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

[North Cole]

Not paying a goalie more than 10, struggle paying one more than 9.

Get an average starter and spend money on positions that win games - scoring. The best a goalie can give you is a 0-0 tie.

This goalie doesnt automatically win vezina's because he's starting 70 games. He also has to win, which 5th sv% doesnt garauntee...he could be 5th in Sv% and 20th in GAA because you decided to pay him like Connor McDavid and have no money to spend on defense. Plus, hes never gonna be higher than 5, so it's not like he will suddenly turn into Giguere or Thomas.

 

[wintersej]

An average team gets about 2400 shots in a season. If you look at last year (amongst the 33 goalies with at least 40 games), 5th in save % would be around .925. The average goalie amongst those 33 was at .913.

So... and we are talking big averages here... this hypothetical goalie playing 70 games (with league average backup) would save you 25-30 goals over a team with 82 games of league average goaltending.

Thats solid value, but not worth most of the numbers being listed here.

But... there is some extra value here. You can go get a league minimum backup. And being able to know you are going to be good in net is a big deal. How many teams have been sunk by their goalie having a surprise garbage season?

Also there are no stipulations here around team effects on save percentage. Under the terms of the OP I basically can roll out the Leafs D and assume I would only get "good Andersen" and never "bad Andersen". That guy would win the Vezina almost every year. Maybe every year. He would be the best goalie since Hasek and would have an argument for the 2nd best goalie ever.

So if that is the guy I am getting, and he stays that guy in the playoffs on average, that is all worth a hell of a lot more than "saves 25-30 goals a season". You could just built a team around offense and skill (and allocate your cap dollars that way and not spend much on your blue line). That is all worth a LOT more than folks are voting.

 

[shelf]

Not paying a goalie more than 10, struggle paying one more than 9.

Get an average starter and spend money on positions that win games - scoring. The best a goalie can give you is a 0-0 tie.

This goalie doesnt automatically win vezina's because he's starting 70 games. He also has to win, which 5th sv% doesnt garauntee...he could be 5th in Sv% and 20th in GAA because you decided to pay him like Connor McDavid and have no money to spend on defense. Plus, hes never gonna be higher than 5, so it's not like he will suddenly turn into Giguere or Thomas.

Where are you getting an average starter from? Lots of teams have given up draft picks for an above average goaltender and then payed them decent money only for that average to above average goaltender to all of the sudden shit the bed. The idea of going out and getting an average goalie for 5m is great in theory. Until you try and he ends up being absolutely terrible and then you are paying him 5m to play for your AHL team

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

An average team gets about 2400 shots in a season. If you look at last year (amongst the 33 goalies with at least 40 games), 5th in save % would be around .925. The average goalie amongst those 33 was at .913.

So... and we are talking big averages here... this hypothetical goalie playing 70 games (with league average backup) would save you 25-30 goals over a team with 82 games of league average goaltending.

Thats solid value, but not worth most of the numbers being listed here.

But... there is some extra value here. You can go get a league minimum backup. And being able to know you are going to be good in net is a big deal. How many teams have been sunk by their goalie having a surprise garbage season?

Also there are no stipulations here around team effects on save percentage. Under the terms of the OP I basically can roll out the Leafs D and assume I would only get "good Andersen" and never "bad Andersen". That guy would win the Vezina almost every year. Maybe every year. He would be the best goalie since Hasek and would have an argument for the 2nd best goalie ever.

So if that is the guy I am getting, and he stays that guy in the playoffs on average, that is all worth a hell of a lot more than "saves 25-30 goals a season". You could just built a team around offense and skill (and allocate your cap dollars that way and not spend much on your blue line). That is all worth a LOT more than folks are voting.

I think your post is on the right track here, but I think you’re under estimating the value of 25-30 goals more than average. Based on the models we have available, pretty much zero skaters ever provide that kind of value over the course of a single season.

