Value of: John Gibson

[Djp]

Wasn't it just this week where an article on ESPN came out that NHL players and/or coaches were ranking him top 10? His value to teams might actually be a little bit higher than what fans think. Hopefully the Ducks will get a couple of defensive D and a coach that actually has a system in place next year to see if Gibson can rebound under a different coach. His only bad years have been under Eakins and it's still the best numbers any starting goalie has put up under him. Dubnyk bounced back after leaving Eakins system, maybe Gibson can too.

That said, it's too much of a risk for a team to give up huge assets and take on the contract right now. Ducks are better off sheltering Dostal and letting Gibson show what he has under a new coach, then dealing him if/when Dostal is ready to be a #1

Most of that is on reputation/ popularity vs current product.

 

[tnnr]

Jarry, Dumoulin, 2nd (turns into a 1st if Pens win 3 rounds and Gibson plays in 70% of the games in the playoffs)

 

[duckpuck]

Then the scrub no name goalies anaheim uses as backups should have even worse stats... yet theyre equally as good or slightly better than the amazing gibson. At some point, his name and reputation has to stop propping him up.

You do realize that the backup tends to play against worst teams. The backup is also . . . the backup who does not get ground down by facing 30+ shots every night.

Understanding NHL Advanced Stats: A Beginners Guide Part 3

NHL Analytics: "Advanced stats" has become a kind of buzz word around the hockey world. Here is Part 3 of our guide to Analytics.

lastwordonsports.com

"This is the key stat to use when evaluating goalies. We learned about expected goals in the last article, and this expands upon that. This stat evaluates how many goals a goalie saved above what he was expected to based on the shot quality he faced. The formula is simply expected goals against minus goals against. Unlike goals saved above average, goals saved above expected (GSAx) accounts for the quality of shots a goaltender faces and levels the playing field for goalies on good defensive teams and bad defensive teams. This is why it appears to be one of the best metrics for goaltenders."

Advanced stats have their place. But they are still an art, not a science. Inherent in any advanced stats are subjective judgments and conclusions (e.g., what is a higher quality shot vs. a lower quality shot), not to mention a subjective element in how the stats are logged.

Beyond that, there are also many factors advanced stats seemingly don't account for. For example : (i) the effect of facing a high volume of shots every night, or more particularly a high volume of quality shots every night (i.e., does a goalie understandably wear down); (ii) the pressure of constantly playing from behind and knowing that you will lose if you give up more than 2 goals; (iii) the position of defenders when a particular shot is taken (i.e., a "low quality" shot may become higher quality if the the defender is completely out of position) and/or (iv) playing on a team that often doesn't possess the puck or play in the offensive zone very much .

I'm not telling you Gibson is playing to his prior level or is all world. But I watch pretty much every ducks game and I can tell you that he doesn't let in a lot of bad goals, he's constantly under siege, he makes many incredibly saves, and most of the goals he does allow are 100% not his fault (and wouldn't be stopped by any goalie). The ducks defense is so bad that many of the goals are literally tap in variety.

 

[bsu]

We've figured it out. He sucks, I guess he's stuck on the Ducks. Lock the thread.

 

[HanSolo]

why are people so desperate for gibson to want out of anaheim?

Because people know he just needs a change of scenery and are hoping that their cope about how terrible he is is the same position the GMs hold so some team can scoop him for nickels and dimes.

 

[Legion34]

In 9 years of playoff-less hockey, Cam Ward never asked out. After his big contract was over, he re-signed. He likely would have finished his career in Carolina had the new FO not wanted to go in a different direction.

Motivations vary.

Didn’t he have a child with health issues? Im not sure if I have that right but he already had a cup

 

[Byrddog]

Goalies never have huge value when they have great numbers. Gibson has suspect numbers and $$$$$ and term left so he is basically untradable.

 

[molon labe]

I'd happily give him a chance with retention. We're at a point where the gamble would be worth it. We don't have a consistent product in either Jarry/DeSmith and there's no consistent goalie really available anyway (not that there's any guarantees to begin with).

Pittsburgh ties - makes a lot of sense. Pile up the pieces and make Henrique happen in the same deal.

