Nik's Blazing Hot Morning After Goaltending Take

[Andy007]

Carey Price has a career save percentage of .920. Just .002 better than Andersen and .005 better than Bernier.

Strictly speaking I'm not sure what point you're making here. We all know that Price had an inconsistent start to his career but we should look askew at SV% because he "only" has managed to put up the 5th best career SV% of all time?

Frederik Andersen has a better save percentage than Carey Price in the playoffs.

Yea those 5 games where Andersen put up a .947 SV% really make sample size irrelevant..

 

[Zee]

I'm not sure which two seasons you saw Bernier do it in considering that in 2 of his 3 seasons with the Leafs his save% was below the league average.

I don't think league average divides between competency and incompetency or good and bad. Especially not with such small margins.

At the very least you want a starting goalie who is at or better than the league average. For two years Bernier wasn't. Whatever factors led to that I have no idea, blame it on Nelson Mandela if you have to, but Bernier wasn't cutting it in the last 2 seasons. The fact that he bounced back this year is good for him, but he still played 40% fewer games than Andersen this season and faced fewer shots in those games played.  I think the Leafs are in good shape going forward with Andersen in net.

 

[Kin]

Frederik Andersen has a better save percentage than Carey Price in the playoffs.

Jake Guentzel has a higher career PPG in the playoffs than Jonathan Toews.

 

[dappleganger]

Carey Price has a career save percentage of .920. Just .002 better than Andersen and .005 better than Bernier.

Strictly speaking I'm not sure what point you're making here. We all know that Price had an inconsistent start to his career but we should look askew at SV% because he "only" has managed to put up the 5th best career SV% of all time?

Frederik Andersen has a better save percentage than Carey Price in the playoffs.

Yea those 5 games where Andersen put up a .947 SV% really make sample size irrelevant..

Andersen has 34 career playoff games and Price has 60.

 

[Andy007]

Carey Price has a career save percentage of .920. Just .002 better than Andersen and .005 better than Bernier.

Strictly speaking I'm not sure what point you're making here. We all know that Price had an inconsistent start to his career but we should look askew at SV% because he "only" has managed to put up the 5th best career SV% of all time?

Frederik Andersen has a better save percentage than Carey Price in the playoffs.

Yea those 5 games where Andersen put up a .947 SV% really make sample size irrelevant..

Andersen has 34 career playoff games and Price has 60.

No, no, there is one year of playoffs where Andersen played a total of 5 games for a .947 SV%. That skews his numbers a whole lot. Nevermind though, Nik's retort was way better.

 

[Kin]

At the very least you want a starting goalie who is at or better than the league average.

That depends on what your aims are. Personally, I tend to think that getting not very good goaltending last year from Bernier contributed quite a bit to the team getting Auston Matthews. I think Auston Matthews is a good player and adding players of his quality is more important to the future of the team than adding .006 to the #1 goalie's SV%

 

[herman]

STATS FIGHT

 

[Zee]

At the very least you want a starting goalie who is at or better than the league average.

That depends on what your aims are. Personally, I tend to think that getting not very good goaltending last year from Bernier contributed quite a bit to the team getting Auston Matthews. I think Auston Matthews is a good player and adding players of his quality is more important to the future of the team than adding .006 to the #1 goalie's SV%

Sure they could have rolled the dice, kept their draft pick and gone with Bernier, and possibly missed the playoffs again. The Leafs made the playoffs this season by 1 point.  Any lesser goaltending, even a difference of .003 that separated Andersen and Bernier, could have meant the Leafs just missed out on the playoffs.  So instead of the Leafs drafting 17th or 18th, they most likely would have been drafting 16th-10th spot (unless by fluke they won the lottery to get a top 3 pick).  I'm not sure what, if any difference you'll get in a player taken 10th vs. 18th.  You would still have the additional draft picks you gave up in the deal for Andersen, but they'd still be years away from impacting the team. 

This is the first year in Andersen's tenure with the Leafs and they've already made the playoffs, in a season where most expected they wouldn't have a chance at it.  Going on from here, the Leafs have to improve their roster, but they'll now be an expectation that this team can qualify for the playoffs, as they already shown they can.  Having a goalie in place that has gotten you there once gives you some confidence that repeating that success is possible.  I for one hope the Leafs can and will make the playoffs in each of the next 4 seasons that Andersen is under contract.  They'll have to address roster needs with smart trades, signings and development of players already in the system, and hopefully hit on some draft picks in the next few years.  You may not think the value of getting your team into the playoffs is worth much, but I for one think that when you start with a measure of success, it sets a standard for the group of young players to meet or exceed in future years.  This core has had a taste, and they'll want to improve upon that.  It sure beats what has gone on in Toronto for the better part of a decade.

 

[Kin]

Sure they could have rolled the dice, kept their draft pick and gone with Bernier, and possibly missed the playoffs again. The Leafs made the playoffs this season by 1 point.  Any lesser goaltending, even a difference of .003 that separated Andersen and Bernier, could have meant the Leafs just missed out on the playoffs.  So instead of the Leafs drafting 17th or 18th, they most likely would have been drafting 16th-10th spot (unless by fluke they won the lottery to get a top 3 pick).  I'm not sure what, if any difference you'll get in a player taken 10th vs. 18th.  You would still have the additional draft picks you gave up in the deal for Andersen, but they'd still be years away from impacting the team. 

