Why shouldn't WSH sign Lundqvist?

[twabby]

This conveniently ignores his downward trend over 6 years.

A downward trend from best goalie in the salary cap-era might still mean he's got something left in the tank.

I'm not married to the idea of Lundqvist as the 1B/backup but at a million or so a year it's a good choice IMO.

 

[Hivemind]

xGA isn’t a great evaluation tools for goalies. If you want to see how they fare against high danger changes, look at their high danger sv%. If you want to merge that into a metric that considers shot volumes from different locations, that’s GSAA (goals saved above average. By GSAA, Lundqvist was below average.

 

[Ridley Simon]

Here are the NHL goalies last year sorted by goals saved above expected per 60 (5v5 only), which tries to take into account shot quality against:

Player	GP	TOI	Shots Against	Saves	Goals Against	SV%	GAA	GSAA	xG Against	GSAx	GSAx/60
Anton Khudobin	30	1329.683333	673	637	36	0.947	1.62	18.62	44.43	8.43	0.380391321
Connor Hellebuyck	58	2701	1458	1354	104	0.929	2.31	14.33	115.62	11.62	0.25812662
Tuukka Rask	41	1855.833333	871	820	51	0.941	1.65	19.69	58.55	7.55	0.244095195
Philipp Grubauer	36	1611.433333	815	762	53	0.935	1.97	13.14	59.12	6.12	0.227871667
Jake Allen	24	1094	533	498	35	0.934	1.92	8.26	39.01	4.01	0.219926874
Darcy Kuemper	29	1432.45	725	676	49	0.932	2.05	9.84	53.01	4.01	0.167963978
Corey Crawford	40	1897.566667	1066	987	79	0.926	2.5	7.52	82.41	3.41	0.107822299
Ilya Samsonov	26	1086.1	534	495	39	0.927	2.15	4.34	40.73	1.73	0.09557131
Henrik Lundqvist	30	1260.883333	663	608	55	0.917	2.62	-1.19	56.63	1.63	0.07756467
Semyon Varlamov	45	2066.6	1026	948	78	0.924	2.26	5.27	79.86	1.86	0.054001742
Jordan Binnington	50	2366.716667	1092	1008	84	0.923	2.13	4.63	85.93	1.93	0.048928544
Mikko Koskinen	38	1702.866667	943	871	72	0.924	2.54	4.53	73.22	1.22	0.042986337
Jacob Markstrom	43	1966.683333	1117	1033	84	0.925	2.56	6.65	84.61	0.61	0.018610012
James Reimer	25	1072.316667	540	497	43	0.92	2.41	0.83	42.91	-0.09	-0.005035826
Mackenzie Blackwood	47	2093.333333	1151	1066	85	0.926	2.44	8.41	84.74	-0.26	-0.007452229
Elvis Merzlikins	32	1516.816667	784	730	54	0.931	2.14	9.63	53.8	-0.2	-0.007911305
Robin Lehner	36	1645.783333	971	899	72	0.926	2.62	6.81	71.61	-0.39	-0.014218153
Antti Raanta	33	1447.166667	800	739	61	0.924	2.53	3.93	60.16	-0.84	-0.034826673
Carter Hart	43	1880.9	889	818	71	0.92	2.26	1.15	69.14	-1.86	-0.059333298
Linus Ullmark	34	1627.583333	829	771	58	0.93	2.14	9.28	56.27	-1.73	-0.063775536
Jonathan Bernier	46	2026.516667	1023	942	81	0.921	2.4	2.03	78.71	-2.29	-0.067801071
Ben Bishop	44	1957.9	969	895	74	0.924	2.27	4.64	71.65	-2.35	-0.072015935
Tristan Jarry	33	1566.133333	794	736	58	0.927	2.22	6.44	55.5	-2.5	-0.095777286
Alexandar Georgiev	34	1478.216667	791	726	65	0.918	2.64	-0.8	62.54	-2.46	-0.099850045
Jaroslav Halak	31	1460.6	714	660	54	0.924	2.22	3.95	50.89	-3.11	-0.127755717
