Since 2008 only 4 goalies who have won the cup were a net negative to their team

[Thallis]

Yeah, for guys at the bottom of the lineup.

Your starting goaltender plays 60 minutes a game. There's no context where we can't compare him to a 1C or a 1D. He's arguably even more important in a vacuum.

There's no other position where you would look at even and say that it's average. It's replacement level. It's significantly below average.

The biggest misconceptions with analytics is that 1) even is average and 2) replacement level is average.

Do such players exist in the NHL? Absolutely, because there's four line and three pairs. There's one goaltender.

You can bring up context and outliers, and just not agree with what the stat says, that's up to you. Objectively, a GSAx of 0 is terrible. It's just about sub-NHL. About 60 goaltenders are going to outperform that every year.

60 out of how many goalies? Once you get the answer to that, ask yourself if you think all of those players with less than 10 games would be putting up those same numbers getting regular starts in the playoffs. For as confidently you speak about this, you haven't done even the slightest due diligence here.

In case you were wondering: the year in question 2019 had 23 goalies with 30 or more games played as positive GSAx. 48 goalies hit that GP mark that season. So, no, you're talking out of your ass without understanding even what you're arguing, much less the things beyond it like the problem with public xG models, standard deviations, or variance due to environment.

 

[Machinehead]

60 out of how many goalies? Once you get the answer to that, ask yourself if you think all of those players with less than 10 games would be putting up those same numbers getting regular starts in the playoffs. For as confidently you speak about this, you haven't done even the slightest due diligence here.

In case you were wondering: the year in question 2019 had 23 goalies with 30 or more games played as positive GSAx. 48 goalies hit that GP mark that season. So, no, you're talking out of your ass without understanding even what you're arguing, much less the things beyond it like the problem with public xG models, standard deviations, or variance due to environment.

Ok so let's take that number. If 23 goalies are better than you, is that average?

You say I'm talking out of my ass and not taking into account standard deviations or variance, meanwhile, you're just blindly assuming zero is baseline. That's not how math.

 

[Thallis]

Ok so let's take that number. If 23 goalies are better than you, is that average?

You say I'm talking out of my ass and not taking into account standard deviations or variance, meanwhile, you're just blindly assuming zero is baseline. That's not how math.

if 23 goalies are better than you and 25 goalies are worse: that is average! How do you not understand this??? If you're going to be condescending you can at least be right. 0 GSAx is at or close to the middle of the league every year. That is literally average.

 

[JaegerDice]

A GSAx of -0.07 and -0.04 are so close to zero its negligible.

Thats like an extra goal given up every 14 and 25 games.

2015 Crawford and 2019 Binnington saved right about what they should have, in aggregate. What that looked like in reality, was they had some rough games, and then countered them with some outstanding performances.

 

[Machinehead]

if 23 goalies are better than you and 25 goalies are worse: that is average! How do you not understand this??? If you're going to be condescending you can at least be right. 0 GSAx is at or close to the middle of the league every year. That is literally average.

The 25 goalies that are worse are mostly backups! We're talking about the playoffs.

Also, it's a cumulative stat, so bringing up games played does not have the same effect as say, points per 60 where the sample size dramatically affects rate. If you're doing less in 40 games than Joe Schmoe is doing in 3 games, that's not good.

0 GSAx is not average. You can like the stat or not like it, I don't care, but people who know a lot more about analytics than I do will tell you it's below average (@Bleedred).

You just can't get off of the assumption that 0 is average for some reason. I don't know why you would assume that. There's actually very few stats in hockey where 0 is a good base.

 

[Machinehead]

A GSAx of -0.07 and -0.04 are so close to zero its negligible.

Thats like an extra goal given up every 14 and 25 games.

2015 Crawford and 2019 Binnington saved right about what they should have, in aggregate. What that looked like in reality, was they had some rough games, and then countered them with some outstanding performances.

The number of extra goals an NHL starter should give up over 25 games is zero.

 

[Thallis]

The 25 goalies that are worse are mostly backups! We're talking about the playoffs.

Also, it's a cumulative stat, so bringing up games played does not have the same effect as say, points per 60 where the sample size dramatically affects rate. If you're doing less in 40 games than Joe Schmoe is doing in 3 games, that's not good.

0 GSAx is not average. You can like the stat or not like it, I don't care, but people who know a lot more about analytics than I do will tell you it's below average (@Bleedred).

You just can't get off of the assumption that 0 is average for some reason. I don't know why you would assume that. There's actually very few stats in hockey where 0 is a good base.

