Down 3 with 2 to go, would you pull the goalie?

[Stoner]

Seth Griffith scored with 2:34 to go to make it 4-1. Housley did not pull the goalie for the ensuing faceoff at center, nor for another faceoff at center with 2:19 to go. That all could be a fun debate, but my question is about a faceoff with 2:01 to go in the Columbus zone. Johnson stayed in goal.

 

Risk vs. reward. The reward is you come back and steal a point, or two, somehow, someway. A very long shot, and I can't say it's been done because traditionally coaches throw in the towel. A bigger reward: you show your team you are never going to quit. That you are not a coaching dinosaur like the others. Jack hates to lose? I'd have to crawl into his mind and know what he was thinking before the faceoff. If he's fine with it, as 99% of fans and media were and are, well, he doesn't hate to lose that much. Jack should be thinking HE can score three goals in two minutes.

 

Risk? What is the risk? You lose 5-1 and further deflate the team? They did anyway. And maybe Johnson's confidence is even lower now, and the team's confidence in him, because he was left on the ice. Maybe an argument can be made about goal differential as a playoff tie-breaker, but that's Kramer vertvertvert out there.

Edited October 26, 2017 by PASabreFan

[darksabre]

I would have pulled him.

[Doohicksie]

I'm okay with saying the game was lost by then and extreme measures weren't warranted.  In different situations, maybe that changes.  But in this case I would have been surprised if Housley had pulled The Big Johnson.

Edited October 26, 2017 by Doohickie

[LGR4GM]

i dont care

[MattPie]

I'm okay with saying the game was lost by then and extreme measures weren't warranted.  In different situations, maybe that changes.  But in this case I would have been surprised if Housley had pulled The Big Johnson.

 

I'd have pulled him, just to get some practice in that situation.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

I would have pulled him.

 

Me too.

 

At 17:38 of the second period ........

 

:ph34r:

[darksabre]

I'd have pulled him, just to get some practice in that situation.

This is my rationale too. Tell the guys "hey, we're going to need to score with the goalie pulled in closer games, so let's take this opportunity to do some work."

[Winston]

If I watched the game from my couch last night, I think I would agree with you. But I was sitting in section 221, surrounded by Jackets fans. And I said to one, “I hope they don’t pull Johnson. I don’t want to hear that effing cannon again.”

 

I think there’s something to that. An empty netter scored against you is pretty deflating. It’s the nail in the coffin. This was already a tough loss. Tail end of a back-to-back, which is mentally and physically grueling. Housley probably wanted to skate it out, take the 4-1 loss, and file this one away. Allowing an ENG would have just been salt in the wound. There’s no real chance of scoring 3 goals on Bob in 2 minutes before they sneak one into the inviting cage.

 

Departing from my serious take above... perhaps Housley was remember our power play struggles. This team routinely allows goals when the other team has fewer skaters, and that’s WITH a goalie in net. What the hell would they do without one? :P

[Stoner]

Me too.

 

At 17:38 of the second period ........

 

:ph34r:

Heyoooooo.

I'd have pulled him, just to get some practice in that situation.

I never thought of that. That's smart.

If I watched the game from my couch last night, I think I would agree with you. But I was sitting in section 221, surrounded by Jackets fans. And I said to one, “I hope they don’t pull Johnson. I don’t want to hear that effing cannon again.”

Ah, the Cannon Factor. This question is quite the onion being peeled back.

[Thorner]

i dont care

Had to:

 

[Stoner]

What if it's a playoff game?

i dont care

Neither did Phil.

[LGR4GM]

What if it's a playoff game?

 

Neither did Phil.

Was it a playoff game? No.

[Wyldnwoody44]

It's been so long I have forgotten what that means

[Thorner]

It's been so long I have forgotten what that means

I was thinking about that last game. The thought of being in a playoff game seems like such a foreign concept now. Not trying to be funny, it's like I can't even remember what it feels like. I mean obviously I can remember the last one from like 7 years ago, but it's like it's from a past sporting life.

