How much is 70 games and 5th in save percentage worth?

How much on a 7 year deal


  • Total voters
    204

swissexpert

Registered User
Sep 21, 2009
2,719
972
Basically describing what Henrik Lundqivst was when he signed his long term deal. He got 8.5M The contracts have went up since then so i'd say 9.5-10M

So Lundqvist came with the safe guarantee to be a top 5 goaltender for 7 more years? Really?
It was not possible for him to slow down or age or getting an injury?
Because that is what the OP is asking.
 

swissexpert

Registered User
Sep 21, 2009
2,719
972
Realistically 9-11 million. That might be the best goalie in the league and there's no risk if you know he's getting that every year of the deal, but still it's hard to justify paying a goalie more than 11 million.

No it's not, the described goaltender is the most valuable player in the world, you give him whatever he wants..
7 years worth of guaranteed vezina goaltending is worth more than McDavid or prime Crosby. Why is this so hard to get?

Ok the scenario is unrealistic because there is no guarantee. But in the real world, they hand out 8-9m for an elite goaltender just because they hope that possibly 3 or 4 out of those 7 years he can be top of the league. Give it an extra 3m for maintaining that level 7 years and an another 3m for staying injury free for 7 straight seasons.
 

TomasHertlsRooster

Don’t say eye test when you mean points
May 14, 2012
33,360
25,417
Fremont, CA
If I am literally guaranteed 5th in save percentage, then $13M+ is a no brainer because you can game it. That goaltender will maintain exactly the same save percentage regardless of shot quality, so you can instill a system that heavily limits shot quantity and pays no mind to shot quality.

Think of something like San Jose’s defense last season which finished 2nd from last in shots against but only 14th from last in expected goals against, and consider that that team was not even trying to game the system at all. If you actually tried, you could strategically do an incredible job of limiting shot quantity while giving up as much quality as you want because quality literally does not matter.

The goalie with the 5th best SV% last season was Thomas Greiss at 92.66%. That save percentage is 1.66% above average. Based on how goals saved above average is calculated, average SV% last year was 91%. A goaltender playing 70 games behind SJ’s defense would give you about 33 GSAA, but then you have to consider that one GSAA behind SJ’s defense is worth about 1.5 GSAx (this figure is almost exact if you look at GSAA/GSAx for their goalies) because of how high the quality of shots was that they allowed. So, right off the bat, a goaltender with Thomas Greiss’ SV% on last year’s SJ team, playing 70 games, is worth about 50 goals.

Now if you tailor your system to be a system that allows insane shot quality but low shot quantity, you can probably get significantly more than 50 goals saved above what a truly average goaltender would. Even at just 50 goals saved above an average goaltender, you’re still looking at by far the best player in the NHL if your goaltender can consistently maintain that.

If we look at things more practically and in line with what the OP is asking for and say we’re talking about the 5th best “goaltending performance”, and that this goaltender is only human like any other and their SV% can be influenced by team performance, then things get a lot more dicey. If they play 70 games per season, the 5th best per-game goaltending performance is probably saving you about 25-30 goals more than an average goaltender would based on metrics like GSAx. Based on metrics like Evolving Hockey’s GAA, only two skaters (Datsyuk and McDavid) have ever been worth over 25 goals above average in one season. While I think those metrics kind of under rate the value of truly elite players, I think it’s a pretty good baseline to work off of. And I think it’s reasonable to say that the absolute best player, in any given year, is probably not worth too much more than 25-30 goals above average, and that not more 2-3 players are worth that in any given season.

So, if you’re getting a goaltender whose performance is consistently posting the 5th best per-game goaltending performance, and they’re consistently playing 70 games, you’ve got a top-5 player in the NHL in just about every season. And by virtue of consistently being a top-5 player in every single season, that goaltender is probably the most valuable player in the NHL. Worst case, they’re 2nd behind Connor McDavid.

Regardless of how you interpret the question, I think that over $13M is the best answer.
 

swissexpert

Registered User
Sep 21, 2009
2,719
972
The Rangers basically did this. It's not as great as you all think.

So he was guaranteed to play 70 games within the top 5 SV% each year?

Ranking only the Goalies with 25+ games, let's see how Lundqvist has performed:

14/15 46 games, 10th
15/16 65 games, 14th
16/17 57 games, 33th
17/18 63 games, 23th
18/19 52 games, 36th
19/20 50 games, 33th (on pace for)

Not once during his contract extension did he hit 70 games or top 5, so do you see how far away that is from the OP's scenario??
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mc5RingsAndABeer

Machinehead

GoAwayTrouba
Jan 21, 2011
142,128
111,918
NYC
So he was guaranteed to play 70 games within the top 5 SV% each year?

