The Great Leafs Centennial Goaltending Debate

[bustaheims]

Team defence is a fairly substantial issue right now.

Very much so. Also, in terms of some of the numbers being used, sample size is a significant impediment to them providing much weight.

 

[TBLeafer]

Team defence is a fairly substantial issue right now.

I'd more limit that ATM to Hunwick and whatever unlucky young Leaf he has to "teach" that goes out with him. 

 

[mr grieves]

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.

Well, on the first goal, Hunwick got the shot off... But agreed that someone pressuring Stamkos more would've made the 'high danger' save a bit more likely. Still, Stamkos scores 40 goals/yr because he's able to find space and doesn't need much time to get such shots away.

And those defending Freddie have pointed out that the case against him is built on a very small sample (5 games). Not sure it's a good faith argument to shrink that sample smaller still to suggest the team's more at fault than Andersen.

It's not just that Andersen didn't play as well as Bishop. He played poorly. And he has since the start of the season. That's not to say Andersen's a bad goalie (career numbers mean something), but his performance this season has not been good.

 

[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.

Well, on the first goal, Hunwick got the shot off... But agreed that someone pressuring Stamkos more would've made the 'high danger' save a bit more likely. Still, Stamkos scores 40 goals/yr because he's able to find space and doesn't need much time to get such shots away.

And those defending Freddie have pointed out that the case against him is built on a very small sample (5 games). Not sure it's a good faith argument to shrink that sample smaller still to suggest the team's more at fault than Andersen.

It's not just that Andersen didn't play as well as Bishop. He played poorly. And he has since the start of the season. That's not to say Andersen's a bad goalie (career numbers mean something), but his performance this season has not been good.

Here's the thing.  On a team with a good defence, Andersen did fine.  The Leafs don't have a good defence, so he looks bad.  So is he a great goalie, like Lundqvist, or Price, who can cover the mistakes of a bad defence?  No.  Is he an adequate goalie where if you put a good defence in front of him he will not lose games for you?  Probably.  That's just what he is. 

The fact that the Leafs traded for him and signed him does not change what he is.  It also does not change what will probably happen to the Leafs this year.  So for me it makes more sense to question why the Leafs made the deal for him, rather than question what Andersen is as a goalie. 

 

[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.

Well, on the first goal, Hunwick got the shot off... But agreed that someone pressuring Stamkos more would've made the 'high danger' save a bit more likely. Still, Stamkos scores 40 goals/yr because he's able to find space and doesn't need much time to get such shots away.

And those defending Freddie have pointed out that the case against him is built on a very small sample (5 games). Not sure it's a good faith argument to shrink that sample smaller still to suggest the team's more at fault than Andersen.

It's not just that Andersen didn't play as well as Bishop. He played poorly. And he has since the start of the season. That's not to say Andersen's a bad goalie (career numbers mean something), but his performance this season has not been good.

Here's the thing.  On a team with a good defence, Andersen did fine.  The Leafs don't have a good defence, so he looks bad.  So is he a great goalie, like Lundqvist, or Price, who can cover the mistakes of a bad defence?  No.  Is he an adequate goalie where if you put a good defence in front of him he will not lose games for you?  Probably.  That's just what he is. 

The fact that the Leafs traded for him and signed him does not change what he is.  It also does not change what will probably happen to the Leafs this year.  So for me it makes more sense to question why the Leafs made the deal for him, rather than question what Andersen is as a goalie.

They don't have that bad a defence, either, when the resultant stats tell you the Leafs beat Tampa all over the ice, in every category, except goaltending and final score and PP %.

Yes its a team game, but Bishop had to come up big, due to Tampa's defensive lapses way more than Andersen.

We nearly doubled up on the Lightning on both shots (43/24) and faceoffs (65%/35%), we outhit (26/22), didn't give away the puck as much (10/11) and had a better shot block % even, (.375/302).  Those are all representative of a team that by all other accounts, should be winning its games.

 

[Tigger]

Team defence is a fairly substantial issue right now.

I'd more limit that ATM to Hunwick and whatever unlucky young Leaf he has to "teach" that goes out with him. 

Yeah that doesn't wash. The team as a whole is not playing well defensively, and while fred can be better, they sure aren't a hunwick away from becoming sound on d.

 

[TBLeafer]

See above post.  Citing that they're bad defensively is just a scapegoat for Andersen, because the teams they've played against have had more defensive breakdowns than them, but their goalies have been better.

 

[Tigger]

See above post.  Citing that they're bad defensively is just a scapegoat for Andersen, because the teams they've played against have had more defensive breakdowns than them, but their goalies have been better.

Other teams defensive play isn't the issue.