I am giving you data demonstrating that the average goalie in the least is at or very close to 0 and instead of any amount of learning or apology for your condescension, you respond with this. Now in the prior era when offenses were not as strong, the average did skew a bit higher, but in the past 6 years (the generally accepted point of current offensive output), this has been the case. There are a -lot- of problems with how expected goals are tracked to the point where it's not a great representation of a goaltender to begin with, but with what we have 0 is the point where it is an average performance.

 

[ManofSteel55]

How many netminders have reached 400 wins on a subpar team?

Osgood also played for the Isles and Blues.

That's my point. He was a capable goalie for sure, but spending most of his career on Detroit really boosted those numbers.

 

[JaegerDice]

The number of extra goals an NHL starter should give up over 25 games is zero.

Spoken like the fan of a team that over-relies on elite goaltending cause they cant expect even middling 5v5 offense to make up for the odd bad one.

In an ideal world, sure.

In the real world, goaltending in volatile and I can probably find a 25 game stretch for ANY NHL goalie where they gave up one goal they shouldnt have.

 

[Machinehead]

Spoken like the fan of a team that over-relies on elite goaltending cause they cant expect even middling 5v5 offense to make up for the odd bad one.

In an ideal world, sure.

In the real world, goaltending in volatile and I can probably find a 25 game stretch for ANY NHL goalie where they gave up one goal they shouldnt have.

Right, but then they make it up somewhere along that stretch.

0 GSAx sucks. I don't care what anyone says.

If you're not preventing goals, you're not an NHL starter.

Which is fine because plenty of not NHL starters win the Cup!

 

[JaegerDice]

Right, but then they make it up somewhere along that stretch.

0 GSAx sucks. I don't care what anyone says.

If you're not preventing goals, you're not an NHL starter.

Which is fine because plenty of not NHL starters win the Cup!

I dont think it sucks, I think it’s replacement level.

Over a season, or ideally multi-season sample.

But again, we’re talking about a 25 game sample here. If the next 25 games are +8 GSAx does he still suck or did he just have a rough 25 games? Cause then its all of a sudden +7.93 GSAx over 50 games.

 

[Machinehead]

I dont think it sucks, I think it’s replacement level.

"I don't think it's ice, I think it's solid water."

Over a season, or ideally multi-season sample.

But again, we’re talking about a 25 game sample here. If the next 25 games are +8 GSAx does he still suck or did he just have a rough 25 games? Cause then its all of a sudden +7.93 GSAx over 50 games.

The sample is certainly a factor.

Nobody would ever say that Corey Crawford is bad goaltender. He's a hop and skip from a Hall of Fame career.

I think it's fair to say that he was replacement-level for 24 games, or whatever it was, in 2015 and the Hawks won the Cup anyway.

Matt Murray had two nice tournaments and I'm on record as thinking Matt Murray is an absolute bum.

 

[Filatov2Kovalev2Bonk]

View attachment 882834
2022 avalanche winning the cup when Kuemper was a sieve is amazing. Hill was low-key an mvp last season and I legit feel he might have saved the season against the Oilers.

When Kuemper was a save? Most of these are saving only a half-goal above expected.
Just barely doing their jobs, the lot of them. 2021 Vasi looking like an absolute pillar among them.
Bob will fight right in here, and even Skinner probably wouldn't look out of place.

Really missing Hasek/Roy and steady goatlending.

 

[JaegerDice]

"I don't think it's ice, I think it's solid water."

The sample is certainly a factor.

Nobody would ever say that Corey Crawford is bad goaltender. He's a hop and skip from a Hall of Fame career.

I think it's fair to say that he was replacement-level for 24 games, or whatever it was, in 2015 and the Hawks won the Cup anyway.

Matt Murray had two nice tournaments and I'm on record as thinking Matt Murray is an absolute bum.

Meh, I look at 0 GSAx as the baseline. Dead average. He made every save you'd expect. What elevates great goalies is that they do make the saves you wouldn't expect them to make, they cover up for the break-downs that lead to the primo AAA chances.

A goalie well in the negative is a bad goalie, or 'not an NHL goalie'. Cause at that point, the goalie is not merely failing to elevate beyond making the saves he should, he's FAILING to make the saves he should, in addition to not making the saves he's not expected to.

As far as Crawford in 2015? Sure, in aggregate. He was bad to start the playoffs, amazing in the 2nd round, not great in the 3rd round, and excellent in the 4th round. That probably aggregates to around average, though it kinda gives the wrong impression. Cause he wasn't just steadily average through the entire 25 games, he had deep valleys and big peaks.

