Ever a time to NOT pull the goalie?

by PaintDrinkingPete on Mar 11, 2009 8:50 PM EDT

The situation:
February 7th, the Caps are hosting the Panthers and are up 2-1 late in the 3rd. With about a minute and a half left, the Panthers pull their goalie to put an extra skater on the ice (which, if I remember correctly, actually gave Florida a 6-4 man advantage), hoping to create some extra offense, score a goal and put the game into overtime.

Even the most casual hockey fan watching would not be surprised by this—pretty standard procedure: if you’re down by a goal (or two), pull your netminder to add an extra skater in a “last-ditch effort” to extend the game and/or win it outright.

My buddy, however, who was watching the game with me says, “You know, I can’t remember a game this season when the Caps had an empty net situation and didn’t score on it—if you ask me, the Panthers would have a better shot if they left Vokoun in the goal.” He then added, “The Caps don’t even seem to mind risking an icing call to send the puck all the way down from the other end.” And, as if on cue, Mike Green does just that—sends the puck all the way down from around the Caps’ goal line and sinks the insurance goal with only about a minute left, and the Capitals end up winning 3-1. (Granted, if the Caps were in fact short-handed as I remember, icing would not have been a factor in this instance).

But the question was this: Does this ever happen? Would this even be a smart strategy, or is it something no coach would ever do because it would be second-guessed way too much? Do coaches ever elect to NOT pull the goalie against teams that have proven dangerous against an empty net situation? Maybe it does happen and I’ve just never paid attention, but I can’t seem to remember any times when I’ve seen it…the “Miracle on Ice” game being an obvious exception, of course.

If this FanPost is written by someone other than one of the blog's editors, the opinions expressed in it do not necessarily reflect those of this blog or SB Nation.

Tweet Comment 16 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I can’t remember ever seeing a situation where the coach didn’t pull the goalie because he was afraid of the other team scoring another one. I do think I remember (note how highly confident I’m not) Jacques Lemaires not pulling his goalie at the end of a Wild game and then saying that he didn’t do it because his team wasn’t trying to win 5/5 so he wasn’t going to reward them by pulling the goalie.

by Rob Parker on Mar 11, 2009 9:11 PM EDT reply actions

That’s a riot.

One could envision a last-day-of-the-season scenario in which a team wouldn’t pull their goalie because an empty net goal against is far more likely than a goal for with the extra attacker and goal differential is a standings tie-breaker, but that seems somewhat far-fetched.

Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world

by J.P. on Mar 11, 2009 10:27 PM EDT up reply actions

I’ve wondered about this myself – with the Caps you’re almost better off staying 5-on-5 – has pulling the goalie for an extra skater worked for the other team yet this season?

"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." - Delores Ibarruri

by gotsparkly on Mar 12, 2009 12:27 AM EDT reply actions

I don’t see why a coach would consider not pulling the goalie. If you don’t score, you lose. As a result, there’s not a lot of downside there.

Basically, I think you always have a better chance of scoring to tie it up with a man advantage, and that’s the name of the game. While the Caps may take their shots from the defensive zone, they’re not all going to go in like Green’s did. In fact, most won’t from where he shot it. If it’s a miss, you get an icing and another shot at it.

Now, I do recall a game this season in which the Caps’ opponent did not pull their goalie and I thought it was kind of interesting. In the Detroit game, the Caps were killing a 5-on-3 at the end of the game (having taken 3 penalties). I remember Locker/JoeB saying that Detroit elected not to pull the goalie (despite being down 2 inside 2 minutes to play) because 6-on-3 isn’t much better than 5-on-3, and because with the PK the Caps could take free shots. In a situation like that, I think it makes sense. But obviously, that is a very uncommon situation.

by grapejoos on Mar 12, 2009 12:32 AM EDT reply actions

If you don’t score, you lose. As a result, there’s not a lot of downside there.

Granted, this is a “devil’s advocate” kind of question, but basically the downside would be that if the opposing team scores quickly on the empty net, then you’ve pretty much erased even the slight chance you had before of tying the score. Keeping the score close until the final seconds tick away would, in theory, give you a greater chance of chipping that last goal in.

