While I’m generally a laid back, optimistic person, I have a long list of pet peeves. Some of these may blur the line between pet peeves, annoyances and general complaints, but a random sampling includes: Flames fans, drivers who don’t use their turn signal, leaky takeout boxes, the color aquamarine, people in favor of bringing back the two-line offside pass, honeydew, yellow traffic lights that don’t even last two seconds, flimsy combs, P.J. Stock, the little disclaimer before movies that state the film has either been edited for content or shortened to run in the time allotted, unreliable shoelaces, and misspelled tattoos.
However, right at the top of my list of pet peeves, annoyances or general complaints is when people say that an NHL goaltender “didn’t have a chance” after a goal is scored on him. It infuriates me to no end because it’s never, ever true. Okay, I’ll amend that last statement. The only instance when you can say a goaltender “didn’t have a chance” is when he’s pulled from the game in favor of an extra attacker and sitting on the bench. However, I’ve never heard a commentator say this after an empty-net goal. Not even Louis DeBrusk – the king of the painfully obvious – has mentioned it following an empty-netter.
Let’s consider the dimensions of an NHL goal. Each cage measures four feet high by six feet wide, which results in a surface area of 24 square feet. If an NHL netminder (the Edmonton Oilers’ Devan Dubnyk, for instance) wearing full goalie equipment stands in the crease with his arms by his side, he will take up approximately 75 percent of that surface area. If Dubnyk was unable to move his limbs, then I would consider the argument that he “didn’t have a chance” when a goal was scored on him, but he is fully able to move both his arms and legs when attempting to make saves.
During the Oilers’ 5-1 loss to the Chicago Blackhawks on Monday night, Dubnyk allowed four goals on 14 shots. After nearly every Chicago goal, I saw or heard someone remark that Dubnyk “didn’t have a chance” to prevent it, and he was basically absolved from blame by Dallas Eakins during the coach’s postgame remarks. However, when you go back and break down each goal, taking Dubnyk off the hook for his performance is hogwash of the highest order. Both coaches and commentators should know better, and everyone should remove the term “didn’t have a chance” from their NHL vocabulary. Follow along with the highlights
here.
Goal #1
The first instance of the “didn’t have a chance” defense came after Jonathan Toews’ shorthanded goal to open the scoring. Yes, it was scored on a breakaway, but breakaways happen regularly in the NHL. I would argue that if a goaltender allowed a goal every time he was charged with stopping a breakaway attempt he wouldn’t remain in the league very long. Plus, the numbers seem to confirm that goaltenders do, in fact, have a chance during a one-on-one confrontation with a shooter. Through the first seven seasons of NHL shootouts, Niklas Backstrom’s .571 was the worst save percentage for any goalie that had faced at least 75 shootout attempts.
Goal #2
Chicago’s second goal was the product of a goalmouth scramble, and came as a direct result of Dubnyk’s decision to dive forward on his belly in a futile effort to trap the bouncing puck. Patrick Kane scored one of the easiest goals of his NHL career, flipping the puck into an empty cage. When you abandon the net , leaving it wide open, you take yourself out of the optimal position to make a save. Dubnyk would have increased his chances of making a save if he had remained upright in his crease.
Goal #3
The third goal was the strangest of the night, coming off a point shot that was redirected past Dubnyk, who had lost sight of it. It was an unfortunate goal, no doubt, but could have been prevented if the Oilers netminder had maintained strong position, rather than cheating to his right and leaving the left side of the net uncovered. NHL goaltenders aren’t going to see each shot, especially during a wonky deflection, but sometimes you have to make yourself big and increase your odds of the puck hitting you. Dubnyk didn’t do that, and it resulted in the third goal of the night.
Goal #4
The fourth and final goal that Dubnyk allowed came during a three-on-one rush. Edmonton defenseman sprawled out in an attempt to prevent a cross-ice pass, and Jeremy Morin deked around him before feeding Andrew Shaw through the crease for an easy tap-in. It wouldn’t have been an easy save for Dubnyk, but he still had a chance if he wouldn’t have fully committed to Morin. If you assume that scoring on a three-on-one means the goaltender “didn’t have a chance” then you’re basically conceding a goal during each odd-man rush. That doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me.
The next time you find yourself tempted to reason that the goaltender “didn’t have a chance” because of a turnover or defensive breakdown that resulted in a quality scoring chance, take a moment to realize what you’re actually saying. Taking the netminder completely off the hook for allowing a goal is inaccurate, makes you sound ignorant, and infuriates me more than P.J. Stock wearing an aquamarine suit.
[email protected]
Edmonton Oilers Blogger • 
Join the Discussion:
»