[Stoner]

Was it a playoff game? No.

What if it was?

[bunomatic]

Pull him. What have you got to lose at that point ? Go down fighting till the end. Never say die. They're all cliche's but like you said PA it shows your team you're in it to win it. Even if you end up losing.

[LTS]

Can't vote because the options all come with extra explanation.

 

The answer is No.  You don't pull your goalie.  There is no message to be sent to the team except you guys sucked so bad that we are going to pull the goalie and hope that putting 6 attackers on the ice can get us a goal when 5 couldn't do it.  Meanwhile, we're do damned desperate for win who cares if they roll up a few more against us.  Two weeks from now everyone will still remember that those last two goals didn't matter because we had the goalie pulled. 

 

Oh wait, no they won't  It will be on the books as a blowout and no one will remember or care that they were EN goals.  They'll just look at the score and think we sucked even worse than we already did.

 

If teams could score 3 goals with 6 attackers why the hell wouldn't they play that way the whole game?

[LikeEich]

Considering were in the negative with the extra attacker WITH the goalie in the net, I'd say no way in hell

[Thorner]

Can't vote because the options all come with extra explanation.

 

The answer is No. You don't pull your goalie. There is no message to be sent to the team except you guys sucked so bad that we are going to pull the goalie and hope that putting 6 attackers on the ice can get us a goal when 5 couldn't do it. Meanwhile, we're do damned desperate for win who cares if they roll up a few more against us. Two weeks from now everyone will still remember that those last two goals didn't matter because we had the goalie pulled.

 

Oh wait, no they won't It will be on the books as a blowout and no one will remember or care that they were EN goals. They'll just look at the score and think we sucked even worse than we already did.

 

If teams could score 3 goals with 6 attackers why the hell wouldn't they play that way the whole game?

That's not how this works. It's not about whether you are likely to be a better team overall with the extra man. It's that you are more likely to score in the time you have the goalie pulled than you would be during the same time at even strength. Yes, obviously more likely to give goals up. High risk, high reward. So you wouldn't want to play all game like that obviously.

 

The same concept applies, whether you are down 1 or 3. You run that scenario 100 times each way, try to score 3 goals in 2 ES minutes, or 3 goals in two 6-on-5 minutes, the second scenario succeeds more times.

Edited October 27, 2017 by Thorny

[Stoner]

Can't vote because the options all come with extra explanation.

 

The answer is No.  You don't pull your goalie.  There is no message to be sent to the team except you guys sucked so bad that we are going to pull the goalie and hope that putting 6 attackers on the ice can get us a goal when 5 couldn't do it.  Meanwhile, we're do damned desperate for win who cares if they roll up a few more against us.  Two weeks from now everyone will still remember that those last two goals didn't matter because we had the goalie pulled. 

 

Oh wait, no they won't  It will be on the books as a blowout and no one will remember or care that they were EN goals.  They'll just look at the score and think we sucked even worse than we already did.

 

If teams could score 3 goals with 6 attackers why the hell wouldn't they play that way the whole game?

I would expect more optimism from you. Oh, heavens.

[Doohicksie]

I'd have pulled him, just to get some practice in that situation.

 

I wouldn't have faulted him if he did.  But it doesn't bother me that he didn't.

I was thinking about that last game. The thought of being in a playoff game seems like such a foreign concept now. Not trying to be funny, it's like I can't even remember what it feels like. I mean obviously I can remember the last one from like 7 years ago, but it's like it's from a past sporting life.

 

The problem that I have is that I can remember the feeling the last time we got to the conference finals.  To be honest, I didn't think we were that good, so the deep run was so unexpected.  It was fun because we were the underdog and there was a sense of low expectations.

