HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Buffalo Sabres
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Enough already! The Detroit goaltending "model" is a myth.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-06-2011, 03:51 AM
  #1
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 34,271
vCash: 500
The Detroit goaltending "model" has always been a myth.

They've never gone into a season paying their starting goalie peanuts and won the Cup. Their last two Cup wins (01-02 and 07-08) they paid Hasek 9mil and 4mil respectively to be their starter. Hasek was the man in 01-02 but in 07-08, like Huet with the Hawks, he lost his starting job to a less expensive backup.

But the bottom line is the Wings have NEVER spent peanuts on goalies and won a Cup.


Its also a myth that over the years they've just plugged in Osgood and won Cups. Or that over the years Osgood has been cheap starter for them and part of some goaltending "model" they've had for years to win Cups.

Osgood has only once come into the season (97-98) as their undisputed #1 goalie that they rode all year won the Cup. That was back when he was a young (24yr old) promising goalie that had been mentored by Mike Vernon. They guy who back stopped the Wings to the Cup the season before (96-97).

The next 3 seasons as their starter, making starter money for the time (1.9mil, 2.2mil and 3.5mil), the Wings were knocked out in the 2nd round, 2nd round and in 1st round respectively. The Wings felt he wasn't going to get it done so they replaced him and his 3.5mil salary with Hasek and his 9mil salary. Hardly the actions of team that looks to spend peanuts on goaltending. Osgood went to the Isles.

Osgood struggled away from Detroit in the seasons leading up to the lockout. Post lockout Osgood returned to the Wings as their backup goalie for the first 3 seasons after the lockout (even played 2gms in AHL in the 05-06 season). He was compensated accordingly (about 850k). The starters coming into those 3 seasons were Legace, Hasek and Hasek.

Detroit gambled in 06-07 bringing in a 41yr old Hasek for the 06-07 season after they were knocked out the year before in the first round. But they felt , even at that age, he was a better option than Osgood. Hasek got them to the 3rd round that year. So in the summer 2007, with Hasek going to be 42yrs old, he was brought back to be the starter for the 07-08 season with a 4mil deal (2mil salary/2mil bonus). Taking a 4mil gamble on a 42yr old starter is also hardly the actions of a team looking to be cheap on their goalies. Osgood was the backup making 850K. As we all know Hasek faltered and Osgood stepped in and they won the Cup.

After winning the Cup and being brought back at age 35 with a 3yr 4.25mil deal (1.7mil, 1.45mil and 1.1mil). The Osgood/Wings' goalie model myth begins to emerge.

The 08-09 season then cements the myth about the Wings' goaltending model. Osgood was the starter and Conklin was the backup. Osgood was putrid in the regular season (.887 save%/ 3.03 Gaa). Conklin was better (.909 save%/ 2.51 Gaa) and took over the starting duties for a bit. But when the playoffs roll around Osgood is the man and boy did he get his game back on track (.926 save%/ 2.01 Gaa). The Wings get to the Finals and battle the Pens to 7gms before losing.

The 08-09 season is the ONLY one the Wings have ever come into the year spending peanuts on their starter and came close to a Cup win. Yet some posters seem to think its their typical way of doing things. Its not. Like any team they work with what they have and improve thigns when they feel its needed.

How teams address various issues on their team is situational to that team. The Wings had just won the Cup in 07-08 and had a young goalie a year or so away. They basically set up a caretaker situation in net. Its a testament to how good the rest of that team is that they almost won the Cup with that setup. Howard became the starter the following season (09-10) and Osgood was bad, Lalime-esque, as the backup (7-9/.888 save%/3.03 Gaa).


There are only two teams that have come into a season spending little on goalies or relied on journeymen to carry them in net and got close to winning a Cup. The 08-09 Red Wings and the 09-10 Flyers. Obviously neither won. Many focus so hard on what they didn't have in net that they ignore what they did have in front of those goalies.

The 08-09 Red Wings had the best dman of our generation in Lidstrom who had just completed his 6th of 7 Norris winning seasons that year. The rest of their top 4 was made up of 3 top pairing dmen (Kronwall, Rafalski and Stuart). Up front they had the best all around center in the NHL in Datsyuk. He won his 2nd of 3 Selkes that year while putting up 32g 97pts. They also had Zetterberg who is one of the best all around cetners in the game.