Joonas Korpisalo	37	1693.8	792	733	59	0.926	2.09	5.28	55.29	-3.71	-0.131420475
Andrei Vasilevskiy	52	2468.816667	1217	1128	89	0.927	2.16	9.77	83.39	-5.61	-0.136340622
John Gibson	51	2412.1	1273	1164	109	0.914	2.71	-5.68	102.93	-6.07	-0.150988765
Jonathan Quick	42	2052.716667	974	891	83	0.915	2.43	-3.95	77.21	-5.79	-0.169239138
Cam Talbot	26	1170.116667	651	602	49	0.925	2.51	3.83	45.59	-3.41	-0.174854359
Marcus Hogberg	24	1093.85	585	536	49	0.916	2.69	-1.52	45.47	-3.53	-0.193628011
Petr Mrazek	40	1831.733333	857	782	75	0.912	2.46	-5.45	68.92	-6.08	-0.199155627
Craig Anderson	34	1458.75	801	735	66	0.918	2.71	-0.99	61.14	-4.86	-0.199897172
Carter Hutton	31	1488.333333	750	687	63	0.916	2.54	-2.13	58.02	-4.98	-0.200761478
Pekka Rinne	36	1575.466667	802	738	64	0.92	2.44	1.09	58.62	-5.38	-0.204891672
Juuse Saros	40	1720.983333	882	811	71	0.92	2.48	0.58	65.01	-5.99	-0.208834097
Jack Campbell	26	1293.166667	621	570	51	0.918	2.37	-0.6	46.39	-4.61	-0.213893543
Pavel Francouz	34	1491.566667	789	730	59	0.925	2.37	5.03	53.35	-5.65	-0.227277806
Thomas Greiss	31	1304.333333	709	654	55	0.922	2.53	2.54	49.79	-5.21	-0.239662663
Aaron Dell	33	1508	779	710	69	0.911	2.75	-5.78	61.65	-7.35	-0.292440318
Carey Price	58	2819.15	1371	1260	111	0.919	2.36	0.27	96.89	-14.11	-0.300303283
Marc-Andre Fleury	49	2301.883333	1098	1005	93	0.915	2.42	-3.89	81.41	-11.59	-0.302100454
David Rittich	48	2215.583333	1149	1052	97	0.916	2.63	-3.75	85.59	-11.41	-0.308993117
Frederik Andersen	52	2457.733333	1251	1145	106	0.915	2.59	-4.47	92.77	-13.23	-0.322980524
Sergei Bobrovsky	50	2245.6	1173	1064	109	0.907	2.91	-13.8	94.43	-14.57	-0.389294621
Alex Stalock	38	1714.35	847	780	67	0.921	2.34	1.74	55.39	-11.61	-0.406334762
Thatcher Demko	27	1223.983333	641	582	59	0.908	2.89	-6.98	50.47	-8.53	-0.418142949
Brian Elliott	31	1308.816667	633	575	58	0.908	2.66	-6.63	47.27	-10.73	-0.491894714
Braden Holtby	48	2108.833333	1088	985	103	0.905	2.93	-14.7	83.2	-19.8	-0.563344661
Matt Murray	38	1790.85	837	757	80	0.904	2.68	-12.07	62.07	-17.93	-0.600720328
Martin Jones	41	1843.65	860	767	93	0.892	3.03	-23.2	70.38	-22.62	-0.736148401
Mike Smith	39	1747.133333	847	762	85	0.9	2.92	-16.26	63.34	-21.66	-0.743847064
Devan Dubnyk	30	1330.683333	660	596	64	0.903	2.89	-10.43	43.47	-20.53	-0.925689808
Jimmy Howard	27	1114.3	646	579	67	0.896	3.61	-14.57	46.54	-20.46	-1.101678184

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

His raw save percentage has dipped because he is playing in front of literally the worst defense in the league:

Compare that to Washington:

Lundqvist's age is certainly a concern but you can't just look at his raw save percentage in a vacuum. If they are looking for a mentor as well as someone who can actually still play I think Lundqvist is a sensible option.

And twabby with the fancy stat “mike drop”

I love it!

