Around the League 3 - The Threequel Always Sucks

[Boom Boom Apathy]

He created just two of the topics. There were other topics created by other people, and various posts from other people that held the same mentality.

I searched, there was 1 other topic started by Clark and he was just saying it was time for Ellis to start a game, not replace Ward and trade him (in the OntarioFisherman thread, he even clarified that). You were portraying it like the lion share of the fan base wanted to trade Ward and start Ellis, and that's just not true. I just went back and read through those threads, and while Meelee Ray, Ontario Fisherman, and S4C were always adamant, most others were simply saying Ellis deserves some starts because Ward wasn't playing well.

So Yes, there were a couple of posters (and in some cases trolls) saying that, but you are reacting to the vocal minority. You seem to want to make more of it than it really was just to make a point.

If the fanbase didn't have a history of "shiny new toy syndrome", then it wouldn't be treated as such. But as has been pointed out, there have been at least 4 backups now that were/are going to "take the starter's job away from Ward": Leighton, Ellis, Khudobin and now Lack.

No, the weren't. Leighton and Ellis were brought in strictly as back-ups, plain and simple. Other than some over-reaction for a bad game or two (which happens on these boards) or trolling, the VAST majority of Canes fans weren't saying that either of them would take the job away from Ward full time. Again, I think you are reacting to a vocal minority and portraying it across a fan base. I kind of liken it to the early years of Brett Favre. Every year, a few (and very few) Packers fans would always spout off that Mark Brunell, or Ty Detmer, etc... should take over for the starter because Favre took too many risks, threw too many interceptions, etc.. The VAST majority of Packer fans never felt that way. Almost every draft, the Packers took a QB in the late rounds to develop them as a back-up, but none of them, until Aaron Rodgers, was ever drafted as the heir apparent, even though a small, and vocal set of fans always like to talk like they were.

Khudobin was brought in as a back-up, plain and simple. It wasn't until Ward absolutely stunk last year and Khudobin played phenomenal that people started calling for him to be the starter. I don't see a problem with that. Heck, even Peters and Francis said both guys would be battling for the starter spot.

Lack. I honestly think he's the first guy the Canes have brought in, in an attempt to be the Heir Apparent. I think a lot of it is he's 4 years younger and while the Canes may have some decent prospects, they are years away. Will Lack succeed? Who knows. Yes, some posters are calling their shot now and saying he'll be the starter, but I bet you the VAST majority are taking a wait and see approach (I know I am).

I love the Lack trade, especially with how cheaply he came compared to some of the other goalie deals in the same time frame. And if he wins the starting job, I'll cheer for him the same way I do for Ward. But declaring him the starter now, or saying we don't need Ward because we have Lack, is just letting history repeat itself and shows a surprising lack of knowledge about how difficult it really is to find a starting goaltender in the NHL.

No, it's not because as I said, it was only a vocal minority that felt that way in the past.

 

[The Stranger]

He allowed decent GAA; but his Sv% was incredibly under par for a starter

There were 29 goalies who started more than half the games for their teams.

Best SV% - 0.933
Worst SV% - 0.890
Average SV% - 0.917
Standard Deviation - 0.009

Ward's SV% was 0.910 which is 15th percentile within his starter cohort.

Is 15th percentile good? No, but he also wasn't "incredibly under par for a starter".

When people "rank" starting goalies off of SV%, it's important to keep in mind distribution. He was tied for 4th worst SV%, but you're talking about a group that is tightly grouped...~80% of the starters are grouped within one standard deviation of the average (not a normal distribution).

Scrivens had a 0.890 SV%...this is 3 standard deviations below the average and would qualify for being "incredibly under par for a starter". Just two years prior Scrivens was sporting a 0.931 SV% in a backup role for the Kings...moving to a team with bad defense and playing more games in a season really exposes some guys.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

^^ I can't even

? I'm guessing that wasn't aimed at my post? or was it?

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

Except his GAA and SV% were average or above average in November and December, so your contention that he was "terrible" for the first three months still doesn't hold any water.

He had a pisspoor October. No one's going to deny that. But it seems like a lot of people are letting those 4 games have way too much influence on their perception of him, as if he didn't play 47 games after that month.