 

[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.

Well, on the first goal, Hunwick got the shot off... But agreed that someone pressuring Stamkos more would've made the 'high danger' save a bit more likely. Still, Stamkos scores 40 goals/yr because he's able to find space and doesn't need much time to get such shots away.

And those defending Freddie have pointed out that the case against him is built on a very small sample (5 games). Not sure it's a good faith argument to shrink that sample smaller still to suggest the team's more at fault than Andersen.

It's not just that Andersen didn't play as well as Bishop. He played poorly. And he has since the start of the season. That's not to say Andersen's a bad goalie (career numbers mean something), but his performance this season has not been good.

Here's the thing.  On a team with a good defence, Andersen did fine.  The Leafs don't have a good defence, so he looks bad.  So is he a great goalie, like Lundqvist, or Price, who can cover the mistakes of a bad defence?  No.  Is he an adequate goalie where if you put a good defence in front of him he will not lose games for you?  Probably.  That's just what he is. 

The fact that the Leafs traded for him and signed him does not change what he is.  It also does not change what will probably happen to the Leafs this year.  So for me it makes more sense to question why the Leafs made the deal for him, rather than question what Andersen is as a goalie.

They don't have that bad a defence, either, when the resultant stats tell you the Leafs beat Tampa all over the ice, in every category, except goaltending and final score and PP %.

Yes its a team game, but Bishop had to come up big, due to Tampa's defensive lapses way more than Andersen.

We nearly doubled up on the Lightning on both shots (43/24) and faceoffs (65%/35%), we outhit (26/22), didn't give away the puck as much (10/11) and had a better shot block % even, (.375/302).  Those are all representative of a team that by all other accounts, should be winning its games.

You are missing the point.  In that very paragraph above you are state that Andersen isn't good because he isn't able to perform like Ben Bishop.  At no point has anyone said that Andersen is as good as Ben Bishop.  The fact that Tampa didn't play well last night defensively doesn't mean that the Leafs did.  It's possible that neither team played well defensively, which is a credit to the Leafs ability to generate offense.  Bishop is a Vezina candidate and a top 5 goalie in the league.  Andersen is neither of those things.

The problem is that the Leafs defence makes mistakes, and Andersen can't cover for those mistakes.  He's not a goalie who can do that.  He is not a goalie that is going to cover up bad mistakes by the defence.  The difference between the Leafs and Tampa is that Tampa had a bad game last night and Bishop bailed them out.  The Tampa team though has had some great defensive performances so far this year.  I attribute their poor defence last night to thinking that the Leafs would be easy fodder.

The Leafs have only had one good defensive performance this year.  The game against Boston.  And in that game Andersen only gave up one goal.  The other games, they get trapped in their own zone for long periods of time unable to get it out, or leave players uncovered, or allow odd man rushes.  When those happen, then Andersen looks bad.  When the other team pushes the pace, the Leafs can't stop them.     

 

[pnjunction]

https://www.reddit.com/r/leafs/comments/595p7u/analysis_of_frederik_andersens_playstyle_and_why/

A surprisingly high quality analysis.

If playing aggressively in net does this to a goalie then why should the leafs continue to tell Andersen to play like that?
Watch enough clips of the leafs defending a rush this year and you?ll start to understand. Although the number of games is small it appears that Babcock?s expectation is that the defense and center should be responsible for any pucks moving laterally on the ice. The defense and the center, if doing their jobs correctly, should restrict any quality shots from coming across ice on the rush. On defensive zone play it?s the wingers jobs to stop passing and shooting from the defensemen while the center covers the slot for any cross ice movement deeper in the zone.

The change in Andersen?s style appears to be something which Babcock and Briere want to match the team?s defensive system. Andersen?s job is simple and clear. Worry about the puck carrier first and foremost. If the pass makes it across the ice then it was a defensive error and can?t be blamed on the goaltender. If Babcock were annoyed by Andersen?s aggressively play while consistently being scored on from cross ice passes then he wouldn't be blaming his defensive corps in post game interviews while confirming that he is happy with the goaltending.
Babcock has high expectations of his defensemen. They have to be extremely responsible and positionally sound. In his mind, there is no reason the goaltender can?t commit fully to the puck carrier.

Does this not sound just plain awful to anyone else?  Teams are very good at picking this apart with passes that you're never going to stop every time, bounces off the back boards, deflections, slap passes, etc.  I'm no expert but this sounds like a recipe for getting lit up most of the time.  D to D passes, shots that get around the wingers and bounce around and so on seem inevitable to me.

