2018-2019 NHL Gear Sitings

[Moose75]

There's a reason scoring is up. Well, a few reasons, but with injuries to certain starters, I really haven't seen anyone step up.

Goaltending is in a lull. There's a lot of borderline NHL goalies in the league right now. Guys like Schneider, Rask, Holtby, Price, Quick, and Crawford are looking cooked.

Vasilevskiy, Hellebuyck, Gibson, and Andersen are the only ones I can think of who look above average/elite-ish.

 Rinne and  Lundqvist are still playing strong. Luongo is too, but his injuries are mounting. Fleury looks dependable again like typical Fleury.

Saros and Korpisalo are the last beacons of hope, as it is all nameless/faceless/average guys. no one noteworthy is tearing up the AHL.

[stackem30]

This year continues to cement my belief that it's just not smart to hand goalies long-term contracts (a belief I feel guilty about having — I want my brethren to get PAID). It's become more of a mercurial position every year. It's so hard to tell who's the real deal, and who's a flash in the pan. 

I feel like the days are almost gone where a franchise can lock up a goalie for a long-term deal, knowing they can trust the guy to man their crease season after season without suffering from considerable buyer's remorse at some point. I know we refer to the same guys over and over, but in the late 90's/early 00's, teams like the Devils, Avalanche, Sabres, Stars, Leafs, Panthers, and Rangers all knew that they were SET in goal for the foreseeable future. They got "one of the good ones", signed 'em for the long run, and proceeded with the confidence that they had a goalie they could ride out without any real regrets. Most of them were absolutely right, and if/when the goalie departed, it was because they wanted to test the market.

Today, I'm not sure how many teams you can really say the same for. The Rangers did it with Lundqvist, for sure. I think the Preds did right by themselves for riding out Rinne (but uh oh, here comes Sarros...). I would have included Price on this list, but his struggles have continued into this year, and I don't think I could really put him in that category of guys whose teams are pleased they have them signed for the long run. 

I believe it comes down to the fact that there is just an overflow of talent in net, and that if teams look around, they will almost always see another young, talented goalie that makes them think, "Oo, I wonder if we'd be better off with them..."

Let's say, for simplicity's sake (ignoring expansion timelines), that there are 60 goalies in the league, a starter and a backup per team. 20 years ago, I think the difference between #1 (the best goalie in the league) and #60 (the worst backup) was considerable. And not just in how they were playing night-to-night — I mean their overall talent and ability. The top guys were just better goalies, whether we're talking save to save, game to game, season to season. You would see this reflected in how many games the starters played... as much as they could handle, in most cases. Many teams seemed to not really trust their backups, and with good reason — they were inferior, and gave their teams considerably less of a chance to win games. Sure, most teams today play their starting goalie less to conserve their energy, but I do think a lot of it has to do with the fact that they have so much more confidence in their backups.

In 2018, the difference between the league's best goalie and the league's worst backup has never been smaller. I really believe any AHL kid can get called up in a pinch, step into the nets, and possibly deliver a better string of 5 games than the usual best goalies in the league. Determining whether they can continue delivering over the season, or year after year, is the real trick, and it's the reason why I just wouldn't want to hand a starter a big contract these days. Are you really willing to gamble that this guy is going to be the man this year, next year, and the year after that? Even if he's great, what if something better comes along? It's an ADHD league, but I think it's the huge overflow of talent that keeps GM's heads on a swivel when it comes to goalies. 

Everyone is just two damn good. It's why 'tapas' have become so popular. Why commit to a single big meal, when you can taste this, eat that, and just bounce around from one good thing to another? Okay, I need to go eat...

[Moose75]

35 minutes ago, stackem30 said:

This year continues to cement my belief that it's just not smart to hand goalies long-term contracts (a belief I feel guilty about having — I want my brethren to get PAID). It's become more of a mercurial position every year. It's so hard to tell who's the real deal, and who's a flash in the pan. 

I feel like the days are almost gone where a franchise can lock up a goalie for a long-term deal, knowing they can trust the guy to man their crease season after season without suffering from considerable buyer's remorse at some point. I know we refer to the same guys over and over, but in the late 90's/early 00's, teams like the Devils, Avalanche, Sabres, Stars, Leafs, Panthers, and Rangers all knew that they were SET in goal for the foreseeable future. They got "one of the good ones", signed 'em for the long run, and proceeded with the confidence that they had a goalie they could ride out without any real regrets. Most of them were absolutely right, and if/when the goalie departed, it was because they wanted to test the market.

