When ‘soft goals’ aren’t actually soft, featuring Andrei Vasilevskiy

Mike McKenna
Mike McKenna(MikeMcKenna56)
When ‘soft goals’ aren’t actually soft, featuring Andrei Vasilevskiy

The narrative was built during one minute and 36 seconds of first period action: that Andrei Vasilevskiy was once again struggling through the first game of a Stanley Cup playoff series.

Only he wasn’t. Tampa Bay coach Jon Cooper praised his goaltender after Game 1 of the Stanley Cup Final for being the Lightning’s best player. And for good reason. Vasilevskiy was outstanding for the majority of the game, keeping an energized Colorado Avalanche team at bay during long stretches of play.

Vasilevskiy may have allowed three goals during the first period of Game 1, but I challenge anyone to explain how he was supposed to come up with those saves.

A screened shot by Mikko Rantanen. A Valeri Nichushkin shot that deflected. And a backdoor pass – during a 5-on-3 power play – from Rantanen to Artturi Lehkonen. None of these goals was an easy save. But I can understand why, at first glance, people might think so.

The biggest reason is that both Landeskog and Nichushkin’s goals didn’t pass the initial eye test. Both looked like clean shots that beat Vasilevskiy from a distance. Only they weren’t. Each goal was the result of extenuating circumstances.

Let’s take a closer look at Landeskog’s opening tally of the series.

When Rantanen reaches the top of the circle, Vasilevskiy is in a good position. He’s tall, square and has a good sightline to the puck – even with Tampa Bay defenseman Erik Cernak blocking some of the shooting lane.

That part is actually beneficial. With Cernak taking away the short side, it gives Vasilevskiy clues that Rantanen’s shot will likely be to the far side.

Everything is under control until Lightning defenseman Ryan McDonagh fails to stop in the lower slot. His momentum carries him towards the Avalanche’s Bowen Byram, who’s just off the side of the net.

McDonagh ends up crossing Vasilevskiy’s sightline just as Rantanen takes the shot. There’s a split second – at exactly the wrong time – when Vasilevskiy can’t see the puck.

When a goaltender can’t see the release, making the save becomes infinitely more difficult. And that’s why Vasilevskiy looked lost: he didn’t see the puck until it was flying past him.

I know the simple argument here is that Vasilevskiy should have been able to find the puck. But it’s not that easy. McDonagh shouldn’t have been a factor. Defensemen are instructed not to cross in front of their goaltender as the puck is being released.

Even if Vasilevskiy knew the McDonagh screen was coming, he still would have lost eye contact with the puck momentarily. So unless Rantanen hit Vasilevskiy with this shot – or the Lightning goaltender guessed correctly – the save wasn’t going to be made. The puck squeaked through Vasilevskiy and Landeskog was able to clean up the rebound.

But it’s from a distance. So people are quick to judge.

Which is also why the second goal of the game off Nichushkin’s stick didn’t look good. At first glance, it appears that Vasilevskiy is beaten five-hole by a clean wrister from the top of the slot. A terrible goal by any standard …if that’s what actually happened.

But it wasn’t. Nichushkin’s shot deflected off Lightning defenseman Zach Bogosian’s stick at the hash marks several feet after the puck was released by the Colorado forward.

Watch the video very closely, especially from the angle behind the net. The puck is already a foot off the ice when it impacts Bogosian’s stick. The trajectory of the shot was likely tracking towards Vasilevskiy’s upper body. There’s a good chance the puck was going to hit him square in the chest.

Vasilevskiy has less than a tenth of a second to alter his initial read and try to close the five-hole. He can’t. The puck goes in, and it’s 2-0 Colorado in the span of less than two minutes.

I cannot emphasize this enough: when a puck gets deflected, all bets are off. How a goalie reads the puck off the blade determines the save selection. And if the flight path of the shot is altered, sometimes there simply isn’t enough time to adjust.

For me, it’s too simplistic to say that because Vasilevskiy is a great goaltender, he should have made these saves. Or any goaltender for that matter.

I’ve faced these exact scenarios thousands of times in my life. And from my experience, I don’t think Vasilevskiy could have gotten his eyes on the Landeskog shot. And I also don’t believe there was enough time for him to get the five-hole closed after Nichushkin’s shot went off Bogosian.

Vasilevskiy was visibly frustrated after the second goal. You can see him turn his glove over and snap his head around. And a lot of that is because the first two goals were the result of causal effects from his teammates. McDonagh’s moving screen. Bogosian’s deflection. If those shots come through clean, I have no doubt that Vasilevskiy saves them both.

But Vasilevskiy, like every world-class goaltender, wouldn’t blame his teammates. He knows they were trying to do the right thing. And there was some bad luck involved in both goals.

I’ve been there before. The voice in the back of your head is screaming at your teammates. It takes a few seconds to calm down and refocus. Success as a goaltender requires a short memory and compassion for what your teammates are doing in front of you. It’s a team game. We all screw up. Goalies let in bad goals.

But sometimes the narrative can jump the shark. The first two goals allowed by Andrei Vasilevskiy in Game 1 were not soft.

Recently by Mike McKenna

Keep scrolling for more content!
19+ | Please play responsibly! | Terms and Conditions apply