NCAA tournament: CU vs Richmond 5/19

[ER]

I'd love to see (hear) someone do a Post report. It seemed like half of Richmond's goals were hitting the post and in.

The goalie is not supposed to save those.

A silly mm off and those bounce out.

.

This isn't really true. A guy can shoot from 30 yards out and even if it goes in off the post, it should have been be stopped. Or, like we saw, a guy can shoot from a horrible angle off the post and in and that too should have been saved.

So basically you're saying that every shot should be stopped.

Then the logical extension of that is every goal against is the goalies fault.

I just don't buy that.

In lacrosse and hockey a very well placed shot goes in. If it's stopped, we bow to the goalie.

The goalie can't physically cover 100% of the goal 100% of the time. You just can't do that.

You play your angles and your percentages. If the shooter is able to pick that small spot that you can't cover, then it's a great shot.

You forget about it. Go on to the next play, realizing that if you play things correctly, you'll save X% of the shots.

But you can't save all of them.



And not everything is your fault.

"It's all your fault"

[chimpfood]

Here's my opinion. To start, almost every time someone scores in lacrosse, it has very thin margins. The goal is so small that the shots have to be really well placed so the argument that a bunch of their shots dotted corners or went in off posts does nothing for me, this happens in every single game. You're not gonna get hit in the chest much as a goalie so you have to make some saves. Next, pretty much all of Richmond's shots were from outside which is ideal for Knust. By contrast, Cornell had 6 or 7 shots right on the doorstep and the Richmond goalie still ended with a much better save percentage. It's not that there are a couple of shots that he definitely should have saved (but if you really want me to name one I recall him getting beat low short side on a bad angle) but that he just didn't make many saves. If you face 20 shots with an expected save percentage of 45%, there's no one shot that you should stop, but you sure as hell better save a good chunk of them still. That's pretty much how I feel about Knust's last game.

I like Knust, he's been great all season and I don't want to be the guy reiterating how he had a shit game three days later but it's pretty ridiculous to say that saving 28 percent on all outside shots isn't bad. He had a bad game and that's okay but I'm not sure why some of you feel the need to defend him so aggressively.

[ugarte]

I like Knust, he's been great all season and I don't want to be the guy reiterating how he had a shit game three days later but it's pretty ridiculous to say that saving 28 percent on all outside shots isn't bad. He had a bad game and that's okay but I'm not sure why some of you feel the need to defend him so aggressively.

Not to mention some shots are made before the release - if the attack takes you out with a head fake, or tic tac toe passing gets you out of position, that's not unreasonable; you aren't going to make the save. If the ball squeezes into a ball-width gap between your basket and the post, you probably should have.

[BearLover]

Here's my opinion. To start, almost every time someone scores in lacrosse, it has very thin margins. The goal is so small that the shots have to be really well placed so the argument that a bunch of their shots dotted corners or went in off posts does nothing for me, this happens in every single game. You're not gonna get hit in the chest much as a goalie so you have to make some saves. Next, pretty much all of Richmond's shots were from outside which is ideal for Knust. By contrast, Cornell had 6 or 7 shots right on the doorstep and the Richmond goalie still ended with a much better save percentage. It's not that there are a couple of shots that he definitely should have saved (but if you really want me to name one I recall him getting beat low short side on a bad angle) but that he just didn't make many saves. If you face 20 shots with an expected save percentage of 45%, there's no one shot that you should stop, but you sure as hell better save a good chunk of them still. That's pretty much how I feel about Knust's last game.

I like Knust, he's been great all season and I don't want to be the guy reiterating how he had a shit game three days later but it's pretty ridiculous to say that saving 28 percent on all outside shots isn't bad. He had a bad game and that's okay but I'm not sure why some of you feel the need to defend him so aggressively.

I totally agree with your premise for evaluating goalies. But in practice I don't think many shots were from outside (certainly not far outside) and none looked easy to stop. A lot were from tough angles but this isn't hockey where the goalie takes up enough of the net to totally cut off a bad angle. So I don't think the expected save % on pretty much any of these shots was high at all. Understood that a goalie should stop a 70% shot 30% of the time but I think you're understating how difficult a lot of the shots were to stop.