The post you're quoting doesn't mention the first three months, but rather talks about why focusing on his 38th overall (21st if you only include goalies who played 35+ games) GAA of 2.4 is bad because it lacks the context that his Sv%- 56th overall, 30th if you only include goalies who played 35+ games- is simply not starter material, and that both of those numbers were manufactured in an environment that was more beneficial to his stats, limiting shots and scoring chances, in a while. Those are terrible numbers, you don't need to look at only 5 games in October to get that, and they may get worse because of the factors I mentioned above.

The second half talks about the comparison to E. Staal, which you may be referring to, I dunno. I don't really care, I just think it's funny.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

There were 29 goalies who started more than half the games for their teams.

Best SV% - 0.933
Worst SV% - 0.890
Average SV% - 0.917
Standard Deviation - 0.009

Ward's SV% was 0.910 which is 15th percentile within his starter cohort.

Is 15th percentile good? No, but he also wasn't "incredibly under par for a starter".

Doesn't 15th percentile mean that Ward was in the top-15 percent (in this case, top 3) of his control group? I think you mean 50th percentile.

Also, if you reduce that number to goaltenders who played 35+ games, he goes down to 30th overall in the League. Even in your study group, Ward's .910 is lower than the average of .917. Arguing whether that constitutes "incredibly under par" is splitting hairs, so I'll just move it to "under par" if it suits us better.

My point here is that the Hurricanes shouldn't have to bend over backwards to sign Ward when there are easier and cheaper ways to replicate those numbers, as others have said. They have Lack on the roster, who has shown success in the past as an NHL starter. They have a deep pool of goalie prospects, though that's mostly far out. They have potential free agents. It isn't that difficult.

 

[nobuddy]

Would someone make a list of the goalies who were available thru FA/made available thru trade this summer, so we can argue for/against that keeping Ward is better than taking a flyer on one of those?

Off the top of my head:

-Neuvirth
-Raanta
-Lack
-Lehner
-Jones
-Talbot
-Johnson

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

Doesn't 15th percentile mean that Ward was in the top-15 percent (in this case, top 3) of his control group? I think you mean 50th percentile.

The way I read it was that he was in the 15th%, as in bottom. If he's near the top, he'd be in the 85th%.

 

[What the Faulk]

? I'm guessing that wasn't aimed at my post? or was it?

No, each ^ means a post above.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

The post you're quoting doesn't mention the first three months, but rather talks about why focusing on his 38th overall (21st if you only include goalies who played 35+ games) GAA of 2.4 is bad because it lacks the context that his Sv%- 56th overall, 30th if you only include goalies who played 35+ games- is simply not starter material, and that both of those numbers were manufactured in an environment that was more beneficial to his stats, limiting shots and scoring chances, in a while. Those are terrible numbers, you don't need to look at only 5 games in October to get that, and they may get worse because of the factors I mentioned above.

This whole conversation between you and I has been surrounding this post:

In that light, seeing you downplay Ward's terrible first 3 months (so bad he finished the year as the statistically worst starter in the league) with statistical gymnastics is pretty freaking hilarious.

I argued that, out of his first 3 months, only October could be considered terrible and he was average or above average in November and December. First, I used GAA, stating that I'd have trouble calling any goaltender that allows just above 2 goals per game "terrible." You argued that it wasn't taking his SV% into account. I responded that both his GAA and his SV% in November and December were average or above average, and that you cannot call a goaltender "terrible for 3 months" if he was average or above average for two of those months.

If you've had a different view on this argument, then we've had our wires crossed somewhere.

 

[nobuddy]

I love the Lack trade, especially with how cheaply he came compared to some of the other goalie deals in the same time frame. And if he wins the starting job, I'll cheer for him the same way I do for Ward. But declaring him the starter now, or saying we don't need Ward because we have Lack, is just letting history repeat itself and shows a surprising lack of knowledge about how difficult it really is to find a starting goaltender in the NHL.

Except Lack kind of is a proven starter in the NHL. He's played more games than Ward has over the last two years and with far, far better results.

So how is Lack not a more proven, better goalie than the modern edition of Cam Ward? Because it would seem like he is...