 

[Bleedred]

The 25 goalies that are worse are mostly backups! We're talking about the playoffs.

Also, it's a cumulative stat, so bringing up games played does not have the same effect as say, points per 60 where the sample size dramatically affects rate. If you're doing less in 40 games than Joe Schmoe is doing in 3 games, that's not good.

0 GSAx is not average. You can like the stat or not like it, I don't care, but people who know a lot more about analytics than I do will tell you it's below average (@Bleedred).

You just can't get off of the assumption that 0 is average for some reason. I don't know why you would assume that. There's actually very few stats in hockey where 0 is a good base.

I try as hard as I can to avoid goalie debates on the main board, but I use every calorie I can put out to argue about them on the Devils forum haha.

Every once in a while, people will try their damnedest to convince me that John Gibson doesn't actually suck and that it's just the Ducks. Well if John Gibson doesn't suck and it's just the Ducks, I guess Dostal is one of the best goalies in the league? Because he posts superior numbers (all of Gibson's backups do, albeit in fewer games played, other than Ryan Miller's last season at 40 years old) and this year I think he actually played more games.

 

[Bleedred]

"PeNgUiNs GoT gReAt GoAlTeNdInG iN 2009!"

The stats show they got one of the worst goaltending performances among Cup winners in the past 16 years.

Most people agree with that I think. I think the general consensus is that Fleury's 2009 playoffs was weak for a cup winning starter. Niemi also gets lumped into that category.

The weird thing with Fleury is how often people talk about his 3 Stanley Cups. Now that's technically true, Fleury does have THREE Stanley Cups. But only one of them came with him actually playing the entire playoffs.

I give him 1.5 as the starter. He did play into the conference finals in 2017 due to Murray being injured unril that round. I think he played one game in the 2016 playoffs. I remember him getting tossed into the Tampa series after Murray got lit up for a game. I think it was Fleury that was injured and unavailable through the first two rounds those playoffs. I think they even started the playoffs with Jeff Zatkoff (who?) and Murray that year. He played a pretty meh game against Tampa (I remember a weak goal or two) and they immediately went back to Murray, and I don't think Fleury played another second those playoffs.

But there's no need to recite Fleury as a 3 time cup winner like he's Brodeur/Roy, who actually won all their cups as the starting goaltender in their cup winning years.

I'm not even trying to sell Fleury's career short, it's just weird that people always go out of their way to say how many times he's won the cup.

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

I believe that Binningtons numbers were because the Bruins blew us out a couple times in the finals. Otherwise he was pretty spectacular.

Quite the opposite. Binnington was dreadful aside from a few key games. Even Game 7 was largely Bruins lack of execution. Marchand open net early and shooting into Binnington's logo will haunt the Bruins.

 

[Machinehead]

I try as hard as I can to avoid goalie debates on the main board, but I use every calorie I can put out to argue about them on the Devils forum haha.

Every once in a while, people will try their damnedest to convince me that John Gibson doesn't actually suck and that it's just the Ducks. Well if John Gibson doesn't suck and it's just the Ducks, I guess Dostal is one of the best goalies in the league? Because he posts superior numbers (all of Gibson's backups do, albeit in fewer games played, other than Ryan Miller's last season at 40 years old) and this year I think he actually played more games.

I often forget how much people defend goaltending on the main boards.

On the Rangers board, we've spent the last 18 consecutive seasons watching probably the best goaltender in the league and winning f*** all, so when you say "gee, this guy is kind of ass," nobody bats an eye because 1) He's not Hank/Igor and 2) nobody cares that his team won the Cup.

We've been completely desensitized to all the weird shit that happens with goaltending that people want to produce an explanation for.

Also, your post is how I found out John Gibson is still playing, so that probably tells you how good he's been.

 

[Bleedred]

Quite the opposite. Binnington was dreadful aside from a few key games. Even Game 7 was largely Bruins lack of execution. Marchand open net early and shooting into Binnington's logo will haunt the Bruins.

Binnington's regular season that year probably saved their season, but I thought he was nothing worth bragging about in the playoffs. I always thought he was just okay.

For what it's worth, moneypuck has him at a +3.9 GSAx/0.152 GSAx per 60, with a save percentage 3 points higher than expected. Evolving hockey's model has him at a +1,08 GSAx those playoffs.

By comparison, moneypuck has Fleury's 2009 playoffs at a -5.5 GSAx/-0.238 GSAx per 60 and a save percentage 4 points below expected. Evolving hockey has him at a -6.2 GSAx those playoffs.