There's a lot to say here. Higher draft picks being more likely to yield top tier players being a given, the erroneous assumption that late 1st and 2nd round picks are necessarily years away from being in the NHL(Sebastian Aho and David Pastrnak say what up), the ability to use those picks as assets to address more important areas...

But chiefly I'd focus on the fact that not making the Andersen trade isn't the only difference between what this management team did and what I'd do.

Because, honestly, I'm not going to get into an argument about which platitudes you believe in about winning attitudes and competitiveness.

 

[Kin]

I don't get this reasoning at all.  Solid goaltenders are hard to find and Andersen has proven to be that. 

Solid goaltenders aren't really that hard to find. They're hard to develop but the limited nature of #1 positions available vs. competent goaltenders in the world squeezes out available, competent guys on a near yearly basis. Look at St. Louis, Buffalo, Edmonton, Calgary, Tampa, San Jose...all have either had to deal with the reality of only being able to keep one legit goaltender around or have pounced on that fact to add a quality goalie.

With the expansion draft coming up and options on the free agent market, there's an excellent chance the Leafs, if they'd been patient could have added a solid goaltender this off-season at very little to no asset cost.

 

[Zee]

Sure they could have rolled the dice, kept their draft pick and gone with Bernier, and possibly missed the playoffs again. The Leafs made the playoffs this season by 1 point.  Any lesser goaltending, even a difference of .003 that separated Andersen and Bernier, could have meant the Leafs just missed out on the playoffs.  So instead of the Leafs drafting 17th or 18th, they most likely would have been drafting 16th-10th spot (unless by fluke they won the lottery to get a top 3 pick).  I'm not sure what, if any difference you'll get in a player taken 10th vs. 18th.  You would still have the additional draft picks you gave up in the deal for Andersen, but they'd still be years away from impacting the team. 

There's a lot to say here. Higher draft picks being more likely to yield top tier players being a given, the erroneous assumption that late 1st and 2nd round picks are necessarily years away from being in the NHL(Sebastian Aho and David Pastrnak say what up), the ability to use those picks as assets to address more important areas...

Giving examples of late draft picks that play earlier rather than later doesn't change the probability that lower picks usually take more time to develop.  Also, given what is being said about this year's draft class, there's little to no difference between players picked in the teens,  which is where the Leafs are currently picking, and probably would have still picked had they followed the no-Andersen route and just missed out on the playoffs.

I have more than a bit of faith in this management group after seeing how far the Leafs have gone in just 3 years of Shanahan calling the shots.  Whether you or I agree with each and every move made is insiginificant in the grand scheme of things.  Either this team will get on a trajectory and become a Cup contender or it won't.  From what I've seen so far, I believe they're on trajectory #1.

 

[Kin]

Giving examples of late draft picks that play earlier rather than later doesn't change the probability that lower picks usually take more time to develop.

Oh that's just such a duck. You didn't say "lower first round picks usually take time to develop". You said it definitively "they'd still be years away". Then when I say "not necessarily" all of a sudden you're about probabilities.

C'mon, man. At least be internally consistent.

  Also, given what is being said about this year's draft class, there's little to no difference between players picked in the teens,  which is where the Leafs are currently picking, and probably would have still picked had they followed the no-Andersen route and just missed out on the playoffs.

Outside of identifying elite top tier talent, the scouts who try to gauge the draft as a whole aren't any more scientific or better than the ones who make individual picks. You don't know the quality of players in this draft. Having a higher pick is better year to year regardless. 

Also, you're still pitching the bogus dichotomy that the only two places the Leafs could have finished this year is either just inside the playoffs or just outside of them. 

I have more than a bit of faith in this management group after seeing how far the Leafs have gone in just 3 years of Shanahan calling the shots. 

The difference is I think they're making bad long term moves for short term success to appease the sorts of fans who have such low expectations that they fall all over themselves with "faith" because the team squeaked into the playoffs. So the realization of that short term success doesn't mean much to me.

 

[Zee]

Giving examples of late draft picks that play earlier rather than later doesn't change the probability that lower picks usually take more time to develop.

Oh that's just such a duck. You didn't say "lower first round picks usually take time to develop". You said it definitively "they'd still be years away". Then when I say "not necessarily" all of a sudden you're about probabilities.

C'mon, man. At least be internally consistent.

  Also, given what is being said about this year's draft class, there's little to no difference between players picked in the teens,  which is where the Leafs are currently picking, and probably would have still picked had they followed the no-Andersen route and just missed out on the playoffs.

Outside of identifying elite top tier talent, the scouts who try to gauge the draft as a whole aren't any more scientific or better than the ones who make individual picks. You don't know the quality of players in this draft. Having a higher pick is better year to year regardless. 

Also, you're still pitching the bogus dichotomy that the only two places the Leafs could have finished this year is either just inside the playoffs or just outside of them. 