 

[Leonardo87]

He faces 36.7 shots when he plays on average this season.

The Ducks give up 39.2 shots per game this season.

That doesn’t seem high to you? Average in the league has to be around 30.

Eventually he just throws the towel in and really can’t blame him. When you face around 40 Shots in most games, going to wear you down.

 

[Shane Diesel]

Advanced stats have their place. But they are still an art, not a science.

Nope

Inherent in any advanced stats are subjective judgments and conclusions (e.g., what is a higher quality shot vs. a lower quality shot), not to mention a subjective element in how the stats are logged.

So we should rely on the complete subjectiveness of the "eye test" then, right?

Beyond that, there are also many factors advanced stats seemingly don't account for. For example : (i) the effect of facing a high volume of shots every night, or more particularly a high volume of quality shots every night (i.e., does a goalie understandably wear down); (ii) the pressure of constantly playing from behind and knowing that you will lose if you give up more than 2 goals; (iii) the position of defenders when a particular shot is taken (i.e., a "low quality" shot may become higher quality if the the defender is completely out of position) and/or (iv) playing on a team that often doesn't possess the puck or play in the offensive zone very much .

GSAx literally takes into account the quality of shots. That's the reason I posted it. Covers points i, iii and iv.

 

[duckpuck]

You do realize that the backup tends to play against worst teams. The backup is also . . . the backup who does not get ground down by facing 30+ shots every night.



Advanced stats have their place. But they are still an art, not a science. Inherent in any advanced stats are subjective judgments and conclusions (e.g., what is a higher quality shot vs. a lower quality shot), not to mention a subjective element in how the stats are logged.

Beyond that, there are also many factors advanced stats seemingly don't account for. For example : (i) the effect of facing a high volume of shots every night, or more particularly a high volume of quality shots every night (i.e., does a goalie understandably wear down); (ii) the pressure of constantly playing from behind and knowing that you will lose if you give up more than 2 goals; (iii) the position of defenders when a particular shot is taken (i.e., a "low quality" shot may become higher quality if the the defender is completely out of position) and/or (iv) playing on a team that often doesn't possess the puck or play in the offensive zone very much .

I'm not telling you Gibson is playing to his prior level or is all world. But I watch pretty much every ducks game and I can tell you that he doesn't let in a lot of bad goals, he's constantly under siege, he makes many incredibly saves, and most of the goals he does allow are 100% not his fault (and wouldn't be stopped by any goalie). The ducks defense is so bad that many of the goals are literally tap in variety.

Nope


So we should rely on the complete subjectiveness of the "eye test" then, right?


GSAx literally takes into account the quality of shots. That's the reason I posted it. Covers points i, iii and iv.

You're wrong if you think analytics are a science that produce unimpeachable results. They are a model - like any social science model they incorporate assumptions and conclusions that are both subjective and often wrong/misleading. Analytics are instructive, but not dispositive.

I never said anything about "relying" on the eye test. But the consensus in all sports - be it Hockey, Baseball, Football or others - is that you consider both analytics and the eye test. This is really not surprising or disputed by most people.

And no - I don't believe GSAx takes into account the QUANTITY of quality shots. I've researched this and found no evidence that it does. Feel free to post a link to a reputable website showing that it does.

And, as I mentioned, shot "quality" is an imperfect and partly subjective. My understanding is that GSAx determines quality largely on the distance from the net as well as angle of the shot. To my knowledge - and feel free to correct me with a reputable link, GSAx does not account for:

The position of the defensemen in relation to the shooter - i.e., was the shot challenged?​

Is the goalie screened and/or is there traffic in front of the net?​

Did the shooter receive the puck from a cross ice pass (which presumably would make it more likely a longer shot or bad angle shot would find an open net)?​

Did the shooter receive the puck on an odd man rush and/or after a bad defensive turnover?​

​

​

​

​

 

[Shane Diesel]

You're wrong if you think analytics are a science that produce unimpeachable results. They are a model - like any social science model they incorporate assumptions and conclusions that are both subjective and often wrong/misleading. Analytics are instructive, but not dispositive.

