Nikishin Go Boom
Russian Bulldozer Consultent
- Jul 31, 2017
- 23,708
- 55,334
Rumor: Pittsburgh will "certainly try" to move Jarry.
- Thread starter LEAFANFORLIFE23
- Start date
Empoleon8771
Registered User
Your numbers are literally wrong:
Jarry: +2.6 GSAx
Vasilevskiy: -2.5 GSAx
Grubauer: -5.8 GSAx
Merzlikins: -6.3 GSAx
Husso: -4.9 GSAx (in only 19 games)
Korpisalo: -16.1 GSAx
Kuemper: -4.8 GSAx
Campbell: -3.5 GSAx (in only 5 games)
Petersen: -5.3 GSAx (in only 5 games)
Gibson: -9.6 GSAx
Every goalie I listed had a worse GSAx than Jarry last year, while Knight didn't even play in the NHL last year because of how bad he was.
Nikishin Go Boom
Russian Bulldozer Consultent
- Jul 31, 2017
- 23,708
- 55,334
They literally aren’t vas was a +1.3 this season. Goalies below him in aav is just a way for you to make him look better. Fact he is the 12th highest AAV and performs well below that. While i missed Grubauer, the fact of the matter is he is sub par for top 15 paid goalies and not average in any stat
He is a cap dump by definition
Empoleon8771
Registered User
Please point out any of the stats I provided that was wrong. Spoiler alert, none of them are wrong.
And you're saying "goalies below him in AAV" as if I'm going far below. I'm going as low as $4 million, with a huge amount of the guys I mentioned making basically the same amount of money as him. You know your argument is crap if you have to argue that a guy making $5.25 million to Jarry's $5.3 million isn't comparable because his AAV is below him.
Nikishin Go Boom
Russian Bulldozer Consultent
- Jul 31, 2017
- 23,708
- 55,334
Seriously?!?! Who is in 12th with a 1.3?
Please point out any of the stats I provided that was wrong. Spoiler alert, none of them are wrong.
And you're saying "goalies below him in AAV" as if I'm going far below. I'm going as low as $4 million, with a huge amount of the guys I mentioned making basically the same amount of money as him. You know your argument is crap if you have to argue that a guy making $5.25 million to Jarry's $5.3 million isn't comparable because his AAV is below him.
Just stop dude. He is a cap dump
Empoleon8771
Registered User
Oh damn, did Andrei Vasilevskiy play in 5 games in the regular season this year?
Spoiler alert: those are playoff stats. Hence why Vasilevskiy has 5 games, since his team was eliminated in 5 games in the regular season.
Nikishin Go Boom
Russian Bulldozer Consultent
- Jul 31, 2017
- 23,708
- 55,334
Try reading it again.
Spoiler alert: you are wrong again.
He is a cap dump and not an average starter for 2 seasons now. There isn’t a GM out there going “dang other teams are paying within 20% of jarry for equally bad or worse goaltending, maybe I should also pay a lot for less than average goaltending.”
Last edited:
biturbo19
Registered User
- Jul 13, 2010
- 27,239
- 12,384
While there's some fairness to this, and i think the amount that Jarry "sucks" does tend to get a little bit overstated...it's the same sort of reasoning that gets you stuck in goaltender purgatory, when it comes at the salary cost that Jarry does.
It's that paralysis of, "could do worse". Could also do a lot better, or do equally for a lot less cap investment.
The other aspect this kind of glosses over, is that Jarry isn't strictly an "average goaltender" on any given night. He's mediocre "on average" but not necessarily mediocre on an average night. This is where the statistics don't distinguish between a guy who just goes in there and plugs away as completely "okayish" and unspectacularly dependable to give you a chance to win every night...vs a guy like Jarry who is prone to games or even stretches of absolutely putrid play, that are balanced by legitimately very good games every now and then. Two ways of arriving at similar looking statistical results. Straight trendline vs "jagged peaks and deep valleys" with Jarry. Very radically different impacts on the team in front of them in terms of mentality, as well as potentially overall effectiveness.
See...that's fair, in that a lot other teams are also spending a ton of money on absolutely terrible goaltending.
But that list is pretty much the entire problem with using it to justify Jarry. It's a kind of misguided "risk averse" analysis. The reality is, yes, you absolutely could do much worse than Tristan Jarry. But it's about spending "Top-12ish" Money on a very inconsistent, unreliable guy because you're afraid that, "it could be worse" on average. Rather than because you actually believe in Jarry as a guy who is going to substantially upgrade your team in net. That's a problem.
