How many points will the Senators get with a new goalie?

[UglyPuckling]

I think a fourth option, fewer than 90 points, would have been useful. Most people seem to think that we would be fighting for a wild-card spot (90-100 points) with better goaltending, and I generally agree.

Yes, I agree and thought of this afterwards. Providing an alternative with a low amount of points would have given people more to think about and made it more difficult to choose. Although that wasn’t the goal, it would have revealed more interesting info. It looks like the median answer is right around 95 points for a lot of people, so kind of forcing people to make an over or under decision right around that mark would have been interesting. Too late now I’d think. Live & learn.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

Ok, assume the same roster as this year except move out a goalie and substitute (add) another better one.

The premise is that goaltending is the issue as per the frequent discussions in here. So, there’s just one change and just one variable being examined.

Is the point you’re trying to make “swap out the goalie, see we’re still not Stanley cup winners”. I’m starting to get a little confused. No body thinks we would simply cake walk to a championship if the goalie was better than korpisalo

 

[UglyPuckling]

Don't have to look too far back in Sens history to see the difference goaltending can make, the swap from Elliot to Anderson, or Lalime to Hasek both saw the teams confidence skyrocket,

Well no we had the worst coach in pro sports and the worst GM in pro sports. So correct. We are moving slowly. That wasn’t your question though.

With a better goalie we would be battling for a wild card spot. Which is quite an improvement over the basement of the nhl

In retrospect, the three alternatives that I chose were not the best idea. I should have had an option with lower points, or kind of an over/under 95 point scenario as I described in post #51 above.

I don’t doubt that with better goaltending, the Senators would have more points. But, the real question I was trying to get at is how much better?

Would you pick the over 95 points, or the under?

 

[Micklebot]

76% of votes are for less than 100 points. Not sure, but that doesn’t seem particularly optimistic or a big vote of confidence for the team and maybe it's a little surprising given how much attention has been focused on goaltending.

If there was a less than 94 pts option (essentially playoff cutoff) would that change how you view less than 100?

Only 12 teams hit 100 pts last year, and only 10 are currently on pace for 100 pts this year. The poll options are essentially, would we be a top 5 team in the league, top 10 team, or bottom 22. Given that we're currently 27th, a jump to top 10 would be very optimistic imo albeit possible. .

 

[UglyPuckling]

Is the point you’re trying to make “swap out the goalie, see we’re still not Stanley cup winners”. I’m starting to get a little confused. No body thinks we would simply cake walk to a championship if the goalie was better than korpisalo

No, that’s obviously not what was being asked. I don’t think hyperbole is useful here although I sometimes think it is used as a crutch. I’m asking how much better would the team be? Post #51 & 53 explain this in more detail.

 

[Micklebot]

Would you pick the over 95 points, or the under?

With league average goaltending (a .904 sv% this year) I'd go with the over. Goaltending plays big into team confidence, I think not only would we benefit from fewer bad outings by the goalies ruining efforts that would normally lead to a win, but we'd also get more consistent efforts knowing that goaltending isn't going to sink us every other night or more.

 

[UglyPuckling]

If there was a less than 94 pts option (essentially playoff cutoff) would that change how you view less than 100?

Only 12 teams hit 100 pts last year, and only 10 are currently on pace for 100 pts this year. The poll options are essentially, would we be a top 5 team in the league, top 10 team, or bottom 22. Given that we're currently 27th, a jump to top 10 would be very optimistic imo albeit possible. .

Actually, I was just talking about this. Seeing as how I created this, I thought I should weigh in. When I created this, one of the options should have been around 95 points. Posts #51 & 53 provide more insight perhaps.

 

[UglyPuckling]

With league average goaltending (a .904 sv% this year) I'd go with the over. Goaltending plays big into team confidence, I think not only would we benefit from fewer bad outings by the goalies ruining efforts that would normally lead to a win, but we'd also get more consistent efforts knowing that goaltending isn't going to sink us every other night or more.

Yes, confidence is a factor. I’d think it would affect a goalies performance as well. IIRC, there was some guy who specialized on analytics for goalies that talked about this. I’d think that a goalie would be more focused & confident if he was sure what his own players were going to do i.e., provide coverage, etc. It was posted in here some time ago.

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

I always thought going from Hasek to Emery was an interesting example of how a team needs to completely change to accommodate the drop off from one starter to the next. I'd be curious to know if that was built in to coaching, but the answer is probably a yes. They knew Emery could potentially be relied on for the stuff he'd see, but they lost the game saving stuff and the HOF aura of Hasek and it seemed like their whole game plan morphed over that period. In a way, it made them a better team, but in the end, the drop off in net was enough that it was ultimately the difference between banners hanging or not.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

In retrospect, the three alternatives that I chose were not the best idea. I should have had an option with lower points, or kind of an over/under 95 point scenario as I described in post #51 above.

I don’t doubt that with better goaltending, the Senators would have more points. But, the real question I was trying to get at is how much better?

