Roster and Fantasy GM Thread: Pre-Draft Silly Season

[ginner classic]

In today's NHL how much more valuable is a .930 goalie compared to a .915 goalie? Wouldn't spending that money on forward and D depth be arguably more efficient than stopping an extra goal every few games? Would you rather a 7m 930-935 goalie or a 2-2.5m 915 goalie? an extra 4.5-5m spent on a top 4 D could make a pretty significant impact, and maybe even a more significant impact in the GA category than the better goalie would.

Every single year there is a goaltender that nobody has ever heard of that plays out of his mind in the playoffs. This isn't the era of elite goaltenders and .900 goaltenders, parity is so high for goaltending that I think the elite goaltenders have a real hard time standing out from the pack.

Are you being serious? Do the math. Look at goal differentials. I would pay 8M for any goalie that delivered .930 reliably. Maybe more. Elite goalies are not a waste of money.

MDZ and Gudbranson and Sutter and Eriksson and Gagner and Nilsson....

 

[Melvin]

Are you being serious? Do the math. Look at goal differentials. I would pay 8M for any goalie that delivered .930 reliably. Maybe more. Elite goalies are not a waste of money.

MDZ and Gudbranson and Sutter and Eriksson and Gagner and Nilsson....

Keyword is reliably. No goalie delivers 930 reliably. Goalie performance has a ton of noise and they are pretty much a waste of money.

 

[ginner classic]

Keyword is reliably. No goalie delivers 930 reliably. Goalie performance has a ton of noise and they are pretty much a waste of money.

Can you prove that point? The other poster used .930 as a stat. I just ran with it.

 

[Intangibos]

Are you being serious? Do the math. Look at goal differentials. I would pay 8M for any goalie that delivered .930 reliably. Maybe more. Elite goalies are not a waste of money.

MDZ and Gudbranson and Sutter and Eriksson and Gagner and Nilsson....

The difference between a 930 and 915 goalie in a 5 game series with an average of 30 shots per game is like 2 goals over the course of a 5 game series, or 0.4 goals per game.

I think the biggest problem with goalies is in fact reliability, there is pretty high variance in goaltender performance and that's why we see a lot of non-superstar goalies having stretches of elite play. For context Tim Thomas had 2 930+ seasons, and 2 920+ seasons. Do you not think that spending 5m on center or defence depth might have an impact comparable to 0.4 goals per game?

This isn't the NHL where the cream of the crop goaltenders are miles and miles ahead of the rest. The gap has closed significantly.

 

[ginner classic]

The difference between a 930 and 915 goalie in a 5 game series with an average of 30 shots per game is like 2 goals over the course of a 5 game series, or 0.4 goals per game.

I think the biggest problem with goalies is in fact reliability, there is pretty high variance in goaltender performance and that's why we see a lot of non-superstar goalies having stretches of elite play. For context Tim Thomas had 2 930+ seasons, and 2 920+ seasons. Do you not think that spending 5m on center or defence depth might have an impact comparable to 0.4 goals per game?

This isn't the NHL where the cream of the crop goaltenders are miles and miles ahead of the rest. The gap has closed significantly.

I completely and totally disagree with you. The gap between the top goalies and the bottom is as big as it ever was. In fact, over the last five years it's gotten wider. The goalie glut is over. Two or three goals in a playoff series is massive. 30 goals over a season is massive. That is like the difference between Ovechkin and Baertschi. Think about that. What do you pay for that delta?

 

[racerjoe]

Its an interesting topic. I would love to see the com parables, of goalie A a 2.5 mil goalie, posting X with player Y added in, Vs Goalie B costing 8 mil and posting a 930. See where that best value is.

 

[Intangibos]

I completely and totally disagree with you. The gap between the top goalies and the bottom is as big as it ever was. In fact, over the last five years it's gotten wider. The goalie glut is over. Two or three goals in a playoff series is massive. 30 goals over a season is massive. That is like the difference between Ovechkin and Baertschi. Think about that. What do you pay for that delta?