Empoleon8771
Registered User
Of the 11 highest paid active goalies in the NHL (taking out Price since he was hurt) last year:
1. Hellebuyck: +33.1 GSAx ($8.5 million AAV)
2. Binnington: +16.5 GSAx ($6 million AAV)
3. Bobrovsky: +15.6 GSAx ($10 million AAV)
4. Markstrom: +13.7 GSAx ($6 million AAV)
5. Shesterkin: +12.1 GSAx ($5.67 million AAV)
6. Jarry: +2.6 GSAx ($5.375 million AAV)
7. Sorokin: +1.4 GSAx ($8.25 million AAV)
8. Vasilevskiy: -2.5 GSAx ($9.5 million AAV)
9. Grubauer: -5.8 GSAx ($5.9 million AAV)
10. Merzlikins: -6.3 GSAx ($5.4 million AAV)
11. Gibson: -9.6 GSAx ($6.5 million AAV)
Oh look, another stat that shows Jarry is in the middle. What a surprise.
I'm saying this politely: you are factually incorrect. Vasilevskiy's GSAx last year in the regular season is factually -2.5. The stats you're pulling up are playoff stats, hence why it shows Vasilevskiy as playing in 5 games and Bobrovsky playing in 23 games.
This isn't even an opinion thing, you're just factually incorrect in the stats you're posting. The screenshot you posted is literally the playoff stats, which you can see here:
Now look at the regular season stats:
1. Hellebuyck: +33.1 GSAx ($8.5 million AAV)
2. Binnington: +16.5 GSAx ($6 million AAV)
3. Bobrovsky: +15.6 GSAx ($10 million AAV)
4. Markstrom: +13.7 GSAx ($6 million AAV)
5. Shesterkin: +12.1 GSAx ($5.67 million AAV)
6. Jarry: +2.6 GSAx ($5.375 million AAV)
7. Sorokin: +1.4 GSAx ($8.25 million AAV)
8. Vasilevskiy: -2.5 GSAx ($9.5 million AAV)
9. Grubauer: -5.8 GSAx ($5.9 million AAV)
10. Merzlikins: -6.3 GSAx ($5.4 million AAV)
11. Gibson: -9.6 GSAx ($6.5 million AAV)
Oh look, another stat that shows Jarry is in the middle. What a surprise.
I'm saying this politely: you are factually incorrect. Vasilevskiy's GSAx last year in the regular season is factually -2.5. The stats you're pulling up are playoff stats, hence why it shows Vasilevskiy as playing in 5 games and Bobrovsky playing in 23 games.
This isn't even an opinion thing, you're just factually incorrect in the stats you're posting. The screenshot you posted is literally the playoff stats, which you can see here:
Now look at the regular season stats:
Last edited:
Empoleon8771
Registered User
How many goalies are out there are consistently "could also do a lot better"?
This is the same situation as Fleury back in the day. People would always say that Fleury wasn't good because he was just consistently average in the regular season and had major consistency issues. But at the end of the day "consistently average with flaws" tends to be a lot better than what most other teams get in net. You could get 1 year performances better than Jarry for less money, but you're very likely not getting consistently better performances for Jarry for less money.
Jarry is a microcosm of the issues with goaltending in the NHL as whole. "Consistently average with flaws" is better than what a ton of other starting goalies do in the NHL. Hell, Jarry was even better than guys like Vasilevskiy, Sorokin and Saros last year (in terms of GSAx) in this year that everyone says he was terrible. You can try to get better performances for cheaper, but the realistic outcome is that it's at best a coin flip for whether you'd be able to do that. Go ask Minnesota about how Gustavsson played, ask Toronto how Samsonov played, ask New Jersey how Vanecek played and so on.
Especially if we're talking about this season, who could you realistically do better with? Ullmark is the obvious guy, but it dries up super quickly after him. Maybe you can get a better 1 year performance out of Cam Talbot, but Cam Talbot in 2022-2023 put up an .898 save%.
Last edited:
- Jun 13, 2010
- 42,711
- 21,562
In a swap, I can see Jarry for Mangiapane. Seems to fill a gap for both teams and the money is similar.
Indeed. I think the basic expectations around goaltending from the fan's POV, or rather fans "like us" who can regularly match up stats and performance, do not match the reality of current-day goaltending. Goaltending, as a whole, is trending downward. As you point out, there are few "safe" starting goalies. There are not many "elite" goalies now, either. There are 4-5 solid, elite goalies and then a whole bucket of f***ing mediocrity. But I think that's going to become the norm. I think guys like Georgiev, Jarry, Husso, Demko, Merzlikins...I think these guys are being what "average" starters are going to look like moving forward. I think our acceptance of that reality is just a bit behind. Starting goalies may become like head coaches where you see them get fired and hired regularly. Just getting a guy that be average for 50-60 games may be more difficult moving forward than it was in the past.