Ranking only the Goalies with 25+ games, let's see how Lundqvist has performed:

14/15 46 games, 10th
15/16 65 games, 14th
16/17 57 games, 33th
17/18 63 games, 23th
18/19 52 games, 36th
19/20 50 games, 33th (on pace for)

Not once during his contract extension did he hit 70 games or top 5, so do you see how far away that is from the OP's scenario??

Not what I was talking about.

13/14 - 63 games, 7th
12/13 - 43 games*, 5th
11/12 - 62 games, 1st
10/11 - 68 games, 4th
09/10 - 73 games, 5th
08/09 - 70 gmaes, 7th

Average games played - 68
Average save percentage rank - 4.8

It's not far off, in fact it's almost spot on, and it got the Rangers precisely nowhere outside of a SCF appearance in 2014 (during his worst season).

Goaltending isn't that valuable.
 

swissexpert

Registered User
Sep 21, 2009
2,719
972
Not what I was talking about.

13/14 - 63 games, 7th
12/13 - 43 games*, 5th
11/12 - 62 games, 1st
10/11 - 68 games, 4th
09/10 - 73 games, 5th
08/09 - 70 gmaes, 7th

Average games played - 68
Average save percentage rank - 4.8

It's not far off, in fact it's almost spot on, and it got the Rangers precisely nowhere outside of a SCF appearance in 2014 (during his worst season).

Goaltending isn't that valuable.
How did you generate those numbers?

Ranking Henrik this high is only possible by setting the min. GP to 50+ which is ridiculous, only around 15 Goalies per year do it.
So top 5 would mean within the best 33% starting goalies and this is clearly not what was asked.

And he didn't even reach top 5 two times out of 6...

I corrected your numbers by the official Vezina criteria, min. 25 games played:

13/14 - 63 games, 15th
12/13 - 43 games*, 5th
11/12 - 62 games, 4th
10/11 - 68 games, 8th
09/10 - 73 games, 8th
08/09 - 70 games, 12th

So he hit 70 games twice and top 5 twice.
Not one single season of those matches OP's criteria.
In fact, the only goaltender who came very close was J. Quick with 69 gms, 5th in 11/12.
Yes, the Kings won the Cup that year.
 

Machinehead

GoAwayTrouba
Jan 21, 2011
142,128
111,918
NYC
How did you generate those numbers?

Ranking Henrik this high is only possible by setting the min. GP to 50+ which is ridiculous, only around 15 Goalies per year do it.
So top 5 would mean within the best 33% starting goalies and this is clearly not what was asked.

And he didn't even reach top 5 two times out of 6...

I corrected your numbers by the official Vezina criteria, min. 25 games played:

13/14 - 63 games, 15th
12/13 - 43 games*, 5th
11/12 - 62 games, 4th
10/11 - 68 games, 8th
09/10 - 73 games, 8th
08/09 - 70 games, 12th

So he hit 70 games twice and top 5 twice.
Not one single season of those matches OP's criteria.
In fact, the only goaltender who came very close was J. Quick with 69 gms, 5th in 11/12.
Yes, the Kings won the Cup that year.
I just used 50 games instead of 25. 25 is stupid. That's counting bonafide backups.
 

swissexpert

Registered User
Sep 21, 2009
2,719
972
I just used 50 games instead of 25. 25 is stupid. That's counting bonafide backups.

Yeah, 'bonafide backups' Ben Bishop and Robin Lehner didn't play 50 games last year, there's 2 of the 3 Vezina candidates.

You just tried to make it look better by adjusting the stats your way and failed heavily. Even by cutting off half the leagues goaltenders you didn't reach OP's criteria 5/6 times, great job.

70 games and top 5 SV% is basically a hybrid of prime Brodeur and Hasek, guaranteed for 7 years into the future. If that guy is on the FA market, there will be 31 teams willing to give hime 13m+ a year.
 

Machinehead

GoAwayTrouba
Jan 21, 2011
142,128
111,918
NYC
Yeah, 'bonafide backups' Ben Bishop and Robin Lehner didn't play 50 games last year, there's 2 of the 3 Vezina candidates.

You just tried to make it look better by adjusting the stats your way and failed heavily. Even by cutting off half the leagues goaltenders you didn't reach OP's criteria 5/6 times, great job.

70 games and top 5 SV% is basically a hybrid of prime Brodeur and Hasek, guaranteed for 7 years into the future. If that guy is on the FA market, there will be 31 teams willing to give hime 13m+ a year.
Right, they played 46.

That's much closer to 25 than it is to 50.
 

swissexpert

Registered User
Sep 21, 2009
2,719
972
Right, they played 46.