2 or 3 goals over a series is massive, and 30 goals in a season is massive. Can you get a 2C for 5M that scores 20 goals and is effective enough defensively to prevent 10 goals against? Is there a wider gap between a 7 million dollar player and a 2.5 million dollar player than there is for the same salaries in goalies? It's not an argument that goalies aren't a huge part of the team, it's about how much better those extra dollars make your team compared to other places they could be spent. Goalies are the last line of defence, but upgrading the other areas of the team is significant. How much was the Canucks GAA in 2011 affected by having Hamhuis Salo Bieksa Ehrhoff and Edler, or more importantly given what hockey is really about (scoring more than the opponent), how much was the goal differential affected.

A goalie's sole purpose is to let in as few goals as possible, but the reason you need that is to increase your goal differential. If another player can increase your goal differential by more then he would be more effective.

In regards to the difference in quality of goaltending, I'm not sure I agree. You see high quality goaltenders like Price , Holtby and Talbot, all 3 of which were considered top 10 goalies last year, being outperformed by Markstrom in save percentage. The gap in save percentages may be wider, but even elite goalies are up and down and it's tough to accurately get a read on a goalie based on save percentage even over 2 seasons.

I'm not saying a top goalie is definitely not worth it, I just think there is an argument that it might be closer than many people think. I think having a player like Suter instead of any 2.5m D could have a larger impact on goal differential than 0.4 goals per game, especially if it's a big money high minute player. There is a trade off though. I would think it's much more likely for your 25+ minute defenceman to get injured and miss a significant amount of time than your goalie, so the variance involved in the quality of goaltending you receive is somewhat offset by the variance of injuries.

I don't necessarily think you're wrong, I'm not necessarily making the argument that high salary goalies aren't worth it, but I think it's close enough to warrant some investigation and I think it could make for an interesting topic with tons of delicious arguments.

Its an interesting topic. I would love to see the com parables, of goalie A a 2.5 mil goalie, posting X with player Y added in, Vs Goalie B costing 8 mil and posting a 930. See where that best value is.

It's something I'd love someone who really knows analytics to look at, but I also think it would be a very hard thing to look at. There are so many other variables at play that I wonder if you could even accurately break it down.

 

[ginner classic]

2 or 3 goals over a series is massive, and 30 goals in a season is massive. Can you get a 2C for 5M that scores 20 goals and is effective enough defensively to prevent 10 goals against? Is there a wider gap between a 7 million dollar player and a 2.5 million dollar player than there is for the same salaries in goalies? It's not an argument that goalies aren't a huge part of the team, it's about how much better those extra dollars make your team compared to other places they could be spent. Goalies are the last line of defence, but upgrading the other areas of the team is significant. How much was the Canucks GAA in 2011 affected by having Hamhuis Salo Bieksa Ehrhoff and Edler, or more importantly given what hockey is really about (scoring more than the opponent), how much was the goal differential affected.

A goalie's sole purpose is to let in as few goals as possible, but the reason you need that is to increase your goal differential. If another player can increase your goal differential by more then he would be more effective.

In regards to the difference in quality of goaltending, I'm not sure I agree. You see high quality goaltenders like Price , Holtby and Talbot, all 3 of which were considered top 10 goalies last year, being outperformed by Markstrom in save percentage. The gap in save percentages may be wider, but even elite goalies are up and down and it's tough to accurately get a read on a goalie based on save percentage even over 2 seasons.

I'm not saying a top goalie is definitely not worth it, I just think there is an argument that it might be closer than many people think. I think having a player like Suter instead of any 2.5m D could have a larger impact on goal differential than 0.4 goals per game, especially if it's a big money high minute player. There is a trade off though. I would think it's much more likely for your 25+ minute defenceman to get injured and miss a significant amount of time than your goalie, so the variance involved in the quality of goaltending you receive is somewhat offset by the variance of injuries.

I don't necessarily think you're wrong, I'm not necessarily making the argument that high salary goalies aren't worth it, but I think it's close enough to warrant some investigation and I think it could make for an interesting topic with tons of delicious arguments.



