Robertson Cup breakdown

All right, time for some analysis and prognostication. My thoughts are heavy on the two teams I saw play this season, Topeka and St. Louis.

St. Louis

St. Louis is definitely the favorite going in--playing at home, playing on the big ice, having a team built for the big ice, two very good goalies, etc.

However, I still think that any team that can keep the puck in the Bandits' zone for extended times can beat them. Keeping the puck in the Bandits' zone keeps them from playing their high speed, high skill game and will wear them down. This is not last year's championship team with lots of big, fast, bruising defensemen.

That being said, opponents have to be patient and efficient moving the puck out of their end and through neutral ice, because turnovers against the Bandits will be costly.

I also wonder whether Cooper is going to continue to alternate goalies, especially if the Bandits make it to the championship game. It might not make any difference given that both Heeter and Johnson are outstanding, but then again...

Alexandria

I thought Springy was going to make it to the Robertson Cup. In fact I said before the playoffs started that if Cook stayed hot, Springy would probably go to St. Louis. Well, Cook did stay hot, but Leets was a little bit better. It looks like Leets is on a roll, and any team with a hot goalie has a chance to win. Alexandria is battle tested, and after digging out of their deep hole early in the season, they probably feel confident they can do anything.

Mahoning Valley

MV doesn't have the same offensive firepower as last year, but they do have some advantages, namely 1) they are more familiar with the Bandits than any other team, and 2) they have some vets that not only have big time playoff experience but are hungry to win it all after what happened last year. My concern for the Phantoms is that if they focus too much on St. Louis they might not be ready for Alexandria and Topeka. Also, will Bartus be in goal, and will Mainhardt make a change?

Topeka

The RR looked a little off in some of the series with Fairbanks, but a lot of that was probably due to the play of the Ice Dogs. I think Topeka was the most consistent team in the South, and once the RR picked up the scoring, they were damn difficult to beat.

They had the best team D I saw all season. And by the way, what I saw from the RR D was a lot of back checking and chasing down the puck, lots of blocking shots, lots of hitting in their own end, and lots of support around the net for Merriam. None of those things are what I would call "the trap." The strength of the RR is their outstanding team D. Much like the Bandits last year, Topeka has big, strong, physical, fast D-men who can wear an opponent down. Will they be as effective on the big ice? That is the big question. If the answer is "no," the RR are in trouble, as a lot of their energy and offense are generated by their defense.

The RR PP is also going to be a key for them. The RR have enough fast, skilled forwards to take advantage of the extra space, and with Gens at the point, they are dangerous.

Winning the South Division in the regular season and the playoffs was a huge deal for the RR--and deservedly so. I just wonder if emotionally they have already peaked. I doubt it, but it might be possible.

Prediction

I have been reluctant to make predictions most of this season, and I will not predict who will get the day off before the final game. However, while I think all of these teams can win it all, I am going to step out on a limb and make an actual prediction as to who will be in the final game. I am going to say that 1) the Bandits make it to the championship game, and 2) in a total South Division homer call, that the Bandits get taken down by Topeka in the championship game.

Good call, Red...

Gotta go...heading to St. Louis...

Cup Prediction..............

Out on a limb.............

I have seen all of the teams play, with the exception of MV. My prediction.......St Louis beats MV for the Robertson Cup. Topeka finishes third and Alex fourth. St Lou and MV have better goaltending, and in St. Lou's case more firepower puts them over the top. Alex takes way too many penalties and in this series it will hurt them.

Bandits stumble once in round-robin but win the big one. They play MV in the Championship repeat and win in triple OT.

Now thats a prediction!

St. Lou wrote:

Bandits stumble once in round-robin but win the big one. They play MV in the Championship repeat and win in triple OT. Now thats a prediction!

I don't know if I can handle triple OT - that would be too nerve-racking!

Re: Cup Prediction..............

Honest Abe wrote:

Out on a limb............. I have seen all of the teams play, with the exception of MV. My prediction.......St Louis beats MV for the Robertson Cup. Topeka finishes third and Alex fourth. St Lou and MV have better goaltending, and in St. Lou's case more firepower puts them over the top. Alex takes way too many penalties and in this series it will hurt them.