I never said anything of the sort at any point. My rebuttal was to calling the numbers "art" as that is a massive disservice and obfuscation. Some of the models used are actually publicly available. If you have any specific critiques of the expected goal models let's hear them instead of waving them away whole cloth.

I never said anything about "relying" on the eye test. But the consensus in all sports - be it Hockey, Baseball, Football or others - is that you consider both analytics and the eye test. This is really not surprising or disputed by most people.

And what conclusion should we draw when literally all the stats are in stark contrast to what the HF "experts" watching film say?

And no - I don't believe GSAx takes into account the QUANTITY of quality shots. I've researched this and found no evidence that it does. Feel free to post a link to a reputable website showing that it does.

And, as I mentioned, shot "quality" is an imperfect and partly subjective. My understanding is that GSAx determines quality largely on the distance from the net as well as angle of the shot. To my knowledge - and feel free to correct me with a reputable link, GSAx does not account for:

The position of the defensemen in relation to the shooter - i.e., was the shot challenged?​

Is the goalie screened and/or is there traffic in front of the net?​

Did the shooter receive the puck from a cross ice pass (which presumably would make it more likely a longer shot or bad angle shot would find an open net)?​

Did the shooter receive the puck on an odd man rush and/or after a bad defensive turnover?​

Adjusting How We Evaluate and Analyze Goaltenders - The Hockey Writers NHL Goaltending Latest News, Analysis & More

Why the relatively new goals saved above expected (GSAx) stat is a better method of evaluating goaltending.

thehockeywriters.com

"To understand the concept of goals saved above expected, one must first understand what expected goals (xG) are. The calculation behind them is relatively simple. Each shot attempt is assigned a numerical value based on the percent chance the shot has of going in. This percentage is based on an abundance of factors, including but not limited to shot distance, shot angle, goalie positioning, number of defensemen present, and number of sticks in the way. Even factors like whether or not there was a cross-crease pass preceding the shot are taken into account."

Inside the Stats: Expected Goals | Inside The Rink

Expected goals are one of the most useful analytics concepts. They are also the most heavily criticized – some of which is warranted, and some not so much. One thing that is certain is expected goals has ballooned in popularity in recent years. For those who haven’t heard of it or have heard of...

insidetherink.com

"Expected goals (xG) is a model-based metric used to isolate the evaluation of play-driving and chance-creation/suppression ability from things a player cannot control such as bounces, quality of goaltender, etc. The models make use of the public data tracked by the NHL. The NHL tracks every unblocked shot attempt (Fenwick) and collects over 100 pieces of information per unblocked shot attempt (shooter, location on ice, type of shot, etc.). Analytics nerds leverage this historical data to train the data-driven expected goals models."


I'm entirely indifferent to whether you personally approve of GSAx or not. I provide it because the average Gibson defender always screams, "the team is awful, you can't judge Gibson when the Ducks are terrible!" Except, there are in fact advanced stats that attempt to isolate goaltender performance and those all show Gibson is a bad stopper of pucks too. It's funny how every single statistic, advanced or standard, is somehow inherently biased against Gibson and the Ducks. Must be a conspiracy.

 

[Gliff]

I never said anything of the sort at any point. My rebuttal was to calling the numbers "art" as that is a massive disservice and obfuscation.


And what conclusion should we draw when literally all the stats are in stark contrast to what the HF "experts" watching film say?

Adjusting How We Evaluate and Analyze Goaltenders - The Hockey Writers NHL Goaltending Latest News, Analysis & More

Why the relatively new goals saved above expected (GSAx) stat is a better method of evaluating goaltending.

thehockeywriters.com

"To understand the concept of goals saved above expected, one must first understand what expected goals (xG) are. The calculation behind them is relatively simple. Each shot attempt is assigned a numerical value based on the percent chance the shot has of going in. This percentage is based on an abundance of factors, including but not limited to shot distance, shot angle, goalie positioning, number of defensemen present, and number of sticks in the way. Even factors like whether or not there was a cross-crease pass preceding the shot are taken into account."


