John Gibson is a bad goalie, and I'm tired of people suggesting otherwise

[SoundAndFury]

It's also interesting that Merzlikins is in a very similar situation but even his GM publicly admits nobody is interested in trading for him while Gibson seemingly is still this "top goalie" and a hot commodity despite all that. Funny how reputation and birthplace work.

 

[KaseMeOutside]

A few years ago when the Ducks were way outperforming what their underlying stats said he was a big reason why, but for several years in a row the shot volume and quality of that volume would run him into the ground

Saying he's been a bad goalie for over 5 years is utter bullshit and shows a complete lack of understanding of what Anaheim has been

That being said he has no value right now

 

[JoeSakic13]

 

[Turbonium]

Sorry I'm not convinced yet, can you please provide more detail on why you think he's a bad goalie?

 

[General Fanager]

Meh....I think any goalie would get lit up playing for a rebuilding team as bad as The Ducks...

 

[Uncle Scrooge]

Is Gibson riding mostly on his reputation before the Ducks became bad? Of course. But that's kind of the point. Some people still believe in his potential and ability. Is it really that different to Price struggling to play at elite level in Montreal then being awesome in the playoffs when they played great as a team.

Watching the Ducks occasionally, I don't think I've seen another goalie so mentally deflated than Gibson at times. They give up a couple of goals and you can almost see him go "whatever" inside that mask.

But in saying that, he still has some games where he's really good, 40-save performances against good teams. I remember quite a few in the last couple of years, even if they're more rare these days. It's that stare down ability he has that peaks your interest. It's rare for a goalie to look intimidating in the net.

And is it a coincidence in 21-22 season when the Ducks were in a playoff spot halfway through, Gibson was one of the best goalies in the League while actually looking like he's having fun again?

Sure, there's no doubt his body of work over the last 5 years isn't good. But I can see why there would be reclamation project-potential in him, and I do see that himself.

Would it be a gamble? For sure. It's easy to say he'd perform better if he was in a better headspace and on a better team, then another thing to actually do it. But the potential is there I think.

 

[Smirnov2Chistov]

I think it’s been the Ducks coaching and their awful defensive build that makes Gibson suffer.

For some reason, throughout the Eakins and now Cronin era, they are completely not bothered in letting the other team out-shoot them and out-work them.

 

[AppreciateHockey]

Trade Gibson for Nurse and the Oilers win cups. To me Gibson is clearly not motivated to play all out on a losing or non playoff bound team.

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

You're wrong until we see him on a team that isn't a disgrace.

Stats for the Ducks, Hawks and Sharks do not count

 

[Zegs2sendhelp]

This is going to be an absurdly long post and unnecessary post, but I just happen to have the right kind of autism to go through with it. The TL;DR is this:

"No matter what kind of statistical analysis you show, it shows that Gibson is a bad goalie that has been riding the reputation of pre-2019 performances for the last 5 years. Whether you look at base stats, advanced stats, team performances, performances relative to his backup and performances relative to opponent, the results consistently show he's a bad goalie. Anaheim's backup goalies do greatly benefit from playing bad teams, but Gibson's performance against good teams is only marginally better than his backups."

For a bit of background, I figure most people here know that John Gibson was once upon a time one of the best young goalies in hockey. Up through 2018-2019, Gibson had a career .921 save, received Vezina votes in multiple years and was about to start an 8 year, $52 million deal as a 26 year old. He was basically everything you wanted in a franchise goalie, he was a workhorse with great fundamentals that was signed to what seemed like a great deal going forward (6th highest paid goalie at the time that made $600k less a year than Fleury for comparison). However, once his contract kicked in, his numbers absolutely collapsed. He dropped from a .917 save% in 2018-2019 to a .904 save% in 2019-2020, which was a swing of -21.4 GSAA (goals saved above average). It was a massive drop-off out of nowhere, and in the years that have followed, he hasn't gotten back to his pre-2019 form. His best performance relative to league average was a .903 save% in 2020-2021, with his worst being an .888 save% in 2023-2024 this year. In every year over that window, he has put up a below league average save%.