It's something I'd love someone who really knows analytics to look at, but I also think it would be a very hard thing to look at. There are so many other variables at play that I wonder if you could even accurately break it down.

I wish I had the time right now to break this one down. I don't sadly.

 

[Intangibos]

I wish I had the time right now to break this one down. I don't sadly.

Okay? I wish text could convey tone because I don't know if you're interested in actually talking numbers but don't have the time, or it was some kind of snide remark attacking my idea without actually providing any argument against it. I assume it's the latter though, let me know if I'm wrong.

 

[ginner classic]

Okay? I wish text could convey tone because I don't know if you're interested in actually talking numbers but don't have the time, or it was some kind of snide remark attacking my idea without actually providing any argument against it. I assume it's the latter though, let me know if I'm wrong.

No....I have been down this road before on this exact subject. It's a lot of work to assemble even small amounts of data. I actually would like to pull that together for you but I don't have the time. Rain check.

 

[Intangibos]

No....I have been down this road before on this exact subject. It's a lot of work to assemble even small amounts of data. I actually would like to pull that together for you but I don't have the time. Rain check.

Ah, sorry then. That's more than fair. I'm just on edge and guarded because of how discussions generally go here, and how even thought provoking conversations end with condescending dismissals when both sides couldn't find common ground. So I try to get out ahead of it and get condescending first so that I win the internet argument prize. Trying to do it less though!

 

[VanillaCoke]

@StrictlyCommercial is the man for analysis like this

 

[bossram]

2 or 3 goals over a series is massive, and 30 goals in a season is massive. Can you get a 2C for 5M that scores 20 goals and is effective enough defensively to prevent 10 goals against? Is there a wider gap between a 7 million dollar player and a 2.5 million dollar player than there is for the same salaries in goalies? It's not an argument that goalies aren't a huge part of the team, it's about how much better those extra dollars make your team compared to other places they could be spent. Goalies are the last line of defence, but upgrading the other areas of the team is significant. How much was the Canucks GAA in 2011 affected by having Hamhuis Salo Bieksa Ehrhoff and Edler, or more importantly given what hockey is really about (scoring more than the opponent), how much was the goal differential affected.
.

Just on this point, I'd wager no.

You're essentially asking for a 30 GAR player, who does it in a mix between offense and defense. Finding that for 5 million is literally impossible. McDavid is a 25 GAR player.

Paying for a good goaltender would be a more *efficient* way of improving your goal differential. However, as mentioned by pretty much everyone, goalies are voodoo and simply very unpredictable. If you manage to find a truly elite, fairly consistent goalie, then you should pay through the nose for them. Trouble is you can't be sure that's what they are.

Edit: Went back and re-read your post. Saw the point about Sutter....ehh I'm not really going to go there. But I can guarantee you he does not prevent 0.4 goals per game.

 

[bossram]

it will not be easy to shelter the twins and shelter the kids.

Solution. You put the twins with a kid.

The Sedins are also better than most of the deadweight Benning has littered our roster with.

 

[David Bruce Banner]

If resigning the twins to a 1 or 2 year deal is what it takes to keep Benning away from the UFA trough, I’m in.

 

[me2]

The difference between a 930 and 915 goalie in a 5 game series with an average of 30 shots per game is like 2 goals over the course of a 5 game series, or 0.4 goals per game.

The difference between Brock Boeser and Granlund in a 5 game series is 1-2 goals. Would anyone rather Granlund and bit of cash.

 

[Intangibos]

The difference between Brock Boeser and Granlund in a 5 game series is 1-2 goals. Would anyone rather Granlund and bit of cash.

Would you take Granlund to save money and buy a better goalie, or take Boeser and take an average goalie?

I assumed your post was disagreeing with my statement, especially since Ginner liked it who was on the other side of the argument, but after reading your post I kind of think it kind of supports my argument.

 

[ginner classic]

Would you take Granlund to save money and buy a better goalie, or take Boeser and take an average goalie?

