Speculation: What (if anything) does Colorado do about their goaltending?

[Canadian Canuck]

Depending on the asking price, he's not a horrible option for a 3rd string G at the TDL. Would a 5th get it done?

4th+filler goalie and I’d do it.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

4th+filler goalie and I’d do it.

I'd probably do a 4th if he can up his play a little from what he's shown so far this season, but we don't really have a filler goalie to give up if the plan is for Halak to be the 3rd stringer. The best we could really offer in that regard would be Hunter Miska, but I wouldn't even call him a filler goalie, seeing how he owns the worst career NHL SV% of any goalie that's played at least 5 games since 2007, at 0.842%, and has a 0.718 SV% in 3 AHL games this year. And Annunen hasn't been much better in the NHL, but he's a 21 year old former 3rd round pick and current AHL starter, so I don't think they'd want to move him for a short term 3rd stringer.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

"My opinion is better than yours because I watch hockey"


Solid argument, I continue to be impressed.

If we were arguing about a book it might be relevant to note who had actually read the book, no?

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

You explicitly stated that Demko is a "top 5ish goaltender in the league. Period." Why make that claim if you can't support it with empirical evidence and have to rely solely on excuses to pretend it must be true?

I'm pleased that you're in Psych 101 and I hope it's going well for you. What does empirical evidence mean to you in this case. I have watched almost all of his games, are you hoping for a controlled study and a peer reviewed journal?

 

[PAZ]

Demko has far and away faced and saved the most amount of shots in the league. Everyone below is within 5-10 shots of eachother, Demko has faced about 70 more shots than the next guy to him. I don't know the exact underlying numbers but I bet hes also tops for facing the most high danger scoring chances against too, all while still maintaining a .920 save percentage. Now I don't know if that alone makes Demko a top 5 goalie, but its definitely worth noting. Out of all the guys you listed I would say the only ones who are better are Vasilevskiy, Markstrom and maybe Bobrovsky especially this season. Shesterkin might be better too but they are both young into their respective careers.

Oh no argument there, although I also forgot to mention a few goalies like Hellebuyck + Price.

I just don't think Demko has proven enough to be a clear top 5 goalie - he doesn't have the track record nor is he having a Vezina worthy season.

I'd probably say Demko is in the top 10 for goalies with the most value, but to me there are a few goalies that have separated themselves from the rest of the pack in terms of performance, and Demko isn't one of them. The only one's that are clearly better IMO are Vasilevskiy, Markstrom, Hellebuyck, Fleury, Price, and Shesterkin, but Demko is in the mix with ~5-10 other goalies after that.

 

[Pierce Hawthorne]

If we were arguing about a book it might be relevant to note who had actually read the book, no?

Every post you make, it becomes more and more evident which one of us has actually read the book, yes.


My favorite part in all of this is you're literally just doubling down on your nonsense without posting a smidgen of evidence to support your claim.

Meanwhile everyone else in this thread is throwing out the stats everywhere that completely discredit your apparently brilliant hockey mind.


Truly, you're a one of a kind poster on here. In fact, I'm shocked you even bother to post here given your brilliance.

 

[elitepete]

I have no doubt demko will be a star goalie, just not ready to call him top 5 with no numbers to back it up.

If you watched the Canucks play, you would see how drags the Canucks kicking and screaming to steal wins.

Where do you rank Markstrom as a goalie? Because Demko is better than Markstrom for us.

 

[elitepete]

I'd probably do a 4th if he can up his play a little from what he's shown so far this season, but we don't really have a filler goalie to give up if the plan is for Halak to be the 3rd stringer. The best we could really offer in that regard would be Hunter Miska, but I wouldn't even call him a filler goalie, seeing how he owns the worst career NHL SV% of any goalie that's played at least 5 games since 2007, at 0.842%, and has a 0.718 SV% in 3 AHL games this year. And Annunen hasn't been much better in the NHL, but he's a 21 year old former 3rd round pick and current AHL starter, so I don't think they'd want to move him for a short term 3rd stringer.

A 4th alone should be fine. This trade would have to happen around February at the earliest. Not comfortable with calling up DP from the AHL this early in the season.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

Every post you make, it becomes more and more evident which one of us has actually read the book, yes.


My favorite part in all of this is you're literally just doubling down on your nonsense without posting a smidgen of evidence to support your claim.

Meanwhile everyone else in this thread is throwing out the stats everywhere that completely discredit your apparently brilliant hockey mind.


Truly, you're a one of a kind poster on here. In fact, I'm shocked you even bother to post here given your brilliance.

Ohhhhh gotcha. You're a spreadsheet guy who doesn't use advanced stats to double check his observations, but uses them as his entire basis for opinion other than your obvious pro-Avs bias.

I've always liked the Avs, but them becoming good again has led to a lot of bandwagoner nonsense on here with people who think that aligning themselves with a winning team means that they are somehow correct in their hockey takes.

Since I can now see that you aren't actually interested in actual discourse on the sport but are trying to 'flex nuts' with ill-conceived opinions I will leave you to it.

