Goaltending conundrum

[ZBBM]

2.  Data?

http://hockeyanalysis.com/2010/04/29/how-do-goalie-age-part-iii/

The chart represents individual save percentage relative the league average - anything above 1 is above average, any thing below is below average. The blue line on that represents the path of their control group (which included a guys like Belfour, Jospeh, Kolzig, etc) in their attempt to find an "average" performance. As you can see, by 35, the "average" goalie has regressed to league average and performance tends to drop off dramatically after that. Luongo could be an exception, but, even Roy and Hasek saw their play relative to the rest of the league drop off significantly past age 35, while Brodeur's play since then has been inconsistent. Of course, all 3 of these goalies entered this age period ahead of where Luongo is now.

3.  It sounds like you are making my case for me.  40% of the top 5 and 60% of the top 10 is a lot, and the 35+ material is irrelevant to the point I'm making, which is that the league will not allow long-term contracts to become such an albatross around the necks of teams, especially high-profile ones, that it undercuts the league's business.

THe 35+ is absolutely relevant, because a change to the 35+ is the simplest and most likely avenue for the league to change how these contracts are dealt with. Changing the rule to include all players over 35 instead of just contracts signed by players over 35 effectively serves the league's intentions in dealing with these contracts without having to change the language of the contracts, how their calculated against the cap, etc.

And, I can spin those numbers just the same way as you can - 60% of the top 5 and 40% of the top 10 will not be impacted. That's a significant amount of high revenue teams that will not stand in the way of a rule change here, and that may in fact encourage it (and, we can say with a fair amount of certainty that the top revenue team will support and champion for such a change, since we know how strongly Burke feels about these contracts).

That's a real impressive chart except it doesn't tell you the only thing that matters: where Luongo's line is relative to the the average of the league's goalies now.  If he declines after age 35 or whatever, that matters less in an absolute sense than whether his performance, even at a diminished level, is still better (at his price, considerably better) than the average.  Because that is what you are paying for in a goalie, not whether he stacks up well against retirees like Roy or Hasek.*

And yes, Nik, the league isn't going to bone their most profitable teams, at least not intentionally -- which is the same as in 2004.  Why would they?  The answer is: they won't, because it would be insane if they did.  There is no way that the NHL is going to let a few individual contracts, no matter how seemingly ill-advised, torpedo the marquee teams in the league.

* EDIT: Let me try to explain what I mean a bit more.  Look at the blue line -- the average.  Look at the apogee (the high point) of the curve.  Let's assume (which is being generous) that that point = the average of the league in any given season.  Now, compare the lines of Roy, Hasek, and Brodeur to that high point.  Only Roy, at the very end of his career, goes below it.  In other words, if the best goalies are above the league average through the very end of their career (or, as in the case of Roy, almost to the end), then it is by definition beneficial to your team because your goaltending is above average.  The question re Luongo, because of the size and length of his contract, is how far above average he is now, and whether that cushion is likely to disappear IF his play declines.  That is an "if" -- his trajectory might be like Brodeur's.

 

[Kin]

And yes, Nik, the league isn't going to bone their most profitable teams, at least not intentionally -- which is the same as in 2004.  Why would they?  The answer is: they won't, because it would be insane if they did. 

That post was me humorously suggesting that is precisely what the NHL did in the last CBA.

 

[ZBBM]

And yes, Nik, the league isn't going to bone their most profitable teams, at least not intentionally -- which is the same as in 2004.  Why would they?  The answer is: they won't, because it would be insane if they did. 

That post was me humorously suggesting that is precisely what the NHL did in the last CBA.

I know, my apologies for using it in a serious vein.  I understood you meant it to say that the NHL shot themselves in the foot, which they did.  That's why I threw in "intentionally."

 

[Kin]

I know, my apologies for using it in a serious vein.  I understood you meant it to say that the NHL shot themselves in the foot, which they did.  That's why I threw in "intentionally."

Oh, well, then I disagree that it wasn't intentional. I mean, there's no way they wouldn't have known that a hard cap would hurt bigger revenue teams competitively.

 

[bustaheims]

That's a real impressive chart except it doesn't tell you the only thing that matters: where Luongo's line is relative to the the average of the league's goalies now.  If he declines after age 35 or whatever, that matters less in an absolute sense than whether his performance, even at a diminished level, is still better (at his price, considerably better) than the average.  Because that is what you are paying for in a goalie, not whether he stacks up well against retirees like Roy or Hasek.

