Interesting facts about goalies traded to become the new team's starter since 2013

[Bjornar Moxnes]

As you know, Schneider, Lack, Jones, Andersen, Elliott, Talbot, Darling, Smith, (Maybe a few more that I'm missing) were traded to become starters for new teams.

The ones that have succeeded (Schneider, Jones, Andersen, Talbot, and Smith) all have something in common. They have great goalie fundamentals such as positioning, rebound control, puck handling, puck tracking, etc. (Well Schneider isn't that good of a puck handler, but that's about it and Smith didn't have good rebound control with the Coyotes, but he's improved a lot with the Flames).

Every goalie that failed is the complete opposite (Elliott is a good positional goalie and that's about it). Darling and Lack especially who have terrible fundamentals imploded on their new teams.

That's why I feel those shouldn't be too scared of Grubauer or Hutton going to new teams as they have good fundamentals.

Click to read more...

 

[Evil Janney]

I'm sorry, where is the "interesting statistics"? A subjective talent report about good positioning is not a stat.

 

[A1LeafNation]

Rask Bishop Luongo

 

[Crede777]

If you push it back a year Bobrovsky was traded in 2012.

 

[Frank Drebin]

Are there good goalies with bad fundamentals?

 

[Bjornar Moxnes]

Rask Bishop Luongo

Luongo has great positioning but rebound control and puck handling is not what I would call his strengths.

 

[HTFN]

I'm very confused.

Goalies that have quality all-around fundamentals do well when traded and given opportunity, goalies whose games are inherently flawed or incomplete do not. When trading for a future #1 goaltender, try to target players with actual potential to be #1 goaltenders.

Is that basically it?

 

[jetsforever]

So what you're saying is that the goalies who have succeeded have been the ones that are better at playing hockey?
Astounding

 

[Bjornar Moxnes]

So what you're saying is that the goalies who have succeeded have been the ones that are better at playing hockey?
Astounding

Eh Darling had much better stats than Jones, Andersen, etc. at the time of their trades. Lack also had great stats. It's sustainability. Plus Crawford's fundamentals aren't as good as a lot of goalies in the league (Not saying they are bad), but he's an elite goalie, whereas goalies with better fundamentals such as Holtby, Rinne, Rask, Jones, Andersen, etc. aren't as good as Crawford. Hasek's style of play was crazy and unorthodox and he's a legendary goalie.

 

[Bjornar Moxnes]

I'm very confused.

Goalies that have quality all-around fundamentals do well when traded and given opportunity, goalies whose games are inherently flawed or incomplete do not. When trading for a future #1 goaltender, try to target players with actual potential to be #1 goaltenders.

Is that basically it?

Try to target goalies that have good fundamentals instead of just having great stats and making "clutch" saves. Darling and Lack were extremely clutch players at the time of their trades and they imploded.

 

[Frank Drebin]

Try to target goalies that have good fundamentals instead of just having great stats and making "clutch" saves. Darling and Lack were extremely clutch players at the time of their trades and they imploded.

The good teams only have good players fallacy.

 

[Bjornar Moxnes]

Dubnyk is the only exception, he had terrible fundamentals with the Oilers and his fundamentals have improved greatly since he became a Wild, yet despite this Dubnyk is still a goalie with fundamentals that aren't very good. Good positioning sure, but he's still an awful puck handler, and not the greatest rebound controller. Hiller had one great season and then imploded with the Flames for the same reason. yes Talbot had an off year, but he had two great years one of which was elite with the Oilers. Besides Talbot's bad season in 2017-2018 was overblown and isn't anywhere near as bad as Darling and Lack's worst seasons.

 

[HTFN]

Try to target goalies that have good fundamentals instead of just having great stats and making "clutch" saves. Darling and Lack were extremely clutch players at the time of their trades and they imploded.

I'm genuinely not trying to be rude, but I would hope that every scouting department in the NHL is aware of the phrase "all flash and no substance".

I guess they prove you wrong from time to time, I just think that even when you know a goalie's going to be good for sure, you can never be that sure.

I remember threads around the time the Capitals traded Varlamov that had posts saying it was a mistake, that Neuvirth wouldn't be good enough and that the Capitals had compromised their future (only posts, plenty of people said it was good and knew they had to get what they could get). A few replied saying that they weren't gambling on Neuvirth moving forward, but rather just waiting for Holtby. Watching him you knew he could be good, of course, but could anyone predict being that good on talent alone? Murray is kind of the same way. You see him thriving in his development and you want him to be good, naturally, but you can't exactly predict the fortitude to play the way he did in the playoffs.

Grubauer has all the talent to be a #1, but who can say after that? Guy could be the next Pavelec, Lehtonen, Miller, or Crawford, maybe worse, maybe better.

 

[DL44]

Try to target goalies that have good fundamentals instead of just having great stats and making "clutch" saves. Darling and Lack were extremely clutch players at the time of their trades and they imploded.

Lack being a clutch goalie in Van is news to me.
He put up numbers behind Miller as a backup with backup assignments...
But he was the opposite of clutch with how he let in backbreakers.

 

[A1LeafNation]

Fact: Good goalies are good. Bad goalies are not.

 

[Holymakinaw]

LOL.

 

[Bjornar Moxnes]

Lack being a clutch goalie in Van is news to me.
He put up numbers behind Miller as a backup with backup assignments...
But he was the opposite of clutch with how he let in backbreakers.