 

With the extended tank, the slower-than-expected rebuild, the constant regime changes, each one bringing the hope of vast improvement, and yes, with Eichel, the next playoff run is not going to sneak up on me.  It's so overdue that I won't have that "where did these guys come from?" happy-go-lucky, enjoy-the-ride feel.  No, it's going to be more like, "Well.  It's about time!  <_<"

 

Maybe that's why I'm really hoping they get to the playoffs this year:  That feeling of exceeding expectations is when I most enjoy following a team.

Can't vote because the options all come with extra explanation.

 

The answer is No.  You don't pull your goalie.  There is no message to be sent to the team except you guys sucked so bad that we are going to pull the goalie and hope that putting 6 attackers on the ice can get us a goal when 5 couldn't do it.  Meanwhile, we're do damned desperate for win who cares if they roll up a few more against us.  Two weeks from now everyone will still remember that those last two goals didn't matter because we had the goalie pulled. 

 

Oh wait, no they won't  It will be on the books as a blowout and no one will remember or care that they were EN goals.  They'll just look at the score and think we sucked even worse than we already did.

 

If teams could score 3 goals with 6 attackers why the hell wouldn't they play that way the whole game?

 

Then why ever pull the goalie at all?

[LTS]

I would expect more optimism from you. Oh, heavens.

 

Typical, using two completely unrelated items to force a narrative.  It's not a binary situation.  It's not either all positive or negative, optimistic or pessimistic.  Stop treating the world like there are only two options.  You are speaking of a specific situation and in that case the action to pull the goalie is purely negative.  It's not me being negative, it is negative.  I suppose that if i were to say 3 - 6 = -3 you'd propose I was being negative?

 

 

That's not how this works. It's not about whether you are likely to be a better team overall with the extra man. It's that you are more likely to score in the time you have the goalie pulled than you would be during the same time at even strength. Yes, obviously more likely to give goals up. High risk, high reward. So you wouldn't want to play all game like that obviously.

 

The same concept applies, whether you are down 1 or 3. You run that scenario 100 times each way, try to score 3 goals in 2 ES minutes, or 3 goals in two 6-on-5 minutes, the second scenario succeeds more times.

 

Based on what evidence?  There is none.  You may feel that way but let's be real here.  If you could, go through every hockey game and find the number of times a team has scored 3 goals within a 2 minute contiguous time span,  Now find the number of times it happened while it was 6-5.  Now apply logic to it and ask when it happened was the team that did the scoring the one that needed to come from behind or were they already winning or the 3 goals in 2 minutes propelled them to winning.

 

In addition, you score the first goal.  Face-off is at center ice.  Are you keeping your goalie on the bench or are you hoping like hell you win the face-off and get it deep so you can get the goalie to the bench again?

 

Let's go a little deeper on this.  When you pull your goalie you are, in general, putting the 6 players on the ice most likely to score.  Do you anticipate that you'll be able to skate them for 2 straight minutes without a substitution?  Do you think your next 6 best players are unlikely to give up an EN goal?

 

The concept of pulling the goaltender to score 3 goals without giving up an EN goal would be the equivalent of a football coach trying to score two touchdowns on hailmary passes when his receivers are all 4'6 and the defenders are all 6'4.  It's just not going to happen.

 

I wouldn't have faulted him if he did.  But it doesn't bother me that he didn't.

 

The problem that I have is that I can remember the feeling the last time we got to the conference finals.  To be honest, I didn't think we were that good, so the deep run was so unexpected.  It was fun because we were the underdog and there was a sense of low expectations.

 

With the extended tank, the slower-than-expected rebuild, the constant regime changes, each one bringing the hope of vast improvement, and yes, with Eichel, the next playoff run is not going to sneak up on me.  It's so overdue that I won't have that "where did these guys come from?" happy-go-lucky, enjoy-the-ride feel.  No, it's going to be more like, "Well.  It's about time!  <_<"

 

Maybe that's why I'm really hoping they get to the playoffs this year:  That feeling of exceeding expectations is when I most enjoy following a team.

 

Then why ever pull the goalie at all?