The 09-10 Flyers had Pronger a Norris caliber dman with a recent Cup win, Timmonen a #1 dman. They also had the deepest center group in the NHL with four top 6 centers (Briere, Richards, Giroux and Carter). It could be argued at least 2 maybe 3 could be viewed as #1 centers.

This rambling rant has been percolating for awhile. It was finally brought out after some posters in the recent Miller debates keep saying they prefer the Detroit goalie model. It drives me nuts since Detroit has NEVER won a Cup with the goaltending model they supposedly adher to. No team has. The only two teams to come close did so with an incredible collection of talent in front of their goalies. A collection of talent we will not be able to acquire by simply trading away Miller and going with a cheaper goalie. Posters thinking that are believing a fantasy.

Rant over


Last edited by joshjull: 11-06-2011 at 04:04 AM.
joshjull is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2011, 08:07 AM
  #2
JOHNBOY
BUFFALO SABRES
 
JOHNBOY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Denver NC
Country: United States
Posts: 10,151
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to JOHNBOY
I agree 100% jj. Detroits Goaltender Blue Print is just that, a myth.

I don't think his value is high and at the most would get a high draft pick and a good prospect. I want Miller on this team and I want him to be the #1 guy. Jhonas is hot at the moment so ride him out.

JOHNBOY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2011, 08:16 AM
  #3
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,506
vCash: 500
So, to me, that's a lot of trivia bent on making loopholes in the truth. What's actually meaningful is whether or not a team has won the cup with a cheaply paid (read: average to poor) starting goaltender. Backups don't matter in the playoffs.

That's the only fact that matters because its determinative of whether or not its possible to have a scrub in net and still win a championship because your F and D are so loaded that they don't see a lot of rubber. That's the principle that underwrites "the Detroit model," (or whoever you give credit for it), and I don't even need to tell you that much is true.

If Chicago and Detroit paid $10M each to their backups, I don't care for the sake of examining their success as a team, any more than I would care if the Sabres paid Shaone Morrisonn another $10M in the minors. If they don't step on the ice in the playoffs, they're dead to my analysis. Whether the front office, for that matter, ever says to themselves, "we'd better be cheap on our netminders and build around them" doesn't matter either, because even if they hadn't intended to do it, they accidentally showed that it can work.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2011, 08:51 AM
  #4
MayDay
Registered User
 
MayDay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Mount Kisco, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,898
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
They've never gone into a season paying their starting goalie peanuts and won the Cup. Their last two Cup wins (01-02 and 07-08) they paid Hasek 9mil and 4mil respectively to be their starter. Hasek was the man in 01-02 but in 07-08, like Huet with the Hawks, he lost his starting job to a less expensive backup.
So what you're saying is, both Detroit and Chicago won the Cup after benching their highly-paid, star goaltenders in favor of their less-proven backups who were playing better in those seasons.

Interesting.

MayDay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2011, 08:57 AM
  #5
Mike McDermott
blah blah blah
 
Mike McDermott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Kenmore
Country: United States
Posts: 13,020
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MayDay View Post
So what you're saying is, both Detroit and Chicago won the Cup after benching their highly-paid, star goaltenders in favor of their less-proven backups who were playing better in those seasons.

Interesting.
The point I believe he is trying to make is that Detroit doesn't spend almost nothing on goalies and win the cup. They spend money but at times they do "ride the hot hand".

I think he is more trying to say you have to spend money on the guys between your pipes.

Mike McDermott is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2011, 11:22 AM
  #6
Zip15
Registered User
 
Zip15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 17,779
vCash: 450
We don't have the skaters in place to employ such a philosophy. Chicago had stars and superstars up and down its lineup that gave them incredible depth--Toews, Kane, Keith, Seabrook, Hossa, Sharp, Byfuglien, Ladd, Campbell, Hjalmarsson, Bolland--many of whom were playing on cheaper contracts because they had not yet cashed in on UFA years. Detroit was anchored by three HOFers in Lidstrom, Datsyuk, and Zetterberg, along with a great supporting cast of guys like Kronwall, Rafalski, Franzen.