 

[Skrudland2Lomakin]

Lol at posters in this thread acting like Lundqvist got beat by two plugs. The Rangers have arguably the best young depth at G in the league, Lundqvist wasn’t just competing in a straight up competition but also competing against the conventional thought of “why play an aging G instead of developing rookies”.


Like Lundqvist wouldn’t even need to be better than his competition to play good minutes, he’d need to be so substantially better that it warranted that trade off for not playing a rookie.

 

[EroCaps]

Consider me dubious on moves like this after the Kovalchuk debacle.

GMBM is going to have to win me back.

 

[twabby]

xGA isn’t a great evaluation tools for goalies. If you want to see how they fare against high danger changes, look at their high danger sv%. If you want to merge that into a metric that considers shot volumes from different locations, that’s GSAA (goals saved above average. By GSAA, Lundqvist was below average.

GSAA is just a proxy for save percentage and shots against. It doesn't consider shot-quality against at all. Indeed, per Natural Stat Trick's glossary:

GSAA - Goals Saved Above Average, the difference between the goalie's Goals Against and a Goals Against with the same Shots Against and the average SV% (within the selected filters). Average SV%*Shots Against - Goals Against

Same for Evolving Hockey:

GSAA	Goals Saved Above Average: (League Sv% * SA) - GA

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

By ignoring shot quality against you are punishing goalies that face a disproportionate number of high-quality shots against, like Lundqvist.

And also just looking at high-danger save percentage can also be misleading because of bucketing. Not every high-danger chance is the same and again punishes goalies who face more of the highest of high danger chances against.

xG isn't perfect but it's the best we've got in terms of trying to account for shot quality.

 

[AlexBrovechkin8]

But I was just told in this very thread, that OUR defense was putrid?

That was a Rangers fan. He was saying that the Rangers' defense is absolutely putrid.

 

[Hivemind]

GSAA is just a proxy for save percentage and shots against. It doesn't consider shot-quality against at all. Indeed, per Natural Stat Trick's glossary:



Same for Evolving Hockey:




By ignoring shot quality against you are punishing goalies that face a disproportionate number of high-quality shots against, like Lundqvist.

And also just looking at high-danger save percentage can also be misleading because of bucketing. Not every high-danger chance is the same and again punishes goalies who face more of the highest of high danger chances against.

xG isn't perfect but it's the best we've got in terms of trying to account for shot quality.

xG is far too noisy of a stat to take seriously for evaluating goalie talent. There are too many results that just make no sense. Aggregating GSAx/60 for the past 3 seasons (Min 1000TOI), Curtis McElhinney ranks 4th, Casey Desmith ranks 7th, and Laurent Brossoit ranks 11th while Carter Hart ranks 52nd, and Carey Price ranks 58th. The noise comes from the fact the margins are so slim. The 10th best goalie on your list is saving 1 more goal per 20 games than an average one. There are five goalies on the list who are within 1/100th of a goal away from average, or less than one goal per entire season if they were to start all 82 games. Trying to establish a ranked list on that thin of a margin is going to lead to awfully noisy results that don't stand up to scrutiny.
The table you posted above bears it out with the Lundqvist example, where by GSAx/60, Georgiev ranks below Lundqvist despite outplaying him (for the second straight year) behind the same defense, taking the starting job in February, and remaining a much more prominent part of the goalie rotation than Henrik once Shesterkin was called up.

At this point, the best option is to continue to wield numerous hockey stats together to pain a fuller picture, rather than falling for any one measurement.

 

[Langway]

Henrik is a done deal based on MacLellan's reaction here at the end.

 

[PB12]

Henrik is a done deal based on MacLellan's reaction here at the end.

Mac has a poor poker face there

 

[SherVaughn30]

Henrik is a done deal based on MacLellan's reaction here at the end.

BMac was trying to hold himself from a bit. I'd be shocked if Lundqvist is not a Cap.

 

[AlexBrovechkin8]

Henrik is a done deal based on MacLellan's reaction here at the end.

I think that's the biggest smile I've ever seen from Mac, other than holding the Stanley Cup of course.

 

[John Price]

There really isn't any downside.