Would you pick the over 95 points, or the under?

i would say over. Because that’s what it would take to make the playoffs. And I think we are better than all the teams currently fighting for that last spot.

I think that’s quite. A bit better. That’s a MASSIVR change in perception for the franchise. Near last. Or wild card. That’s huge

I mean players like Norris go from “player not loving up to expectations” to “young 35 goal center who’s not scoring as much because he’s paying attention to the defensive side of the game, still growing”.

Chychrun becomes “playing his offside but learning how to play defence and doing well!”

“Chabot resurgence”

And this is straight swap. Korpi for a better goalie. Who knows what that would do for the psyche of the players on the ice. It could be more points. But I think we would make the playoffs

 

[BankStreetParade]

The thing that has killed this team is low danger shots that end up in the net.

Player	LDSV%	LD SA	LD GA
Korpisalo	.942	533	31
Forsberg	.955	267	12

64 goalies have played at least 18 games this season. Of those 64, the average LDSV% is .962. If we take the 800 low danger shots against and apply the .962 sv% to it, we end up with 30GA, compared to the 43GA we've realized.

If you isolate the stats to goalies who have played 24+ games this year, Forsberg is 39th in low danger sv% and Korpisalo is 49th (Gustavsson is last). That's just bizarre. I could see how 1 goalie could be that low if they're having a bad year but why both?

 

[Burrowsaurus]

76% of votes are for less than 100 points. Not sure, but that doesn’t seem particularly optimistic or a big vote of confidence for the team and maybe it's a little surprising given how much attention has been focused on goaltending.

There’s a massive difference between making the playoffs. And finishing 6th last

 

[Burrowsaurus]

The thing that has killed this team is low danger shots that end up in the net.

Player	LDSV%	LD SA	LD GA
Korpisalo	.942	533	31
Forsberg	.955	267	12

64 goalies have played at least 18 games this season. Of those 64, the average LDSV% is .962. If we take the 800 low danger shots against and apply the .962 sv% to it, we end up with 30GA, compared to the 43GA we've realized.

If you isolate the stats to goalies who have played 24+ games this year, Forsberg is 39th in low danger sv% and Korpisalo is 49th (Gustavsson is last). That's just bizarre. I could see how 1 goalie could be that low if they're having a bad year but why both?

They are old friends maybe they get high together pre game

 

[AchtzehnBaby]

Easy 164 points

 

[bert]

76% of votes are for less than 100 points. Not sure, but that doesn’t seem particularly optimistic or a big vote of confidence for the team and maybe it's a little surprising given how much attention has been focused on goaltending.

100 points is alot. The d core is also quite clearly an issue. This doesn't mean the goaltending isn't horrible but they are last place.

 

[Wondercarrot]

76% of votes are for less than 100 points. Not sure, but that doesn’t seem particularly optimistic or a big vote of confidence for the team and maybe it's a little surprising given how much attention has been focused on goaltending.

That could still be a 25pt improvement or 12 wins, which is massive.
There is nothing else you could do one for one that would have such a drastic impact on results.

 

[Icelevel]

Doesn’t matter. Have to roll back in with korpisalo next year and give him another shot at a fresh new year. Then go from there.
If he rebounds then problem solved.
If he lets in 4 every game then he’s off the team and replaced somehow.

Then you can ask the question. That could be a year away from now though.

 

[Micklebot]

So, this might be relevant to the discussion; numbers are all situations,

We have 15 fewer GSAx than the next closest team... though to be fair, goalies that played for two or more teams get pulled out of both teams so it's possible NJ is only ~6 off of us.

 

[Big Muddy]

100 points is alot. The d core is also quite clearly an issue. This doesn't mean the goaltending isn't horrible but they are last place.

That could still be a 25pt improvement or 12 wins, which is massive.
There is nothing else you could do one for one that would have such a drastic impact on results.

Yes, 100 points (25 point increase) is a definite improvement.

It looks like I didn’t explain this very well.

What I was referring to was that I thought people were more optimistic about the team. I get the impression that people think the players that we have are by and large pretty good (not all, but most of them), and that the only, big thing that was holding them back was goaltending.

Perhaps I have misread the room (so to speak). Based on what I am reading now, it looks like Sens HF fans aren’t as optimistic or positive about the rest of the team setting aside the obvious concerns & issues with goaltending which folks obviously have.

 

[Wondercarrot]

Yes, 100 points (25 point increase) is a definite improvement.

It looks like I didn’t explain this very well.

What I was referring to was that I thought people were more optimistic about the team. I get the impression that people think the players that we have are by and large pretty good (not all, but most of them), and that the only, big thing that was holding them back was goaltending.

Perhaps I have misread the room (so to speak). Based on what I am reading now, it looks like Sens HF fans aren’t as optimistic or positive about the rest of the team setting aside the obvious concerns & issues with goaltending which folks obviously have.

I’m not sure I understand, 100pts is a lot of pts - I mean it would have put us 12th in a 32 team league last year.
We’d be an extremely young core on the verge of blowing up into the elite teams in the league, which frankly I thought they we be this year.