Even in this season which was apparently some sort of renaissance for Ward, Lack started just six fewer games than Ward did if you include his playoff stint. And again, with far better results.

Are you saying Lack can't handle those six extra games spread out over the course of six months?

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

If you've had a different view on this argument, then we've had our wires crossed somewhere.

It might be retread, because before this we were discussing whether the 'Canes should sign Ward. Then I pointed out the E. Staal comparison.

 

[Sens1Canes2]

Off the top of my head:

-Neuvirth
-Raanta
-Lack
-Lehner
-Jones
-Talbot
-Johnson

Thanks.

So, who would Canes fans go ahead and say "alright sir, you are an upgrade on Cam Ward as our starter. Here's a contract offer."

Without Cam in tow as the backup.

My intention here is to agree with BLB's assertion that, despite Ward's below-average seasons, it's not a good idea to just grab an unproven (but statistically productive in limited starts) goaltender and hand him the job.

 

[nobuddy]

Thanks.

So, who would Canes fans go ahead and say "alright sir, you are an upgrade on Cam Ward as our starter. Here's a contract offer."

Without Cam in tow as the backup.

My intention here is to agree with BLB's assertion that, despite Ward's below-average seasons, it's not a good idea to just grab an unproven (but statistically productive in limited starts) goaltender and hand him the job.

I would no doubt make that offer to:

Neuvirth (no-brainer. He's proven to be better than Ward)
Lack (see above)

I would make that offer to, but have reservations in doing so:

Talbot
Jones
Lehner

I would not make that offer to:

Johnson
Raanta

 

[Sens1Canes2]

Neuvirth, really. That surprises me.

Lack I get, no problem.

The others are just so unknown that I wouldn't do it. Especially Lehner. He's pretty crazy.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

No, each ^ means a post above.

Ah, I didn't realize that. thanks.

 

[nobuddy]

Neuvirth, really. That surprises me.

Lack I get, no problem.

The others are just so unknown that I wouldn't do it. Especially Lehner. He's pretty crazy.

It all depends on how long we're talking having these goalies for, and if we're paying them more than we should to keep them after they give us a year.

I really don't think finding league average goaltending for one year is very difficult or expensive at all.

I'll throw out a stat for you: The average cap hit of starting goalies who missed the playoffs last year was higher than the average cap hit of starting goalies who made the playoffs.

By giving a slightly above average goalie a huge contract, you run the risk of ending up in a Cam Ward or Mike Smith scenario where your team is doomed not to compete as they decline to being below average when you're paying them to be borderline elite.

If you're paying more than 5 million for your goalie, you better be damned sure you're getting better than .920 performance year in and year out, because it really isn't hard to find .915 goaltending for 40 games for under 2 million.

 

[What the Faulk]

It all depends on how long we're talking having these goalies for, and if we're paying them more than we should to keep them after they give us a year.

I really don't think finding league average goaltending for one year is very difficult or expensive at all.

I'll throw out a stat for you: The average cap hit of starting goalies who missed the playoffs last year was higher than the average cap hit of starting goalies who made the playoffs.

By giving a slightly above average goalie a huge contract, you run the risk of ending up in a Cam Ward or Mike Smith scenario where your team is doomed not to compete as they decline to being below average when you're paying them to be borderline elite.

If you're paying more than 5 million for your goalie, you better be damned sure you're getting better than .920 performance year in and year out, because it really isn't hard to find .915 goaltending for 40 games for under 2 million.

I think this post sums up my feelings nicely.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

My intention here is to agree with BLB's assertion that, despite Ward's below-average seasons, it's not a good idea to just grab an unproven (but statistically productive in limited starts) goaltender and hand him the job.

It all depends. On how Ward plays, on how much he wants, on the FA/trade market, how close Needaspellcheck and Altshuller look.

But I think the most likely scenario is going to be the 'Canes choosing between Ward at his current premium (ie the price of a low end starter) vs. someone worse but significantly cheaper.

And to me, if Ward repeats this year, and the 'Canes repeat their lotto pick ways, it's hard for me to not imagine Ron Francis looking at Ward and saying "We could do that without you, get out" a la Ralph Kiner.

AKA what Stephen Goalbert said.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

Except Lack kind of is a proven starter in the NHL. He's played more games than Ward has over the last two years and with far, far better results.