[stereax]

I'd love to see (hear) someone do a Post report. It seemed like half of Richmond's goals were hitting the post and in.

The goalie is not supposed to save those.

A silly mm off and those bounce out.

.

This isn't really true. A guy can shoot from 30 yards out and even if it goes in off the post, it should have been be stopped. Or, like we saw, a guy can shoot from a horrible angle off the post and in and that too should have been saved.

So basically you're saying that every shot should be stopped.

Then the logical extension of that is every goal against is the goalies fault.

I just don't buy that.

In lacrosse and hockey a very well placed shot goes in. If it's stopped, we bow to the goalie.

The goalie can't physically cover 100% of the goal 100% of the time. You just can't do that.

You play your angles and your percentages. If the shooter is able to pick that small spot that you can't cover, then it's a great shot.

You forget about it. Go on to the next play, realizing that if you play things correctly, you'll save X% of the shots.

But you can't save all of them.



And not everything is your fault.

"It's all your fault"

It's all your fault, it's all your fault!

[CU2007]

I'd love to see (hear) someone do a Post report. It seemed like half of Richmond's goals were hitting the post and in.

The goalie is not supposed to save those.

A silly mm off and those bounce out.

.

This isn't really true. A guy can shoot from 30 yards out and even if it goes in off the post, it should have been be stopped. Or, like we saw, a guy can shoot from a horrible angle off the post and in and that too should have been saved.

So basically you're saying that every shot should be stopped.

Then the logical extension of that is every goal against is the goalies fault.

I just don't buy that.

In lacrosse and hockey a very well placed shot goes in. If it's stopped, we bow to the goalie.

The goalie can't physically cover 100% of the goal 100% of the time. You just can't do that.

You play your angles and your percentages. If the shooter is able to pick that small spot that you can't cover, then it's a great shot.

You forget about it. Go on to the next play, realizing that if you play things correctly, you'll save X% of the shots.

But you can't save all of them.

And not everything is your fault.

No, I didn't say that at all. I said that just because a shot hits the post and goes in doesn't mean in and of itself that the goalie isn't supposed to save it. For example, it could have been shot from the other end of the field and if nobody bothers to stop it, bounced off the post and gone in.

[TimV]

I'd love to see (hear) someone do a Post report. It seemed like half of Richmond's goals were hitting the post and in.

The goalie is not supposed to save those.

A silly mm off and those bounce out.

.

This isn't really true. A guy can shoot from 30 yards out and even if it goes in off the post, it should have been be stopped. Or, like we saw, a guy can shoot from a horrible angle off the post and in and that too should have been saved.

So basically you're saying that every shot should be stopped.

Then the logical extension of that is every goal against is the goalies fault.

I just don't buy that.

In lacrosse and hockey a very well placed shot goes in. If it's stopped, we bow to the goalie.

The goalie can't physically cover 100% of the goal 100% of the time. You just can't do that.

You play your angles and your percentages. If the shooter is able to pick that small spot that you can't cover, then it's a great shot.

You forget about it. Go on to the next play, realizing that if you play things correctly, you'll save X% of the shots.

But you can't save all of them.



And not everything is your fault.

"It's all your fault"

It's all your fault, it's all your fault!

This is fabulous.::cheer:: Let's adopt this as a new (and original) chant for lacrosse this weekend.  And hockey in the fall.

[Scersk '97]

It's all your fault, it's all your fault!

This is fabulous.::cheer:: Let's adopt this as a new (and original) chant for lacrosse this weekend.  And hockey in the fall.

We could even have the band play Davy beforehand! It'll be a hoot!

[TimV]

It's all your fault, it's all your fault!

This is fabulous.::cheer:: Let's adopt this as a new (and original) chant for lacrosse this weekend.  And hockey in the fall.

We could even have the band play Davy beforehand! It'll be a hoot!

Oops.  Wrong quote. Was looking for  "NOT all your fault..."::blush::