Why do I feel the need to make a thread saying a goalie who has been below average for 5 years to say he's terrible? Because there is a notable portion of Gibson fans that just insist that he's not terrible, and I'm dumb/stubborn enough to address this argument. The points I'm going to address are:

1. How Gibson's basic stats (things like save% and GSAA) compare to other goalies and to his backups
2. How Gibson's advanced stats (things like high danger save% and GSAx) compare to other goalies and to his backups
3. Gibson's basic and advanced stats based on opponents (separating between good, mid and bad) compared to his backups

Basic Stats

The easiest stat to look at when it comes to goalies is save%. Over the last 5 years, here is where Gibson ranks among goalies who played in 25 or more games in each of the past 5 years:

• 2019-2020: .904 save% in 51 games (41st of 52 goalies)
• 2020-2021: .903 save% in 35 games (24th of 32 goalies)
• 2021-2022: .904 save% in 56 games (36th of 53 goalies)
• 2022-2023: .899 save% in 53 games (36th of 52 goalies)
• 2023-2024: .888 save% in 46 games (53rd of 54 goalies)

Gibson consistently ranked roughly in the bottom-third up until this year, until he absolutely collapsed and had the 2nd lowest save% of all goalies in the NHL. But with that being said, Anaheim hasn't been an exactly good team defensively over that window, so it's not exactly an apples to apples comparison for him versus other goalies. To remedy this, here is how Gibson's stats compare to his backups stats in each of those years:

• 2019-2020: .908 save% in 24 games between Miller (23 games) and Stolarz (1 game)
• 2020-2021: .897 save% in 24 games between Miller (16 games) and Stolarz (8 games)
• 2021-2022: .916 save% in 32 games between Stolarz (28 games) and Dostal (4 games)
• 2022-2023: .899 save% in 38 games between Dostal (19 games) and Stolarz (19 games)
• 2023-2024: .902 save% in 44 games by Dostal (44 games)

In those 5 years, you had 1 year where Gibson was better (2020-2021), one year where they were the same (2022-2023), one year where the backup was somewhat better than Gibson (2019-2020) and two years where the backup was significantly better than Gibson (2021-2022 and 2023-2024)

Advanced Stats

To address the differences that team defenses has, MoneyPuck provides a GSAx stat on their website that I'll also compare Gibson to the rest of the NHL with the same 25 game criteria:

• 2019-2020: -18.0 GSAx in 52 games (49th of 52 goalies)
• 2020-2021: -7.4 GSAx in 35 games (20th of 32 goalies)
• 2021-2022: -14.3 GSAx in 56 games (48th of 53 goalies)
• 2022-2023: -11.5 GSAx in 53 games (46th of 52 goalies)
• 2023-2024: -9.6 GSAx in 46 games (50th of 54 goalies)

Here is how Gibson compared to his backups in those years:

• 2019-2020: -5.2 GSAx in 24 games between Miller (23 games) and Stolarz (1 game)
• 2020-2021: -12.6 GSAx in 24 games between Miller (16 games) and Stolarz (8 games)
• 2021-2022: -2.4 GSAx in 32 games between Stolarz (28 games) and Dostal (4 games)
• 2022-2023: +0.1 GSAx in 38 games between Dostal (19 games) and Stolarz (19 games)
• 2023-2024: -5.3 GSAx in 44 games by Dostal (44 games)

I know GSAx is supposed to be neutral for teams, but what these stats tell me is that GSAx is not completely picking up how bad Anaheim has been defensively over these years. With that being said, it doesn't account for the fact that Gibson is once again being outperformed by his backups. Based on GSAx, Gibson was again better in one year (2021-2022) but his backups were better in every other year, to a substantial level in 3 of the 4 years (2019-2020, 2021-2022 and 2022-2023).

Stats Compared to Backup Based on Opponent

This one is going to be a lot harder to gauge, but I still think it can be done. I was initially planning on doing this for the last 5 years, but this takes annoyingly long enough that I'm going to only do it for 3 years instead. What I'm going to do is split up teams into 3 levels:

1. Good teams (top 10)
2. Mid teams (11-21)
3. Bad teams (22 through 32)

And compare how Gibson does versus his backup. We'll start with 2023-2024 with Gibson compared to Dostal. For Gibson:

-Good teams (NYR, Dallas, Carolina, Winnipeg, Florida, Vancouver, Boston, Colorado, Edmonton and Toronto): .868 save% (429 saves on 494 shots)
-Mid teams (Nashville, LA, Tampa, Vegas, NYI, St. Louis, Washington, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Minnesota and Philly): .914 save% (371 saves on 406 shots)
-Bad teams (Buffalo, New Jersey, Calgary, Seattle, Ottawa, Arizona, Montreal, Columbus, Chicago and San Jose): .880 save% (331 saves on 376 shots)

For Dostal last year:

-Good teams: .873 save% (275 saves on 315 shots)
-Mid teams: .898 save% (486 saves on 541 shots)
-Bad teams: .925 save% (420 saves on 454 shots)

In 2022-2023, you had a roughly even split between Dostal and Stolarz as the backup. But for Gibson, here is how stats looked:

-Good teams (Boston, Carolina, New Jersey, Toronto, Vegas, Edmonton, Colorado, Dallas, NYR, and LA): .904 save% (693 saves on 767 shots)
-Mid teams (Minnesota, Seattle, Tampa, Winnipeg, NYI, Calgary, Florida, Nashville, Pittsburgh, Buffalo and Ottawa): .892 save% (670 saves on 751 shots)
-Bad teams (Vancouver, St. Louis, Detroit, Washington, Philly, Arizona, Montreal, San Jose, Chicago and Columbus): .903 save% (420 saves on 465 shots)

Here is how Stolarz plus Dostal compares:

-Good teams: .903 save% (232 saves on 257 shots)
-Mid teams: .891 save% (369 saves on 414 shots)
-Bad teams: .906 save% (413 saves on 456 shots)

In 2021-2022, you just have to compare Gibson and Stolarz. For Gibson:

-Top teams (Florida, Colorado, Carolina, Toronto, Minnesota, Calgary, NYR, Tampa, St. Louis and Boston): .913 save% (621 saves on 680 shots)
-Mid teams (Edmonton, Pittsburgh, Washington, LA, Dallas, Nashville, Vegas, Vancouver, Winnipeg, NYI and Columbus): .899 save% (757 saves on 842 shots)
-Bad teams (San Jose, Buffalo, Detroit, Ottawa, Chicago, New Jersey, Philly, Seattle, Arizona and Montreal): .895 save% (239 saves on 267 shots)

For Stolarz:

-Top teams: .903 save% (195 saves on 216 shots)
-Mid teams: .892 save% (182 saves on 204 shots)
-Bad teams:.938 save% (365 saves on 389 shots)

Now for the final comparison, here is how Gibson compares to his backups over that sample size:

-Top teams: .898 save% (1743 saves on 1941 shots)
-Mid teams: .899 save% (1798 saves on 1999 shots)
-Bad teams: .894 save% (990 saves on 1108 shots)

For his backups:

-Top teams: .891 save% (702 saves on 788 shots)
-Mid teams: .895 save% (1037 saves on 1159 shots)
-Bad teams: .922 save% (1198 saves on 1299 shots)

The conclusion from this data comparison for opponents is this:

1. Anaheim's backup goalie performances are grossly overrated due to dominating bad teams, especially Stolarz's 2021-2022 season
2. With that being said, Gibson only performs marginally better against top teams and mid teams compared to his backups
3. Anaheim absolutely runs Gibson into the ground against good teams, although his performance tends to be independent of the opponents he's playing.

So what's the conclusion here? Personally, I think it just shows Gibson is a workhorse that consistently gives bad results no matter who he plays against. It's downright inarguable that Anaheim has thrown Gibson to the wolves and puts him against insanely tough competition, but he hasn't done well against pretty much any opposing teams. His backups do greatly benefit from him eating those tougher matchups, which I personally think has value, but Gibson's general results against all teams is pretty poor overall. Is he the worst starter in hockey? Probably not, but from all of the numbers here, I'm pretty certain he's a bad starter.

Idk if I want him to go to a new team and prove you wrong, or some how end up in Pittsburgh and prove you right.

 

[Zegs2sendhelp]

Trade Gibson for Nurse and the Oilers win cups. To me Gibson is clearly not motivated to play all out on a losing or non playoff bound team.

He was all star 3 years ago, had a very good first half of the season until the wheels fell off.


