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

[Goalie_Bob]

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.

Show your work. If you looked into it then you should have it available.

 

[NWWisconsinDuck]

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.

Did he sleep with your wife?

 

[Goalie_Bob]

Did he sleep with your wife?

Instead of providing data that may refute what the thread starter is stating you just try and insult them?

Stay classy HFBoards....

 

[NWWisconsinDuck]

Instead of providing data that may refute what the thread starter is stating you just try and insult them?

Stay classy HFBoards....

He just went on a two page diatribe about why Gibson sucks, clearly hasn’t watched the situation Gibson has been in.

I think it’s fair to poke around why he hates the guy so much. Nobody around the league is treating John Gibson like he’s Ken Dryden

 

[Goalie_Bob]

He just went on a two page diatribe about why Gibson sucks, clearly hasn’t watched the situation Gibson has been in.

I think it’s fair to poke around why he hates the guy so much. Nobody around the league is treating John Gibson like he’s Ken Dryden

If the title of the thread was: "John Gibson, an analysis of his last five seasons"

And then his conclusion is that the data supports that Gibson is no longer a good goaltender. The data does not support that Gibson is a good goaltender stuck on a bad team but that he is a bad/mediocre goaltender on a bad team.

Would you take a different approach?

 

[NWWisconsinDuck]

If the title of the thread was: "John Gibson, an analysis of his last five seasons"

And then his conclusion is that the data supports that Gibson is no longer a good goaltender. The data does not support that Gibson is a good goaltender stuck on a bad team but that he is a bad/mediocre goaltender on a bad team.

Would you take a different approach?

I’m not sure you’re looking at the correct title of the thread

 

[LeBrun is a Clown]

Lol you wrote all of that with failing to mention the clear correlation between team performance and Gibsons performance

 

[Goalie_Bob]

I’m not sure you’re looking at the correct title of the thread

Then suggest an alternative title that would be acceptable.

 

[ClydeLee]

He just went on a two page diatribe about why Gibson sucks, clearly hasn’t watched the situation Gibson has been in.

I think it’s fair to poke around why he hates the guy so much. Nobody around the league is treating John Gibson like he’s Ken Dryden

Some sensible people have saying this for 3 years about Gibson and still get gigantic push back.

The, watching him... every nhl starter has amazing plays and stretches. That's why they're top 32 nhl talents. That's not good enough to be outside the top 25 of that year after year and people considering you a top 10 talent at the craft.

The, it's the situation around him, comments constantly acts like he isn't the situation itself. He is just as much the problem. Op and others have frequently got this attitude from Ducks fans you can't possibly be expected to put up good or average numbers on such bad teams. Yet goalies do it constantly.

Peter Mrazek the year before last was awful on Chicago, But you had fans saying look at his play, he makes too many great plays to be a tank goalie. Because all nhl starters are going to flash. This year, the team was still awful, lowest scoring team, bad defensively too still, but mrazek overall was over average, and a net positive. A thing you can do even on awful tanking teams that are 2nd worst. People talk about Ullmark was only good because he was om Boston. No, Ullmark was solid his last 2 years in Buffalo, on the sabers. Heck years back Robin Lehner was good on awful Buffalo teams for a couple years. You should be demanding Gibson traded so the Ducks can rise from the bottom 3 now

 

[ShootIt]

Based off the first sentence and wall of text I can tell the OP is a well regarded member on r/wallstreetbets.




Interesting breakdown stats wise.
Opinion here, but I do believe in morale, and the lack of morale for vets like Gibson when the team is undergoing a long rebuild.
And IIRC hasn't he asked out of Anaheim?
Wouldn't shock me to see him "bounce back" with getting a fresh start.

I say this as Bob has mentioned mentally he got thrown off his game by his contract and I guess friction between him and Coach Q.
New coach, new style of play in front of him and he turns it around.

 

[Arthuros]

 

[Shane Diesel]

Instead of providing data that may refute what the thread starter is stating you just try and insult them?

Stay classy HFBoards....

It's all Ducks fans have.

 

[Empoleon8771]

So to address a couple of arguments made in here, at least the valid ones:

1. The idea that Gibson "checks out" either after his team is losing or after the year has already been lost.

I'm not going to do a deep dive on the numbers for this, but I feel this is somewhat supported. It's a bit tough to do an exact measure of this because the NHL seasons in the COVID years were so wacky, but my best attempt to look at this:

19-20: .905 save% in 35 games through January 15th, .903 save% in 16 games after January 15th
20-21: .897 save% in 24 games through March, .913 save% in 11 games after March
21-22: .922 save% in 33 games through January, .876 save% in 23 games after January
22-23: .898 save% in 34 games through January, .901 save% in 19 games after January
23-24: .901 save% in 32 games through January, .858 save% in 14 games after January

So in those 5 years, you had 2 years of Gibson being basically equal, 2 years of Gibson being notably worse in the second part and 1 year of Gibson being notably better in the second part. I'd say it's somewhat supported because 21-22 and 23-24 look a hell of a lot like "giving up after your season is lost", but it's not a yearly trend. I don't know why people think this is a positive or defense of Gibson, but I think there is some merit to the claim.

