Was reading this [article from The Athletic](https://theathletic.com/5258180/2024/02/08/nhl-goalies-stats-danger-shots?source=user-shared-article) that tried to measure which teams “help” or “hurt” their goalie’s save percentage. Basically it’s just comparing the ratio of high danger to low danger shots allowed by a defense. Lo and behold, the number one team that hurts their goalies was the Canes.
From the article:
>1. Carolina Hurricanes
>* Low-danger shots allowed: 476
>* High-danger shots allowed: 353
>* Ratio: 1.35
>This is fascinating. On the surface, it appears Carolina makes life incredibly easy on its goalies. The Hurricanes allow the fewest shots (24.63), high-danger chances (9.89) and expected goals (2.56) per 60 minutes in the entire NHL. By every measure, they are elite defensively.
>However, their defensive style doesn’t result in strong goalie statistics because while the overall shots against are low, an inordinate amount of them are from in close and on the rush. They’re giving up so few shots from the outside that their goalies don’t get many of the “easy” saves that others around the league are compiling on a nightly basis.
>This isn’t to completely excuse the goalies. Antti Raanta hasn’t been at his best this season, and Pyotr Kochetkov hasn’t been consistent enough. This is only to add context to their situation beyond the fact that they’ve combined for the third-worst save percentage despite playing behind an excellent defense.
>The Hurricanes’ goaltending hasn’t been good enough, but it’s also not an easy job to wait on your end of the ice with no action for minutes at a time, only to face a high-danger shot from in close when you finally do see the puck. Carolina’s poor goaltending metrics are a combination of subpar goaltending and a style of play that lends itself to a low save percentage.”
This is something I had thought about a lot this year already as I watched games. Even though the shot numbers have been crazy low for opposing teams at times, it always felt stressful because the few that got through were very high danger.
I’ve seen the bad goaltending too that is definitely at fault, but I’m curious if things would really be that different with different goalies. What do y’all think?
by AnalysistTherapist
5 Comments
I think they are good but the issue is both of them have trouble “stealing” games so to speak. We’re 1-14 in games where we score 2 or less goals. Elite goaltending could get 2-3 more of those and suddenly we’re leading the division
As long as the ‘Canes play this style, there are going to be places where the goalies are put in a bad place and have to make near-impossible saves.
Is there a goalie out there that would make 1-2 more of those sorts of saves per game or– conversely– is there a forward out there who can convert 1-2 more of the shots on net fired on net into goals?
I don’t think we need both/and, but I do think we’re in a spot where Don can go shopping for either/or and that lands us in a nice spot in theory. The question is, as always, what’s the price for those pieces and what happens to the years of consistent contendership if Don does take the swing and misses?
Carolina and NJ both have bad goaltending this year imo. We are lucky to have a good d-core and a great coach, because otherwise we would be in their position
There is a sense of irony to me in that many fans cite RBA’s scheme/system as being overly defensive. It is not though. Truth is that it is a very aggressive style of play with a focus on puck possession on both sides of the puck.
With green-lights given to all 6/7 D on the ice to pinch at their discretion as the situation warrants, many HD chances results from odd man rushes the other way. That means there is only one D back and nearly always results in a HD chance or goal. Despite the known names on D, there is too much sloppy play around their goal with guys getting caught down low or getting boxed out or spending too much down low after pinching (Burns).
To me, it’s a very good but not great overall D corps without the puck (with the exception of Slavin who is consistently great). When m2m D works well, it’s stifling at times but when it doesn’t, it can get ugly. This is not to give the G’s a pass, they have been subpar overall.
It’s dumb (on the article’s part) to cite statistics and then argue that they are not meaningful.
Turns out high-danger opportunities are, almost by definition, harder to stop than routine shots. That’s all there is to this stat. Combined with goalies hovering around .900 you’re going to see some things.