If anyone believes that swapping Miller out for a (mythical, unnamed) top-line center--ignoring the fallacy that a team would give up such a player for a goaltender--would give us a skater group anywhere close to either Detroit or Chicago, they'll believe anything.

Zip15 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2011, 01:14 PM
  #7
NoClue4u
Registered User
 
NoClue4u's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 159
vCash: 500
I also think the fact that Philadelphia has ditched that "model" and gone with Bryzgalov is interesting and relevant to your point.

NoClue4u is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2011, 03:01 PM
  #8
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 34,271
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
So, to me, that's a lot of trivia bent on making loopholes in the truth. What's actually meaningful is whether or not a team has won the cup with a cheaply paid (read: average to poor) starting goaltender. Backups don't matter in the playoffs.

That's the only fact that matters because its determinative of whether or not its possible to have a scrub in net and still win a championship because your F and D are so loaded that they don't see a lot of rubber. That's the principle that underwrites "the Detroit model," (or whoever you give credit for it), and I don't even need to tell you that much is true.

If Chicago and Detroit paid $10M each to their backups, I don't care for the sake of examining their success as a team, any more than I would care if the Sabres paid Shaone Morrisonn another $10M in the minors. If they don't step on the ice in the playoffs, they're dead to my analysis. Whether the front office, for that matter, ever says to themselves, "we'd better be cheap on our netminders and build around them" doesn't matter either, because even if they hadn't intended to do it, they accidentally showed that it can work.
Accidentily showed that it can work? You're not getting the point at all.


I'm refering to the idea that Miller's contract is somehow an impediment to building a winning team. That posters have argued that there are teams using the Detroit "model" to win the Cup. That if we juts get rid of Miller and his salary we could follow that model to success. Its nonsense.

The Detroit model being spending peanuts on goal and putting the money elsewhere. If a team has a 5.6mil backup or a 4mil backup in the playoffs. They still spent money on the position. If anything those examples prove my point beyond a doubt. Since those teams not only spent the money on goal but who they spent it on didn't work out. Essentially having 5.6mil and 4mil of wasted salary. Yet they still won.

In neither case did the team spend peanuts on goal.


Last edited by joshjull: 11-06-2011 at 03:20 PM.
joshjull is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2011, 03:18 PM
  #9
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 34,271
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MayDay View Post
So what you're saying is, both Detroit and Chicago won the Cup after benching their highly-paid, star goaltenders in favor of their less-proven backups who were playing better in those seasons.

Interesting.

The Blackhawks spent 12.375mil in 08-09 on goalies , had 5mil in cap space (basically 17+mil not spent on other areas of the team) and went to the Western Conference Finals. The following year they spent 6.52mil on goalies and they won the Stanley Cup. Its fairly obvious what they were spending on goalies in no way impededed their ability to build a Cup winner.

The Red Wings spent 4.9mil on goalie and won the Stanley Cup. Again it didn't prevent them from building a Cup winner.


The Detroit model thats asserted by some is the idea that Detroit and others made the decision to spend 2mil on goalies and used the difference from what a big money goalie would cost elsewhere. The reality is NO TEAM has ever spent that little in net and won the Cup.



I have no idea why this is so hard to understand. Or why posters think I'm arguing you have to have a big money goalie.

I'm disputing the idea that there is a Detroit model out there that teams are using to win Cups. There isn't


Last edited by joshjull: 11-06-2011 at 03:32 PM.
joshjull is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2011, 03:24 PM
  #10
New Sabres Captain
ForFriendshipDikembe
 
New Sabres Captain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 39,435
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
The Blackhawks spent 12.375mil in 08-09 on goalies , had 5mil in cap space (basically 17+mil not spent on other areas of the team) and went to the Western Conference Finals. The following year they spent 6.52mil on goalies and they won the Stanley Cup. Its fairly obvious what they were spending on goalies in no way impededed their ability to build a Cup winner.

The Red Wings spent 4.9mil on goalie and won the Stanley Cup. Again it didn't prevent them from building a Cup winner.


