The Great Leafs Centennial Goaltending Debate

[herman]

I agree with you, except the implication of the bolded -- they gave a multiyear contract to a goalie they expect to be average? 

Perhaps that's not what you meant, though.

He has the 18th highest cap hit for goalies, making his contract relatively average for starting goalies. The Leafs knew what they were getting, and they certainly didn't expect him to suddenly become an elite goalie (nor did they pay him like one). They picked up a guy who they saw as a dependable, consistent option to start in net - one that won't cost you many games, but may not win you many on his own, either - who is still fairly young. The price - both in terms of assets and in terms of contract - is what those guys go for these days.

The multi-year aspect of the contract, I believe, was also in the name of stability. You can't trot out a two-year guy and hope that the team doesn't bail on him after he has a stretch of bad outings that nerfed their efforts up front.

Babcock's remarks place the responsibility for keeping the goals out in the skaters' hands, collectively. Goalie takes the shooter, everyone else makes sure there is no one to pass to. It's pretty obvious in the way we've played 2-on-1s with the exaggerated take out of the pass option.

Barring injury, Andersen's performance floor is making fair value on the 5M. He has the potential to out perform his contract.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

I know this market needs to fill a certain amount of air, but Andersen has played 4 games, can someone please get them to relax a bit?

There is so much to be hopeful about, this whole debate is such horseshit.

 

[bustaheims]

Babcock's remarks place the responsibility for keeping the goals out in the skaters' hands, collectively. Goalie takes the shooter, everyone else makes sure there is no one to pass to. It's pretty obvious in the way we've played 2-on-1s with the exaggerated take out of the pass option.

Yeah, and that's the thing people like to ignore - usually, if someone is at fault for a goal, it's a skater, not the goalie.

 

[ZBBM]

I agree with you, except the implication of the bolded -- they gave a multiyear contract to a goalie they expect to be average? 

Perhaps that's not what you meant, though.

He has the 18th highest cap hit for goalies, making his contract relatively average for starting goalies. The Leafs knew what they were getting, and they certainly didn't expect him to suddenly become an elite goalie (nor did they pay him like one). They picked up a guy who they saw as a dependable, consistent option to start in net - one that won't cost you many games, but may not win you many on his own, either - who is still fairly young. The price - both in terms of assets and in terms of contract - is what those guys go for these days.

I won't bother to argue price but no way did they have to give him that many years if all they expected was average.  Also, those years he's under contract are prime years for the high draft picks.  If they felt he was just average, they could have picked up somebody for 2 years (say).

 

[mr grieves]

The trade was largely predicated on the Leafs liking Andersen as a fit for the goalie analytics they've been convinced are models for success.

Andersen's contract is more in line with a league average goalie actually.

5 games (4 for Andersen) is really about 6% of Andersen's season. There is plenty of time to figure things out. This whole season is also really the first year of the build so lots of wonky things are to be expected.

I agree with you, except the implication of the bolded -- they gave a multiyear contract to a goalie they expect to be average? 

Perhaps that's not what you meant, though.

What's wrong with league average goaltending?  I think sometimes people talk about that as if average = bad.  It's not like the last 10 years of Stanley Cup champions are littered with elite goaltenders.

Aren't the last 10 years of championship teams often backstopped by young guys getting hot and over performing, getting paid, and then falling back to average goaltending, thereby causing all sorts of cap havoc? I can't think of too many who provided value after the Cup win.

 

[Kin]

Aren't the last 10 years of championship teams often backstopped by young guys getting hot and over performing, getting paid, and then falling back to average goaltending, thereby causing all sorts of cap havoc? I can't think of too many who provided value after the Cup win.

Tough to see how that would apply to Crawford, Thomas, Osgood or Giguere and the jury is still out on Murray. Quick and Fleury might fit that although how much "cap havoc" they caused when their teams followed it up with another cup win is debatable. That sort of fits Niemi, I guess, but Chicago didn't bring him back and went on to win two more so...no?

 

[mr grieves]

Aren't the last 10 years of championship teams often backstopped by young guys getting hot and over performing, getting paid, and then falling back to average goaltending, thereby causing all sorts of cap havoc? I can't think of too many who provided value after the Cup win.

Tough to see how that would apply to Crawford, Thomas, Osgood or Giguere and the jury is still out on Murray. Quick and Fleury might fit that although how much "cap havoc" they caused when their teams followed it up with another cup win is debatable. That sort of fits Niemi, I guess, but Chicago didn't bring him back and went on to win two more so...no?

Yeah, I had Crawford, Quick, and Fleury in mind when I wrote that. Ward too, I guess. I don't think any of those teams would be worse off had they let the Cup winner walk, found a replacement (goal is a buyer's market), and kept their useful depth by avoiding reward contracts (LAK and CHI obviously have some beyond the goaltenders).

Back to the point of the thread:

"It hasn't gone as good as he would like it to go," Babcock said. "(But) we're very confident in his ability. We did a lot of work in advance to know what he's capable of doing. He's done it for three years straight."