Can we skip past the entry level contracts apples and oranges problem and ask that same question?

 

[Intangibos]

Can we skip past the entry level contracts apples and oranges problem and ask that same question?

I'm not using ELCs? I put Boeser at 6M for the sake of argument, though he'll obviously get more. Also Granlund isn't even an NHL level player so it's just a bad example altogether. However, it highlights the point that 5m can get you a pretty big upgrade up front if you spend that 5M on a good piece with a good contract. The argument is if a 7M player over a 2M player is similar to a 7M goalie over a 2M goalie.

If I was considering ELCs we could have multiple Boesers instead of an elite goalie

 

[me2]

Would you take Granlund to save money and buy a better goalie, or take Boeser and take an average goalie?

I assumed your post was disagreeing with my statement, especially since Ginner liked it who was on the other side of the argument, but after reading your post I kind of think it kind of supports my argument.

I'd gladly get rid of Eriksson or gudbranson . If demko is any good he will be getting $6-7m soon enough, should we trade him now?

I've always disliked sv% because it makes players seem similar, a 92.5% goalie is 1.5% better than 91.0% goalie. I'd rather they switch to. Goals/thiusant shots (g/K/). That would be 75g/K vs 90g/K, 20% more goals allowed, over a season /playoffs 20% more goals is a killer. People would do a dance if a GM signed a forward that single handedly boosted team scoring by 20%.

The problem with goaltending is it is variable. A scoring puts up 2 points in 5 games you can still win multiple ways, a goalie goes .900 you are in strife. On one hand that highlights trusting a goalie is risky, even the good ones can let you down, but on the other hand it highlights how important goaltending is, how trusting you playoffs to mediocrity is suicide.

 

[ginner classic]

I'd gladly get rid of Eriksson or gudbranson . If demko is any good he will be getting $6-7m soon enough, should we trade him now?

I've always disliked sv% because it makes players seem similar, a 92.5% goalie is 1.5% better than 91.0% goalie. I'd rather they switch to. Goals/thiusant shots (g/K/). That would be 75g/K vs 90g/K, 20% more goals allowed, over a season /playoffs 20% more goals is a killer. People would do a dance if a GM signed a forward that single handedly boosted team scoring by 20%.

The problem with goaltending is it is variable. A scoring puts up 2 points in 5 games you can still win multiple ways, a goalie goes .900 you are in strife. On one hand that highlights trusting a goalie is risky, even the good ones can let you down, but on the other hand it highlights how important goaltending is, how trusting you playoffs to mediocrity is suicide.

Because of the goalie glut that started 10 years ago and persisted until a couple of years ago, people have had it in their heads that you can find a starting calibre goalie anytime you want. That is clearly not the case.

Teams are once again throwing away entire seasons due to inconsistent or down right crappy goalies. The top goalies may ha e bwad stretches, but year over year their numbers stay pretty range bound. If they have a .01 advantage over the average backup or crap starter they have a similar impact to going from a 10 goal scorer to a 40. That upgrade will cost more than 4 million (unless your 10 goal guy is Sutter).

 

[racerjoe]

Because of the goalie glut that started 10 years ago and persisted until a couple of years ago, people have had it in their heads that you can find a starting calibre goalie anytime you want. That is clearly not the case.

Teams are once again throwing away entire seasons due to inconsistent or down right crappy goalies. The top goalies may ha e bwad stretches, but year over year their numbers stay pretty range bound. If they have a .01 advantage over the average backup or crap starter they have a similar impact to going from a 10 goal scorer to a 40. That upgrade will cost more than 4 million (unless your 10 goal guy is Sutter).

I think right or wrong teams also saw goalies who weren’t really that good get hot. Cam Ward comes to mind, really any goalie Chicago played with, and won with, Smith, giggy. You can catch lightning in a bottle some times.

 

[Intangibos]

I'd gladly get rid of Eriksson or gudbranson . If demko is any good he will be getting $6-7m soon enough, should we trade him now?

