Ongoing NHL thread - Part III

[DragonfromTO]

Who in the past decade would you consider bad goalies that have won the Cup? Is the list Quick and Osgood? Maybe Niemi too although he had a few pretty good years with the Sharks after bolting?

I don't think I said that a bunch of "bad" goalies had won the Cup. I agree that it is close to impossible to win the Cup with "bad" goaltending.

But let's look at the list of goalies. We'll look at the teams that lost in the finals too, since I think it's fair to say that they are a fit in our data set too. And by all means, if you think I've characterized someone unfairly let me know.

2006 - Ward (non-star), Roloson (non-star)
2007 - Giguere (star, I think he qualifies), Emery (non-star)
2008 - Osgood (non-star), Fleury (non-star)
2009 - Fleury (non-star), Osgood (non-star)
2010 - Niemi (non-star), Leighton/Boucher (both non-stars)
2011 - Thomas (star I guess, although I'm not sure that he was regarded as such at the season start), Luongo (star)
2012 - Quick (I guess we'll call him a star), Brodeur (non-star... big name still of course, but not really a star goalie anymore at this point)
2013 - Crawford (non-star at this point I think), Rask (star)
2014 - Quick (we called him a star before so let's stick with it), Lundqvist (star)
2015 - Crawford (star by now I think), Bishop (star)
2016 - Murray (non-star), Jones (non-star)

So out of 23 goalies (22 teams) we've got 9 stars and 14 non-stars.

If we limit it to the 11 winners it looks a little better, 5 of 11 were stars. But it's still not a high percentage, and while it's a very crude and limited analysis I think it offers at least some support for my contention that while you can't win with shit, you don't necessarily need a star.

Let me find a list of Vezina nominees too, as I'm also curious how many Cup wins there are in that list. That's a little circular too in the sense that I imagine it's incredibly difficult to get a nomination as a great goalie on a losing team (and of course winning teams are the only ones who even have a chance to win the Cup), no matter how good you are. But it's also tougher to be a losing team if you have a great goalie in the first place, so I doubt it's too major a problem.

 

[forty_three]

^ Tim Thomas was in no way shape or form a "star". Otherwise, I agree with your characterizations.

Might be able to make arguments for or against Niemi at that point, but overall his body of work is non-star.

 

[forty_three]

IF THEY'RE NOT PLAYING WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE TO MY HOUSE, IT'S TOO FAR

 

[forty_three]

Expansion Mock Draft: What Las Vegas' roster could look like - Sportsnet.ca

First of the mock expansion drafts has arrived and it has Jack Johnson as the Jackets casualty.

I like this mock expansion draft.

 

[jstewismybastardson]

Owners sues fellow owner. This is how the atlanta sitch started

Be ready quebec city ... Just in case

 

[DragonfromTO]

^ Tim Thomas was in no way shape or form a "star". Otherwise, I agree with your characterizations.

Might be able to make arguments for or against Niemi at that point, but overall his body of work is non-star.

Niemi had played 42 regular season games in his career with a SV% of .910 when he won the Stanley Cup. I'm not sure what argument there is supporting the idea that that's a "star" resumé.

And I get that you don't like Tim Thomas, but he has a .921 career SV% and 2 Vezina Trophies. He wasn't a star level goalie for that long, but I feel fine saying that he was one. But of course he's also an example of how it's possible to find Stanley Cup winning goaltending without giving up a fortune in trade or dollars for it.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

IF THEY'RE NOT PLAYING IN QUEBEC CITY, I DON'T CARE

fify.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

I don't think I said that a bunch of "bad" goalies had won the Cup. I agree that it is close to impossible to win the Cup with "bad" goaltending.

But let's look at the list of goalies. We'll look at the teams that lost in the finals too, since I think it's fair to say that they are a fit in our data set too. And by all means, if you think I've characterized someone unfairly let me know.