Clearly, there's a lot of in-house statistical analysis behind the trade and signing. Mirtle et al have guess they found some aspect of his performance that aligns well with their system... For example, he's big and can move, so have him play aggressive, system eliminates E-W passes, and -- boom -- perfect goalie for Babcock hockey!

Unfortunately, the team isn't executing the system particularly well, and Andersen is obviously looking uncertain and shaky in net. Will be interesting to see, as the season progresses, whether (a) he can adjust to what they're coaching him to do, (b) whether he improves as they work in defensemen better able to execute the system and/or respond when it breaks down, and (c) whether the rookies' getting better at playing without the puck improves Andersen's performance.

 

[Kin]

Yeah, I had Crawford, Quick, and Fleury in mind when I wrote that. Ward too, I guess. I don't think any of those teams would be worse off had they let the Cup winner walk, found a replacement (goal is a buyer's market), and kept their useful depth by avoiding reward contracts (LAK and CHI obviously have some beyond the goaltenders).

I don't know if I'd agree that goal is necessarily a buyer's market. I agree that the relative number of goaltenders vs. positions for goaltenders in the league makes it so that more of them are floating around but it's hard to look at the approach you're advocating as one with much in the way of success. Teams that were successful with a "Whatever, we'll just find a goalie out there" strategy are pretty limited, with really only Detroit with Osgood and Boston with Thomas(and I think we'd agree that his late career renaissance was pretty unusual) on the list of Cup winners.

There's so much volatility in most goaltenders' performances from year to year that I think there's a real value in someone like Crawford who, while not spectacular, has pretty consistently delivered above average goaltending both in the regular season and playoffs. Conversely I think there are a lot of teams like Dallas or the Islanders who have tried to put together quality goaltending via the market and have really struggled to do so on the cheap.

Unfortunately, the team isn't executing the system particularly well, and Andersen is obviously looking uncertain and shaky in net. Will be interesting to see, as the season progresses, whether (a) he can adjust to what they're coaching him to do, (b) whether he improves as they work in defensemen better able to execute the system and/or respond when it breaks down, and (c) whether the rookies' getting better at playing without the puck improves Andersen's performance.

One of the things that I guess I have to come back to is, as someone who really thought the team probably needed another year of a bottom five finish, I don't really look at these early struggles as being all that unfortunate. A lot of your focus on Andersen seems to be based around what expectations you think his contract/trade price set for him within the organization but I still don't know that his contract really says that whatever the Leafs wanted out of him, they wanted immediately.

 

[Arn]

I love this article

https://www.thestar.com/sports/breakaway_blog/2016/10/what-s-wrong-with-frederik-andersen-.html

Mainly cos of the last line and the irony.

"Andersen, to be sure, will face scrutiny in Toronto like he never did in Anaheim."

 

[TBLeafer]

Well, we got our first 1 OA pick since Wendel Clark and we've rewarded him with giving him Wregget/Bester level goaltending, too.  Literally.

[tweet]791122114807988224[/tweet]

 

[LuncheonMeat]

Another way to look at it might be, the Leafs picked up a starting goaltender and 'rewarded' him with arguably the worst defense in the league.

 

[TBLeafer]

Disagree.  When you handily outshoot a team 43-24, you are doing a decent job defensively of limiting opportunities.

You need to be able to rely on your goalie to do his job on the ones that do get through.

Andersen isn't doing his job at an NHL level right now, despite what some posters say to the contrary.

Tampa had a lot more defensive breakdowns than Toronto did last night.  But Bishop stood tall, like an NHL goalie should be expected to.

 

[McGarnagle]

Disagree.  When you handily outshoot a team 43-24, you are doing a decent job defensively of limiting opportunities.

I'm not sure if that's true. I've seen plenty of games where a team was dominated in terms of high quality scoring opportunities and possession, and there isn't a direct correlation in terms of SOG.

 

[rdowdall]

Disagree.  When you handily outshoot a team 43-24, you are doing a decent job defensively of limiting opportunities.

You need to be able to rely on your goalie to do his job on the ones that do get through.

Andersen isn't doing his job at an NHL level right now, despite what some posters say to the contrary.

Tampa had a lot more defensive breakdowns than Toronto did last night.  But Bishop stood tall, like an NHL goalie should be expected to.

I will agree that Bishop played well and better than Andersen.  However, I don't think you can just look at the shot totals and say whether or not a team played well defensively.  The two Stamkos goals in the first period are examples of the team breaking down defensively and allowing one of the most dangerous scorers in the game time and space to do what he wants to do.  If there is someone playing Stamkos a little tighter on both of those shots, then he probably still gets the shot off, but maybe not the one that he wants to take. 

 

[Redleaf]

Disagree.  When you handily outshoot a team 43-24, you are doing a decent job defensively of limiting opportunities.

You need to be able to rely on your goalie to do his job on the ones that do get through.

Andersen isn't doing his job at an NHL level right now, despite what some posters say to the contrary.

Tampa had a lot more defensive breakdowns than Toronto did last night.  But Bishop stood tall, like an NHL goalie should be expected to.