Maybe in the playoffs, but I watched a couple of Canucks games in the regular season that year and Lack performed admirably and stole a couple of games on his own.

 

[DL44]

Maybe in the playoffs, but I watched a couple of Canucks games in the regular season that year and Lack performed admirably and stole a couple of games on his own.

Well sure... any goalie vying for a #1 job will have stolen games here and there...

But his overall game log was peppered with softies and backbreakers.

He was like a flipped version of Markstrom...
Marky lets backbreakers within the first 5 mins or first 5 shots virtually every game then shuts the door and has his numbers climb as the team is gut punched and playing from behind the rest of the game..

Eddie will stand on his head, then something standard goes under his elbow in the last min of a period popping your eyebrows.

 

[Bjornar Moxnes]

Well sure... any goalie vying for a #1 job will have stolen games here and there...

But his overall game log was peppered with softies and backbreakers.

He was like a flipped version of Markstrom...
Marky lets backbreakers within the first 5 mins or first 5 shots virtually every game then shuts the door and has his numbers climb as the team is gut punched and playing from behind the rest of the game..

Goalies with great fundamentals also allow in softies and backbreakers. Rinne and Bobrovsky are great examples this playoffs alone, and I don't even need to begin to count other goalies. Andersen has allowed softies as a Duck, Jones as a king. Sure these goalies might not allow them as often as Lack, but the likelihood isn't that significant to be honest. Hutton and Allen especially are two goalies with great fundamentals (Although Allen's positioning sucks) that aren't very good goalies. But they give you consistent play.

 

[BlueDream]

As you know, Schneider, Lack, Jones, Andersen, Elliott, Talbot, Darling, Smith, (Maybe a few more that I'm missing) were traded to become starters for new teams.

The ones that have succeeded (Schneider, Jones, Andersen, Talbot, and Smith) all have something in common. They have great goalie fundamentals such as positioning, rebound control, puck handling, puck tracking, etc. (Well Schneider isn't that good of a puck handler, but that's about it and Smith didn't have good rebound control with the Coyotes, but he's improved a lot with the Flames).

Every goalie that failed is the complete opposite (Elliott is a good positional goalie and that's about it). Darling and Lack especially who have terrible fundamentals imploded on their new teams.

That's why I feel those shouldn't be too scared of Grubauer or Hutton going to new teams as they have good fundamentals.

Hutton is in his 30s and has been a career backup. He has a career year in STL and suddenly he’s stared worthy? I don’t think so. Buyer beware.

 

[Bjornar Moxnes]

Hutton is in his 30s and has been a career backup. He has a career year in STL and suddenly he’s stared worthy? I don’t think so. Buyer beware.

I mean he's not starter worthy, but his fundamentals are good, he has good positioning, rebound control, puck handling, etc. I don't think his numbers will fall drastically as a starter due to good fundamentals. But I do agree he shouldn't be a long term starter at all.

 

[maacoshark]

As you know, Schneider, Lack, Jones, Andersen, Elliott, Talbot, Darling, Smith, (Maybe a few more that I'm missing) were traded to become starters for new teams.

The ones that have succeeded (Schneider, Jones, Andersen, Talbot, and Smith) all have something in common. They have great goalie fundamentals such as positioning, rebound control, puck handling, puck tracking, etc. (Well Schneider isn't that good of a puck handler, but that's about it and Smith didn't have good rebound control with the Coyotes, but he's improved a lot with the Flames).

Every goalie that failed is the complete opposite (Elliott is a good positional goalie and that's about it). Darling and Lack especially who have terrible fundamentals imploded on their new teams.

That's why I feel those shouldn't be too scared of Grubauer or Hutton going to new teams as they have good fundamentals.

Grubauer fundamentals aren't very good. He doesnt cut down angles well and doesntbcontrol his rebounds very well.

 

[Bank Shot]

As you know, Schneider, Lack, Jones, Andersen, Elliott, Talbot, Darling, Smith, (Maybe a few more that I'm missing) were traded to become starters for new teams.

The ones that have succeeded (Schneider, Jones, Andersen, Talbot, and Smith) all have something in common. They have great goalie fundamentals such as positioning, rebound control, puck handling, puck tracking, etc. (Well Schneider isn't that good of a puck handler, but that's about it and Smith didn't have good rebound control with the Coyotes, but he's improved a lot with the Flames).

Every goalie that failed is the complete opposite (Elliott is a good positional goalie and that's about it). Darling and Lack especially who have terrible fundamentals imploded on their new teams.

That's why I feel those shouldn't be too scared of Grubauer or Hutton going to new teams as they have good fundamentals.

How do you make an accurate assessment of a goalies fundamentals?

This strays wildly from facts and way into opinion.

I mean you're not wrong here, but even goaltending experts consistently get it wrong when it comes to predicting future performance of goalies.

 

[frag2]

Are there good goalies with bad fundamentals?

JMO but Fleury was the first to come to mind. He always seems like he's out of position but hes athletic enough to keep the puck out

 

[Bjornar Moxnes]

How do you make an accurate assessment of a goalies fundamentals?

This strays wildly from facts and way into opinion.

I mean you're not wrong here, but even goaltending experts consistently get it wrong when it comes to predicting future performance of goalies.

It's jsut from what I notice and I agree 100% Grubauer and Hutton can go to new teams and implode and it isn't accurate. But this is more of noticing a pattern of players that already went to new teams and their performance.