HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

CB- you may be right. I will find out. I was WAYYYYYY out of line ONLY an ALT. OG says sorry . Maybe someday I can buy you a beer????

old goalie85 wrote:CB- you may be right. I will find out. I was WAYYYYYY out of line ONLY an ALT. OG says sorry . Maybe someday I can buy you a beer????

I thought I heard that he was picked up by another team for New York, whose goalies weren't as strong.

Bo is right about Forest Lake goalies, just yesterday the oldest was impressed to be trying to shoot on Dustin Carlson at STP. Not a bad goalie tradition and I think we have some underclassmen who will standouts in the future. Paige and the entire Skoog family will be missed, Dad was President of the Blue Line Club and the Red Line Club (?) I think...

[quote="old goalie85"]CB- you may be right. I will find out. I was WAYYYYYY out of line ONLY an ALT. OG says sorry . Maybe someday I can buy you a beer????[/quote

85,
Never said you were out of line and for sure never said WAY out of line. Just getting facts correct. I know the Skoogs, very nice people. Wish Paige the best except against the Elks!

I'd love to have you buy me a beer or two or three or ....

ddd10 wrote:Seems like a no brainer. parker is ranked in the top 5 at nationals this week. fyi:the Minnesota boys are doing well at 16 nationals. voltin and labosky top 10 in scoring

Was Parker the only goalie from MN? If not, how did the other goalie(s) do? Glad to hear Voltin did good.

Dirty Coaches wrote:

ddd10 wrote:Seems like a no brainer. parker is ranked in the top 5 at nationals this week. fyi:the Minnesota boys are doing well at 16 nationals. voltin and labosky top 10 in scoring

Was Parker the only goalie from MN? If not, how did the other goalie(s) do? Glad to hear Voltin did good.

Miska went as well, not too impressive stat wise. Wasn't that impressed with him in 54's either. However, from watching him before, he is so much better than the stats.

oldtendy35 wrote:

Dirty Coaches wrote:

ddd10 wrote:Seems like a no brainer. parker is ranked in the top 5 at nationals this week. fyi:the Minnesota boys are doing well at 16 nationals. voltin and labosky top 10 in scoring

Was Parker the only goalie from MN? If not, how did the other goalie(s) do? Glad to hear Voltin did good.

Miska went as well, not too impressive stat wise. Wasn't that impressed with him in 54's either. However, from watching him before, he is so much better than the stats.

Sooo.....what are you saying.....a lot of "flash, whiz, bang, but no results?"

So much comes down to what team you land on in these festivals. A goalie could be on a team where two percent of the shots he faces are real scoring chances. On the other hand he could be on a team where fifty percent of the shots he'll face will be real scoring chances.

Miska faced more shots than any other goalie at the festival(maybe they wanted him to face more) and still ended up in the middle of the pack of 20 goalies.

Parker faced the second least and finished in the top third. Should be expected, right?

Miska has always outplayed the other goalie on his team at the USA festival by a wide margin. Be sure to remember the quality the other goalie on his team has to be to make it that far.

oldtendy35 wrote:

Dirty Coaches wrote:

ddd10 wrote:Seems like a no brainer. parker is ranked in the top 5 at nationals this week. fyi:the Minnesota boys are doing well at 16 nationals. voltin and labosky top 10 in scoring

Was Parker the only goalie from MN? If not, how did the other goalie(s) do? Glad to hear Voltin did good.

Miska went as well, not too impressive stat wise. Wasn't that impressed with him in 54's either. However, from watching him before, he is so much better than the stats.

This is what makes it so tough to figure out if that goalie you are looking at is considered to be a "good" goalie or not. He has to be flashy even though lots of times that flash is the result of a scramble to recover combined with a lucky save because he was out of position. If the kid's stats are good and he is on a winning team a person will still say that goalie is not a good one even though his team won, he save percentage is way up there and he was in position all of the time because the shots on him were not quality shots. OTOH, his percentages can be down and his team can get destroyed but since somebody has declared that the scoring chances were better he is actually a better goalie. A smaller goalie who moves around the crease a lot is a better goalie than a goalie who is bigger and does not move as well even though he does not have to move as well to have stats that are as good or better. A big goalie who can move is an anomaly so he is either written off as not good (does not move as well as the little guy) or or he is written in as the best because he is big and can move, even without looking at his stats because he is big and moves well even though he gives up a bunch of those goals that make you slap your forehead and go "ouch".