I totally agree he's not doing his job well enough 'right now'. I guess the difference between us is, I'm willing to give him a little more rope, while your already using what we have to string him up with.

If he's still playing like this after 15 games, lets say, then yes, we have a goaltending problem.

 

[TBLeafer]

Disagree.  When you handily outshoot a team 43-24, you are doing a decent job defensively of limiting opportunities.

You need to be able to rely on your goalie to do his job on the ones that do get through.

Andersen isn't doing his job at an NHL level right now, despite what some posters say to the contrary.

Tampa had a lot more defensive breakdowns than Toronto did last night.  But Bishop stood tall, like an NHL goalie should be expected to.

I totally agree he's not doing his job well enough 'right now'. I guess the difference between us is, I'm willing to give him a little more rope, while your already using what we have to string him up with.

If he's still playing like this after 15 games, lets say, then yes, we have a goaltending problem.

I'm not stringing him up at all.  I'm saying he has to play better.  He does, doesn't he?  Or would you just prefer to continue to make excuses for him on a nightly basis?

 

[TBLeafer]

Disagree.  When you handily outshoot a team 43-24, you are doing a decent job defensively of limiting opportunities.

You need to be able to rely on your goalie to do his job on the ones that do get through.

Andersen isn't doing his job at an NHL level right now, despite what some posters say to the contrary.

Tampa had a lot more defensive breakdowns than Toronto did last night.  But Bishop stood tall, like an NHL goalie should be expected to.

I will agree that Bishop played well and better than Andersen.  However, I don't think you can just look at the shot totals and say whether or not a team played well defensively.  The two Stamkos goals in the first period are examples of the team breaking down defensively and allowing one of the most dangerous scorers in the game time and space to do what he wants to do.  If there is someone playing Stamkos a little tighter on both of those shots, then he probably still gets the shot off, but maybe not the one that he wants to take.

Agree he didn't have the proper pressure on those particular shots.  Andersen's high glove is still very weak right now, regardless.  Even after those high glove goals got by him, he shows us that either he isn't completely over his shoulder injury, or his trapper weighs 50 lbs.

 

[Redleaf]

Disagree.  When you handily outshoot a team 43-24, you are doing a decent job defensively of limiting opportunities.

You need to be able to rely on your goalie to do his job on the ones that do get through.

Andersen isn't doing his job at an NHL level right now, despite what some posters say to the contrary.

Tampa had a lot more defensive breakdowns than Toronto did last night.  But Bishop stood tall, like an NHL goalie should be expected to.

I totally agree he's not doing his job well enough 'right now'. I guess the difference between us is, I'm willing to give him a little more rope, while your already using what we have to string him up with.

If he's still playing like this after 15 games, lets say, then yes, we have a goaltending problem.

I'm not stringing him up at all.  I'm saying he has to play better.  He does, doesn't he?  Or would you just prefer to continue to make excuses for him on a nightly basis?

In one post I laid out some of the reasons why goaltenders go into slumps. Not sure who you think is making excuses for him on a nightly basis? We can agree he needs to get better. You're the one who keeps reposting the same remarks after every loss, seemingly without listening to some other people's suggestions to be a little more patient with this process.

 

[TBLeafer]

Disagree.  When you handily outshoot a team 43-24, you are doing a decent job defensively of limiting opportunities.

You need to be able to rely on your goalie to do his job on the ones that do get through.

Andersen isn't doing his job at an NHL level right now, despite what some posters say to the contrary.

Tampa had a lot more defensive breakdowns than Toronto did last night.  But Bishop stood tall, like an NHL goalie should be expected to.

I totally agree he's not doing his job well enough 'right now'. I guess the difference between us is, I'm willing to give him a little more rope, while your already using what we have to string him up with.

If he's still playing like this after 15 games, lets say, then yes, we have a goaltending problem.

I'm not stringing him up at all.  I'm saying he has to play better.  He does, doesn't he?  Or would you just prefer to continue to make excuses for him on a nightly basis?

In one post I laid out some of the reasons why goaltenders go into slumps. Not sure who you think is making excuses for him on a nightly basis? We can agree he needs to get better. You're the one who keeps reposting the same remarks after every loss, seemingly without listening to some other people's suggestions to be a little more patient with this process.

Understood and yes there are defensive lapses.  That is no different than any team we've played thus far.  Look at Montreal last season without Price.  Right now the only thing that glaringly stands out as not up to par compared to other teams is our goaltending and only our goaltending.

We are generating offence and have a possession % near the top of the league.  We are very much suppressing chances against, overall.  When we get the majority of the scoring chances and the other team's goalies show far better than ours and can be relied on to stop it far more frequently, root cause for loss is established.

.850 SV % isn't even at the level of a replacement NHL goalie right now and until that changes, Andersen has to own it.

If we were losing games with Andersen posting a .915 SV % I wouldn't be so quick to place the losses on his shoulders. 

 

[Tigger]

Team defence is a fairly substantial issue right now.