Pulling The Goalie, Part 2 (Rotations)
The Minnesota Wild and a handful of other NHL teams employ a system of alternating or rotating goaltenders. In most cases, a rotation arises out of a situation where neither (or none) of the goalies on the roster has really played well or consistently enough to earn the role of clear-cut #1. This is not necessarily the case with the Wild. Both Manny Fernandez and Dwayne Roloson posted very respectable numbers last season, with Roloson's bordering on spectacular. Roloson played in 48 games, posting a sparkling 1.88 Goals Against Average (2nd in the league behind Calgary's Miikka Kiprusoff's 1.69), 5 Shutouts, and a Save Percentage of .933, tied with Kiprusoff for the league lead. Fernandez played in 37 games, recording a Goals Against Average of 2.49, 2 Shutouts, and a .915 Save Percentage. Many teams in the league would have been pleased with Fernandez's numbers, although a 2.49 GAA was only good enough for 29th(!) in the league, ahead of only Boston's Felix Potvin among regular netminders. He could probably earn a #1 job with a few teams in the league, but his efforts thus far have only secured him "1a" status with Minnesota. You would think that being Jacques Lemaire's son-in-law would count for a little more. Likewise, Roloson would seem to have made a strong case for being named the undisputed #1 Wild goalie with his numbers from last season, but indications are that the Wild would have employed a rotational system had there been a "this season", and will continue to do so when the puck is finally dropped again. Why would the Wild do this, and how does it affect the relationship between Roloson and Fernandez?
I can only speculate, of course, but it seems like the coaching staff of the Wild believes that a rotational system keeps both goalies fresh and not overworked, as well as keeping each man mentally challenged and "on his toes" because he fears that an extended stretch of bad games might relegate him to the role of official backup. Goalies will always claim that playing a lot of games in a row makes them sharper, but they're professional athletes. They all want to play every game, and they all desire the extra prestige and higher salary that goes with being #1. What else would they say? Being #1 also means more pressure, of course, but if you don't thrive on pressure, you probably aren't an NHL goalie for a living.
Publicly, Roloson and Fernandez say all the right things. They're each other's biggest supporters. They root for each other. They're friends. They respect and admire each other. Of the two, Fernandez has had a harder time with the rotational system over the years. He's been with the Wild from the beginning, coming over from the Dallas Stars in the expansion draft prior to the Wild's inaugural season of 2000-2001. He may have expected that he had finally earned the #1 role, but he's had to split starts with other goalies from Day One. In that first season, it was Jamie McLennan (38 games to Fernandez's 42). In 2001-2002 Roloson, a relative journeyman, arrived and has played in 143 games to Fernandez's 116 up to the present, posting numbers ranging from slightly better to decidedly better than Fernandez's each season. Fernandez has seemed to play just poorly enough to not be completely trusted. Roloson, on the other hand, has worked hard on his game and has improved every season. He clearly recognized his opportunity and made the most of it.
Every so often, Fernandez has made noises about leaving Minnesota and seeking a #1 job or at least a "real" chance to earn one, a chance he feels he has not been given with the Wild. He seems to be caught in the classic Catch-22: he tells the coaches that he would play better if they named him the #1 goalie and let him start every game for an extended period. The coaches respond by telling him that he needs to play well enough to earn the role of #1 goalie and the chance to start every game for an extended period. Fernandez has signed at least one contract extension, though, so when it comes right down to it, he sticks around. Maybe he knows he wouldn't have as many chances at being a starter as he claims he would. Meanwhile, Roloson just quietly and effectively goes about his business and has signed his own contract extension. He's not going anywhere. I'm sure he would like to be #1, too, but he keeps his mouth shut about it.
I've always been intrigued by the dynamics of the relationships between athletes who are competing for the same job. What must it be like to be in direct competition with somebody? I know I would have a hard time with it, particularly if I thought of myself as "The Man", and management brought in somebody else and made me earn my own job. If it would be hard for me, a humble federal government employee with as stable and secure a position as exists in today's world, I can't imagine what it must truly be like if you have an ego as big as the average pro athlete's, coupled with the stress and ever-present uncertainty inherent in the high-stakes world of professional sports, where you're only as good as your last game. You may really like your rival as a person and consider him a friend, but the long and short of it is that he's screwing with your livelihood (and vice versa). Bad news for you is good news for him. No matter how much he claims to support you and respect and admire you, you must always get the feeling that he wouldn't be entirely unhappy if you got run over by the Zamboni. How many people know how that feels?