Take this for what you want, but Skinner in these playoffs is a +1.2 GSAx/+0.060 GSAx per 60 and a save percentage 1 point above expected on moneypuck's model. He's at a +3.14 GSAx on evolving hockey's model for these playoffs.

 

[Bleedred]

I often forget how much people defend goaltending on the main boards.

On the Rangers board, we've spent the last 18 consecutive seasons watching probably the best goaltender in the league and winning f*** all, so when you say "gee, this guy is kind of ass," nobody bats an eye because 1) He's not Hank/Igor and 2) nobody cares that his team won the Cup.

We've been completely desensitized to all the weird shit that happens with goaltending that people want to produce an explanation for.

Also, your post is how I found out John Gibson is still playing, so that probably tells you how good he's been.

Unfortunately, there's a rumor mill out there that constantly pumps out how John Gibson wants out of Anaheim and is on the move, as well as being tied to the Devils (KILL ME!) as if he's actually an upgrade over anybody we've had, all because he used to be good 5+ years ago. John Gibson in 2024 reminds me way too much of Cory Schneider by about 2019, other than the fact that he's still a couple of years younger than Schneider was in 2019.

Honestly, I find goaltenders to be overrated by fans and the media. People are way too complimentary with goaltenders. ''He's a good goalie'' when talking some JAG that's average at the very best and usually some jabroni. Yeah' he's a good goalie in the sense that he's in the national hockey league and most of us weren't good enough to make it as goalies in the NHL or any pro league, but in relation to NHL goalies? He's nothing special. But honestly? I think there are only like 5-8 goalies that are anything special.

Even a guy like Oettinger is really jocked.

 

[SmoggyTwinkles]

Pretty sure Matt Martin has been released from Robidas island.

 

[Xerloris]

Quite the opposite. Binnington was dreadful aside from a few key games. Even Game 7 was largely Bruins lack of execution. Marchand open net early and shooting into Binnington's logo will haunt the Bruins.

I won't deny we as a team put up some real shitty games in 2019 but coming back after a loss he was extremely good and his elimination game stats were also extremely good. Those are pretty much all that really matter.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Most people agree with that I think. I think the general consensus is that Fleury's 2009 playoffs was weak for a cup winning starter. Niemi also gets lumped into that category.

The weird thing with Fleury is how often people talk about his 3 Stanley Cups. Now that's technically true, Fleury does have THREE Stanley Cups. But only one of them came with him actually playing the entire playoffs.

I give him 1.5 as the starter. He did play into the conference finals in 2017 due to Murray being injured unril that round. I think he played one game in the 2016 playoffs. I remember him getting tossed into the Tampa series after Murray got lit up for a game. I think it was Fleury that was injured and unavailable through the first two rounds those playoffs. I think they even started the playoffs with Jeff Zatkoff (who?) and Murray that year. He played a pretty meh game against Tampa (I remember a weak goal or two) and they immediately went back to Murray, and I don't think Fleury played another second those playoffs.

But there's no need to recite Fleury as a 3 time cup winner like he's Brodeur/Roy, who actually won all their cups as the starting goaltender in their cup winning years.

I'm not even trying to sell Fleury's career short, it's just weird that people always go out of their way to say how many times he's won the cup.

And in general. that's my issue whenever Fleury comes up. People act like he was a playoff stud for the Pens "because he's won 3 Cups" or because he had that one magical run for Vegas (not sure what that has to do with his Pens' tenure though), but the reality was he was largely inconsistent where he'd range from lights out to absolute garbage. For a stretch there (between 2010 to around 2015), he was a playoff meltdown waiting to happen.

I feel like people use revisionist history with regards to Fleury based on a]He has 3 Cups, b]he was lights out in Game 6 and 7 versus Detroit and c]that monster run for Vegas.

 

[Shaman464]

401 wins is pretty good for a pedestrian

Wins are a team stat and he spent a lot of years back stoping a team the featured what might be the best defensive dman ever and some of the best defensive forwards ever. But he was able to make the stops he had to make and didn’t blow the advantages of spending a lot of years in Detroit like other goalies on good teams have.

 

[GRob83]

Keep in mind Kuemper was top five in the regular season in both SV% and GSAx and then suffered an eye injury in the first round of the playoffs that caused him to miss time.

His overall playoff numbers were not good, but let's not act like he was a scrub either.

Kuemper had the lowest GAA and highest Save% from 2018/2019-2021/2022 (Min. 150 GP)
This includes his time with Arizona, where his numbers were even better than they were with Colorado. I've always liked his skillset, hopefully he can have a bounce back year.