it, but 9 out of 10 people will tell you he was.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

You can't quantify it with stats but they did bring in those stupid red lines behind the net because goalies were getting too good at playing the puck. Someone, somewhere believes it effects the game.

That was an attempt to defeat the trap - and one that most experts will tell you has had minimal impact. A goalie that moved the puck well was very effective in helping out the trap before they changed offsides from the play being offside to the player being offside and before they eliminated the two line pass infraction. Those two changes had the most impact on minimizing the effectiveness of the trap. The trapezoid thing was overkill at that point, and has a very limited impact.

Well, you are kind of sort of admitting that a goalie that plays the puck well helps beat the trap...

And while we're at it:

Sporting Charts explains Trapezoid
It wasn't until the 2005-2006 season coming out of the National Hockey League - NHL's lost season and lockout that the trapezoid was painted in arenas.

This was an attempt to reduce goaltenders, specifically good puck-handling ones such as Martin Brodeur and Marty Turco, from becoming a third defenseman who couldn't be body checked. The goalies could pretty much take away any dump-in to the corners and easily clear the puck to a teammate.

The introduction and enforcement of the trapezoid and its intended use to help create more offensive chances has been contested greatly. Critiques argue it has taken a skill away from some top-end netminders. Other argue it hasn't helped offense the way it was thought it could. Goalies now stop the puck if possible before it reaches the corner in order to move the puck like the old days.

Many other leagues at the amateur and pro levels around the world do not enforce the trapezoid rule. Changes to the this rule are discussed often and could be seen in the near future.

and from Kerry Fraser who was in the meetings:

Following a year off during the lock out to intensely study what was wrong with the game, the "New NHL" was invented.  It was designed to create added scoring opportunities with speed through the neutral zone and on the forecheck, to reward skill and punish those who "obstructed" this initiative. Restricting puck handling goalies like Martin Brodeur, it was thought, would help contain the end zone attack and reduce the "dump the puck in- and ship it back out" potential.

So like I said, someone, somewhere thinks that goalies handling the puck well is an assistance to their respective teams.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

You can't quantify it with stats but they did bring in those stupid red lines behind the net because goalies were getting too good at playing the puck. Someone, somewhere believes it effects the game.

Well, there's a difference between not being able to isolate something and not being able to quantify it. I mean, if the argument is that it's a valuable skill then common sense tells us it would have an impact on the box score, right? I mean, if a goalie is really good at clearing the puck then the puck will spend less time in his zone. Less time in his zone means fewer shots against. Fewer shots against mean fewer goals against.

So while you may never be able to specifically figure out what impact it has, if two goalies put up roughly comparable numbers but one is notably better at playing the puck then either the other is better at something equally valuable or playing the puck doesn't lead to fewer shots or fewer goals, in which case it really can't be that important.

And? What's your point Nik?

 

[Kin]

You can't quantify it, but 9 out of 10 people will tell you he was.

Except you can. New Jersey in the years pre-lockout were never worse than 4th in the league in shots allowed.

 

[Kin]

And? What's your point Nik?

That it's fairly contradictory to argue a skill is very important for a goaltender while at the same time saying that it has no measurable impact.

 

[Deebo]

Reimer had a slightly better save percentage last year than Bernier but also a significantly higher GAA which means Riemer was facing more shots. Team defense plays a part in how many shots a goalie will face, but I think rebound control and puck handling ability from the goalie does as well. When we have a larger sample size from both goalies, we'll be able to see if the team gives up fewer shots with Bernier in net vs. Reimer.

 

[Zee]

Reimer had a slightly better save percentage last year than Bernier but also a significantly higher GAA which means Riemer was facing more shots. Team defense plays a part in how many shots a goalie will face, but I think rebound control and puck handling ability from the goalie does as well. When we have a larger sample size from both goalies, we'll be able to see if the team gives up fewer shots with Bernier in net vs. Reimer.

Problem is people are already making excuses for Reimer. Look at that Ottawa game, same team, same night, Bernier plays lights out better yet people were saying that suddenly the defense played much better when Bernier went in and Reimer had no support. I think Reimer is often the cause of bad defensive zone coverage because he gives up rebounds that you would expect a goalie to have.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4

 

[Kin]

Problem is people are already making excuses for Reimer. Look at that Ottawa game, same team, same night, Bernier plays lights out better yet people were saying that suddenly the defense played much better when Bernier went in and Reimer had no support. I think Reimer is often the cause of bad defensive zone coverage because he gives up rebounds that you would expect a goalie to have.