I guess for what it's worth Babcock claims they are not messing with his style.  Not sure I buy it though, seems like people familiar with Andersen see a difference and I have hardly seen a goalie play so far out since Cechmanek beat the Leafs that way in the playoffs way back when (and then got lit up next series because it's not really a hard strategy to counter).

If it's true I guess it explains why most of what they had to say about Andersen was "he's big" if what they actually expect is that he'll be a statue that follows the puck while the defense plays perfectly to avoid good chances.

 

[Kin]

I think anyone using shot totals as evidence that the Leafs played a solid defensive game last night should probably think a little bit about the way score factors into that. Last night is the first game the Leafs got behind early on and, as a result, the first time the other team didn't really have to press. In their previous games when scoring first, and in a lot of cases building decent leads, they haven't really proven an ability to suppress shot totals in the latter two periods. They gave up 25 shots in the 2nd and 3rd vs. the Blackhawks, 22 vs. the Wild and 23 vs. the Jets. They were better against Boston(16) and Ottawa(also 16).

So I think if you look at it like that, the only games where the Leafs were trying to really clamp down on the other team and succeeded are A) the game they won and B) the one game where I think Andersen was probably at his worst.

Last night, the Leafs had a fairly low SA but that's mainly because of a 2nd period where they only allowed 6 shots but were down 4-0 for most of it. I watched most of that second period and I'd be hardpressed to say it was a case where the Leafs dominated play as opposed to Tampa sitting back on it. When the Leafs got back into it, it sort of seemed like Tampa came back to life and snuffed it out pretty quickly.

 

[sickbeast]

If Andersen continues to play badly it will be good for the tank. If the Leafs get another player like Auston Matthews it will soften the blow. So really it's a win-win situation if you look at it that way. If he tanks this year and then figures it out next year that's even better imo.

 

[ZBBM]

I think anyone using shot totals as evidence that the Leafs played a solid defensive game last night should probably think a little bit about the way score factors into that. Last night is the first game the Leafs got behind early on and, as a result, the first time the other team didn't really have to press. In their previous games when scoring first, and in a lot of cases building decent leads, they haven't really proven an ability to suppress shot totals in the latter two periods. They gave up 25 shots in the 2nd and 3rd vs. the Blackhawks, 22 vs. the Wild and 23 vs. the Jets. They were better against Boston(16) and Ottawa(also 16).

So I think if you look at it like that, the only games where the Leafs were trying to really clamp down on the other team and succeeded are A) the game they won and B) the one game where I think Andersen was probably at his worst.

Last night, the Leafs had a fairly low SA but that's mainly because of a 2nd period where they only allowed 6 shots but were down 4-0 for most of it. I watched most of that second period and I'd be hardpressed to say it was a case where the Leafs dominated play as opposed to Tampa sitting back on it. When the Leafs got back into it, it sort of seemed like Tampa came back to life and snuffed it out pretty quickly.

Good analysis. The context of the game  is a big part of how you should assess any single stat.

 

[mr grieves]

If Andersen continues to play badly it will be good for the tank. If the Leafs get another player like Auston Matthews it will soften the blow. So really it's a win-win situation if you look at it that way. If he tanks this year and then figures it out next year that's even better imo.

If they can't crawl out of the basement because of garbage goaltending and a terrible defense, then draft yet another elite forward at the top of the draft, they will have become the Edmonton Oilers.

 

[LuncheonMeat]

If Andersen continues to play badly it will be good for the tank. If the Leafs get another player like Auston Matthews it will soften the blow. So really it's a win-win situation if you look at it that way. If he tanks this year and then figures it out next year that's even better imo.

If they can't crawl out of the basement because of garbage goaltending and a terrible defense, then draft yet another elite forward at the top of the draft, they will have become the Edmonton Oilers.

Well, at least the Hindeburg.

 

[Kin]

If they can't crawl out of the basement because of garbage goaltending and a terrible defense, then draft yet another elite forward at the top of the draft, they will have become the Edmonton Oilers.

I don't know if I agree with that. For one thing, I think most of us would agree that Rielly-Gardiner-Zaitsev, whatever their faults, are a better base than Edmonton had. For another, I think too often people focus on Edmonton's bunching of forwards without really looking at how good those forwards were.