2. Stolarz post-Anaheim shows that Anaheim sinks all of their goalies, not just Gibson

I think this is a very reasonable argument to make. I think another completely reasonable conclusion of the data I provided in the OP is "Gibson is not better than his backups", but that doesn't necessarily mean "Gibson is bad". I think you can reasonably argue that Gibson is just not better (or more accurately, marginally better based on the numbers against good teams) than his backups, but Anaheim's backups are actually pretty good platoon goalies overall. This is something that needs a substantially larger sample size to clearly say is true or not, but Stolarz's performance this year with Florida absolutely gives credibility to this claim.

Another way to put this: Gibson isn't as good as his reputation, but he's more like a "good platoon goalie on a horrid defensive team" than "terrible goalie". It's not uncommon for good platoon goalies to absolute flop as high usage starters, I think Grubauer is a terrific example of that.


Beyond that, I'm not going to address the Ducks fans lone defense of "you don't even watch him", because it's just a lazy attempt at discrediting stats that you don't agree with. That really seems to be the only defense Ducks fans give for Gibson at this point.

 

[LeBrun is a Clown]

this seems like something @Hockey Duckie could look into and respond

 

[Mrb1p]

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.

Same happened with Price. The moment he had a sliver of a possible competitive team he was back to being a top 3 player in the league. People act stupid on this board, it's as if they know nothing of context.

 

[ViD]

Gibson to Pens (E4)

 

[HanSolo]

I still maintain he can be good. Not as good as he was at his peak but it feels pretty clear to me he's not trying hard in Anaheim.

 

[PavelBure10]

He's amazing against my Canucks.

 

[Reality Czech]

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.

That's a lot of words to tell everyone you're wrong. It's a fool's errand to rely solely on stats to evaluate goalies. How were Bob's numbers a few years ago?

 

[Empoleon8771]

Same happened with Price. The moment he had a sliver of a possible competitive team he was back to being a top 3 player in the league. People act stupid on this board, it's as if they know nothing of context.

I think there is some validity to the claim that Gibson checks out after his team has been knocked out, but I just don't understand why people view this as some sort of defense as Gibson. It doesn't speak well to his attitude as a professional in the first place, and there are plenty of other players who just don't reach their full potential because of not caring enough.

I know the argument is "he has more there than what he's showing", but after 5 years of now showing it, what proof if there that he still has it? Which basically sums up the only argument Ducks fans ever use, it's "he's still good because I say he's still good".

 

[Zegs2sendhelp]

It's all Ducks fans have.

I was still reading this thread to make sure you showed up

Thank god you made it

 

[Mrb1p]

I think there is some validity to the claim that Gibson checks out after his team has been knocked out, but I just don't understand why people view this as some sort of defense as Gibson. It doesn't speak well to his attitude as a professional in the first place, and there are plenty of other players who just don't reach their full potential because of not caring enough.

I know the argument is "he has more there than what he's showing", but after 5 years of now showing it, what proof if there that he still has it? Which basically sums up the only argument Ducks fans ever use, it's "he's still good because I say he's still good".

Because, like Price, but of course not to the same extent, he's a great player. We're not evaluating his moral conduct, were evaluating him as a player, and whether he's professional or not, he's a good player.

Price did have the excuse of a very broken down body that Gibson doesn't have which is probably a lot more understandable in a self-preservation context.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Because, like Price, but of course not to the same extent, he's a great player. We're not evaluating his moral conduct, were evaluating him as a player, and whether he's professional or not, he's a good player.

Price did have the excuse of a very broken down body that Gibson doesn't have which is probably a lot more understandable in a self-preservation context.

I think my comment was more "how can you be a good player if you're not putting in the work to put up good results"?

I think that argument is more that Gibson is a talented goalie, but talented and good aren't necessarily the same.

 

[Machinehead]

Has @Bleedred seen this?

 

[Face Of Bear]

chatGPT TLDR:

The analysis demonstrates that John Gibson has consistently performed poorly as a goalie since 2019, with his save percentages and advanced stats (like GSAx) showing significant decline and consistently ranking him among the worst in the NHL, while his backups have often outperformed him, particularly against weaker teams.