Today, I'm not sure how many teams you can really say the same for. The Rangers did it with Lundqvist, for sure. I think the Preds did right by themselves for riding out Rinne (but uh oh, here comes Sarros...). I would have included Price on this list, but his struggles have continued into this year, and I don't think I could really put him in that category of guys whose teams are pleased they have them signed for the long run. 

I believe it comes down to the fact that there is just an overflow of talent in net, and that if teams look around, they will almost always see another young, talented goalie that makes them think, "Oo, I wonder if we'd be better off with them..."

Let's say, for simplicity's sake (ignoring expansion timelines), that there are 60 goalies in the league, a starter and a backup per team. 20 years ago, I think the difference between #1 (the best goalie in the league) and #60 (the worst backup) was considerable. And not just in how they were playing night-to-night — I mean their overall talent and ability. The top guys were just better goalies, whether we're talking save to save, game to game, season to season. You would see this reflected in how many games the starters played... as much as they could handle, in most cases. Many teams seemed to not really trust their backups, and with good reason — they were inferior, and gave their teams considerably less of a chance to win games. Sure, most teams today play their starting goalie less to conserve their energy, but I do think a lot of it has to do with the fact that they have so much more confidence in their backups.

In 2018, the difference between the league's best goalie and the league's worst backup has never been smaller. I really believe any AHL kid can get called up in a pinch, step into the nets, and possibly deliver a better string of 5 games than the usual best goalies in the league. Determining whether they can continue delivering over the season, or year after year, is the real trick, and it's the reason why I just wouldn't want to hand a starter a big contract these days. Are you really willing to gamble that this guy is going to be the man this year, next year, and the year after that? Even if he's great, what if something better comes along? It's an ADHD league, but I think it's the huge overflow of talent that keeps GM's heads on a swivel when it comes to goalies. 

Everyone is just two damn good. It's why 'tapas' have become so popular. Why commit to a single big meal, when you can taste this, eat that, and just bounce around from one good thing to another? Okay, I need to go eat...

All interesting points! The year where it was Niemi versus Leighton was the death of the franchise starter era. It's a new paradigm now. Guys like Murray come in red hot, do their thing for a couple of seasons, flame out, then onto the next guy.

[coopaloop1234]

10 minutes ago, Moose75 said:

All interesting points! The year where it was Niemi versus Leighton was the death of the franchise starter era. It's a new paradigm now. Guys like Murray come in red hot, do their thing for a couple of seasons, flame out, then onto the next guy.

Yea, except for the whole Quick/Crawford/Murray thing that has dominated the champion goal crease.

Aside from Thomas and Holtby, it's been those three for multiple cups. There still is and probably always will be room for the franchise starter. I just think the timeline for that is a lot shorter than it used to be.

[Moose75]

6 minutes ago, coopaloop1234 said:

Yea, except for the whole Quick/Crawford/Murray thing that has dominated the champion goal crease.

Aside from Thomas and Holtby, it's been those three for multiple cups. There still is and probably always will be room for the franchise starter. I just think the timeline for that is a lot shorter than it used to be.

True that does piss on my point lol. Forgot about that annoying era of cup trade offs between the Kings and Hawks. Wouldn't put Murray in the same category though.

I meant more for regular season. There's still some out there obviously, but it did open the door for the option of a 1/1a instead of a big franchise goalie. 

I also agree. I think it's unique to each individual goalie, but longevity and prime years seems to have changed from the ages of 28-32, as it used to be considered. Some of these goalies are like Replicants; 4 years of relevance, and then poof! Back up, waivers, or Europe. I.E.: Scrivens, Condon, Darling, Fasth, Lack. There's always a guy equal or better waiting in the wings now.

Here's an excellent podcast that discusses the current state of goaltending: https://hockeypdocast.com/2018/11/20/ep-262-apologies-to-mike-smith/

[seagoal]

Interesting article on nhl.com discussing this

https://www.nhl.com/news/nhl-unmasked-november-30/c-302430846

Grant Fuhr's career stats were terrible compared to nowadays, haha.