How can you "Honestly" say that St. Lous and MVYs goaltending is "better"?

bp

Re: Cup Prediction..............

BorderPatrol wrote:

Honest Abe wrote: Out on a limb............. I have seen all of the teams play, with the exception of MV. My prediction.......St Louis beats MV for the Robertson Cup. Topeka finishes third and Alex fourth. St Lou and MV have better goaltending, and in St. Lou's case more firepower puts them over the top. Alex takes way too many penalties and in this series it will hurt them. How can you "Honestly" say that St. Lous and MVYs goaltending is "better"? bp

......because my opinion "Borders" on my belief that save % is the single most important goalie performance statistic. To wit:

Save percentage in the playoffs

St Louis .925
MV .932
TPK .889
Alex .899

Topeka, with the worst team save percentage of the four teams so far, is winning in spite of their goaltending. I believe the championship series will expose this weakness. If a goalie, after 8 regular season games is sporting an .889 save percentage, odds are he will be looking at bench time.

Re: Cup Prediction..............

Honest Abe wrote:

Topeka, with the worst team save percentage of the four teams so far, is winning in spite of their goaltending. I believe the championship series will expose this weakness. If a goalie, after 8 regular season games is sporting an .889 save percentage, odds are he will be looking at bench time.

That is some valid reasoning, but I can tell you that in their two playoff series, the Ice Dogs were extraordinarily accurate with their shots. I think any goaltender would have had a save % around .900 against them in a series.

Re: Cup Prediction..............

Honest Abe wrote:

BorderPatrol wrote: Honest Abe wrote: Out on a limb............. I have seen all of the teams play, with the exception of MV. My prediction.......St Louis beats MV for the Robertson Cup. Topeka finishes third and Alex fourth. St Lou and MV have better goaltending, and in St. Lou's case more firepower puts them over the top. Alex takes way too many penalties and in this series it will hurt them. How can you "Honestly" say that St. Lous and MVYs goaltending is "better"? bp ......because my opinion "Borders" on my belief that save % is the single most important goalie performance statistic. To wit: Save percentage in the playoffs St Louis .925 MV .932 TPK .889 Alex .899 Topeka, with the worst team save percentage of the four teams so far, is winning in spite of their goaltending. I believe the championship series will expose this weakness. If a goalie, after 8 regular season games is sporting an .889 save percentage, odds are he will be looking at bench time.

So, save % is the rational way to judge, in your opinion, who has the best goaltending....

What about GAA? The team with the most shots don't always win the games.....BUT, the team with the least number of goals always loses the game....

Of course, thats just my opinion...

bp

Save % is the best way to judge a goalie's performance, Not gaa. If you think about it you'll get it.

tnado wrote:

Save % is the best way to judge a goalie's performance, Not gaa. If you think about it you'll get it.

So, you would rather have a goaltender that is saving 94% of his shots, but allowing 3 goals a game over a goalie that is saving 90% of his shots and allowing only two goals a game?

bp

One more time. Save % is the true indicator of how good a goalie is. If you'd like i will explain in detail, but i think if you thought about it you'd get it.

BorderPatrol wrote:

tnado wrote: Save % is the best way to judge a goalie's performance, Not gaa. If you think about it you'll get it. So, you would rather have a goaltender that is saving 94% of his shots, but allowing 3 goals a game over a goalie that is saving 90% of his shots and allowing only two goals a game? bp

Let me make this simple, if a college scout is looking at the above two hypothetical goalies you are referencing, and he has one scholarship to give, which one will get it?

Neither... I would keep looking

tnado wrote:

Save % is the best way to judge a goalie's performance, Not gaa. If you think about it you'll get it.

I tend to agree, but the problem is that it's like the batting average in baseball at the beginning of the season: it means more after more games have passed and one game's performance can't greatly alter the average. And eight games may not be enough to judge a goalie's performance without taking the GAA into consideration.

And on that standard of the Save %, Mahoning Valley should have won today. They did not.

Topeka Blade wrote:

tnado wrote: Save % is the best way to judge a goalie's performance, Not gaa. If you think about it you'll get it. I tend to agree, but the problem is that it's like the batting average in baseball at the beginning of the season: it means more after more games have passed and one game's performance can't greatly alter the average. And eight games may not be enough to judge a goalie's performance without taking the GAA into consideration. And on that standard of the Save %, Mahoning Valley should have won today. They did not.