The Detroit model thats asserted by some is the idea that Detroit and others made the decision to spend 2mil on goalies and used the difference from what a big money goalie would cost elsewhere. The reality is NO TEAM has ever spent that little in net and won the Cup.



I have no idea why this is so hard to understand. Or why posters think I'm arguing you have to have a big money goalie.

I'm disputing the idea that there is a Detroit model out there that teams are using to win Cups. There isn't
Even if such a model existed, I'd think Boston, Pittsburgh, and Anaheim would prove that it isn't a pre-requisite as some proponents of the model would have you believe.


Last edited by joshjull: 11-06-2011 at 03:32 PM.
New Sabres Captain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2011, 03:55 PM
  #11
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
Accidentily showed that it can work? You're not getting the point at all.


I'm refering to the idea that Miller's contract is somehow an impediment to building a winning team. That posters have argued that there are teams using the Detroit "model" to win the Cup. That if we juts get rid of Miller and his salary we could follow that model to success. Its nonsense.

The Detroit model being spending peanuts on goal and putting the money elsewhere. If a team has a 5.6mil backup or a 4mil backup in the playoffs. They still spent money on the position. If anything those examples prove my point beyond a doubt. Since those teams not only spent the money on goal but who they spent it on didn't work out. Essentially having 5.6mil and 4mil of wasted salary. Yet they still won.

In neither case did the team spend peanuts on goal.
Sure, those teams spent lots of money in goal. But they definitely didn't have to, and in hindsight would've been even better off if they had swapped their high priced bench warming goalie for someone who could score or play D. Yes, those teams also prove that the Sabres could bench Miller, ride Enroth, and maybe win the cup without Miller's salary holding them back in any way. But viewed prospectively, it kind of goes without saying that if you can take money you're wasting and spend it somewhere useful, you should.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2011, 04:00 PM
  #12
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
The Blackhawks spent 12.375mil in 08-09 on goalies , had 5mil in cap space (basically 17+mil not spent on other areas of the team) and went to the Western Conference Finals. The following year they spent 6.52mil on goalies and they won the Stanley Cup. Its fairly obvious what they were spending on goalies in no way impededed their ability to build a Cup winner.

The Red Wings spent 4.9mil on goalie and won the Stanley Cup. Again it didn't prevent them from building a Cup winner.


The Detroit model thats asserted by some is the idea that Detroit and others made the decision to spend 2mil on goalies and used the difference from what a big money goalie would cost elsewhere. The reality is NO TEAM has ever spent that little in net and won the Cup.



I have no idea why this is so hard to understand. Or why posters think I'm arguing you have to have a big money goalie.

I'm disputing the idea that there is a Detroit model out there that teams are using to win Cups. There isn't
Then what you're arguing is really kind of pointless and semantical. Okay, so no team ever went out with that as their goal and built a team consciously with $2M goaltending. Nevertheless, several teams have shown, based on who was on the ice winning the cup for them, that that's something you could do. So why argue it's an invalid theory for building a team? If it plainly could work, who cares that Detroit and Chicago didn't attempt to build their teams that way? They both put el cheapo guys in the crease when it counted and it worked.

And it kind of follows very intuitively from there that if you are going to try that route, why waste tons of money on your backup when you can put it somewhere else?

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2011, 04:12 PM
  #13
Takeo
Registered User
 
Takeo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 18,867
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
I have no idea why this is so hard to understand.
Because you make it convoluted. Your point, which I think is accurate, could be made with three sentences as you did nicely a couple posts above. The "long post is a valid post" model is also a myth.


Last edited by Takeo: 11-06-2011 at 04:17 PM.
Takeo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2011, 04:22 PM
  #14
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 34,271
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takeo View Post
Because you make it convoluted. Your point, which I think is accurate, could be made with three sentences as you did nicely a couple posts above. The "long post is a valid post" model is also a myth.
Fair enough

joshjull is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2011, 05:01 PM
  #15
enrothorne
A DJ saved my life
 
enrothorne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Downtown Buffalo
Country: Germany
Posts: 2,528
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to enrothorne
There is no formula to winning. If there was, everyone would do it. Therefore, everyone's opinion has merit. TELLING people to stop thinking a certain way is being a bully.