Enjoy.

 

[tucker3434]

Ohhhhh gotcha. You're a spreadsheet guy who doesn't use advanced stats to double check his observations, but uses them as his entire basis for opinion other than your obvious pro-Avs bias.

I've always liked the Avs, but them becoming good again has led to a lot of bandwagoner nonsense on here with people who think that aligning themselves with a winning team means that they are somehow correct in their hockey takes.

Since I can now see that you aren't actually interested in actual discourse on the sport but are trying to 'flex nuts' with ill-conceived opinions I will leave you to it.

Enjoy.

You're trying to tell us a career .913 guy is elite. The burden is on you to tell us why an elite guy has never put up elite numbers aside from a 5 game sample. The 20 games prior he was <.910 with a negative GSAA. In my experience, people that favor the eye test over actual results are usually just allowing their bias to cloud their evaluation.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

I'm pleased that you're in Psych 101 and I hope it's going well for you. What does empirical evidence mean to you in this case. I have watched almost all of his games, are you hoping for a controlled study and a peer reviewed journal?

How about anything that doesn't require me to accept your biased opinion as proof? Something that the rest of us can also observe, and doesn't require just believing your baseless claims?

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

How about anything that doesn't require me to accept your biased opinion as proof? Something that the rest of us can also observe, and doesn't require just believing your baseless claims?

Oh you've watched lots of Demko have you?

Okay, let's hear a detailed critique? What in your opinion keeps him from being elite? Remember, be specific.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

You're trying to tell us a career .913 guy is elite. The burden is on you to tell us why an elite guy has never put up elite numbers aside from a 5 game sample. The 20 games prior he was <.910 with a negative GSAA. In my experience, people that favor the eye test over actual results are usually just allowing their bias to cloud their evaluation.

What an insane generalization. "People who favor the eye test over actual results" is an incredibly biased phrasing and a great way to tell me that you never played the game and probably don't really understand it and thus use advanced stats as a crutch to base your opinions upon.

But wouldn't you want some further metrics? Because people who 'favor eye test' could be everything from the guy who watches out of one eye at the bar every 5th game while he's trying to get laid, to a person who has coached in junior A for 10 years. Seems like your measurement system isn't very robust if they get placed in the same category under your anecdotal system for making sense of the world.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Oh you've watched lots of Demko have you?

Okay, let's hear a detailed critique? What in your opinion keeps him from being elite? Remember, be specific.

You claimed it's true, I'm asking you to provide convincing evidence to support your claim, which thus far you have been utterly unable/unwilling to do. Why would I bother trying to disprove something that you can't support with a shred of evidence? The fact that you can't provide a coherent argument in favor of your own claim is proof enough for me.

 

[McJedi]

What an insane generalization. "People who favor the eye test over actual results" is an incredibly biased phrasing and a great way to tell me that you never played the game and probably don't really understand it and thus use advanced stats as a crutch to base your opinions upon.

But wouldn't you want some further metrics? Because people who 'favor eye test' could be everything from the guy who watches out of one eye at the bar every 5th game while he's trying to get laid, to a person who has coached in junior A for 10 years. Seems like your measurement system isn't very robust if they get placed in the same category under your anecdotal system for making sense of the world.

I played competitive hockey for 20 years, have watched it for 35. I still consider analytics to be highly important in measuring player value. The stats vast capacity to capture so much of what happens while a given player is on the ice holds mission critical value to GMs league wide.

It’s the dudes that can’t grasp the stats. The math behind them, that have to fall back on their eye test and experience. This method of justification is just a goofy way of admitting you’re ignorant to how analytics work and have no intention of figuring it out. Even when every NHL team now employs an analytics department.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

You claimed it's true, I'm asking you to provide convincing evidence to support your claim, which thus far you have been utterly unable/unwilling to do. Why would I bother trying to disprove something that you can't support with a shred of evidence? The fact that you can't provide a coherent argument in favor of your own claim is proof enough for me.

Wow, I thought I wanted to talk about hockey but all this time it was grade 8 debate club that was missing from my life.

Thanks!

 

[FerrisRox]

"My opinion is better than yours because I watch hockey"


Solid argument, I continue to be impressed.

While I get the sentiment there is no doubt this place is *loaded* with people that speak authoritatively about players that they have barely seen play.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Wow, I thought I wanted to talk about hockey but all this time it was grade 8 debate club that was missing from my life.

Thanks!

In other words, you know there is absolutely no evidence to support your baseless claim. Thanks for admitting it.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

While I get the sentiment there is no doubt this place is *loaded* with people that speak authoritatively about players that they have barely seen play.

It's also full of people who believe they are the single greatest judge of talent and can innately tell who is the best, all evidence be damned.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

I played competitive hockey for 20 years, have watched it for 35. I still consider analytics to be highly important in measuring player value. The stats capacity to capture so much of what happens while a given player is on the ice. It’s the dudes that can’t grasp the stats. The math behind them, that have to fall back on their eye test and experience. This method of justification is just a goofy way of admitting you’re ignorant

I too have played competitive hockey for 20 years and watched for 26.