2006 - Ward (non-star), Roloson (non-star)
2007 - Giguere (star, I think he qualifies), Emery (non-star)
2008 - Osgood (non-star), Fleury (non-star)
2009 - Fleury (non-star), Osgood (non-star)
2010 - Niemi (non-star), Leighton/Boucher (both non-stars)
2011 - Thomas (star I guess, although I'm not sure that he was regarded as such at the season start), Luongo (star)
2012 - Quick (I guess we'll call him a star), Brodeur (non-star... big name still of course, but not really a star goalie anymore at this point)
2013 - Crawford (non-star at this point I think), Rask (star)
2014 - Quick (we called him a star before so let's stick with it), Lundqvist (star)
2015 - Crawford (star by now I think), Bishop (star)
2016 - Murray (non-star), Jones (non-star)

So out of 23 goalies (22 teams) we've got 9 stars and 14 non-stars.

If we limit it to the 11 winners it looks a little better, 5 of 11 were stars. But it's still not a high percentage, and while it's a very crude and limited analysis I think it offers at least some support for my contention that while you can't win with shit, you don't necessarily need a star.

Let me find a list of Vezina nominees too, as I'm also curious how many Cup wins there are in that list. That's a little circular too in the sense that I imagine it's incredibly difficult to get a nomination as a great goalie on a losing team (and of course winning teams are the only ones who even have a chance to win the Cup), no matter how good you are. But it's also tougher to be a losing team if you have a great goalie in the first place, so I doubt it's too major a problem.

I used NHL's stats page (dash's fave) to sum goalie stats for a five year period around when these guys made/won the Cup.

A few things stood out that I think should change some of your classifications:

-I'm not sure how we should be handling rookie goaltenders here. Niemi wasn't a star at the time of his Cup, but from 2009-10 to 2012-13 he had the 7th highest sv% amongst goalies with 180+ GP. If he wasn't considered a star at the time of his Cup, he sure was in the years succeeding it. So we would need to establish how exactly we are looking at that here, or toss out rookie goalies altogether although I don't think that is quite fair either if guys like Niemi, Crawford (wasn't a rookie but was only in second year and has been considered a star since by most people), Murray and Jones were (or end up being) consistently good goalies post-Cup.

-Tim Thomas had the best save percentage among goalies with 200+ starts from 2007-08 to 2010-11. He was sure as hell a star.

If we remove the 2016 guys just because they could turn into stars, and consider Niemi and Crawford 1.0 as stars, out of the 21 goalies left you wind up with 11 stars, so about half. Fair enough.

I still believe you have a better shot of getting to the Cup if your team is backstopped by one of the better goalies in the league, and I do believe it to be an essential part of team make up. Further, I think as teams move more and more into an analytic, shot-based method of building rosters we will see shots on goal rise again and that will make it even more imperative that a Cup contender have good goaltending.

 

[thedddd]

NHL Rumors - ProHockeyRumors.com

 

[DragonfromTO]

I used NHL's stats page (dash's fave) to sum goalie stats for a five year period around when these guys made/won the Cup.

A few things stood out that I think should change some of your classifications:

-I'm not sure how we should be handling rookie goaltenders here. Niemi wasn't a star at the time of his Cup, but from 2009-10 to 2012-13 he had the 7th highest sv% amongst goalies with 180+ GP. If he wasn't considered a star at the time of his Cup, he sure was in the years succeeding it. So we would need to establish how exactly we are looking at that here, or toss out rookie goalies altogether although I don't think that is quite fair either if guys like Niemi, Crawford (wasn't a rookie but was only in second year and has been considered a star since by most people), Murray and Jones were (or end up being) consistently good goalies post-Cup.

-Tim Thomas had the best save percentage among goalies with 200+ starts from 2007-08 to 2010-11. He was sure as hell a star.

If we remove the 2016 guys just because they could turn into stars, and consider Niemi and Crawford 1.0 as stars, out of the 21 goalies left you wind up with 11 stars, so about half. Fair enough.

I still believe you have a better shot of getting to the Cup if your team is backstopped by one of the better goalies in the league, and I do believe it to be an essential part of team make up. Further, I think as teams move more and more into an analytic, shot-based method of building rosters we will see shots on goal rise again and that will make it even more imperative that a Cup contender have good goaltending.

Isn't this kind of a "water is wet" statement? And where did I take the opposite position to this?

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

Isn't this kind of a "water is wet" statement? And where did I take the opposite position to this?

Not saying you did.