I’ve also never seen 6-on-5 as a huge advantage either…many times it seems to just crowded on the ice to move the puck around efficiently.

by PaintDrinkingPete on Mar 12, 2009 9:16 AM EDT up reply actions

What about the converse?

Is there ever a time when a team should pull one of its skaters and put in a second goalie?

by katzistan on Mar 12, 2009 3:06 AM EDT reply actions

Haha, there’s actually a rule specifically against that :P.

by Ovechkin on Mar 12, 2009 7:00 AM EDT up reply actions

How about no goalie for the last half of the third period?

I remember hearing this strange game on the radio when I was a (Ranger lovin’) kid.

Via Wikipedia

April 5, 1970 – The Montreal Canadiens were in a desperate race to qualify for the NHL playoffs. The Canadiens hosted the Chicago Blackhawks. With 9 minutes and 30 seconds left in the third period, Montreal was down by a score of 5–2. Montreal’s only hope of qualifying for the playoffs was to score five more goals. Canadiens coach Claude Ruel removed his goalie, Rogatien Vachon from the net. Vachon would return to the net only for faceoffs. Chicago would score five empty net goals and win the game by a score of 10–2. Montreal would miss the playoffs for the first time in 22 years.

by rule56 on Mar 12, 2009 6:15 AM EDT reply actions

Nice. I remembered that there was some bizarre story related to a ton of empty netters in one game, but couldn’t quite recall it (and I failed in my attempt to find it online). Thanks for reminding me!

Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world

by J.P. on Mar 12, 2009 8:03 AM EDT up reply actions

I’ll have to dig up my copy of 100 Great Sports Stories for Boys which IIRC has a story about a team coached by, I think, Eddie Shore (?). They were down by something like 6 goals at the end of the second, and Shore figured the goalie wasn’t doing any good anyway, so he pulled him. His team went on to win the game.

That’s the gist of the story, anyway. I’ll see if I can get the details squared away and report back.

by fat_daddyo on Mar 12, 2009 8:54 AM EDT up reply actions

I play like B level hockey as a dman in the offseasson of my goaltending and last year we played an entire game without a goalie.
I think we ended up winning like 8 – 6 or something.

I was deflecting slapshots and doing bfly saves in player gear, haha.

by zephyr on Mar 12, 2009 11:21 AM EDT up reply actions

The time when coaches usually don’t pull a goalie is when the other team has a penalty against them since they can just go for the empty net all day since icing doesn’t come into effect.

However, they will still pull the goalie in most cases since the other team SHOULD have a hard time scoring a goal 6 on 4.
I think the Thrashers pulled their goalie in the most recent home game against the Caps and the Caps failed to score.

The Capitals are actually pretty great in pulling the goalie and not getting scored on. Fedorov has stopped the puck from going in so many times.

by zephyr on Mar 12, 2009 11:19 AM EDT reply actions

I wouldn’t pull the goalie if my team had a 5-3 advantage. 5-3 just adds another person you could delay a shot with another pass. Also, the 6th guy is probably going to be in the middle, and that’s morelikely to miss a pass through him. The 5-3 should be an auto-goal anyway (Yeah, I know, it’s not), but at that point, I think risk outweighs reward.

I'm so sick and tired of the refs explaining the calls like this is the NFL.

by Whiter Mage on Mar 12, 2009 6:39 PM EDT reply actions

Didn't we kill a sizeable amount of 6-3 time

against the Cats this year? I seem to remember the Stecks, Gordon, Laich trio coming up big. (again)

by Wisper on Mar 13, 2009 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions

Detroit, no?

Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world

by J.P. on Mar 13, 2009 12:10 PM EDT up reply actions

Yeah…that was this game. I’m pretty sure Green’s goal came 6-on-4.

by PaintDrinkingPete on Mar 13, 2009 1:29 PM EDT up reply actions

Comments For This Post Are Closed

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

FanShots

Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.

+ New FanShot All FanShots >

Southeast Standings

	GP	W	L	OTL	PT
Washington Japers' Rink	53	28	21	4	60
Florida Litter Box Cats	52	24	17	11	59
Winnipeg Arctic Ice Hockey	55	25	24	6	56
Tampa Bay Raw Charge	52	23	24	5	51
Carolina Canes Country	55	20	25	10	50