I've always disliked sv% because it makes players seem similar, a 92.5% goalie is 1.5% better than 91.0% goalie. I'd rather they switch to. Goals/thiusant shots (g/K/). That would be 75g/K vs 90g/K, 20% more goals allowed, over a season /playoffs 20% more goals is a killer. People would do a dance if a GM signed a forward that single handedly boosted team scoring by 20%.

The problem with goaltending is it is variable. A scoring puts up 2 points in 5 games you can still win multiple ways, a goalie goes .900 you are in strife. On one hand that highlights trusting a goalie is risky, even the good ones can let you down, but on the other hand it highlights how important goaltending is, how trusting you playoffs to mediocrity is suicide.

Why would we trade Demko now while his value is the lowest?

The 20% more goals for context is 15 goals total in 1k shots. In a 5 game playoff series with 30 shots each game that's 2 goals. I think the save percentage stat is flawed as well as it doesn't take systems and quality of shots into account. Goals/1000 shots is save percentage over a specific sample size rather than on the series/season/career. Those 2 goals might come in a game you could have won 1-0, but those 2 goals might come in a blowout game. 2 goals is definitely a significant number of goals, especially in tight playoff games. However, do you really not think that a 7m player could get 2 more goals than a 2m player? 2 more points should actually be the comparison as long as he doesn't cost you defensively compared to the other player. I think that's another major flaw in save percentage that would also apply to your statistic. If a goalie is lights out in a close game and breaks down more than most goalies in blowout games you should increase his overall rating. It would have to be significant though since all goalies get blown out sometimes.

Consider the following. Lets say you have a player who you expect to score 0.25 goals per game (20.5 goal scorer) who makes 2M. Then compare him to a 7M player who scores 0.65 (0.4 more) goals per game (53 goal scorer). This is definitely a hard player to find, especially for 7M. However, this doesn't take into account other aspects of the game such as overall points (which should be more accurate than goals, Henrik doesn't score goals and still creates scoring) and defensive play. If this 7M player can kill penalties more effectively than the 2M player it's another significant improvement to your team. If we were to look at points, which I think is more accurate, it changes a bit. A 50 point player is creating 0.6 points per game while a PPG player is obviously creating 1 point per game which is far more realistic than a 50+ goal scorer. Again, you have to take defensive play into account. While at the end of the day the goaltender's job is just to keep pucks out, a skater's job is to put up points while also preventing goals against. Ryan Kesler when he scored a mere 50 points contributed more to the team than those 50 points, and I don't think you're getting a Selke tier 50 point player for 2M.

Goal differential is the key stat. A goalie with a .015 lower save percentage adds -0.4 to goal differential. I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to think a 7M player can reduce goals against and increase goals for by +0.4 when compared to a cheaper player (for example a +0.65 player compared to a +0.25 player, or a +0.5 player to a +0.1 player). Whether or not you can actually find one, I would wager it's at least pretty close.

Your second argument is kind of flawed. A goalie letting you down in the playoffs is a huge deal because it's one of your highest played players choking. Consider how bad Hamhuis going down was for the Canucks, it was pretty significant. Not to the extent that a goalie choking could, but he's not paid the same either. Do you think losing Kopitar with a 50 point player could be as big a loss as losing Quick and replacing him with a goalie with .015 difference in save percentage? Would that 50 point player be worse in other key aspects of the game than Kopitar as well? Keep in mind that Quick, a goalie worth 7M, has had some less than stellar playoff performances. Meanwhile plenty of literally who goaltenders have been hot in the playoffs only to never repeat that performance again. Theodore and Halak both had amazing runs only to fizzle afterwards.

 

[me2]

The gap between Pavelec and quality starter may have cost the Jets/Atlanta up to 5 playoff runs. Most seasons their goals for/against - was between -7 and -25. Just a .010 increase in sv% might have gotten 3 more playoffs.

 

[JanBulisPiggyBack]

Hey guys is this a realistic proposal

Tanev and Baertschi to Edmonton for Puljujarvi and Caggulia

Is this loopsided or fair value

Or does Edmonton’s first replace JP