And clearly not if you just put up a list of not-so-great goalies that, half the time in a ten year period, made the Final. Just stating my opinion that I think teams should always be looking to upgrade if goaltending has been an issue which it clearly has been with the Isles (which was the original argument to begin with).

 

[DragonfromTO]

I used NHL's stats page (dash's fave) to sum goalie stats for a five year period around when these guys made/won the Cup.

A few things stood out that I think should change some of your classifications:

-I'm not sure how we should be handling rookie goaltenders here. Niemi wasn't a star at the time of his Cup, but from 2009-10 to 2012-13 he had the 7th highest sv% amongst goalies with 180+ GP. If he wasn't considered a star at the time of his Cup, he sure was in the years succeeding it. So we would need to establish how exactly we are looking at that here, or toss out rookie goalies altogether although I don't think that is quite fair either if guys like Niemi, Crawford (wasn't a rookie but was only in second year and has been considered a star since by most people), Murray and Jones were (or end up being) consistently good goalies post-Cup.

-Tim Thomas had the best save percentage among goalies with 200+ starts from 2007-08 to 2010-11. He was sure as hell a star.

If we remove the 2016 guys just because they could turn into stars, and consider Niemi and Crawford 1.0 as stars, out of the 21 goalies left you wind up with 11 stars, so about half. Fair enough.

I still believe you have a better shot of getting to the Cup if your team is backstopped by one of the better goalies in the league, and I do believe it to be an essential part of team make up. Further, I think as teams move more and more into an analytic, shot-based method of building rosters we will see shots on goal rise again and that will make it even more imperative that a Cup contender have good goaltending.

Here's the problem with the "Murray and Jones could prove to be stars going forward (and Niemi already did)" angle... how do you know that Greiss won't similarly play like a star going forward?

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

Here's the problem with the "Murray and Jones could prove to be stars going forward (and Niemi already did)" angle... how do you know that Greiss won't similarly play like a star going forward?

Fair enough.

Did either of Murray and Jones have a round as bad as Greiss' second round during these playoffs?

 

[DragonfromTO]

Not saying you did.

And clearly not if you just put up a list of not-so-great goalies that, half the time in a ten year period, made the Final. Just stating my opinion that I think teams should always be looking to upgrade if goaltending has been an issue which it clearly has been with the Isles (which was the original argument to begin with).

I'm seeing them 9th in the league in SV% last year. To me that screams "there are bigger issues to fix here first"

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

I'm seeing them 9th in the league in SV% last year. To me that screams "there are bigger issues to fix here first"

Greiss had a very good regular season. Maybe he'll replicate it.

Maybe he won't and the Isles go back to barely scraping into the playoffs and a first round exit.

If you're them and Garth Snow and JT is one year from FA after this year are you really banking on that?

 

[DragonfromTO]

Fair enough.

Did either of Murray and Jones have a round as bad as Greiss' second round during these playoffs?

I'm not sure but I do know that Henrik Lundqvist did, and Carey Price has.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

I'm not sure but I do know that Henrik Lundqvist did, and Carey Price has.

Hank had two bad games vs. Pit after almost losing an eye, if I recall correctly. Kind of different. He was single-handedly keeping the Rags in the series prior to that.

 

[DragonfromTO]

Greiss had a very good regular season. Maybe he'll replicate it.

Maybe he won't and the Isles go back to barely scraping into the playoffs and a first round exit.

If you're them and Garth Snow and JT is one year from FA after this year are you really banking on that?

Ideally? Of course not. But if I have to give up big value and/or create/leave big holes elsewhere by doing the alternative then I might roll that die.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

Ideally? Of course not. But if I have to give up big value and/or create/leave big holes elsewhere by doing the alternative then I might roll that die.

But that was my entire original point lol - the goalie market could be ripe for the picking due to the expansion draft thus maybe an upgrade won't take big value.

 

[DragonfromTO]

Hank had two bad games vs. Pit after almost losing an eye, if I recall correctly. Kind of different. He was single-handedly keeping the Rags in the series prior to that.

Hank was also dreadful in his very first career playoff series. It would have been very easy for the Rags to similarly say "this is a 7th round pick who overachieved without a full regular season workload and was exposed in the tough grind of the playoffs"