[coopaloop1234]

51 minutes ago, seagoal said:

Interesting article on nhl.com discussing this

https://www.nhl.com/news/nhl-unmasked-november-30/c-302430846

Grant Fuhr's career stats were terrible compared to nowadays, haha.

Was a decent read.

[DL42]

its all about adapting to the level of play and making changes on the fly, no pun intended.  Goalies like (jim) Carey and lacher were good players, but they were not able to adapt and change as players build a hand book on them.  That's the main difference.  That's not to say u have to play diff style every night.  

I think off the top just like everyone said only a couple star goalies now, lundy, price, quick, fleury and i'll throw in jaro halak for his style of gear.

[MTH]

1 hour ago, seagoal said:

Interesting article on nhl.com discussing this

https://www.nhl.com/news/nhl-unmasked-november-30/c-302430846

Grant Fuhr's career stats were terrible compared to nowadays, haha.

To quote Grant: "Stats are for nerds!"

[seagoal]

4 minutes ago, MTH said:

To quote Grant: "Stats are for nerds!"

Ha, why do I picture him smoking?

[MTH]

19 hours ago, Moose75 said:

All interesting points! The year where it was Niemi versus Leighton was the death of the franchise starter era. It's a new paradigm now. Guys like Murray come in red hot, do their thing for a couple of seasons, flame out, then onto the next guy.

NHL Goalies = NFL Kickers

Goalies just wear better gear.

[MTH]

1 minute ago, seagoal said:

Ha, why do I picture him smoking?

Why wouldn't you?

[stackem30]

8 minutes ago, MTH said:

To quote Grant: "Stats are for nerds!"

I totally get that, but counterpoint: Grant Fuhr is dismissive of statistics because his are bad 

There are too many conflicting measurements for what makes a great athlete. For some people it's championships, for others it's iconic clutch heroics, for some people it's statistics, for others it's about their impact. I can't tell you how many goalie rankings put Jacques Plante at the top of their all-time lists, because "he revolutionized the position and wore the first mask!" 

I don't really have a side in the whole stats argument — I think trying to compare athletes (especially across different eras) is somewhat of an exercise of futility. It's too complex, with too many variables. Ultimately, everyone has their own metrics as to what makes an athlete great. Right now, the professional hockey community seems to feel as though advanced analytics are the best way. Given how much money is riding on an athlete's performance, you can't be surprised that someone is going to try to quantify their value. I do think they're a great tool, and they can tell you a lot about someone. But they definitely can't tell you the full story... case in point, Fuhr up there.

But I don't think one argument always trumps the other. Someone could say "Man, Chris Osgood sucked, his personal stats were never good", and Chris Osgood could hold up a fist full of rings and say, "Okay buddy", and neither of them would be particularly right or wrong.

[ted]

2 hours ago, stackem30 said:

I totally get that, but counterpoint: Grant Fuhr is dismissive of statistics because his are bad 

There are too many conflicting measurements for what makes a great athlete. For some people it's championships, for others it's iconic clutch heroics, for some people it's statistics, for others it's about their impact. I can't tell you how many goalie rankings put Jacques Plante at the top of their all-time lists, because "he revolutionized the position and wore the first mask!" 

I don't really have a side in the whole stats argument — I think trying to compare athletes (especially across different eras) is somewhat of an exercise of futility. It's too complex, with too many variables. Ultimately, everyone has their own metrics as to what makes an athlete great. Right now, the professional hockey community seems to feel as though advanced analytics are the best way. Given how much money is riding on an athlete's performance, you can't be surprised that someone is going to try to quantify their value. I do think they're a great tool, and they can tell you a lot about someone. But they definitely can't tell you the full story... case in point, Fuhr up there.

But I don't think one argument always trumps the other. Someone could say "Man, Chris Osgood sucked, his personal stats were never good", and Chris Osgood could hold up a fist full of rings and say, "Okay buddy", and neither of them would be particularly right or wrong.

As a wings fan, I do say that about Osgood.  He's the epitome of "better than good... good enough"

I'm not sure exactly how bad his stats were, they honestly probably weren't that bad, and neither was he.  There are just a lot of "come on, really" moments that come to mind when thinking of him.  One does wonder how playing behind the best defenseman of all time affected his stats.