 

[wintersej]

I think your post is on the right track here, but I think you’re under estimating the value of 25-30 goals more than average. Based on the models we have available, pretty much zero skaters ever provide that kind of value over the course of a single season.

Right, I was thinking in terms of adding 25-30 goal scorer instead of a 4th liner, but that wasn't the right way to think about it. Changed my vote to 13+.

 

[BlueBrunswick]

Right, I was thinking in terms of adding 25-30 goal scorer instead of a 4th liner, but that wasn't the right way to think about it. Changed my vote to 13+.

As well, that's 25-30 goals saved above a league average replacement - backup goalies don't tend to be league average. Last year 32 goalies played between 15 to 39 games, those are the guys I would considered last year's backups - of those guys only 9 guys had a SV% of .913 or better and 16 or half of them had a SV% of .905 or lower.

Getting 7 years with 70 games played a high level is a huge deal - in Roy's 20 years he never played 70 games once, and Hasek only once

 

[Erik Alfredsson]

I'm never paying a goalie more than 6 mil a season. You don't need 70 games and 5th in save percentage to make the playoffs or win a cup. Hell Nilsson with Ottawa is proving that he'd be capable of getting a playoff caliber roster to the playoffs (he won't bring the Sens there, because the Sens aren't playoff caliber), and he's making 2.6 mil.

 

[North Cole]

Where are you getting an average starter from? Lots of teams have given up draft picks for an above average goaltender and then payed them decent money only for that average to above average goaltender to all of the sudden **** the bed. The idea of going out and getting an average goalie for 5m is great in theory. Until you try and he ends up being absolutely terrible and then you are paying him 5m to play for your AHL team

From the one you already have on the team. Lots of teams have done lots of things that didnt work out in retrospect.

NYI had what was considered an average goalie or below average goalie in Lehner. He went insane in their system, wanted too much money...They moved on, and replaced him with another average to below average goalie. Same exact outcome thus far.

And they arent paying bobrovsky money, let alone McDavid money like some are advocating in this thread. If you spend 13m on a goalie, you have only yourself to blame when the team goes in the gutter. Him being 5th in sv% every year doesnt change that. 5th in sv% doesn't garauntee wins. You can post a consistent .920 sv%...and let in 4 goals a game if you get caved in on shots every game.

You'd be garaunteed to be icing an AHL team if you spend 13m on a goalie.

 

[BlueBrunswick]

From the one you already have on the team. Lots of teams have done lots of things that didnt work out in retrospect.

NYI had what was considered an average goalie or below average goalie in Lehner. He went insane in their system, wanted too much money...They moved on, and replaced him with another average to below average goalie. Same exact outcome thus far.

And they arent paying bobrovsky money, let alone McDavid money like some are advocating in this thread. If you spend 13m on a goalie, you have only yourself to blame when the team goes in the gutter. Him being 5th in sv% every year doesnt change that. 5th in sv% doesn't garauntee wins. You can post a consistent .920 sv%...and let in 4 goals a game if you get caved in on shots every game.

You'd be garaunteed to be icing an AHL team if you spend 13m on a goalie.

Sure that is working out now, but staring with last year here is how the Islanders have finished in SV% over 7 years... last year 1st - 28th - 17th - 9th - 26th - 30th - 24th and over that time they've had 11 different goaltenders start in net for them. if someone said to the GM today - you give this guy 13 mil and you are guaranteed to have him play at an elite level every year for the next 7 years - I'm not talking playing well, but 70 games a year at an elite level - keep in mind only 4 goalies have even played 70 games in a year over the last 5 - with that guarantee he would jump at it.

 

[North Cole]

Sure that is working out now, but staring with last year here is how the Islanders have finished in SV% over 7 years... last year 1st - 28th - 17th - 9th - 26th - 30th - 24th and over that time they've had 11 different goaltenders start in net for them. if someone said to the GM today - you give this guy 13 mil and you are guaranteed to have him play at an elite level every year for the next 7 years - I'm not talking playing well, but 70 games a year at an elite level - keep in mind only 4 goalies have even played 70 games in a year over the last 5 - with that guarantee he would jump at it.