But I've heard about a billion times over the years from colour commentators that goalies can be pulled to shake up the teams in front of them. So if that's conventional hockey wisdom, is it really that surprising to think it might work...once?

 

[Zee]

Problem is people are already making excuses for Reimer. Look at that Ottawa game, same team, same night, Bernier plays lights out better yet people were saying that suddenly the defense played much better when Bernier went in and Reimer had no support. I think Reimer is often the cause of bad defensive zone coverage because he gives up rebounds that you would expect a goalie to have.

But I've heard about a billion times over the years from colour commentators that goalies can be pulled to shake up the teams in front of them. So if that's conventional hockey wisdom, is it really that surprising to think it might work...once?

You could say that, or conversely you can say that Bernier played much better and didn't give up anymore goals.  His very first save was a nice glove hand stop with no rebound which may have given the team in front of him the extra confidence it needed. We'll never know at this point.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Reimer had a slightly better save percentage last year than Bernier but also a significantly higher GAA which means Riemer was facing more shots. Team defense plays a part in how many shots a goalie will face, but I think rebound control and puck handling ability from the goalie does as well. When we have a larger sample size from both goalies, we'll be able to see if the team gives up fewer shots with Bernier in net vs. Reimer.

So far in 4 games Bernier has faced an average of 29 shots per game.  Last season Reimer was around 30, the year before 28.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Problem is people are already making excuses for Reimer. Look at that Ottawa game, same team, same night, Bernier plays lights out better yet people were saying that suddenly the defense played much better when Bernier went in and Reimer had no support. I think Reimer is often the cause of bad defensive zone coverage because he gives up rebounds that you would expect a goalie to have.

But I've heard about a billion times over the years from colour commentators that goalies can be pulled to shake up the teams in front of them. So if that's conventional hockey wisdom, is it really that surprising to think it might work...once?

You could say that, or conversely you can say that Bernier played much better and didn't give up anymore goals.  His very first save was a nice glove hand stop with no rebound which may have given the team in front of him the extra confidence it needed. We'll never know at this point.

Oddly enough so was Reimer's.

 

[hockeyfan1]

A goaltender with good puck control (handling the puck behind the net, making passes, etc.) is a bonus asset for any team, but it's not the most important aspect of the greater picture.  It doesn't quantify in the win/loss column much.

Smartness, alertness and dependabilily, in other words, good posturing, good reflexes, and the ability to read the play well have defined the good to great net minders of the past to present (both in Leaf & NHL history).  But there is something else too...

...it's called consistency.  So far Bernier has it, Reimer not so much.

 

[bustaheims]

So like I said, someone, somewhere thinks that goalies handling the puck well is an assistance to their respective teams.

No one is saying it doesn't have potential to help the team. We're really just debating how much. With the rules that have been in place for almost a decade now, the impact of a goalie being good with the puck has been severely minimized. As part of minimizing the impact of the trap and increasing offence, the opportunities for a goalie to actually contribute to the defence by playing the puck have been drastically reduced. Even goalies that are good with the puck have very few opportunities where they actually move the puck forward significantly.

 

[bustaheims]

I don't know. Did the fact that Brodeur could stop the puck and make outlet passes up to his forwards cause people to believe he a was better player because of that ability? You can't quantify it, but 9 out of 10 people will tell you he was.

Well, for one, Brodeur is an outlier. He's among the best goalies to play the puck in the history of the NHL - if not the best. But, more importantly, it's a pretty fair question to ask how much impact that ability really had on his team's ability to win games. It helped, sure, but, a big part of why New Jersey was so effective was the fact that they played an absolutely smothering defensive style - and played it well. Oh, and the fact the Brodeur excelled at keeping the puck out of the net. If he was merely an above average goalie who was good with the puck, I don't think anyone would have cared about him all that much. Brodeur was seen as an elite goalie because he excelled in the key areas that goaltenders are measured by - stopping pucks and winning games. Not by how he did it or what else he contributed. Those were the sprinkles on the icing on the cake.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

And? What's your point Nik?