Regardless, I'm not saying advanced statistics have no use whatsoever, that would be insane.

But unfortunately a lot of people who have never played watched Moneyball and saw themselves in Jonah Hill.

Baseball is a series of discrete events, hockey is a game of flux. Trying to isolate patterns in teams statistically is difficult and rife with potential errors, trying to isolate the contributions of one player out of 12 on the ice is useful to draw attention to something for an experienced hockey watcher to look out for, and it's a good check/balance for an experienced watcher to see if the stats agree with his or her observations.

But it isn't even close to being as valuable on its own as having a knowledgeable person watch the games. Like not in the same stratosphere.

I should add that I have a master's degree in the social sciences so I am familiar with statistics, sampling, etc.

They are useful in concert, and advanced stats are better than not having them (and some of the proprietary statistics you hear for goaltending are interesting, but you never get more than a taste from someone like Kevin Woodley), but on their own and in anything but the right hands they are like a 16th century farmer holding an iPhone. Impressive to look at, but utterly useless.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

In other words, you know there is absolutely no evidence to support your baseless claim. Thanks for admitting it.

Since you seem to like talking about hockey (in theory), perhaps you should adopt watching hockey as a hobby too. It will inform your takes.

 

[tucker3434]

What an insane generalization. "People who favor the eye test over actual results" is an incredibly biased phrasing and a great way to tell me that you never played the game and probably don't really understand it and thus use advanced stats as a crutch to base your opinions upon.

But wouldn't you want some further metrics? Because people who 'favor eye test' could be everything from the guy who watches out of one eye at the bar every 5th game while he's trying to get laid, to a person who has coached in junior A for 10 years. Seems like your measurement system isn't very robust if they get placed in the same category under your anecdotal system for making sense of the world.

I did play, but that's entirely irrelevant. You're really making sure to cover all the bad arguments people make on here. Start with eye test then move on to you never played the game. You just gotta keep dancing around the fact that you can't provide any actual results that prove your point. The reason elite players are elite is that they produce elite results over a long period of time not just because a fan really believes it.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Since you seem to like talking about hockey (in theory), perhaps you should adopt watching hockey as a hobby too. It will inform your takes.

I've been watching hockey for over 40 years at this point (since I was 3), so I think I'm good there. From my lifelong tenure as a hockey watcher (and player in my youth), I don't see anything about Demko that makes him a top 5 goalie. Not a single thing. He's probably in the top 10-15, but you called him top 5, so I asked what makes that true. Either you have something tangible that explains why it's true, or there's no reason to accept your opinion as anything other than a homer being a homer. And based on your personal attacks and excuses and inability to provide even a shred of evidence, I think it's obvious that it's not true.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

I did play, but that's entirely irrelevant. You're really making sure to cover all the bad arguments people make on here. Start with eye test then move on to you never played the game. You just gotta keep dancing around the fact that you can't provide any actual results that prove your point. The reason elite players are elite is that they produce elite results over a long period of time not just because a fan really believes it.

Again, that's a great way to be behind the times. If you aren't interested in knowing more than what ESPN tells you about McDavid and Mackinnon being good players, that's fine and there is nothing wrong with being a casual fan.

But what hfboards offers, in theory, is boots on the ground insight on 31 other teams so that even on a bad team you can get first hand accounts of who is up and coming, which players are pulling the majority of the weight, etc.

I'm not here telling you that Myers is a number 1 D and J.T. Miller is better than Leon Draisaitl, but myself and a number of Canucks fans are telling you that if Demko isn't top 5 in the league he's closer to 5th than 10th.

If you prefer to have this fed to you in two years, that's fine.

He's been on a terrible team most of the last year and a half and has been hung out to dry.

People in the national media in Canada are saying, "The Canucks should build around their franchise netminder", because they are starting to notice what we have been seeing for awhile.

But if you would rather be fairly ignorant about the rest of the league, that's all good man. I'll leave you to it.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

I've been watching hockey for over 40 years at this point (since I was 3), so I think I'm good there. From my lifelong tenure as a hockey watcher (and player in my youth), I don't see anything about Demko that makes him a top 5 goalie. Not a single thing. He's probably in the top 10-15, but you called him top 5, so I asked what makes that true. Either you have something tangible that explains why it's true, or there's no reason to accept your opinion as anything other than a homer being a homer. And based on your personal attacks and excuses and inability to provide even a shred of evidence, I think it's obvious that it's not true.

He's 'probably in the top 10 or 15'. So you're not even sure if he's in the top half of league starters?

Then you're barely worth talking to about him. I will back off saying he is definitively top 5 yet, but he's closer to 5 then he is to 10 if he isn't.

And how about you explain what 'tangible' means in this case? Is it advanced stats that really struggle to measure good players on bad teams?

Also how much have you seen him play, and be honest.