With all due respect, you're wrong. The goalie cannot control how many goals his team will score. It his sole responsability to stop shots. If he stops 94% of his shots and the opposing goalie stops 90% of his shots , the fact is that the goalie that stopped 94% of his shots played better.

Very nice work red!

This entire thread was nice to read. Happy the bunnies are all gone and we are back to hockey.

tnado wrote:

Topeka Blade wrote: tnado wrote: Save % is the best way to judge a goalie's performance, Not gaa. If you think about it you'll get it. I tend to agree, but the problem is that it's like the batting average in baseball at the beginning of the season: it means more after more games have passed and one game's performance can't greatly alter the average. And eight games may not be enough to judge a goalie's performance without taking the GAA into consideration. And on that standard of the Save %, Mahoning Valley should have won today. They did not. With all due respect, you're wrong. The goalie cannot control how many goals his team will score. It his sole responsability to stop shots. If he stops 94% of his shots and the opposing goalie stops 90% of his shots , the fact is that the goalie that stopped 94% of his shots played better.

But the stat can be influenced by other things. A goalie may see 40 shots one game, 10 the next. And while I have nothing but the utmost respect for the off ice officials who compile the stats, they, too, can influence the number of shots a goalie faces by what they call a shot on goal. I hate to use another baseball analogy on a hockey board, but the strike zone and what a shot on goal is are both clearly defined by the rule book. Yet, umpires consistently aren't consistent on what they call a strike. Shouldn't be that way, yes, but it can happen.

There's also the matter of quality shots on goal, which fortunately for the OIO's, isn't a stat. A save is a save is a save. But during the game the other night we were discussing that while the shots on goal number was high, so many of the shots were so soft that if you had put one of my dead ancestors across the goal line, the dead ancestor could have had a 92% save percentage. No bones about it . . .

BorderPatrol wrote:

tnado wrote: Save % is the best way to judge a goalie's performance, Not gaa. If you think about it you'll get it. So, you would rather have a goaltender that is saving 94% of his shots, but allowing 3 goals a game over a goalie that is saving 90% of his shots and allowing only two goals a game? bp

Absolutely! You are giving an excellent example of a good goalie on a average team versus an average goalie on a good team. My original post referenced the playoffs. Historically, the best goalies help their teams win playoff games and championships.

Topeka Blade wrote:

tnado wrote: Topeka Blade wrote: tnado wrote: Save % is the best way to judge a goalie's performance, Not gaa. If you think about it you'll get it. I tend to agree, but the problem is that it's like the batting average in baseball at the beginning of the season: it means more after more games have passed and one game's performance can't greatly alter the average. And eight games may not be enough to judge a goalie's performance without taking the GAA into consideration. And on that standard of the Save %, Mahoning Valley should have won today. They did not. With all due respect, you're wrong. The goalie cannot control how many goals his team will score. It his sole responsability to stop shots. If he stops 94% of his shots and the opposing goalie stops 90% of his shots , the fact is that the goalie that stopped 94% of his shots played better. But the stat can be influenced by other things. A goalie may see 40 shots one game, 10 the next. And while I have nothing but the utmost respect for the off ice officials who compile the stats, they, too, can influence the number of shots a goalie faces by what they call a shot on goal. I hate to use another baseball analogy on a hockey board, but the strike zone and what a shot on goal is are both clearly defined by the rule book. Yet, umpires consistently aren't consistent on what they call a strike. Shouldn't be that way, yes, but it can happen. There's also the matter of quality shots on goal, which fortunately for the OIO's, isn't a stat. A save is a save is a save. But during the game the other night we were discussing that while the shots on goal number was high, so many of the shots were so soft that if you had put one of my dead ancestors across the goal line, the dead ancestor could have had a 92% save percentage. No bones about it . . .

As an OIO, we compare our shots on goal with the players recording the shots, 9 out of 10 times were with 2-3 shots either way. Not sure how other teams record this, but this is how the willdcats do it. I know this for a fact!!

Either way I think all 4 teams will loose 1 game a piece....