enrothorne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2011, 05:27 PM
  #16
glassjaw*
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,238
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by enrothorne View Post
There is no formula to winning. If there was, everyone would do it. Therefore, everyone's opinion has merit. TELLING people to stop thinking a certain way is being a bully.
Yep. You just need a lot of good players, a good coach, effort, and bounces.

glassjaw* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2011, 06:13 PM
  #17
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Palm Harbor, FL
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 34,523
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
Then what you're arguing is really kind of pointless and semantical. Okay, so no team ever went out with that as their goal and built a team consciously with $2M goaltending. Nevertheless, several teams have shown, based on who was on the ice winning the cup for them, that that's something you could do. So why argue it's an invalid theory for building a team? If it plainly could work, who cares that Detroit and Chicago didn't attempt to build their teams that way? They both put el cheapo guys in the crease when it counted and it worked.
my only meaningful contribution is completely agreeing with this post.

Jame is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2011, 06:17 PM
  #18
MayDay
Registered User
 
MayDay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Mount Kisco, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,898
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
The Blackhawks spent 12.375mil in 08-09 on goalies , had 5mil in cap space (basically 17+mil not spent on other areas of the team) and went to the Western Conference Finals. The following year they spent 6.52mil on goalies and they won the Stanley Cup. Its fairly obvious what they were spending on goalies in no way impededed their ability to build a Cup winner.

The Red Wings spent 4.9mil on goalie and won the Stanley Cup. Again it didn't prevent them from building a Cup winner.


The Detroit model thats asserted by some is the idea that Detroit and others made the decision to spend 2mil on goalies and used the difference from what a big money goalie would cost elsewhere. The reality is NO TEAM has ever spent that little in net and won the Cup.



I have no idea why this is so hard to understand. Or why posters think I'm arguing you have to have a big money goalie.

I'm disputing the idea that there is a Detroit model out there that teams are using to win Cups. There isn't
I know. They did spend big money on their starting goalies. As the Sabres have.

I just found it interesting that two of those Cup-winning teams that you mentioned benched their highly-paid star goalie in favor of the hot back-up, en route to the Cup. I found it interesting that you would bring up those situations in comparison to ours, that's all.

MayDay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2011, 12:52 PM
  #19
Sabretip
Registered User
 
Sabretip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 7,927
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zip15 View Post
We don't have the skaters in place to employ such a philosophy. Chicago had stars and superstars up and down its lineup that gave them incredible depth--Toews, Kane, Keith, Seabrook, Hossa, Sharp, Byfuglien, Ladd, Campbell, Hjalmarsson, Bolland--many of whom were playing on cheaper contracts because they had not yet cashed in on UFA years. Detroit was anchored by three HOFers in Lidstrom, Datsyuk, and Zetterberg, along with a great supporting cast of guys like Kronwall, Rafalski, Franzen.

If anyone believes that swapping Miller out for a (mythical, unnamed) top-line center--ignoring the fallacy that a team would give up such a player for a goaltender--would give us a skater group anywhere close to either Detroit or Chicago, they'll believe anything.
Excellent post!

Quote:
Originally Posted by MayDay View Post
I know. They did spend big money on their starting goalies. As the Sabres have.

I just found it interesting that two of those Cup-winning teams that you mentioned benched their highly-paid star goalie in favor of the hot back-up, en route to the Cup. I found it interesting that you would bring up those situations in comparison to ours, that's all.
Yet Boston, with their less expensive backup (Rask) lost a 3-0 series lead to bow out in 2010 only to return the following season with their expensive starter to win the Cup. The point is that there are ample enough examples of high-priced goalies (Brodeur, Roy, Hasek) that won as there are recently of less-celebrated newcomers (Ward, Fleury, Niemi) doing so.

I think that much of the debating by some Buffalo critics (fans & media) is being linked to the recent negativity for similar reasons surrounding Luongo: goalies with expensive contracts that have yet to win a championship and are prone to slumps. Yet, most media and players around the league still acknowledge that each is a top-flight goalie. Another goalie (Lundqvist) that many consider among the best in the NHL is earning more than either Luongo or Miller yet he hasn't gotten his team past the 2nd round. I don't read many critics claiming he's overpaid.