That's much closer to 25 than it is to 50.
No it's not, your math is not really on point once again.

25 is the official Vezina criteria. You can try 40 and do your math again if that helps you sleep well, it won't change the fact that he missed top 5 in 4 out of 6 seasons.

Not even prime Lundqvist lived up to those numbers and he was an amazing goalie over a long period. If you could have his Vezina season guaranteed for the next 7 years on your franchise, you would be stupid to not give him 13+
 

Machinehead

GoAwayTrouba
Jan 21, 2011
142,128
111,918
NYC
No it's not, your math is not really on point once again.

25 is the official Vezina criteria. You can try 40 and do your math again if that helps you sleep well, it won't change the fact that he missed top 5 in 4 out of 6 seasons.

Not even prime Lundqvist lived up to those numbers and he was an amazing goalie over a long period. If you could have his Vezina season guaranteed for the next 7 years on your franchise, you would be stupid to not give him 13+
We're talking about a goaltender that plays 70 games a year and you're using 25 as a cutoff point. We've established that it's an elite goaltender, and you're hung up on a stat that "only 15 goaltenders hit." I fail to see how this guy doesn't get into the top 15. I'm not the one fudging the data to help my argument.

Instead of save percentage, let's consider GSAA as it's cumulative and, by nature, eliminates non-starters. Plus, it's based on save percentage, just accounting for workload and league trends.

We've already established that Lundqvist averaged 68 games a season adjusting for the lockout year.

GSAA finishes:

08/09 - 7th
09/10 - 6th
10/11 - 6th
11/12 - 3rd
12/13 - 3rd
13/14 - 11th

Average ranking - 6th
Cumulative ranking over all six seasons - 1st

This hypothetical goalie isn't as good as everyone is making him out to be. It's a slightly better Lundqvist. Brodeur + Hasek is absolutely laughable.
 

ijuka

Registered User
May 14, 2016
22,281
14,850
interesting dilemma. A significant reason to not pay so much for goalies is how inconsistent they are by nature.
 

Machinehead

GoAwayTrouba
Jan 21, 2011
142,128
111,918
NYC
If the poll asked "how much is a Hall of Fame goalie worth?" I bet these takes would be different.

That's what this is. He's a Hall of Famer, but he's not breaking hockey. Prime Hasek and Prime Roy were better than this hypothetical goaltender.

If you prefer Prime Hasek/Roy over Prime McDavid/Crosby, good f***ing luck with that.
 

swissexpert

Registered User
Sep 21, 2009
2,719
972
GSAA finishes:

08/09 - 7th
09/10 - 6th
10/11 - 6th
11/12 - 3rd
12/13 - 3rd
13/14 - 11th

Average ranking - 6th
Cumulative ranking over all six seasons - 1st

6th average is not the same as top 5 EVERY year.

Like I said before, Lundqvist isn't in there 4 out of 6 times, you just confirmed the point i was making.

Take out his best two seasons and stretch those to 7 years and 70 games a year and we have the prototype we're looking for.

Probably more Brodeur than Lundqvist because he actually was a 70 game marathon guy.
In the end, it doesn't really matter if we're calling the guy Prime Brodeur or Prime Henrik, it's a first ballot Hall of Fame Goalie.

The reason however, why every team will throw easily 13m at this very hypothetical guy is the security you get, not his talent or potential.

I mean you don't even need a solid backup for the remaining 12 games. Saves you some cap space as well.

I agree that a prime Crosby/McDavid with the same guarantee is worth even more, no one will deny that.
Since there is no guarantee in reality, McDavid got only 12,5 and not 15+.
 

Machinehead

GoAwayTrouba
Jan 21, 2011
142,128
111,918
NYC
6th average is not the same as top 5 EVERY year.

Like I said before, Lundqvist isn't in there 4 out of 6 times, you just confirmed the point i was making.

Take out his best two seasons and stretch those to 7 years and 70 games a year and we have the prototype we're looking for.

Probably more Brodeur than Lundqvist because he actually was a 70 game marathon guy.
In the end, it doesn't really matter if we're calling the guy Prime Brodeur or Prime Henrik, it's a first ballot Hall of Fame Goalie.

The reason however, why every team will throw easily 13m at this very hypothetical guy is the security you get, not his talent or potential.

I mean you don't even need a solid backup for the remaining 12 games. Saves you some cap space as well.

I agree that a prime Crosby/McDavid with the same guarantee is worth even more, no one will deny that.
Since there is no guarantee in reality, McDavid got only 12,5 and not 15+.

It's not top 5 every year. It's specifically 5th every year. So an average of 6th is very close to the scenario proposed. Top 5 every year is a completely different scenario.