That it's fairly contradictory to argue a skill is very important for a goaltender while at the same time saying that it has no measurable impact.

Where did I say that Nik?

 

[Kin]

Where did I say that Nik?

Reply #156.

 

[Highlander]

If 4 games are an indicator and Bernier keeps his confidence, then we have found a goalie we can build around, As Burke said from the net out. This guy is economical in movement, square to the shooter, excellent glove hand, above normal rebound control and a good puck handler outside the crease.  he exhibits signs of being a Belfour/Brodeur cross.  The best prospect in net I have seen since Potvin.

 

[Redleaf]

I don't know. Did the fact that Brodeur could stop the puck and make outlet passes up to his forwards cause people to believe he a was better player because of that ability? You can't quantify it, but 9 out of 10 people will tell you he was.

Well, for one, Brodeur is an outlier. He's among the best goalies to play the puck in the history of the NHL - if not the best. But, more importantly, it's a pretty fair question to ask how much impact that ability really had on his team's ability to win games. It helped, sure, but, a big part of why New Jersey was so effective was the fact that they played an absolutely smothering defensive style - and played it well. Oh, and the fact the Brodeur excelled at keeping the puck out of the net. If he was merely an above average goalie who was good with the puck, I don't think anyone would have cared about him all that much. Brodeur was seen as an elite goalie because he excelled in the key areas that goaltenders are measured by - stopping pucks and winning games. Not by how he did it or what else he contributed. Those were the sprinkles on the icing on the cake.

So, let me get this straight. If both goalie stats are similar, but one has 'sprinkles on the icing on the cake', as you put it, don't you play him ahead of the other? Don't you choose the goaltender with the better rebound and puck control over the one without those qualities, given the option?

Carlyle..."The one thing that Bernier did tonight was he stood tall in the nets and didn't give up a lot of second opportunities. He controlled a lot of the rebounds and good for him."

With comments like that from the coach, and the person who makes the ultimate decision on who to play and who to sit, it sure sounds like he enjoys sprinkles on his cake.

 

[Capn_Crunch]

I don't know. Did the fact that Brodeur could stop the puck and make outlet passes up to his forwards cause people to believe he a was better player because of that ability? You can't quantify it, but 9 out of 10 people will tell you he was.

Well, for one, Brodeur is an outlier. He's among the best goalies to play the puck in the history of the NHL - if not the best. But, more importantly, it's a pretty fair question to ask how much impact that ability really had on his team's ability to win games. It helped, sure, but, a big part of why New Jersey was so effective was the fact that they played an absolutely smothering defensive style - and played it well. Oh, and the fact the Brodeur excelled at keeping the puck out of the net. If he was merely an above average goalie who was good with the puck, I don't think anyone would have cared about him all that much. Brodeur was seen as an elite goalie because he excelled in the key areas that goaltenders are measured by - stopping pucks and winning games. Not by how he did it or what else he contributed. Those were the sprinkles on the icing on the cake.

So, let me get this straight. If both goalie stats are similar, but one has 'sprinkles on the icing on the cake', as you put it, don't you play him ahead of the other? Don't you choose the goaltender with the better rebound and puck control over the one without those qualities, given the option?

Carlyle..."The one thing that Bernier did tonight was he stood tall in the nets and didn't give up a lot of second opportunities. He controlled a lot of the rebounds and good for him."

With comments like that from the coach, and the person who makes the ultimate decision on who to play and who to sit, it sure sounds like he enjoys sprinkles on his cake.

Rebounds usually end up being good quality scoring chances, why wouldn't a coach love a goalie who brings those to a minimum? Confidence is priceless and if Bernier brings that to the room and the game...Ride him till he has a bad game and then let Reims have another shot. But don't let Bernier sit too long.

I think Bernier tracks the game better then Reims does by a country mile. And comparing their glove hands is like apples and oranges. Reims played well for us last year for the most part but I just get the feeling that Bernier will be a much more clutch kind of goalie come the playoffs for us. He's relatively young and already has not just playoff exp, but championship experience.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Where did I say that Nik?

Reply #156.

You mean the post where I said someone, somewhere. If you want to school someone with your immense hockey knowledge you should find that guy.