Has he been good, absolutely not
Has he been motivated, absolutely not

I think if you put him on a playoff team, he can be a difference maker in net… prob becomes no one is going to take on that cap hit for his #s…. Anaheim waited much too long to move him

 

[WhatTheDuck]

People just aren't grasping the mental toll of being the difference between losing 6-2 or 4-2, almost every night for over six years. They point to goalies who performed well on a bad team for a year or two, or on the same team but with a small fraction of the burden. Name one who has been in this futile of a position for even half as long.

 

[613Leafer]

If the only argument in favour of Gibson is that he's not motivated enough in a losing environment getting shelled, I wouldn't want to roll the dice on Gibson via trade at this point just on the hope that he turns it all around after a ~5 year sample size of generally playing poorly.

 

[Hamilton Bulldogs]

This season was his only bad season.

Put him on a good team and he'll do right by his new team.

 

[CanadienShark]

Holy shit, I'm glad you got that off your chest.

The thing with Gibson, in my view, is that he's proven he can be an elite goalie. Not likely he returns, but he's better than some give credit for.

 

[LuGBuG]

I’m a ducks fan. Watch 75-80% of their games every year. Honestly don’t know if he’s good or not anymore. Passes the eye test a lot until it becomes too much in the third and kind of shuts er down. Hoping they trade him either way and we find out. Personally I do think he’s still got gas left in the tank if he was somewhere that he cared about winning. Not going to read your post though lol.

 

[D Wakaluk]

A little known fact:

When Shea Weber was close to retirement, someone stole his Cloak Of Reputation +8 on a road trip in California

 

[bert]

IMO John Gibson is an unmotivated goalie, and just like Drew Doughty didn’t just stop being a good defensemen in his physical prime as soon as LA sucked, Gibson didn’t stop being a talented goalie as soon as Anaheim started tanking. These guys are human and putting your heart into 82 games you know don’t mean much since you’ve already got your contract and your team sucks just isn’t gonna happen.

Bingo.

You're missing something crucial about John Gibson: he is significantly better before the Ducks fall out of the playoff race.

I'd say run the splits as pre- and post-All Star, but the Ducks are so terrible you might have to do it for January 1.

I've looked into it. You should too.

He won't. He's right and he's tired of hearing otherwise .

 

[CanadienShark]

wow this is long as f***

That's what she said!

 

[Vipers31]

As a goalie, it’s funny how mad some folks get over people still doing talent evaluations beyond excel sheets. It’s almost not even annoying any more.

Either way, my take on Gibson: his success depends a lot on his team‘s system; it’s true with any goalie, but it’s particularly clear with him. What he generally struggles with is cross-ice passes near the slot area (which may often not mean high-danger shots on the stat sheet). His ability to keep up with changes of direction, stay square and give himself a better chance of making saves is below average. There’s room for goalie scouts, GMs and fans to have hope that a structurally sound defensive team will minimize that and that particularly in the playoffs, those plays become a less integral part of the game, as things are being kept simple around shots and traffic. Is it a bit of a gamble? Sure. But it’s not one that’s particularly egregious.

That said, he’s had a bad year and let his frustration impact other parts of his game. Dostal is a more versatile goalie, has outstanding mobility and has the skill to make him less dependent on breakdowns in front of him (while those obviously do still impact his stats, as well). Dostal is the first of his „backups“ (not really a fitting term for last season’s situation) who actually outplayed him and earned a 1/1A role going forward as he continues to develop. It makes sense for Gibson to get into a more fitting situation elsewhere. All things considered (contract, general market, etc) I don’t expect him to be traded for significant value, but I wouldn’t be shocked if it was a fair bit above pure cap dump as a result of just one or two GMs believing he’s a guy that works very well with their built system.

 

[nbwingsfan]

Unless Copp is going the other way, I want nothing to do with Gibson either

 

[DickSmehlik]

Reminds me of Billy Ranford during his later years in Edmonton.

A good to great goalie who was great on some great Edmonton teams but got ruined by some terrible early to mid-90s Oilers teams. By the time he got out of Edmonton, he was a shell of his former self.

 

[Czechboy]

As a huge dostal fan.. I hate this post.

Gibson is amazing and Anaheim should trade him for full value.

 

[BonMorrison]

This is going to be an absurdly long post and unnecessary post, but I just happen to have the right kind of autism to go through with it. The TL;DR is this:

I didn't read the post but I did read this and love this.

 

[BLNY]

can you tldr the tldr for me

The Bob "Cole's Notes" if you will.