Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Moose75

RVH under fire lately

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, coopaloop1234 said:

@seagoal I can almost make out what those pictures are. Needs fewer pixels.

Noted.

Sorry.  Not enough time for thorough searches. 

It's that Revoke graphic, it's very distorting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2019 at 5:49 PM, coopaloop1234 said:

@seagoal I can almost make out what those pictures are. Needs fewer pixels.

"Pixles are for pussies"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

InGoalMag podcast asked Luo about RVH

He basically said the pros outweigh the cons. He said adopting RVH is key factor that’s allowed him to play as long as he has. 

If every goalie feels the pros outweigh the cons, but will give up say 2 soft RVH goals a season, I think people are blowing this out of proportion 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, WillyGrips13 said:

True. However has anyone actually quantified how many bad goals are given up do to overuse of RVH? 

How many were given up with the use of VH

How many were given up with pre-VH post integration techniques?

I feel like I see way less lowlights of greasy goals going in with the mass adaptation of the RVH than when the VH was the flavour of the day. Let alone times before that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel it's, in a way, unfair that RVH is getting such bad publicity for goals. In my mind if goalies are using one technique more than the others then more goals are going to be scored against that technique than the others. And within those goals there is the inevitable easy save that was missed. It happens on every technique eventually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is with metrics and statistical analysis prevalent in sports now, can they find out what has worked well and what hasn’t in each scenario and determine an acceptable level of failure versus optimum performance. In hockey I hear too much, “it looks like to me,” or “I remember this or that.”  That’s anecdotal. We need real unrefutable evidence based on research and statistical analysis. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, WillyGrips13 said:

My point is with metrics and statistical analysis prevalent in sports now, can they find out what has worked well and what hasn’t in each scenario and determine an acceptable level of failure versus optimum performance. In hockey I hear too much, “it looks like to me,” or “I remember this or that.”  That’s anecdotal. We need real unrefutable evidence based on research and statistical analysis. 

That's no fun though. How am I supposed to argue with strangers on the internet if they want actual evidence?

Only issue I have with your stance is how do you scientifically measure a "bad goal". Is it based off of shot position? Time remaining? Goal differential? Playoff vs Non Playoff? Expectancy of the goalie? Etc.

There are a lot of metrics that make up a "bad goal" and a lot of them aren't measurable. Wanting irrefutable evidence for bad goals when bad goals are largely made up of intangibles just ends up leading us to the same qualifying factor that you were arguing against: "The eye test".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, coopaloop1234 said:

How many were given up with the use of VH

How many were given up with pre-VH post integration techniques?

I feel like I see way less lowlights of greasy goals going in with the mass adaptation of the RVH than when the VH was the flavour of the day. Let alone times before that.

Well said, this is my point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TheGoalNet said:

InGoalMag podcast asked Luo about RVH

He basically said the pros outweigh the cons. He said adopting RVH is key factor that’s allowed him to play as long as he has. 

If every goalie feels the pros outweigh the cons, but will give up say 2 soft RVH goals a season, I think people are blowing this out of proportion 

For some guys these happen every week (Allen comes to mind). And when it boils down to it, some of these soft RVH goals lead to missed points, which are big. At the same time, it's the same as any soft goal against: a backbreaker. It's in the spotlight because it's relatively newer still to most non-goalies, and with the shrinking of pants and chest protectors, as well as the shallowing of nets, the seals are being exposed more than they were just a few seasons ago.

Also; there's some new mutant curves out there right now that allow guys to get that puck up extra accurately and quickly. They call it "max blade" or the maximum dimensions and length a blade can be. I have one myself and I see why it's a growing trend for shooters. That said, I think we as goalies can't use players' new found abilities as a crutch for bad goals or this current lull point in goaltending. We've solved them before, we'll solve them again.

My question isn't so much the direct "RVH fails" as much as it is the overuse of RVH leading to more goals. Carter Hart the other night against Minnesota, for example. He kept hinging himself to his post in RVH, which was the catalyst to many of the sequences that lead to goals or Grade A scoring/rebound chances. I'm not saying it should be abandoned, I think it just needs to be addressed and adjusted, which it seems like it is. Some goalie coaches just gotta sell themselves, ya know?

InGoal also had a great article on it too! https://ingoalmag.com/technique/excessive-and-improper-use-of-the-reverse-vh-technique/

Edited by Moose75

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×