ZBBM
Active member
bustaheims said:Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said: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.
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said: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.