View Single Post
08-14-2012, 04:32 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,295
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by mindmasher View Post
Well Taco, it's funny you bring this up. I think there are a lot of smart people - Dejardins and Dellow for instance - who have argued repeatedly that unless you are getting an elite level goalie, save your money because performance variations amongst middle tier goalies is negligible.

In other words, goaltenders are very important, but tend to be very close in ability. Therefore unless you have a bead on a Tim Thomas type, you should be spending small dollars on a couple of capable NHL starters who simply don't have many teams to play for.

In another way, goaltenders can also be a considerable source of lost points on a team if you deign to start a guy who is performing considerably below replacement level.

So yes, ultimately, goaltenders have little value in that there are a lot of good cheap options. You see some GM's following this principle closely. Detroit, Chicago, Avs, Philly, Phx, etc.
Well this statement (which I think we both believe to be true) goes along with my argument against GVT. You also note that those teams you've mentioned all seem to have good D corps (CHI, DET, PHI-when Pronger was there) or good D systems (PHX).

Standard deviation of GVT among goaltenders was over 10 last year. This either indicates there is a huge divide between goaltending talent or that GVT is improperly valuing goaltenders. Forwards and D men GVT show a standard deviation of around 5-4 respectively.

I still think GVT is probably the best show out there currently, but this one flaw is pretty large IMO. It only needs tweaked to "fix" it.

Here is the GVT for last year only, but I've found the results to be similar year after year

Just examine defenders to goaltenders to see how seemingly different the populations are. This is not to be expected for an adjusted metric.

wgknestrick is offline   Reply With Quote