 

The same reason you use nitrous oxide when racing, or slam energy drinks, etc.  The 6 on 5 is a quick boost of stacking your talented players on the ice in a short period of time to score a goal.  It is not a sustainable tactic and should never be treated as one.  

[Thorner]

Typical, using two completely unrelated items to force a narrative. It's not a binary situation. It's not either all positive or negative, optimistic or pessimistic. Stop treating the world like there are only two options. You are speaking of a specific situation and in that case the action to pull the goalie is purely negative. It's not me being negative, it is negative. I suppose that if i were to say 3 - 6 = -3 you'd propose I was being negative?

 

 

 

 

Based on what evidence? There is none. You may feel that way but let's be real here. If you could, go through every hockey game and find the number of times a team has scored 3 goals within a 2 minute contiguous time span, Now find the number of times it happened while it was 6-5. Now apply logic to it and ask when it happened was the team that did the scoring the one that needed to come from behind or were they already winning or the 3 goals in 2 minutes propelled them to winning.

 

In addition, you score the first goal. Face-off is at center ice. Are you keeping your goalie on the bench or are you hoping like hell you win the face-off and get it deep so you can get the goalie to the bench again?

 

Let's go a little deeper on this. When you pull your goalie you are, in general, putting the 6 players on the ice most likely to score. Do you anticipate that you'll be able to skate them for 2 straight minutes without a substitution? Do you think your next 6 best players are unlikely to give up an EN goal?

 

The concept of pulling the goaltender to score 3 goals without giving up an EN goal would be the equivalent of a football coach trying to score two touchdowns on hailmary passes when his receivers are all 4'6 and the defenders are all 6'4. It's just not going to happen.

 

 

 

The same reason you use nitrous oxide when racing, or slam energy drinks, etc. The 6 on 5 is a quick boost of stacking your talented players on the ice in a short period of time to score a goal. It is not a sustainable tactic and should never be treated as one.

 

You are certifiably, 100% incorrect here. There's really isn't much to say. Of course it's not a sustainable tactic, that's why teams only do it at the end. A team assuredly has a better chance of scoring, say, 2 goals with the goalie pulled, than 2 even strength. Same logic follows for 3.

 

It's not that a team is likely to pull it off, it's that you hope to catch lightning in a bottle.

 

A team is very, very rarely going to score 2 ES goals in a minute. If a team pulls their goalie and has the extra attacker for those 2 minutes, it's much more likely to happen, even if still a rarity. Same concept applies to 3 goals and so forth.

Edited October 27, 2017 by Thorny

[North Buffalo]

Popcorn, get your popcorn here...

[Thorner]

The better football analogy is an Onside Kick. It's not sustainable enough to attempt it after every score, but you take your chances with it, even if it's unlikely to work, at the end when you need the ball back. It's not likely to work, but it's more likely that kicking the ball back to the other team and hoping for the best, i.e, playing even strength in hockey.

 

You are overthinking this. Don't look at pulling the goalie when down 3 as a single scenario that has to unfold, instead look at it as 3 consecutive events. If you agree it makes sense to pull the goalie when you need one, what happens when that goal is scored? You attempt it again for goal 2, and then goal 3. Why wouldn't you, if you've already agreed it's the best gameplan when needing that goal? The idea that you don't do it cause your top guys are tired is bogus. If your team is so handicapped after scoring the first one, like you say, what chance would they have to score 5 v 5? Might as well get the extra attacker out there to give you a chance. And, logically, the best defensive players on the other team would be tired too.

 

If chances of a 6-on-5 goal > an ES goal, then 6-on-5 goal / 6-on-5 goal / 6-on-5 goal is logically more likely than ES goal / ES goal / ES goal.

 

---

 

I'm not even saying they have to do it. I would have rather they pulled the goalie, as there's always that chance, but it's unlikely enough that I'm not losing sleep over it.

Edited October 27, 2017 by Thorny