Sabretip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2011, 01:38 PM
  #20
WhoIsJimBob
Circle the Bandwagon
 
WhoIsJimBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 16,640
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabretip View Post
Yet Boston, with their less expensive backup (Rask) lost a 3-0 series lead to bow out in 2010 only to return the following season with their expensive starter to win the Cup. The point is that there are ample enough examples of high-priced goalies (Brodeur, Roy, Hasek) that won as there are recently of less-celebrated newcomers (Ward, Fleury, Niemi) doing so.

I think that much of the debating by some Buffalo critics (fans & media) is being linked to the recent negativity for similar reasons surrounding Luongo: goalies with expensive contracts that have yet to win a championship and are prone to slumps. Yet, most media and players around the league still acknowledge that each is a top-flight goalie. Another goalie (Lundqvist) that many consider among the best in the NHL is earning more than either Luongo or Miller yet he hasn't gotten his team past the 2nd round. I don't read many critics claiming he's overpaid.
The problem I see is that goalie performance year to year is so fickle that locking up a really good goalie doesn't mean that you'll get solid, clutch goaltending when you need it.

Let's look at how the highest paid goalies by cap hit are doing so far this season using Save% as the rating stat:

1 - Lundqvist - $6.875M - 16th in Save% .929
2 - Ward - $6.3M - 27th in Save% .912
3 - Miller - $6.25M - 21st in Save% .922
4 - Backstrom - $6M - 28th in Save% .912
5 - Kiprusoff - $5.833M - 20th in Save% .925
6 - Bryzgalov - $5.66M - 40th in Save% .893
7 - Huet - $5.625M --> exiled to Europe
8 - Luongo - $5.33M - 39th in Save% .894
9 - Brodeur - $5.2M - 47th in Save% .872
10 - Thomas - $5M - 11th in Save% .931

Most of the top 10 Save% guys are backups:

1 - Josh Harding - Backstrom's #2 in Minny
2 - Khabibulin - 15th in cap hit at $3.75M
3 - Martin Biron - Lundqvist's back up in NY
4 - Jhonas Enroth
5 - Jacob Markstrom - Florida's GOTF that is behind Theodore & Clemmensen for the moment
6 - Dan Ellis - Hiller's #2 in Anaheim
7 - Jonathan Quick - 30th in cap hit at $1.8M
8 - Brian Elliott - Halak's #2 in St Louis
9 - Kari Lehtonen - 17th in cap hit at $3.55M
10 - Marc-Andre Fleury - 11th in cap hit at $5M


Last edited by WhoIsJimBob: 11-07-2011 at 01:49 PM.
WhoIsJimBob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2011, 01:49 PM
  #21
Zip15
Registered User
 
Zip15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 17,779
vCash: 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Bob View Post
The problem I see is that goalie performance year to year is so fickle that locking up a really good goalie doesn't mean that you'll get solid, clutch goaltending when you need it.

Let's look at how the highest paid goalies by cap hit are doing so far this season using Save% as the rating stat:

1 - Lundqvist - $6.875M - 16th in Save% .929
2 - Ward - $6.3M - 27th in Save% .912
3 - Miller - $6.25M - 21st in Save% .922
4 - Backstrom - $6M - 28th in Save% .912
5 - Kiprusoff - $5.833M - 20th in Save% .925
6 - Bryzgalov - $5.66M - 40th in Save% .893
7 - Huet - $5.625M --> exiled to Europe
8 - Luongo - $5.33M - 39th in Save% .894
9 - Brodeur - $5.2M - 47th in Save% .872
10 - Thomas - $5M - 11th in Save% .931

Most of the top 10 Save% guys are backups:

1 - Josh Harding - Backstrom's #2 in Minny
2 - Khabibulin - 15th in cap hit at $3.75M
3 - Martin Biron
4 - Jhonas Enroth
5 - Jacob Markstrom - Florida's GOTF that is behind Theodore & Clemmensen for the moment
6 - Dan Ellis - Hiller's #2 in Anaheim
7 - Jonathan Quick - 30th in cap hit at $1.8M
8 - Brian Elliott - Halak's #2 in St Louis
9 - Kari Lehtonen - 17th in cap hit at $3.55M
10 - Marc-Andre Fleury - 11th in cap hit at $5M
Sample size problem. Let's see where everyone is after 50 or 60 games.