I would hope he wouldnt. There is no garauntee that hes playing at an elite level for 70 games, Sv% is an average. I'm curious to see where they end up, because prior to last year they weren't good and their systems were poor. If you have better forwards and defensemen, along with playing structured team defense, you shouldnt need to spend 13m on a goaltender. The most elite goaltending in the world doesnt win you games, you still need to score goals. This is the exact issue Dallas had - bishop was 6th in Sv% and they had like 10 goals in their first 7 games, bishop posted a losing record...

 

[Howboutthempanthers]

Still wouldn't pay more than 7 mill or so. I'm more concerned about getting a talented team to play well structured, good defensive hockey in front of the goaltender.
Paying a goaltender a lot would take money away from some where else. And goaltending alone is not getting you anywhere. But if the team in front of the goaltender plays well enough, you can plug someone in back there that will do good enough.

 

[shelf]

Still wouldn't pay more than 7 mill or so. I'm more concerned about getting a talented team to play well structured, good defensive hockey in front of the goaltender.
Paying a goaltender a lot would take money away from some where else. And goaltending alone is not getting you anywhere. But if the team in front of the goaltender plays well enough, you can plug someone in back there that will do good enough.

Let's pretend the sharks had 11m to spend this summer. Do you think they would have been a better off if they had added Panarin to their team or if they had .928 SV%

 

[Howboutthempanthers]

Let's pretend the sharks had 11m to spend this summer. Do you think they would have been a better off if they had added Panarin to their team or if they had .928 SV%

It's a team game, hockey more so than most team sports, and that includes the goaltender. It's not a collection of individuals. You're looking at it as, just plug in guys here or there and you automatically get a certain result. The goaltending is a buy product of the team in front him. If the goaltending is bad, it's something wrong with the team overall. Bad goaltending is mostly just a symptom. Good goaltending is also mostly just a symptom. There are anomalies of course, much less so than in the past. But anomalies are not what you bank on.
San Jose probably has a much bigger problem than just it's goaltending. It probably goes deeper than that. And they will have to do much more hard work to correct their issues. If they had a .928 SV%, it wouldn't be just because they added a $11 mil goaltender. And no to the other option too, adding Panarin is just as futile as far as making the best team.

 

[CraigsList]

So, Miikka Kiprusoff back in the day ?

 

[cgf]

Keep in mind that a goalie who plays 70 games is taking approx. 10-15 starts from your backup. So you're not just paying for the small gap between your top goalie and other top starters, but the bigger difference between having your top goalie in nets for an extra 10-15 games instead of the backup goalie.

Yeah, but are you really going to make up that starter-salary differential with a cheaper backup? Backup goalie isn't exactly a high-cost position that there's a lot of potential for savings, in to justify committing so much more of your cap to the starter; than do your competitors.

There just isn't that big of a gap between having an elite starter and a "just good" one; not unless that elite starter is one of the all-time greats (like Hasek or Roy) and consistently stealing playoff series for you.

 

[wintersej]

It's a team game, hockey more so than most team sports, and that includes the goaltender. It's not a collection of individuals. You're looking at it as, just plug in guys here or there and you automatically get a certain result. The goaltending is a buy product of the team in front him. If the goaltending is bad, it's something wrong with the team overall. Bad goaltending is mostly just a symptom. Good goaltending is also mostly just a symptom. There are anomalies of course, much less so than in the past. But anomalies are not what you bank on.
San Jose probably has a much bigger problem than just it's goaltending. It probably goes deeper than that. And they will have to do much more hard work to correct their issues. If they had a .928 SV%, it wouldn't be just because they added a $11 mil goaltender. And no to the other option too, adding Panarin is just as futile as far as making the best team.

Everything you said it true. But, that isn't what the OP is about. Its a hypothetical about a magic goalie who always finished 5th in save % no matter the team in front of him.