Got a head ache from reading this??? I got one from writing it.

This is why people hate politicians. It is this sort of logic that leads a person to stand up and declare that the fact that he is going to raise your taxes by 5 percent instead of 10 percent actually wanted to in the first place means that you are getting a 5 percent tax cut and you should be happy about it.

No Political Connections wrote:

oldtendy35 wrote:

Dirty Coaches wrote: Was Parker the only goalie from MN? If not, how did the other goalie(s) do? Glad to hear Voltin did good.

Miska went as well, not too impressive stat wise. Wasn't that impressed with him in 54's either. However, from watching him before, he is so much better than the stats.

This is what makes it so tough to figure out if that goalie you are looking at is considered to be a "good" goalie or not. He has to be flashy even though lots of times that flash is the result of a scramble to recover combined with a lucky save because he was out of position. If the kid's stats are good and he is on a winning team a person will still say that goalie is not a good one even though his team won, he save percentage is way up there and he was in position all of the time because the shots on him were not quality shots. OTOH, his percentages can be down and his team can get destroyed but since somebody has declared that the scoring chances were better he is actually a better goalie. A smaller goalie who moves around the crease a lot is a better goalie than a goalie who is bigger and does not move as well even though he does not have to move as well to have stats that are as good or better. A big goalie who can move is an anomaly so he is either written off as not good (does not move as well as the little guy) or or he is written in as the best because he is big and can move, even without looking at his stats because he is big and moves well even though he gives up a bunch of those goals that make you slap your forehead and go "ouch".

Got a head ache from reading this??? I got one from writing it.

This is why people hate politicians. It is this sort of logic that leads a person to stand up and declare that the fact that he is going to raise your taxes by 5 percent instead of 10 percent actually wanted to in the first place means that you are getting a 5 percent tax cut and you should be happy about it.

So......... The twenty USA goalies they chose were a crapshoot?

Sure they might go a little off of future potential, but I'm sure these 20 boys had to perform to climb the ladder.

I'll take a few extra strength Tylenol.

MrBoDangles wrote:

No Political Connections wrote:

oldtendy35 wrote: Miska went as well, not too impressive stat wise. Wasn't that impressed with him in 54's either. However, from watching him before, he is so much better than the stats.

This is what makes it so tough to figure out if that goalie you are looking at is considered to be a "good" goalie or not. He has to be flashy even though lots of times that flash is the result of a scramble to recover combined with a lucky save because he was out of position. If the kid's stats are good and he is on a winning team a person will still say that goalie is not a good one even though his team won, he save percentage is way up there and he was in position all of the time because the shots on him were not quality shots. OTOH, his percentages can be down and his team can get destroyed but since somebody has declared that the scoring chances were better he is actually a better goalie. A smaller goalie who moves around the crease a lot is a better goalie than a goalie who is bigger and does not move as well even though he does not have to move as well to have stats that are as good or better. A big goalie who can move is an anomaly so he is either written off as not good (does not move as well as the little guy) or or he is written in as the best because he is big and can move, even without looking at his stats because he is big and moves well even though he gives up a bunch of those goals that make you slap your forehead and go "ouch".

Got a head ache from reading this??? I got one from writing it.

This is why people hate politicians. It is this sort of logic that leads a person to stand up and declare that the fact that he is going to raise your taxes by 5 percent instead of 10 percent actually wanted to in the first place means that you are getting a 5 percent tax cut and you should be happy about it.

So......... The twenty USA goalies they chose were a crapshoot?

Sure they might go a little off of future potential, but I'm sure these 20 boys had to perform to climb the ladder.

I'll take a few extra strength Tylenol.

I already did and it helped...........