I have more than a bit of faith in this management group after seeing how far the Leafs have gone in just 3 years of Shanahan calling the shots. 

The difference is I think they're making bad long term moves for short term success to appease the sorts of fans who have such low expectations that they fall all over themselves with "faith" because the team squeaked into the playoffs. So the realization of that short term success doesn't mean much to me.

I'm not trying to duck anything good sir.  When I say "lower first round picks usually take time to develop" it means the same thing to me as "they'd still be years away".  What is development time if not years?


It's apparent we have vastly different opinions of the Leafs management move here.  I don't think acquiring Andersen was a "bad long term move" made for only short-term success.  The goal was and is to become a contending team and they're on the road to that end.  Management wasn't try to appease fans by getting Andersen and getting into the playoffs, they wanted to get competent goaltending that they felt could be here for the next 5 seasons while the young core develops into their prime years.  So far they're on the mark.

 

[Kin]

I'm not trying to duck anything good sir.  When I say "lower first round picks usually take time to develop" it means the same thing to me as "they'd still be years away".  What is development time if not years?

One's definitive, the other allows for the almost yearly, sometimes multiple exceptions.

It strikes me as incongruous to have so much faith in the sheer radiant brilliance of the team's front office but think they'd be as hapless as anyone else making draft picks.

It's apparent we have vastly different opinions of the Leafs management move here.  I don't think acquiring Andersen was a "bad long term move" made for only short-term success.

Sure, but only because you're someone who seems to believe the Underpants Gnomes business model is a really solid plan for improving the defense.

 

[Zee]

I'm not trying to duck anything good sir.  When I say "lower first round picks usually take time to develop" it means the same thing to me as "they'd still be years away".  What is development time if not years?

One's definitive, the other allows for the almost yearly, sometimes multiple exceptions.

It strikes me as incongruous to have so much faith in the sheer radiant brilliance of the team's front office but think they'd be as hapless as anyone else making draft picks.

It's apparent we have vastly different opinions of the Leafs management move here.  I don't think acquiring Andersen was a "bad long term move" made for only short-term success.

Sure, but only because you're someone who seems to believe the Underpants Gnomes business model is a really solid plan for improving the defense.

I have no idea why you're being snippy, and painting me as some delusional fan, but "Underpants Gnomes business model" doesn't sound very flattering.  I've been a Leafs fan all my life, and the current faith I have in management stems from the fact they have a plan to draft and develop and seem to be sticking to that plan, something I've never witnessed before in any Leafs era dating back 40 years of watching.  I trust management in so far as the results are there for the team, and so far, with Shanahan on board this team is on an upward trend.  They eliminated a bunch of older guys on the roster, drafted some high end talent, and inserted 8-9 rookies into the lineup this past season with great results.  It's not my job to scout and analyze every single player or draft pick that comes and goes onto the roster.  All I can do is watch the team, and see if progress is being made, and so far, this season represents the biggest progress the franchise has made in at least 15 years. 

I don't know what the management's plan is for improving the defense, but I'm sure they have a bunch of smart guys on the payroll to figure that out.  Maybe it comes from within, maybe it's a trade or a free agent signing.  Whatever it is, I can't sit here and criticize them for trading a couple of draft picks to get a solid goaltender after the season the team just had.

 

[Kin]

Whatever it is, I can't sit here and criticize them for trading a couple of draft picks to get a solid goaltender after the season the team just had.

Oh, see, I can. To me there's no inherent problem in testing everything they do against what I think is best practices. I can enjoy the goals Willy Nylander scores and still think Management is capable of bad decisions.

 

[Zee]

Whatever it is, I can't sit here and criticize them for trading a couple of draft picks to get a solid goaltender after the season the team just had.

Oh, see, I can. To me there's no inherent problem in testing everything they do against what I think is best practices. I can enjoy the goals Willy Nylander scores and still think Management is capable of bad decisions.

So short of Andersen winning a Cup here in Toronto in the next 4 years there's no way you'll ever admit they made a good move in acquiring him?

 

[Kin]

So short of Andersen winning a Cup here in Toronto in the next 4 years there's no way you'll ever admit they made a good move in acquiring him?

Well, "admit" makes it sound like I'm denying a fact. But I don't think it is one.

For me to agree that it was a good decision then the team would probably have to have a considerable amount of success with Andersen(which doesn't necessarily mean a cup but definitely involves them at least turning into a very serious contender) or for Andersen to turn into the type of elite goalie that isn't on the market fairly frequently.

Although even then you're raising the question of whether or not winning the lottery makes buying lottery tickets a good investment in retrospect.

 

[Bill_Berg]

There are many paths to winning a Cup. If you do win one, it's not because every move you made was the perfect move.

I agree that it wasn't the ideal move, even in retrospect, but that doesn't mean I think it was up there with Courtnall for Kordic.

 

[Guilt Trip]

With the expansion draft coming up and options on the free agent market, there's an excellent chance the Leafs, if they'd been patient could have added a solid goaltender this off-season at very little to no asset cost.

And the same can be done with players so that would make those picks given up for Andy a non factor seeing they can easily be replaced with actual NHL players, not prospects.