- mentorship to young goalies

- one year vet min deal means the team can move on quickly if he fails

- provides backup option to Samsonov

- on team with possibility to win Cup

 

[Langway]

I think the main question is what's the AAV? Do they do something bonus-laden at his age? Can that in turn maybe allow them to spend a bit on either on 3RW or 2RD?

 

[Corby78]

So Boyd decision coming today, should be another key indicator on where they want to go this offseason

 

[Ridley Simon]

Hank will be good for this team. As long as it’s a low number.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

Well, it's gonna be weird being a Captials fan....

 

[twabby]

xG is far too noisy of a stat to take seriously for evaluating goalie talent. There are too many results that just make no sense. Aggregating GSAx/60 for the past 3 seasons (Min 1000TOI), Curtis McElhinney ranks 4th, Casey Desmith ranks 7th, and Laurent Brossoit ranks 11th while Carter Hart ranks 52nd, and Carey Price ranks 58th. The noise comes from the fact the margins are so slim. The 10th best goalie on your list is saving 1 more goal per 20 games than an average one. There are five goalies on the list who are within 1/100th of a goal away from average, or less than one goal per entire season if they were to start all 82 games. Trying to establish a ranked list on that thin of a margin is going to lead to awfully noisy results that don't stand up to scrutiny.
The table you posted above bears it out with the Lundqvist example, where by GSAx/60, Georgiev ranks below Lundqvist despite outplaying him (for the second straight year) behind the same defense, taking the starting job in February, and remaining a much more prominent part of the goalie rotation than Henrik once Shesterkin was called up.

At this point, the best option is to continue to wield numerous hockey stats together to pain a fuller picture, rather than falling for any one measurement.

xG isn't any noisier than any other shot-based statistic. The problem of course is that evaluating goaltenders takes a huge sample size, but that's a problem with every metric you use.

I agree you can use a variety of metrics to make an evaluation but the only point I'm making is that you can't use GSAA or save percentage in a vacuum because it ignores the quality of those shots. If you're on an average defensive team then it's probably fine to consider those a decent proxy for goaltender skill but in Lundqvist's case you have to heavily weigh the fact that he played on the worst defensive team in the NHL over the past 3 seasons which leads me to believe that GSAA and save percentage are not a very good indicator of how he's played.

Lundqvist is likely a backup or a 1B at this point in his career, I'm not going to claim he is likely to become the starter. But I also haven't seen enough evidence that he is washed up either. I think other options like Greiss are probably better but I'm not sure if they could make it work under the cap. If they think Lundqvist might be a better mentor and he comes in cheap I think it's a sensible option.

 

[Ovechkins Wodka]

So a young goalie we traded up in the second round for who’s looked pretty well in the minors we have to put on waivers for the corpse of Lundquist? Sounds like a great move...

 

[tenken00]

So a young goalie we traded up in the second round for who’s looked pretty well in the minors we have to put on waivers for the corpse of Lundquist? Sounds like a great move...

I guess the good thing is with the huge glut of goalies on the market, everyone will have their fill and leave Vanecek alone. Hopefully.

 

[Todd Lazarchick]

I guess the good thing is with the huge glut of goalies on the market, everyone will have their fill and leave Vanecek alone. Hopefully.

For a team with cup aspirations, a first year starter coming off injury without a full year of work under his belt and an even less experienced backup is a disaster plan.

 

[hb12xchamps]

So a young goalie we traded up in the second round for who’s looked pretty well in the minors we have to put on waivers for the corpse of Lundquist? Sounds like a great move...

We still don’t know if they’re going to carry three goaltenders or not. Vanecek could easily be on the roster if they still have the same roster construction as the bubble

 

[jfc64]

Mamy? Where is daddy going? - He's going to Washington. To his work. He'll be home soon.

 

[jfc64]

Hank will be good for this team. As long as it’s a low number.

Just promise him the Rangers game and he'll play for 1 million.

 

[jfc64]

Hank must think he's cursed by russian goalies. Vassilevski wins the Cup. Shestyorkin and Georgiev takes over in NY. Askarov is drafted high and now he might be backup to Samsonov.