 

[Big Muddy]

I’m not sure I understand, 100pts is a lot of pts - I mean it would have put us 12th in a 32 team league last year.
We’d be an extremely young core on the verge of blowing up into the elite teams in the league, which frankly I thought they we be this year.

You're getting stuck on something.

The key is this 3rd paragraph: "What I was referring to was that I thought people were more optimistic about the team. I get the impression that people think the players that we have are by and large pretty good (not all, but most of them), and that the only, big thing that was holding them back was goaltending."

If fans thought the players and hence team was really good and all that was holding them back was goaltending, then I thought there’d be more optimism and votes for the “between 100 to 109” points. Another way of saying the same thing is that I thought more people did think that we were (at least) the 12th best team if we had better (good) goaltending. There was lots of off-season discussion in here & in the media on our potential and how good our players were.

The bolded part of your last sentence is actually what I had anticipated more people thought in here and tends to confirm what I was thinking.

 

[bert]

Yes, 100 points (25 point increase) is a definite improvement.

It looks like I didn’t explain this very well.

What I was referring to was that I thought people were more optimistic about the team. I get the impression that people think the players that we have are by and large pretty good (not all, but most of them), and that the only, big thing that was holding them back was goaltending.

Perhaps I have misread the room (so to speak). Based on what I am reading now, it looks like Sens HF fans aren’t as optimistic or positive about the rest of the team setting aside the obvious concerns & issues with goaltending which folks obviously have.

The team hasn't had a 100 point season in almost 20 years. They aren't a goalie away from that. The goaltending is putrid and makes it hard to evaluate. However They're last place I don't see how anyone with a realistic view of this team thinks they are that close. That doesn't mean they aren't optimistic. There are some serious issues with roster construction. I have a hard time being overly optimistic about a team built by Pierre Dorion. That guy never played the sport and clearly was way out of his element in that roll. Was obvious right away. This team has some great core pieces but it's not close at all. The team is one of the softest in the league and that's with a very hard captain and leader. The architect wouldn't know how a winning locker room looks if his life depended on it.

 

[Micklebot]

Yes, 100 points (25 point increase) is a definite improvement.

It looks like I didn’t explain this very well.

What I was referring to was that I thought people were more optimistic about the team. I get the impression that people think the players that we have are by and large pretty good (not all, but most of them), and that the only, big thing that was holding them back was goaltending.

Perhaps I have misread the room (so to speak). Based on what I am reading now, it looks like Sens HF fans aren’t as optimistic or positive about the rest of the team setting aside the obvious concerns & issues with goaltending which folks obviously have.

So let's assume average goaltending gets us in the 95-99 pts range for arguments sake.

The question then becomes how many pts increase can we get from:

1. The right HC
2. A top 4 RHD (think DeMelo or Pesce)
3. A vet two way middle six guy to replace Tank
4. Improved bottom pair and 4th line

I don't think any of those changes are unreasonable, and I could see a combination of them contributing say 10 pts in the standings if done right, which puts us in legit contender range.

The challenge is finding the right mix of changes, tweaks if you will, that are able to fit under the cap given we can't magically disappear our current goalies to replace them with an average tandem.

 

[Big Muddy]

The team hasn't had a 100 point season in almost 20 years. They aren't a goalie away from that. The goaltending is putrid and makes it hard to evaluate. However They're last place I don't see how anyone with a realistic view of this team thinks they are that close. That doesn't mean they aren't optimistic. There are some serious issues with roster construction. I have a hard time being overly optimistic about a team built by Pierre Dorion. That guy never played the sport and clearly was way out of his element in that roll. Was obvious right away. This team has some great core pieces but it's not close at all. The team is one of the softest in the league and that's with a very hard captain and leader. The architect wouldn't know how a winning locker room looks if his life depended on it.

Maybe reading GDT posts gives one a jaded impression. It seems like the vast majority of the comments made by numerous people are about the goaltending.

 

[Micklebot]

The team hasn't had a 100 point season in almost 20 years. They aren't a goalie away from that. The goaltending is putrid and makes it hard to evaluate. However They're last place I don't see how anyone with a realistic view of this team thinks they are that close. That doesn't mean they aren't optimistic. There are some serious issues with roster construction. I have a hard time being overly optimistic about a team built by Pierre Dorion. That guy never played the sport and clearly was way out of his element in that roll. Was obvious right away. This team has some great core pieces but it's not close at all. The team is one of the softest in the league and that's with a very hard captain and leader. The architect wouldn't know how a winning locker room looks if his life depended on it.

To be fair, we had 99 pts under MacLean, and 98 under Boucher, both those teams had issues with personnel on D beyond Karlsson, and scored less than the current roster (albeit era adjusted the 2015 team under MacLean scores a touch more)

The difference is they came together as a team, and got significantly better goaltending (Anderson was well above average both years).

I think if you add a DeMelo type to this roster in place of Chychrun, and an above average goalie, with a new voice at HC this roster could make some noise and push for 100 pts.