Zip15 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2011, 02:14 PM
  #22
WhoIsJimBob
Circle the Bandwagon
 
WhoIsJimBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 16,640
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zip15 View Post
Sample size problem. Let's see where everyone is after 50 or 60 games.
OK, let's use the same Cap Hit list and last year's Save% numbers:

1 - Lundqvist - $6.875M - 8th in Save% .923
2 - Ward - $6.3M - 9th in Save% .923
3 - Miller - $6.25M - 18th in Save% .916
4 - Backstrom - $6M - 20th in Save% .916
5 - Kiprusoff - $5.833M - 34th in Save% .906
6 - Bryzgalov - $5.66M - 11th in Save% .921
7 - Huet - $5.625M --> exiled to Europe
8 - Luongo - $5.33M - 4th in Save% .928
9 - Brodeur - $5.2M - 35th in Save% .903
10 - Thomas - $5M - 1st in Save% .938

And while Luongo was 4th in the league, his back up Cory Schneider was 3rd in the league at .929.

WhoIsJimBob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2011, 02:20 PM
  #23
WhoIsJimBob
Circle the Bandwagon
 
WhoIsJimBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 16,640
vCash: 500
And if you prefer the new DIGR stat, here you go:

1 - Lundqvist - $6.875M - 13th in DIGR .9180
2 - Ward - $6.3M - 6th in DIGR .9232
3 - Miller - $6.25M - 21st in DIGR .9160
4 - Backstrom - $6M - 33rd in DIGR .9120
5 - Kiprusoff - $5.833M - 45th in DIGR .9020
6 - Bryzgalov - $5.66M - 5th in DIGR .9234
7 - Huet - $5.625M --> exiled to Europe
8 - Luongo - $5.33M - 3rd in DIGR .9269
9 - Brodeur - $5.2M - 38th in DIGR .9087
10 - Thomas - $5M - 1st in DIGR .9312

And while Luongo was 3rd in the league, his back up Cory Schneider was 2nd in the league at .9285.

WhoIsJimBob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2011, 02:22 PM
  #24
Sabretip
Registered User
 
Sabretip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 7,927
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Bob View Post
The problem I see is that goalie performance year to year is so fickle that locking up a really good goalie doesn't mean that you'll get solid, clutch goaltending when you need it.
True - but can't that be said about any position in hockey...or in other sports?

We all see countless examples of athletes that don't live up to or perform (at least, in the public's eyes) to their salary and contract term when the team really needs / expects them to. In the end, the athlete still has to perform. Just because a team commits big money and term doesn't guarantee anything - nor does it prevent anything. Sometimes those circumstances motivate, other times it leads to complacency, other times it doesn't change a thing in how the athlete performs from year to year....

I know it sounds obtuse but such is the reality IMO....

Sabretip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2011, 12:58 PM
  #25
WhoIsJimBob
Circle the Bandwagon
 
WhoIsJimBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 16,640
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabretip View Post
True - but can't that be said about any position in hockey...or in other sports?

We all see countless examples of athletes that don't live up to or perform (at least, in the public's eyes) to their salary and contract term when the team really needs / expects them to. In the end, the athlete still has to perform. Just because a team commits big money and term doesn't guarantee anything - nor does it prevent anything. Sometimes those circumstances motivate, other times it leads to complacency, other times it doesn't change a thing in how the athlete performs from year to year....

I know it sounds obtuse but such is the reality IMO....
There are a few top 10 cap hit deals that are horrible up front (Scott Gomez at $7.3M per) and on D (Bouwmeester at $6.68M, Campbell at $7.1M and Redden at $6.5M).

But, if you look at the lists, the forwards and defensemen that get top end money sure seem to be better long term bets than goalies tend to be.

And most of the big forward/defense misses tend to be overpaid UFAs. You get some of that in goal (Huet being the poster child). But, you also get some of that with big deals to keep #1s, as well. Backstrom might be the poster child for that today and I could see Rinne being the poster child for that in 3 or 4 years.

WhoIsJimBob is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:33 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.