So how is Lack not a more proven, better goalie than the modern edition of Cam Ward? Because it would seem like he is...

Even in this season which was apparently some sort of renaissance for Ward, Lack started just six fewer games than Ward did if you include his playoff stint. And again, with far better results.

Are you saying Lack can't handle those six extra games spread out over the course of six months?

He's played 82 games in his career, over two seasons. Doesn't matter who it is or how well he's performed during that stint, I'd be hesitant to call ANY goaltender that's played that little a bonafide starter until he proves he can handle the workload of a long NHL season. Until then, he's a backup goaltender. If Lack comes in and plays 60 games for the Canes this year, then absolutely I'll call him a starter and have no issue with relegating Ward to a backup role or letting him go entirely.

So, of that list you provided, I'd agree that Neuvirth would have been a good pickup, though his career high of 48 games in a season and his backup-level number of starts since that year would make me wary, just as I'm wary of Lack's 41 game career high. The rest I'd grab for their potential to be a starter, but I wouldn't declare them starters over Ward.

 

[nobuddy]

He's played 82 games in his career, over two seasons. Doesn't matter who it is or how well he's performed during that stint, I'd be hesitant to call ANY goaltender that's played that little a bonafide starter until he proves he can handle the workload of a long NHL season. Until then, he's a backup goaltender. If Lack comes in and plays 60 games for the Canes this year, then absolutely I'll call him a starter and have no issue with relegating Ward to a backup role or letting him go entirely.

So, of that list you provided, I'd agree that Neuvirth would have been a good pickup, though his career high of 48 games in a season and his backup-level number of starts since that year would make me wary, just as I'm wary of Lack's 41 game career high. The rest I'd grab for their potential to be a starter, but I wouldn't declare them starters over Ward.

He's proven that he can play more games than Cam Ward has the last two years and be better in doing so. I'm not sure what's so difficult about that to understand.

What Cam Ward did four years ago is irrelevant in the discussion as to whether or not he can or should be a starting goalie next season.

It would be like grabbing Jarome Iginla and expecting him to be a top ten forward in the NHL next year.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

He's proven that he can play more games than Cam Ward has the last two years and be better in doing so. I'm not sure what's so difficult about that to understand.

What Cam Ward did four years ago is irrelevant in the discussion as to whether or not he can or should be a starting goalie next season.

It would be like grabbing Jarome Iginla and expecting him to be a top ten forward in the NHL next year.

And I'm not sure what's so difficult to understand that I put more trust to be a starter in a goalie that's played in 500+ career games, with multiple years in playing that starter's role, than a goalie that's had 82 career games and no one year handling a starter's workload.

Is it that strange that I value experience over potential? Really?

 

[What the Faulk]

Ron Francis has a lot of experience. Maybe he can solve their forward issues.

 

[GoldiFox]

Isn't trading away assets for a younger, statistically better, cheaper starter with only one year left on his deal pretty much the opposite thing one would do if they wanted to sign their aging, overpaid workhorse to a long-term starter-worthy deal this Summer? I see virtually no reason that they would make that trade then turn around and sign Ward to a deal that cements him as the long-term starter. Which renders this whole question moot.

 

[The Stranger]

because it really isn't hard to find .915 goaltending for 40 games for under 2 million.

Last year I see 18 goalies that started at least 40 games and posted a SV% of at least .915.

Only two had salaries of $2 million or below...Holtby and Dubnyk...Holtby now makes 6.5 and Dubnyk makes 5 (salaries this season).

Look at the available goalies you listed...two of them (Lehner and Jones) required a 1st round pick and Talbot required picks that were close to the value of a 1st round pick.

Finding a good cheap goalie isn't as easy as you describe...you either need to draft, develop, and get them on bridge type contract (Holtby last season) or trade assets to another team for a guy they drafted and developed.

I suppose you can hunt around for a guy like Dubnyk, but your chances of finding success isn't great. Will be interesting to see how he plays this season...same with guys like Lehner, Jones, and Talbot.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I think this post sums up my feelings nicely.

Mine as well.

To me it's not Cam vs the field. It's whether or not to pay a premium for the difference between Cam and the field.