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

[Empoleon8771]

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.

I should have used chatGPT to write up more of this, rather than spend a drunken hour+ doing this over playing Madden

 

[Shane Diesel]

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

Thank god you made it

How's the fam, Zegs? Long time no talk, hope you're well.

 

[Kaners PPGs]

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.

This is the key point. He has 6.4 M left for 3 years. If Anaheim retains the max, what is Gibson's value then? Even 3.2 M for 3 years is a gamble. What would a team pay for that? We just saw the relatively modest return that Markstrom and Ullmark provided and both of them have been quality goaltenders within the last few years.

 

[viper0220]

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.

This is 100% true.

 

[nergish]

I agree that a 30-year old John Gibson isn't the answer in net for most competitive teams.

He's a very skilled goaltender, but ultimately a bit oldschool in his technique imo. He's significantly better than Jack Campbell, but plays a similar kind of style. Very early 2010s style goaltending to me, if that makes any damn sense to anyone lol

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

I think we just watched @Empoleon8771 's supervillain origin story in real time

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.

I think this is the real argument that's generally being made.

He's a talented but beat down guy who needs a change of scenery and that he'd do well in a new spot

AND

Lots of people don't watch the Ducks so they get annoyed with people reaching conclusions without it--even OP, as much as it's thoughtful and well-written, doesn't acknowledge any of that, it's simply a statistical analysis, albeit one much more thoughtful than the usual 'lol gibson is rinsed' stuff floating around.

I think you have to be fair and acknowledge the intangible of being a workhorse starter on a lottery team for half of a decade. The above is why people come to his defense instead of just agreeing with the stats. But I appreciate that @Empoleon8771 at least acknowledges GSAx may not fully account for it.

 

[MessierII]

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.

Gibson has legit seasons in the nhl as a top goalie though. That’s the difference.

 

[HanSolo]

I think we just watched @Empoleon8771 's supervillain origin story in real time




I think this is the real argument that's generally being made.

He's a talented but beat down guy who needs a change of scenery and that he'd do well in a new spot

AND

Lots of people don't watch the Ducks so they get annoyed with people reaching conclusions without it--even OP, as much as it's thoughtful and well-written, doesn't acknowledge any of that, it's simply a statistical analysis, albeit one much more thoughtful than the usual 'lol gibson is rinsed' stuff floating around.

I think you have to be fair and acknowledge the intangible of being a workhorse starter on a lottery team for half of a decade. The above is why people come to his defense instead of just agreeing with the stats. But I appreciate that @Empoleon8771 at least acknowledges GSAx may not fully account for it.

It's just readily apparent to me from his body language. Some games he zeroes in at the start of the game and then his shoulders are slumped, his head reaches up to the sky, after a goal or two go in. He does the what the f*** shrug fairly often when defenders get burned and leave him exposed. Even when it doesn't result in a goal.

He was trying very hard at the beginning of Anaheim's decline, but I think he's generally disappointed that the Ducks didn't retool or rebuild faster (and it wouldn't surprise me if Bob Murray assured him that the Ducks weren't going to rebuild, he kept telling the fans more or less the same thing)

The biggest thing that makes me believe he can still be a high quality starter is his play in the few games before the trade deadline two seasons ago. It was only like 4 or 5 games but Gibby stole most if not all of them (cant remember without going back to the results schedule) in games the Ducks had no business winning while putting up incredible numbers. It was a total abberation in a season where the Ducks put up the highest shots allowed total in NHL history, and he reverted back to his inconsistent play once the trade deadline lapsed.

I will believe until I take my dying breath that he was trying to get traded out of Anaheim and got deflated when it didn't happen.

"needs a change of scenery" is the best way to put it. I've rarely seen such a big example of that. And not just a change of scenery, but a team that is at least reasonably competitive. The irony is the Ducks seem pretty close to getting to that point.

 

[Empoleon8771]

I think we just watched @Empoleon8771 's supervillain origin story in real time




I think this is the real argument that's generally being made.

He's a talented but beat down guy who needs a change of scenery and that he'd do well in a new spot

AND

Lots of people don't watch the Ducks so they get annoyed with people reaching conclusions without it--even OP, as much as it's thoughtful and well-written, doesn't acknowledge any of that, it's simply a statistical analysis, albeit one much more thoughtful than the usual 'lol gibson is rinsed' stuff floating around.

I think you have to be fair and acknowledge the intangible of being a workhorse starter on a lottery team for half of a decade. The above is why people come to his defense instead of just agreeing with the stats. But I appreciate that @Empoleon8771 at least acknowledges GSAx may not fully account for it.

Like I had acknowledged in another post as well, I think there is another conclusion that the data shows as well: Gibson is only marginally better than his backups. However, that doesn't necessarily mean "Gibson is a bad goalie". If I could change anything in the OP, I'd change it from "Gibson is a bad goalie" to "Gibson is a bad starter". It may seem like a small point, but I do think there is a difference there.