[Colander]

3 hours ago, stackem30 said:

I totally get that, but counterpoint: Grant Fuhr is dismissive of statistics because his are bad ...

In actuality, his stats aren't bad because they aren't his - goalies don't have individual stats, only team stats. It's the same as saying a goalie got a shutout: goalies don't get shutouts, teams do (but goalies sure as hell can lose a shutout).

Team A lets their goalie see 40 shots, but they are all below and outside the dot - that goalie gets one goal scored on him and he's 1.00 GAA and 0.975

Goalie B has 30 shots on him 3 goals against on bar-down/post-in breakaways - he's at 3.0 GAA and 0.90.

I played the other night and made a blocking glove save off a point blank shot from what is I'm sure a former Jr. A player - but the puck drops behind me. My D sweeps the puck away before their winger can tap it in. Without that D, the best save I can make still ends up in a goal....

[seagoal]

1 hour ago, Colander said:

In actuality, his stats aren't bad because they aren't his - goalies don't have individual stats, only team stats. It's the same as saying a goalie got a shutout: goalies don't get shutouts, teams do (but goalies sure as hell can lose a shutout).

Team A lets their goalie see 40 shots, but they are all below and outside the dot - that goalie gets one goal scored on him and he's 1.00 GAA and 0.975

Goalie B has 30 shots on him 3 goals against on bar-down/post-in breakaways - he's at 3.0 GAA and 0.90.

I played the other night and made a blocking glove save off a point blank shot from what is I'm sure a former Jr. A player - but the puck drops behind me. My D sweeps the puck away before their winger can tap it in. Without that D, the best save I can make still ends up in a goal....

Hmm.

I see what your saying between the lines: a goalie is as good as the team in front...or something along those lines.   You're adding a level of nuance or unpacking of goalie stats, which is fair.

But, that's not how it really works, statistically.

It it was, we would keep +/- stats for goalies and credit them (the whole team) with every goal and assist and we'd add a goal to a goalie's stats on open netters. 

In actuality, they do have individual stats, but those stats are affected by the entire team.  That's what you're saying, which is true.

Statistically, there is no save recorded if a D man stops a goal because only goalies can make saves.

[DL42]

for each goalie you have to base it on the  team  and other goalies on the team vs the league in that year, same with save % and shots.  Key

is for the year. Then figure a equation for all that per year and use a point system to add them together and average them out.

compare everything to the year  and to the team goalies, add and average out, if you want to get more specific, you can take out the top 25% and bottom 25% seasons or games and do it.

[seagoal]

13 minutes ago, DL42 said:

for each goalie you have to base it on the  team  and other goalies on the team vs the league in that year, same with save % and shots.  Key

is for the year. Then figure a equation for all that per year and use a point system to add them together and average them out.

compare everything to the year  and to the team goalies, add and average out, if you want to get more specific, you can take out the top 25% and bottom 25% seasons or games and do it.

Excellent points because raw statistics are blind to all aspects of quality and as we know, all shots are not created equal.

[Colander]

5 hours ago, seagoal said:

Excellent points because raw statistics are blind to all aspects of quality and as we know, all shots are not created equal.

Agree 100% - until there's some method to qualify goals (or as I call it a Goal Quality Index). comparison of current stats is at best imperfect. Even then, on a scale of 1 - 10, there would be arguments on what's a 6 and what's an 8...

[Math.]

Anybody else noticed Price is in Vaughn pants this year (or at least recently)?

[coopaloop1234]

2 hours ago, Math. said:

Anybody else noticed Price is in Vaughn pants this year (or at least recently)?

He usually has been. 

[cwarnar]

Jones with his CCM Set in a game

[Math.]

@coopaloop1234 I know he used to back when he first came into the league but if I image search him it looks to me has if he's been in CCMs and Reeboks for most of the past 5-6 seasons.

[cwarnar]

Nice stop after an ugly giveaway

https://twitter.com/Sportsnet/status/1069062914252763136?s=09

[Math.]

13 hours ago, cwarnar said:

Nice stop after an ugly giveaway

https://twitter.com/Sportsnet/status/1069062914252763136?s=09

Hahahaha, he's looking at that puck in his glove trying to process what just happened.

"Alright I screwed up, but I made up for it, I got it right here, ok good!"