Edmonton's first run of 3 #1 overall picks + Eberle didn't really yield what I think a top team needs, which is two really good forward lines. That's not to say two forward lines that have good pieces on it but, rather, two lines that are individually really good. So unlike Chicago who could throw the Toews-Hossa line out and then the Kane-Sharp one or how LA could go with Kopitar-Brown-Williams and then the Carter line Edmonton, after those three first round picks could, at best, go with something like:

Hall-RNH-Eberle
????-Gagner-Yakupov

That's a good top line, although lacking in real high end stardom, but a pretty terrible 2nd line. Even with all of those guys developed it doesn't look very good. Right now I'm kind of concerned the Leafs are facing the same problem. Right now it looks like going forward the Leafs will be able to go with:

xxx-Matthews-Nylander
xxx-Kadri-Marner

Now, I think Matthews-Nylander are showing us they can be the basis for a really terrific top line but the second line? I've so far been pretty impressed with Marner but I've kind of been a little disappointed with Kadri. I think he's looked good in isolation but really looking forward I think we have to ask what sort of evidence he's shown that he can play at the level of some of the really good 2nd C's in the league. On par with guys who have made Olympic teams like Carter or Sharp or Couture.

Right now Edmonton looks pretty good because with McDavid and Draisaitl and a really good group of wingers they can put together two real killer lines which is a huge departure from them in the past. On the other hand their defense still looks fairly unimpressive.

So, yeah, of course a top flight defensive prospect would be a huge addition to the Leafs right now. But realistically the Leafs might not be in a position to draft one in June and I don't think the Leafs are so set up front that you could just ignore someone who could step into that #2 C role and give the Leafs the same sort of balance that the top teams tend to have.

 

[mr grieves]

If they can't crawl out of the basement because of garbage goaltending and a terrible defense, then draft yet another elite forward at the top of the draft, they will have become the Edmonton Oilers.

I don't know if I agree with that. For one thing, I think most of us would agree that Rielly-Gardiner-Zaitsev, whatever their faults, are a better base than Edmonton had. For another, I think too often people focus on Edmonton's bunching of forwards without really looking at how good those forwards were.

Yeah, my point was that it's really unlikely the Leafs are in a position to draft 2nd in June 2017. But I hadn't considered the comparison of forwards.

Right now I'm kind of concerned the Leafs are facing the same problem. Right now it looks like going forward the Leafs will be able to go with:

xxx-Matthews-Nylander
xxx-Kadri-Marner

Now, I think Matthews-Nylander are showing us they can be the basis for a really terrific top line but the second line? I've so far been pretty impressed with Marner but I've kind of been a little disappointed with Kadri. I think he's looked good in isolation but really looking forward I think we have to ask what sort of evidence he's shown that he can play at the level of some of the really good 2nd C's in the league. On par with guys who have made Olympic teams like Carter or Sharp or Couture.

Huh. Notwithstanding the early chemistry of Matthews and Nylander, I think the latter is just on the wing for this season, being eased into the NHL center role. So, I'm expecting the future to look:

xxx - Matthews - Marner
xxx - Nylander - xxx
xxx - Kadri - xxx

Who fills out the wings is hard to say. But they've certainly drafted enough guys to give them options (Hyman, Brown, Kapanen, Leipsic, Soshnikov, Johnsson, Rychel, and that excludes JvR, this year's draft, and UFAs). 

 

[Kin]

Yeah, my point was that it's really unlikely the Leafs are in a position to draft 2nd in June 2017.

I will take your word for that but I do not see how that is what you said.

Huh. Notwithstanding the early chemistry of Matthews and Nylander, I think the latter is just on the wing for this season, being eased into the NHL center role. So, I'm expecting the future to look:

xxx - Matthews - Marner
xxx - Nylander - xxx
xxx - Kadri - xxx

Who fills out the wings is hard to say. But they've certainly drafted enough guys to give them options (Hyman, Brown, Kapanen, Leipsic, Soshnikov, Johnsson, Rychel, and that excludes JvR, this year's draft, and UFAs).

My general point was just that the Leafs really don't look like they're at a point where an elite forward, or drafting for one, is superfluous. I agree they have some internal options who very well might be good players or solid contributors but in terms of that 25-30 goal, 60+ point sort of not-quite-elite but maybe legit All-Star sort of guy that's probably a tall order from anyone in the system right now. I agree that, if the Leafs are in a position to pick between someone with that potential and the potential to be a real #1 defenseman the latter is more of a need but I think realistically the Leafs will have to address both spots at some point.

 

[TBLeafer]

How about Andersen just makes it a point to get to league average play.  In fact anything over .900 and the Leafs have the scoring power to win most of its games.

If you can't hold teams to 3 goals or less on a regular basis, regardless of team defence, you are not an NHL goalie.  I still believe Andersen to be an NHL goalie and its high time he gets out of his funk.

 

[Kin]

Something to keep in mind re: the team's "scoring power" is that aside from the Kid line right now things actually have been kind of grim. The team's scored 21 goals in 6 games, or 3.5 a game, but just under half of those goals have only come from Matthews and Nylander. When those two come back to earth a little bit one of the other lines is really going to have to step it up.