As hockey fans, we seem to be living in an era when most everyone is hyper-critical of goalies.
I’m no exception. I’ve spent my fair share of time raking Penguins goalies like Tristan Jarry, Matt Murray and even Marc-André Fleury over the coals. All the while giving precious little thought into the toll the position must take on one’s psyche.
In any other sport, if you do your job nine times out of 10 you’re a rousing success.
Collect nine hits in 10 at-bats in baseball? They’re fashioning your bust for entry into the Hall of Fame. Hit nine of 10 from the floor in hoops?
Same thing.
Heck, score goals on nine of 10 shots in hockey? Step aside, Mario and Wayne.
Yet with goalies it’s an entirely different story.
It wasn’t always the case. Back in the heyday of super-scorers like Lemieux and Gretzky, Tom Barrasso won the Vezina Trophy with an .893 save percentage. He entered the Hall of Fame with a career save percentage of .892.
Grant Fuhr did likewise with a career save percentage of .887. Battlin’ Billy Smith of Islanders dynasty fame, .895.
By comparison, Jarry’s career mark of .912 is nothing short of superb.
Personally, I’m in slack-jawed awe of today’s NHL goalies. The game’s so darn fast. The focus, reflexes and competitiveness required of them on a nightly basis are extraordinary. To say nothing of the ability to read the play and prioritize the threats barreling toward them at breakneck speed.
All the while lugging around roughly 40 pounds of protective gear.
The athleticism and conditioning required is off the charts.
And it’s not like goalies are seeing every shot clean. On the contrary, most often they’re peering around or through a veritable phalanx of bodies, many times perched right in their grille, searching for an elusive rubber disc that measures a mere three inches in diameter and skitters around the ice like a water bug amid a sea of bodies, sticks and skates.
I can’t imagine a more difficult task in all of sport than tracking the puck. Even hitting a curveball (or Paul Skenes’ splinker) would pale in comparison.
That’s not even taking into account the quickness of the shooter’s release or the speed of the shot tracking toward a goalie like a heat-seeking missile. Or deflections that can alter a shot’s trajectory and direction in a millisecond.
You could literally do everything right and the puck still winds up behind you.
Ever have an off day at work when you’re not dialed in and/or didn’t have the desire to put forth maximum effort?
Can you imagine for one second being an NHL goalie when you’re not at the top of your game, mentally, physically or otherwise? Or perhaps lacking in confidence? These guys are human, too, prey to the same emotional fluctuations as the rest of us.
It would be roughly akin to being dumped into a tank of hungry piranha.
Yield a softie at an inopportune time?
You’re a worthless bum, never mind how many difficult saves you’ve made. It’s the one you let in the fans remember.
It takes a very special breed, indeed, to be an NHL goalie.
God bless them.
For sanity’s sake, I’m glad I’m not one of ‘em.
Hey Rick,
I did play Goal, way back in the early days of the face hugger masks, which were only slightly better than no mask. As such for the most part I have been more of a defender of Goalies, because I know the pressures and the differences between what should have been saved and which saves are only miracle guesses. I was an MAF critic early in his career, but a supporter after he got with Bales. I was a Murray supporter until tragedy had its way with him, I even wanted to see Jarry succeed until I really had a chance to watch him play. I still wanted to see him succeed, since he was wearing the Black-and-Gold, but nothing about his game makes me have faith in him.
I do want to rain a little on your parade though, the SOG statistic has changed drastically in recent years. In years past, particularly in the late 60s, through the 90s shots were only marked up on the stat sheet in eye-dropper amounts. A puck had to have a legitimate chance to go into the net to be considered a shot, now anything thrown close to the crease is considered a shot. Therefore, Barrasso’s 0.893 Sv% of yore might well have been a 0.938 if viewed through the eyes of a modern statistician.
Furthermore, teams took less shots from the low danger areas, they tried to work the puck closer so if modern statisticians looked at those game films the number of HDC would probably be roughly the same, but the MDC and LDC would most certainly be far less.
I don’t want to take anything away from any of these modern Goalies, the modern skates make the game faster and the modern sticks make the shots harder, but comparisons are not fair all the way around, going back and forth between eras.