I'm entirely indifferent to whether you personally approve of GSAx or not. I provide it because the average Gibson defender always screams, "the team is awful, you can't judge Gibson when the Ducks are terrible!" Except, there are in fact advanced stats that attempt to isolate goaltender performance and those all show Gibson is a bad stopper of pucks too. It's funny how every single statistic, advanced or standard, is somehow inherently biased against Gibson and the Ducks. Must be a conspiracy.

And it’s also funny how Ducks fans are not clamoring to dump him. If he was that bad wouldn’t the majority of us being jumping at any opportunity?

When I fact most only want to trade him for a good return. And most of those people only feel that way because Dostal is a stud, not because Gibson is so bad.

 

[Shane Diesel]

And it’s also funny how Ducks fans are not clamoring to dump him. If he was that bad wouldn’t the majority of us being jumping at any opportunity?

When I fact most only want to trade him for a good return. And most of those people only feel that way because Dostal is a stud, not because Gibson is so bad.

Wholly irrelevant when judging goaltender play. Fan opinions are meaningless.

 

[Zegs2sendhelp]

Wholly irrelevant when judging goaltender play. Fan opinions are meaningless.

You seem a little too emotionally invested in a player that no duck fans want to or see the point in moving.

We all agree his value is low…. So what would be the point in moving him

 

[lindholmie]

Where is the article ranking him top 10 I wanna read

 

[Rooch]

Wholly irrelevant when judging goaltender play. Fan opinions are meaningless.

This is the natural and direct consequence of the analytics movement. When statistical analysis becomes a team's core decision-making tool, there's no room left for immeasurables like fan favoritism and team loyalty, which is lifeblood of sports.

 

[WhatTheDuck]

A goalie has one job and that is to stop the puck. No goalie in the NHL has stopped more pucks this season than Gibson , so therefore he is the best goalie in the league. This is irrefutable hard data and not open for any debate.

 

[Gliff]

A goalie has one job and that is to stop the puck. No goalie in the NHL has stopped more pucks this season than Gibson (1445), so therefore he is the best goalie in the league. This is irrefutable hard data and not open for any debate.

I see what you did there.

 

[Dennis Reynolds]

f***ing yinzers and their obsession with locals. It's almost as bad as Habs fans with PQers.

As I Pens fan, I hope Gibson never wears black and gold. There was a time when Gibson was a good goaltender, but yinzers still overrated him. He hasn't been good in ages at this point, but the obsession persists.

 

[WhatTheDuck]

 

[bsu]

Just another game playing for the Ducks.

 

[duckpuck]

Where is the article ranking him top 10 I wanna read

ESPN last week, based on its survey of NHL players and GMs. But of course people on this website know more.

Ranking the NHL's top goaltenders for 2023: Why Vasilevskiy is the clear top choice

We polled a collection of players, coaches and front-office personnel to determine the top netminders in the league right now.

www.espn.com

 

[ClydeLee]

ESPN last week, based on its survey of NHL players and GMs. But of course people on this website know more.

Ranking the NHL's top goaltenders for 2023: Why Vasilevskiy is the clear top choice

We polled a collection of players, coaches and front-office personnel to determine the top netminders in the league right now.

www.espn.com

Are you really saying players and GMs are universally great judges of talent.

These types of list always go by some trends. That past hype and performance carries for a long time or players don't realize what's been said over and over.

It's these types of lists Price was rated the goalie you dont want to face after years of decline and Barkov was claimed to be the most underrated player from 17-20. It was nonsense how it kept on going. But players don't have the best current year evaluation on things.

 

[duckpuck]

Are you really saying players and GMs are universally great judges of talent.

These types of list always go by some trends. That past hype and performance carries for a long time or players don't realize what's been said over and over.

It's these types of lists Price was rated the goalie you dont want to face after years of decline and Barkov was claimed to be the most underrated player from 17-20. It was nonsense how it kept on going. But players don't have the best current year evaluation on things.

First of all, I was supplying the requested information.

Secondly, even if I accept that players and GMs are not "universally" great judges of talent, I have no reason to think people on this board are, as a whole, better than NHL players and GMs. In fact, based on what I've read on this board - and in particular in this thread - I know there are a lot of people who are not familiar with Gibson's game or, more importantly, how incredibly bad the ducks are.