[Joe Smith] John Hynes a estimé que tirer le gardien de but en prolongation, ces quatre joueurs sur la glace, leur donnait la meilleure chance. Là où ils se trouvent au classement, ils ont besoin de victoires (et d’aide). « Ce ne sont pas des décisions aléatoires. Je remettrais ces gars-là sur la glace. »
—
DepressedMemerBoi
8 Comments
[Follow up](https://x.com/joesmithnhl/status/1774209892393378083?s=46&t=snBAamscKUFmQmgdVlZsqw) by Joe Smith: Hynes said pulling goalie at end of regulation is something he’s thought about too, but just felt with the way the game was going, the decision was for OT. Noted they went through three rotations too before going to goalie pull
The time do it was in regulation.
At least he thought about regulation. The issue wasn’t trying it, just not doing it in the 3rd.
Pulling the goalie in OT is an awful strategy, even if it worked once. Hopefully he realizes this but this quote isn’t encouraging.
It worked once but once he realized the double or nothing nature of it he should have abandoned it. You have two chances at two points in OT, the original session and the shootout. All or nothing by pulling the goalie is just dumb.
So he had no faith in a shootout win? Sorry, but Hynes was never the answer as Evason was never the problem. Much like drafting Stramel, Guerin simply made a mistake.
It felt like the all or nothing nature of the OT pulled goalie was also meant in a « We’re banged up, less than 10 games to go, and down bad in the standings. We’re fine if the season is over as it’s such a long shot now that we didn’t get the regulation W. Thrust the dagger Vegas. But if we get the W that’s cool too I guess. »
Makes sense if you don’t think about it… where my analytics people at with the chance of victory shootout vs 1:30min of 4 on 3