There's value in consistency but the goalie in question would never be the best in the league in any one season.

Sort of like Lundqvist who (rightfully tbh) only has one Vezina.
 

swissexpert

Registered User
Sep 21, 2009
2,719
972
It's not top 5 every year. It's specifically 5th every year. So an average of 6th is very close to the scenario proposed. Top 5 every year is a completely different scenario.

Ah yeah, I misunderstood that. So the guy still probably gets a Vezina or two and would be the best of that decade, but never really unreachable on top. Yeah so Hasek is clearly above him I agree.

Still, going with Lundqvist who is worse (even if not by much) than our guy, the Rangers paid him 8,5 annually for those years till he's 38 yo.
They knew he'd never maintain his performance over the whole time, he also would miss about one full season additionally because of injuries, and there is a high possibility that during the last years he won't even be a surefire starting GK anymore.

They realistically hoped for 3-4 elite seasons during that contract and it was worth 8,5 to them so you could assume that 7 elite years would weigh a lot more than that.
 

Machinehead

GoAwayTrouba
Jan 21, 2011
142,128
111,918
NYC
Ah yeah, I misunderstood that. So the guy still probably gets a Vezina or two and would be the best of that decade, but never really unreachable on top. Yeah so Hasek is clearly above him I agree.

Still, going with Lundqvist who is worse (even if not by much) than our guy, the Rangers paid him 8,5 annually for those years till he's 38 yo.
They knew he'd never maintain his performance over the whole time, he also would miss about one full season additionally because of injuries, and there is a high possibility that during the last years he won't even be a surefire starting GK anymore.

They realistically hoped for 3-4 elite seasons during that contract and it was worth 8,5 to them so you could assume that 7 elite years would weigh a lot more than that.
That's fair, but we're also judging contract value using the Rangers as a bar which is like judging hairstyles using Getzlaf as a bar.
 
  • Like
Reactions: swissexpert

BlueBrunswick

Registered User
Jan 27, 2014
265
80
For a goalie that would hit those number 13+ is well within reason.... considering only 4 goaltenders have even played 70 games in a season over the last 5 years, 70 played at a high level would be well worth it. Considering, going back 6 years, not counting this year, only 7 goalies have averaged 55 games a year and only one has average 60. If you asked the average GM - how much is stability in net for 7 years worth to you with league average goaltending, i'm sure there is more than a few that would be willing to pay 5 mil just for that. Games played at a high level over 7 years is worth a lot. When we talk about SV%, there seems to be some discussion around qualifying player or those playing 50 games or so - I've always used 41 games as my standard... you play 41 games in a year and you can call your self a starting goalie. last year that 31 player played 41 games and 53 played enough to qualify for the leader boards. Using the PO parameters, 5th best among qualifiers is a pretty high standard. And statistically speaking, a player playing 70 games at that level is more valuable that a player playing 55 games at that level because backup goalies do not tend to have superior numbers.
 

Ducks in a row

Go Ducks Quack Quack
Dec 17, 2013
18,006
4,363
U.S.A.
Possibility

Top 4 goalies in save percentage are 0.10 - 0.15 better save percentage while playing low 60 something games.

Goalie in this poll plays 70 games finishes 5th every season in save percentage.

Goalies from 6 - 10 in save percentage are 0.01 - 0.04 worse save percentage while playing low 60 something games.

Now take playoffs into account

Top 4 goalies in save percentage during season are in the middle of save percentage during the playoffs

Goalie in poll save percentage during the playoffs is lower end during the playoffs

Goalies from 6 - 10 during the regular season are in the top end of save percentage during the playoffs

Having a goalie who is sure to play 70 games during the regular season with 5th best save percentage is good but he can be a good amount behind the top 4 and could end up being burned out by the time of the playoffs so I won't want to pay a goalie a ton unless I know he is also one of the better goalies in the playoffs.
 

Nosferatu

Registered User
Nov 10, 2016
334
152
Are you counting every goalie that plays even one game or does it have to be some minimum number of games?
 

shelf

Registered User
Nov 4, 2006
1,356
93
London ONtario
I was going off of 25+ games played. Lets look at how often this player would win the Vezina

18-19 Vasilevski 6th, 53 games. 1st
17-18 Rinne 7th,, 59 games 1st
16-17 Bob 1st, 63 games. 2nd-3rd
15-16 Holtby 9th, 62 games 1st
14-15 Price 1st, 66 games. 2nd-4th
13-14 Rask 2nd, 58 games. Would finish 4th - 5th
11-12 Lundqvist 4th, 62 games. 1st-3rd

3 Vezinas along with 3 Vezina nominees.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->