Well, I'm not in the mood to put all the work into it right now, but, just looking over Luongo's numbers and having a rough idea of where league average Sv% have been over the past few seasons, my guess is Luongo's numbers wouldn't differentiate him all that much from the control group's. It would be a little bit better, but not so much that he wouldn't experience the same age based drop off that just about every goaltender in the history of the league has.

 

[rdowdall]

Wow!!!! You just busted out a "bucko".  You realize this stuff stays around for like "forever" right?

I don't get it. Resident class clown?

I was voicing my displeasure of your uppity-ness through a feeble attempt at humour.

Twas a play on the poster's name. My feeble attempt at keeping it light hearted.

Wilfred Kennedy "Bucko" McDonald (October 31, 1914 ? July 22, 1991) was a Canadian professional hockey defenceman and coach as well as lacrosse player, coach, and politician.
Born in Fergus, Ontario, he played for the Detroit Red Wings, Toronto Maple Leafs, and New York Rangers. He won 3 Stanley Cups in his career, in 1936 and 1937 with Detroit and in 1942 with Toronto.

Ah, sorry then.  Misread it.  All's good then.

 

[rdowdall]

This is quite the conundrum.

 

[Brian Glennie]

Oh, so since the stats from 2012 don't suit your fancy you change the sample size?  :

Yes I changed my sample size by including an article that looked at Gustavsson versus Leafs goalies since the lockout when my original response to you said the following exactly: "Gustavsson was statistically the worst goalie the Leafs have had since the lockout."

To me it makes more sense to look at 2012's stats.  Reimer is damaged goods now.  He had good numbers before his head injury.  As it stands now he is equal to Gus who you say is our worst goalie since the lockout.

I'm trying to agree with you but you're not making sense and your stats are misleading IMO.  Losing Gus means that the Leafs have lost a large portion of their goaltending talent.

Burke thought he had a piece of the foundation in place when he signed Gus. I remember him selling that to the fans with an awful lot of confidence. I guess plan B was/is to rely on Allaire to put some lipstick on the cochon, that is Toronto's goaltending talent.

It made sense at the time, especially since goalies tend to develop differently and don't necessarily come from the 1st round all the time.  In hindsight maybe it looks foolish, but it made sense to take a chance on a relatively young European goalie with good size.  But if you look at it in hindsight for Burke's foolishness in signing him, you have to look at it in hindsight for the fans (myself included) who were excited at his potential too.  It didn't work out, sometimes these things happen.

Gerber. Why? 

 

[Brian Glennie]

Oh, so since the stats from 2012 don't suit your fancy you change the sample size?  :

Yes I changed my sample size by including an article that looked at Gustavsson versus Leafs goalies since the lockout when my original response to you said the following exactly: "Gustavsson was statistically the worst goalie the Leafs have had since the lockout."

To me it makes more sense to look at 2012's stats.  Reimer is damaged goods now.  He had good numbers before his head injury.  As it stands now he is equal to Gus who you say is our worst goalie since the lockout.

I'm trying to agree with you but you're not making sense and your stats are misleading IMO.  Losing Gus means that the Leafs have lost a large portion of their goaltending talent.

Burke thought he had a piece of the foundation in place when he signed Gus. I remember him selling that to the fans with an awful lot of confidence. I guess plan B was/is to rely on Allaire to put some lipstick on the cochon, that is Toronto's goaltending talent.

It made sense at the time, especially since goalies tend to develop differently and don't necessarily come from the 1st round all the time.  In hindsight maybe it looks foolish, but it made sense to take a chance on a relatively young European goalie with good size.  But if you look at it in hindsight for Burke's foolishness in signing him, you have to look at it in hindsight for the fans (myself included) who were excited at his potential too.  It didn't work out, sometimes these things happen.

He kind of stepped in it too with Toskola. Plus the Gerber signing.

Burke's probably riding pretty high now if he was a factor in getting the Leafs into the Winter Classic.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Again, I don't have a strong feeling as to the relative merits of Gus vs. Reimer but I think it's wrong to say Reimer outplayed Gus last year or that Reimer had better "numbers". The latter if only because of the use of the plural.

I never said Reimer had better numbers than Gus last season.  I said Reimer has been better than Gustavsson in the time they've played goal for the Leafs, not last season exclusively.  Can quibble with the sample size, Gustavsson has had 30+ more NHL games than Reimer, but I still think Reimer has been the better goalie for the Leafs overall. 