Not saying it about those specific goalies specifically, just being sort of a generalist here. I always hear about how good this goalie is or that goalie is and how that one is no good and then when I watch them I have to wonder what is the criteria being used. I watch as much hockey as I can at as many different levels and teams as I can. I like hockey and will drive a ways to see a guy who is "the guy" just to see him go. Players are pretty easy to tell when you watch them. Goalies seem like a crap shoot to me. How do you want to judge them? Stats? Goals against average? Movement? Wins/losses? Who decides future potential? The same guy who told Tim Thomas that he was a non-factor and that he should just go have fun in Europe?

The problem..? Have I ever met a normal goalie? Nope. Will I ever? ..... Probably not.

Which contending team from last year will have the hardest time with a new goalie this year?

Reggie wrote:

karl(east) wrote:A lot of top teams are losing some long-time starting goalies next year.

Code: Select all

Team            Leaving            Incoming
Duluth East       Jeanetta           Parker? (Made Adv. 16s)
Minnetonka        Glockner             ?
Edina             Girard                ?
Hill-Murray     Shaughnessy         Dugas? (Made Adv. 16s)
Eden Prairie     Ford                 Gerdes? (Made Adv. 16s)
Grand Rapids     DiGiuseppi          Sheppard (incoming bantam; much-hyped by Rapids people)
Eagan             Bodeker              ?
Maple Grove        Coyne               ?
Burnsville        Enghum               ?
Lakeville S.      Frahm                ?
Bemidji           Graves               ?


Prominent eams with goalies returning:
Benilde          Jecha/Quale
Wayzata           Dingmann
Blaine           Malvin
WBL              Schletty
Moorhead         Bitzer
Elk River        Franke
Lakeville N.      Lindgren

Feel free to fill in blanks or add more teams, this is not meant to be exhaustive, or to slight teams not on the list.

I don't see Franke returning, will play with Bismarck of NAHL.

Franke has decided to stay in Elk River for his Senior year.

interestedbystander wrote:What 7.5% unemployment rate????????????????
Gotta admire the will to win

just what i was thinking,what teams will do

Wasilla wrote:Model camp goalie stats for some up coming goalies:

Brando Jones 1.001.1.0
Aaron Dingmann 0.93
Michael Stumpf 0.93
Chris Amsden 0.91
Thomas Terrance 0.90
Ryan Carlson 0.90
Joseph Morris 0.90
Jack Kenney 0.89
Charlie Lindgren 0.88
(Nick) Schmit 0.86
Andy Foster 0.85
Will DuPont 0.83
Sawyer Marshall 0.82
Keaton Mumm 0.82
Jonatha Narverud 0.79
Jake Gerdes 0.77
Mark Lingofelt 0.72

Why were some of these goalies not invited to the Elite League? Stumpf had great numbers last year as a Sophomore and goalies that had no varsity playing time made the Elite League?

Stats on goalies are notoriously worthless. GAA is worse than worthless. Save percentage is barely a starting point, and rather a rough way to tell if a goalie is worthless or not (80 percent or less, tough luck kid; 80+ on a tough schedule, let's look at some other areas).

Personally I look at poise and puck control. Good goalies making good saves control the puck. Good goalies making mistakes recover and control the puck.

At the selects level, consistent luck plays a huge part. And luck is the result of good preparation + good skills + high competitiveness + the hockey gods like you. No stat captures this, unfortunately.

The worst part is that, because there are so few good objective metrics on goalies, they suffer from politics even more than skaters. IMHO, Duluth East's JoJo Jeannetta was the best goalie in the state last year, and never talked about in the same breath with Girard, Ford, Enghum et al. Benilde's Anders Jecha, another victim of politics for some unknown reason. (Both of those goalies had stats better than or equal to the others last season.)

I agree that numbers such as save % and GA are not the total story of how good a goalie is. They are directional and important, but not the only story. Personally I think you need to look at these numbers in combination with things such as the difficulty of schedule, and maybe more importantly, how well a goalie plays in really important games. Top notch goalies "consistently" find a way to keep their teams in the game and give them a chance to win. Doesn't mean they win every time, but they do give their team the opportunity to win. The more important the game, the better top goalies play.