I think this argument needs another year or two of data from Stolarz and Dostal, but I think the argument of "Gibson is no better than his backups, but his backups are good platoon goalies sunk by Anaheim" actually has some support in a limited sample size. Gibson is still clearly not what he once was, but you can argue he's more like "good 1A goalie that doesn't care on a terrible defensive team" than "bad goalie". There's a lot of nuance that can fall between "good goalie" and "bad goalie" that I think I oversimplified in the OP.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Like I had acknowledged in another post as well, I think there is another conclusion that the data shows as well: Gibson is only marginally better than his backups. However, that doesn't necessarily mean "Gibson is a bad goalie". If I could change anything in the OP, I'd change it from "Gibson is a bad goalie" to "Gibson is a bad starter". It may seem like a small point, but I do think there is a difference there.

I think this argument needs another year or two of data from Stolarz and Dostal, but I think the argument of "Gibson is no better than his backups, but his backups are good platoon goalies sunk by Anaheim" actually has some support in a limited sample size. Gibson is still clearly not what he once was, but you can argue he's more like "good 1A goalie that doesn't care on a terrible defensive team" than "bad goalie". There's a lot of nuance that can fall between "good goalie" and "bad goalie" that I think I oversimplified in the OP.

I don't think you're unfair though. But a lot of the simplified rhetoric is what leads to the overcorrective simplified blowback of "nu uh Gibson is actually still elite" which obviously is where we have to look at the nuance.

I don't think he finds himself in Anaheim again though, not enough time. He's gonna have to go somewhere else a la Ryan Miller in Buffalo (yes I realize some irony here).

 

[ClydeLee]

I remember when it was largely Dallas Eakins fault om here. That's not an excuse used anymore I see.

Even this Elvis M comparison brought up about trade value. At least 3 years ago Elvis was able to have a complete workhorse year as an averageish goalie. On a awful team that was.

 

[DustyDangler]

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.

Well done. I like your kind of autism

 

[TooManyHumans]

"He isn't bad, he just doesn't care enough to try" is one hell of an attempt to defend someone.

 

[Luigi Lemieux]

It's very tough to evaluate him imo because of his poor team

 

[Sasha Orlov]

Bro absolutely hates John Gibson

 

[Bleedred]

Has @Bleedred seen this?

I thought I did, because just yesterday I ranted about him in another thread and compared his vocal defenders to a cult.

Apparently that was another thread on the trade board after Pagnotta speculated the Red Wings would be in on him. Though the OP of this thread and I were roasting Gibson in that thread.

 

[Machinehead]

I thought I did, because just yesterday I ranted about him in another thread and compared his vocal defenders to a cult.

Apparently that was another thread on the trade board after Pagnotta speculated the Red Wings would be in on him. Though the OP of this thread and I were roasting Gibson in that thread.

I haven't really assessed John Gibson in a minute or done any digging, but I will say this: sometimes being on a bad team is just license to be as bad as you want and people will defend you.

People used that when Neal Pionk was a thing on the rebuilding Rangers. Lo and behold, he hasn't gotten any better defensively and Adam Fox won a Norris on a bad Rangers team.

 

[Bleedred]

The thing I've noticed with Gibson particularly the last two years is that yes, Anaheim is a bad team. They are a VERY bad team. There's been so many games where I think ''Yeah, the Ducks deserved to give up 4 or 5 goals tonight''.

Then Gibson will give up a couple of junk goals and turn a 4-5 goal against game into a 6-7 goal against game.

Anaheim is probably worse the last two years than they've been since the expansion days, yet Gibson's play has started going downhill since only the second season Anaheim was a non-playoff team. He was actually pretty good the first non-playoff year (the year Carlyle was fired) and I'm pretty sure they were in a playoff spot or at least on the bubble for a decent part of that year.

It's actually arguable whether Gibson is any worse now on a really pathetic version of the Ducks team than he was right when they became a bottom team, which was the year his drop in play started. So I'm not sure I buy the ''He's just mailing it in'' stuff.

I do think a change of scenery can do him some good and he can possibly resurrect his career elsewhere, but who wants him at his current term or dollars? Better chance he gets bought out and has to sign for a cheap deal and can be resurrected then.

 

[JKG33]

Backup goalies often have better numbers than their starters because the backups get easier matchups.

People around the league like Gibson. People who watch Ducks games like Gibson. Spreadsheet jockeys hate Gibson. That tells you all you need to know.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

Gibson hasn't been able to elevate his play for an extended period of time on what has been poor (to be kind) Ducks teams over the past several seasons. Who would hold up though? Goaltending is such a team dependent position. That doesn't mean he will be able to flip the switch if he has a change of scenery, but it's not such a shock that some team might take a chance on him. Teams are desperate to upgrade their goaltending.

 

[SirQuacksALot]

We get it John Gibson got the last PS5 when you were in line behind him.

 

[Machinehead]

We get it John Gibson got the last PS5 when you were in line behind him.

Is that who it was??!

 

[Viqsi]

Backup goalies often have better numbers than their starters because the backups get easier matchups.

Tell us you didn't read the post at all without saying you didn't read the post at all.

 

[JKG33]

Tell us you didn't read the post at all without saying you didn't read the post at all.

Have you read the Gibson to Detroit thread? I've had my fill of his nonsensical garbage, a low effort reply is all he needs and deserves

 

[Chet Manley]

Anaheim should do him a solid and move him on to a better situation after this many years of drowning. Almost every game I've watched he has given the team a chance to win through the first 5-10 minutes before everything collapsed. I'd bet he could do it for 60 minutes on a good team.