The Zetterberg Era
Ball Hockey Sucks
If you're tanking, why go get Jarry? You don't really see teams in the bottom five make this a big focus in terms of improving their netminders.
- Jun 13, 2010
- 42,711
- 21,562
SeanMoneyHands
Registered User
- Apr 18, 2019
- 15,278
- 14,622
biturbo19
Registered User
- Jul 13, 2010
- 27,239
- 12,384
There are a few problems with this.
First and foremost, it's leaning entirely on a singular projected metric as the defining "value" of a goaltender. And a very questionable statistic that can be wildly prone to team and system influences, with wild volatility year to year.
It's also leaning on an "average" statistic, compiled over the whole broader sample. ie. Designed to smooth out inconsistencies and nuance of how the guy played on any given night, specifically. It's statistically not a measure of what you should expect to get from Jarry on any given individual start. It's a measure of what you should expect the ups and downs to average out to, over all starts. Those are two completely different, contextually critical pieces of information.
It doesn't really account for things like...hot streaks and prolonged slumps. Where say, a wild Ned comes in and starts to siphon off starts or "steal" his job.
The other aspect of this is just...yes, you're right in that it's risky and it's probably a "coin flip" if you can actually do as well or better with alternatives. Especially if you're trying to go cheaper at the same time. And it might even be a coin flip if you end up doing worse. But as i mentioned, it's an inherently "risk averse" strategy but also a little bit of a fallacious sense of security. It's investing "sure thing" money with major term in something that isn't even actually a "sure thing". If you're investing $5.5M in something that you've got maybe a coinflip chance of replicating or exceeding for less money. That coinflip element cuts both ways. There's a 50/50 chance you're committing to worse goaltending.
Especially when...as an alternative, you might even get two coin flips on your roster. Maybe even more if you can find some waiver exempt coin flips to stash (which imo, every team should be constantly drafting a steady pipeline of netminders to do).
But i mean...ultimately, if the whole thing comes down to GSAx...and it's telling you that Jarry is a better goaltender, or a better bet than Sorokin, Vasy, Saros, et al...i think it bears more scrutiny on what exactly that metric is telling you. I feel like a lot of the "goalies are voodoo" discourse comes from valuing things like that over actual performance.
Where goalies really are a bit "voodoo" or wildly volatile, is when you've got very mediocre "system goalies" guys like Vanacek that you put behind a wildly different team defence year over year, and surprise surprise...see wildly inconsistent results. Move a guy like Kuemper from a Cup Winner to the Caps. Or you've got a headcase like Samsonov who has always been wildly up and down and erratic in his actual play.
I can see why Dubas took the "risk averse analytics play". Not even sure it was the wrong thing to do for the Penguins given their situation. How much do you want to wager the last few years of "The Old Gang" on a coinflip in net? I think that was the reasoning. But as above...sometimes that coinflip still doesn't really work out that great. The Ned shot in the dark ended up probably better overall, especially at the cap value. And i'd be shocked if he doesn't completely fall apart if they decide to move Jarry and make him the starter. Because ultimately...not all coinflips are created equal in the NHL.
Darren McCord
Registered User
- Dec 15, 2015
- 10,021
- 8,386
- Jun 13, 2010
- 42,711
- 21,562
Not that there's anything wrong with the value, per say but the Pens don't do that. That's an awful lot of cap for them to take on and I think the days of giving up 1st round picks are essentially done.
You can get another goalie who doesn't have a God awful contract stapled to him though to play with Woll
KevinRedkey
12/18/23 and beyond!
- Jan 22, 2010
- 10,505
- 5,774
Jarry certainly isn't great - but he's better than what a large portion of people on here seem to think he is.
I think he makes some sense on the Capitals, though I'm not sure what they'd give up or who/what Dubas would ask for.
I think he makes some sense on the Capitals, though I'm not sure what they'd give up or who/what Dubas would ask for.
Zbynek
Jarry friggin sucks dude
Tristan Jarry is definitely a good goalie. Please trade for him!
lanceuppercut75
Registered User
OtherThingsILike
Registered User
With how many games played?
Does anyone care if a goalie does well in a tiny sample size of four games?
Zbynek
Jarry friggin sucks dude
It’s amazing an ownership group gave dubas a raise and promotion after his tenure in Toronto…I guess they don’t have eyes…