On a different note, I read something in The Hockey News that makes a lot of sense as a way to increase scoring. Rather than make the nets wider, why not make them higher? Another six inches at the top would give butterfly goalies fits. The standup style used by great goalies of the past like Ken Dryden and John Davidson might make a comeback, which would be a good thing. It would also presumably result in more of those "top shelf" goals that I love so much. I think it's a brilliant idea, and because it's brilliant and makes a lot of sense, it probably won't be implemented. The goalies would probably bitch too much. We can't have those GAAs above 3.00, now, can we? Oh, the horror! The argument likely to be floated against making the leg pads smaller is that it would result in more injuries to the goalies because smaller pads would place more rotational stress on the goalie's hip and knee joints. Whatever.....
Cheers!
I can only speculate, of course, but it seems like the coaching staff of the Wild believes that a rotational system keeps both goalies fresh and not overworked, as well as keeping each man mentally challenged and "on his toes" because he fears that an extended stretch of bad games might relegate him to the role of official backup. Goalies will always claim that playing a lot of games in a row makes them sharper, but they're professional athletes. They all want to play every game, and they all desire the extra prestige and higher salary that goes with being #1. What else would they say? Being #1 also means more pressure, of course, but if you don't thrive on pressure, you probably aren't an NHL goalie for a living.
Publicly, Roloson and Fernandez say all the right things. They're each other's biggest supporters. They root for each other. They're friends. They respect and admire each other. Of the two, Fernandez has had a harder time with the rotational system over the years. He's been with the Wild from the beginning, coming over from the Dallas Stars in the expansion draft prior to the Wild's inaugural season of 2000-2001. He may have expected that he had finally earned the #1 role, but he's had to split starts with other goalies from Day One. In that first season, it was Jamie McLennan (38 games to Fernandez's 42). In 2001-2002 Roloson, a relative journeyman, arrived and has played in 143 games to Fernandez's 116 up to the present, posting numbers ranging from slightly better to decidedly better than Fernandez's each season. Fernandez has seemed to play just poorly enough to not be completely trusted. Roloson, on the other hand, has worked hard on his game and has improved every season. He clearly recognized his opportunity and made the most of it.
Every so often, Fernandez has made noises about leaving Minnesota and seeking a #1 job or at least a "real" chance to earn one, a chance he feels he has not been given with the Wild. He seems to be caught in the classic Catch-22: he tells the coaches that he would play better if they named him the #1 goalie and let him start every game for an extended period. The coaches respond by telling him that he needs to play well enough to earn the role of #1 goalie and the chance to start every game for an extended period. Fernandez has signed at least one contract extension, though, so when it comes right down to it, he sticks around. Maybe he knows he wouldn't have as many chances at being a starter as he claims he would. Meanwhile, Roloson just quietly and effectively goes about his business and has signed his own contract extension. He's not going anywhere. I'm sure he would like to be #1, too, but he keeps his mouth shut about it.
I've always been intrigued by the dynamics of the relationships between athletes who are competing for the same job. What must it be like to be in direct competition with somebody? I know I would have a hard time with it, particularly if I thought of myself as "The Man", and management brought in somebody else and made me earn my own job. If it would be hard for me, a humble federal government employee with as stable and secure a position as exists in today's world, I can't imagine what it must truly be like if you have an ego as big as the average pro athlete's, coupled with the stress and ever-present uncertainty inherent in the high-stakes world of professional sports, where you're only as good as your last game. You may really like your rival as a person and consider him a friend, but the long and short of it is that he's screwing with your livelihood (and vice versa). Bad news for you is good news for him. No matter how much he claims to support you and respect and admire you, you must always get the feeling that he wouldn't be entirely unhappy if you got run over by the Zamboni. How many people know how that feels?
On a different note, I read something in The Hockey News that makes a lot of sense as a way to increase scoring. Rather than make the nets wider, why not make them higher? Another six inches at the top would give butterfly goalies fits. The standup style used by great goalies of the past like Ken Dryden and John Davidson might make a comeback, which would be a good thing. It would also presumably result in more of those "top shelf" goals that I love so much. I think it's a brilliant idea, and because it's brilliant and makes a lot of sense, it probably won't be implemented. The goalies would probably bitch too much. We can't have those GAAs above 3.00, now, can we? Oh, the horror! The argument likely to be floated against making the leg pads smaller is that it would result in more injuries to the goalies because smaller pads would place more rotational stress on the goalie's hip and knee joints. Whatever.....
Cheers!
posted by Dave at 7:33 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home