 

[drummond]

Speaking of conundrum, this is nothing, it may easily get far more uglier:

I tend to believe the Leafs start the season with Reimer-Srivens duo (even though Scrivens is not signed yet). Hypothetically the Leafs record in first 10-12 games will be only so-so or worse and Burke would be hard pressed to obtain a solid goalie - which in itself will present quite a dilema as to whom to sign or trade for. Meanwhile Owuya (who I believe outplays Rynaas for the starter job in the AHL) posts some good numbers. Then you will have a conundrum with Reimer in whom Burkes still believes, unknown veteran (whom we acquired costly), another emerging young kid in Owuya all that in the situation when Burkes job will be slowly but inevitably on the line (with the prospect of another non playoffs season).

I believe we will witness some extreme short term solutions like giving a contract to Dominik Hasek, or accepting a ridiculous Canucks asking price for Luongo.

 

[Hampreacher]

Given the nature of Riemers injure last season and how he played the previous season I think he can rebound. Having played goalie and watched games the type of injure would affect his play last season.  I say give Reimer a shot. He may surprise!

 

[jonlleafs]

I'd put out a flyer for Huet as long as he's not still under contract for like $5mil or whatever he was supposedly making with the Hawks.  We only need a veteran backup or someone capable of assuming a #1 role if Reimer/Scrivens falters.

 

[Jalili]

I'd put out a flyer for Huet as long as he's not still under contract for like $5mil or whatever he was supposedly making with the Hawks.  We only need a veteran backup or someone capable of assuming a #1 role if Reimer/Scrivens falters.

What the team needs is a #1 starter, not a backup.

 

[jonlleafs]

I'd put out a flyer for Huet as long as he's not still under contract for like $5mil or whatever he was supposedly making with the Hawks.  We only need a veteran backup or someone capable of assuming a #1 role if Reimer/Scrivens falters.

What the team needs is a #1 starter, not a backup.

Sorry, forgot to be clear.  Attaining a goalie without giving up significant assets for him.  I'd still like to see what Reimer brings next season and to see if Scrivens steps up.

 

[ZBBM]

That's a real impressive chart except it doesn't tell you the only thing that matters: where Luongo's line is relative to the the average of the league's goalies now.  If he declines after age 35 or whatever, that matters less in an absolute sense than whether his performance, even at a diminished level, is still better (at his price, considerably better) than the average.  Because that is what you are paying for in a goalie, not whether he stacks up well against retirees like Roy or Hasek.

Well, I'm not in the mood to put all the work into it right now, but, just looking over Luongo's numbers and having a rough idea of where league average Sv% have been over the past few seasons, my guess is Luongo's numbers wouldn't differentiate him all that much from the control group's. It would be a little bit better, but not so much that he wouldn't experience the same age based drop off that just about every goaltender in the history of the league has.

You may be right -- and that's the gamble.  I think it's a gamble that worth taking (with all the caveats previously stated) but it's certainly not unreasonable to disagree.  But let's not underestimate Luongo either, is all I'm saying.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

I don't think anyone is underestimating Luongo or his skill...but I do think Gillis is overestimating Luongo's worth.

I also think that Leaf fans historically over value any player that comes into the organization.

 

[bustaheims]

You may be right -- and that's the gamble.  I think it's a gamble that worth taking (with all the caveats previously stated) but it's certainly not unreasonable to disagree.  But let's not underestimate Luongo either, is all I'm saying.

Depending on the terms, it's a gamble I might take as well, but, I do so knowing that Luongo likely only has 3 or 4 more seasons where he'll really be worth his contract (and that are are at least 3 seasons on it where I know he won't be) and that there's a very real chance that dealing with it after that point could be extremely difficult.

 

[ZBBM]

You may be right -- and that's the gamble.  I think it's a gamble that worth taking (with all the caveats previously stated) but it's certainly not unreasonable to disagree.  But let's not underestimate Luongo either, is all I'm saying.

Depending on the terms, it's a gamble I might take as well, but, I do so knowing that Luongo likely only has 3 or 4 more seasons where he'll really be worth his contract (and that are are at least 3 seasons on it where I know he won't be) and that there's a very real chance that dealing with it after that point could be extremely difficult.

And the second half of the gamble, which I've argued is a good bet, is that the new CBA will allow teams to get out from the unappealing last few years of these long-term contracts: whether that "out" be exempting a contract of their choice from the cap if the player agrees to retire, or simply designating one contract as a "franchise" contract exempt from the cap, or making all the contracts non-guaranteed, etc.

 

[jonlleafs]

I don't think anyone is underestimating Luongo or his skill...but I do think Gillis is overestimating Luongo's worth.

I also think that Leaf fans historically over value any player that comes into the organization.

Until we want to trade them for some mediocre player.  Then he's worth less than dirt.