Thread: News Article: Puck Never Seems To Stop In Philly
View Single Post
05-05-2011, 03:20 PM
Registered User
Jester's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
My argument has actually always been both and always involved both:

A) That goaltending production is largely a team based stat (as evidenced by Leighton last year with plenty of other examples).
Holy terrible statistical argument Batman! Using a 25 game sample to make any sort of statistical argument doesn't even REMOTELY begin to pass the smell test. If you want to make that argument, start talking about Chris Osgood or something.

Of course, then you'd have the problem that Osgood put up numbers eerily similar to his Detroit numbers when he was outside the bubble. Funny, huh?

B) That because of (A), goaltending is a position that you are able to forgo some chunk of talent at (obviously not all as I have stated many times) in order to spend more money on skaters who both impact the goaltending production (see A) and skating production.
Skating production goes to complete and utter **** at the speed of light when your goalie sucks. It doesn't work the other way around, and you need to think about that.

A goalie, entirely on his own, can improve the fate of the rest of his team regardless of what they do... nothing any skater can do will save you if your goalie sucks.

Inductively, the goalie position is the ONLY position on the roster that can improve the value you get out of the rest of your roster. A good goalie makes EACH forward on your team better. A good goalie makes EACH defenseman on your team better.

Chris Pronger is a fantastic defenseman when he's healthy, but he only really improves your team for 25 minutes a night and whoever happens to be out there on the ice with him. Is the goalie "better" with Pronger out there? Yes... is Pronger much improved if you put a better goalie behind him? Yep. However, Pronger goes and sits on the bench for more than half the game. He only tangentially improves your roster at that point due to "depth" and limiting the QUALCOMP that other players have to be put up against.

Chris Pronger cannot make a **** goalie a good goalie. The Blackhawks proved that with merciless efficiency.

*C) Theoretically this implies that skaters, since they both effect the on-ice play and the goaltender's ability to do his job, are inherently more important to the overall game of hockey than goaltenders.

*Granted that does not imply that all individual skaters are more important to a team than goaltenders, though it does certainly imply that, through (B), there are examples (and possibly many examples) in which skaters are more valuable, especially for their cap hits, than goaltenders.
Look dude, we have a few problems here. The first is that you should clearly avoid using statistical and inductive arguments to make your point... because you routinely mess those up. You have NO answer to the problem I just posed to your argument, which I will now reiterate to be explicit.

1) A goalie, on his own, can make a crappy team competitive.

2) A goalie, on his own, can make a competitive team crappy.

3) #1 and #2 cannot be said about ANY skater that has ever played the sport of hockey.

EDIT: And the economics of the goalie position (and any position) are completely independent from an evaluation of the on-ice value of a player/position. Economics are driven by supply/demand, not the production level of a position. If everyone absolutely sucked at winning faceoffs, then then some dude who could barely play but was AWESOME at winning draws would have real value.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote