Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
Sign in to follow this  
LakeLivin

The Great #1 Goalie Thread

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, PenaltyKiller17 said:

 

I'll repeat, Ben Bishop would be my 1st choice, but isn't it a bit hypocritical to call MAF fools gold for playing for a top team, while promoting two backup goalies for top teams?

2 goalies that would cost a lot less and have better stats.  I don't call that hypocritical.  Explain how trading for MAF, who has almost identical stats to Ward, makes the team better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One additional factor that's not been mentioned, possibly not even considered in this discussion, is the new goalie coach, or even What role Marcoux played in the subpar performance of our present goalies for his tenure here? With respect to some of the goalies above, those with lesser experience(Darling for example), might it be that under proper tutelage, Some of the "dart throwing" element might be reduced? I don't know, just raising that possibility?

 

Oh and by the way Lake, thanks for giving us that handy reference to start out this discussion. It was most helpful, particularly to help bolster my feelings on MAF, who obviously is aging.

Edited by KJUNKANE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Far be it from me to really know what the effect of the goalie coach was in any real sense, except the current one got fired, but it does seem to me that his initial effect on Lack was more negative than anything. Cam was very good in stretches, the way Cam tends to be. In no way would I predict that this means Lack is the one staying, but if I were to expect on goalie to be more dramatically improved with a new coach, I'd think it would be Eddie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, super_dave_1 said:

2 goalies that would cost a lot less and have better stats.  I don't call that hypocritical.  Explain how trading for MAF, who has almost identical stats to Ward, makes the team better.

Who says Darling would cost a lot less?  He's a UFA, and he's due for a raise.  And it appears hypocritical when Grubauer's played for the President's trophy winner 2 years in a row, and Darling's played for the most successful franchise this decade.  Ultimately, I wouldn't be upset if we acquired either of them, particularly Grubauer because I love German culture, but they wouldn't be my first or second choice.

 

As far as MAF vs Cam, those numbers are not nearly as indicative of the level of play between the two.  Cam's only had 5 seasons with a save % of .910 or better vs MAF's 8 seasons.  Cam's only had 3 seasons of GAA of 2.50 or less vs MAF's 7 seasons.  They both had forgettable first 3 seasons, although Cam was on a championship team and two other playoff contenders, while MAF was on bottom 3.  Also, MAF still played a good enough level to bring his team to the playoffs in years where Pittsburgh was missing Crosby and/or Malkin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, KJUNKANE said:

Debating MAF, obviously there are defenders and detractors on here for him, I am one of the latter. As a disclaimer, I've never played hockey and don't know if I can even skate, but I'm an avid fan and homer extraordinaire.

 

Saying that, most here seem to agree on 2 things, maybe 3, about MAF. In no particular order, he's athletic, he's a

'head case", and he's likely better than what we have at present. So, I'll discuss these 3 attributes in order.

 

1st, on athleticism, not sure of his age and too lazy to look it up, but I do know he's been around awhile. IMHO, the 1st thing that fades in an "athlete" is athleticism(duh). I'd argue that a goalie with "technique" is more likely to have more longevity than his counterpart, and further, I'd bet that MAF is approaching that time, if not already there. The other issue attached with that is the length of his contract. Seems I recall that his is realtively lengthy,so if we are getting involved in something like that, I'd say "No Thanks".

 

Next, and to me the real deal breaker when it comes to this player, "head case". Right now, with a young and growing team, it seems that comradery is paramount, and the worst influence one could get in that situation would be a constant distraction that a "head case" would bring. Again, No Thanks.

 

Finally, and I think this is where much of the support for this player comes from, likely he does bring slightly better statistics than our 2 present goalies, but I don't think that the angst this situation brings should result in a "panic move". There are others available, all be them possibly more difficult to attain, but RF is just going to have to work harder, and not settle for "low lying fruit". ALL, of course, IMHO

Kjun posted this in another thread but it seems like we're discussing goalies in 3 different threads and I'm having a hard time keeping up.  So I opened tabs in each thread, hit "MultiQuote" over there and "Quote Post" over here to see if it works, and it does.  But as to my comment, lol:

 

I thought when people said "head case" they were talking about his play on the ice (i.e., wildly variable when effected by different circumstances), whereas I get the sense that Kjun is talking about personality.  Was I wrong?   (my original perception wasn't based on knowledge of any kind)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, PenaltyKiller17 said:

. . .

 

As far as MAF vs Cam, those numbers are not nearly as indicative of the level of play between the two.  Cam's only had 5 seasons with a save % of .910 or better vs MAF's 8 seasons.  Cam's only had 3 seasons of GAA of 2.50 or less vs MAF's 7 seasons.  They both had forgettable first 3 seasons, although Cam was on a championship team and two other playoff contenders, while MAF was on bottom 3.  Also, MAF still played a good enough level to bring his team to the playoffs in years where Pittsburgh was missing Crosby and/or Malkin.

 

Your post made me curious so I took a look at their year by year save percentages going backwards from '16-'17 to '05-'06.

Ward:   .905   .909   .910   .898   .908   .915   .923   . .916    .916    .904    .897    .882    reg season lifetime: .909    playoffs ( 23 games): .920

Fleury:  .909   .921   .920   .915   .916   .913   .918     .905    .912    .921    .906    .898    reg season lifetime: .912    playoffs (104 games):.906

 

Fleury has 2 years left at $5.75m.

I don't know Fleury well enough to have a strong opinion one way or another except that if RF does want Fleury, given his salary, age, and overall performance, I don't think he should have to give up much in return. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lake, as always, thanks for the insight, and you are correct in that when I heard the term "head case", I translated it to mean in the locker room, much like our famous Russian from yesteryear, who had that reputation for quirky requests? If only "on ice", than that would lessen my angst, like that matters. Also, looking at your comparisons, I would suppose it depends on a "jaundiced" eye as to how to interpret, but seems as if 8-4 in favor of Fleury, if one only looks at save%. Now whether that's the entire story again rests with the viewer, but such factors as the team playing around the goalie, specifically the D capabilities, etc. must be weighed into this. One other factor that I believe is critical from my observations, is when a goal is let in, specifically how often are they "back breakers". Coupled with this thought would be "how fragile is the team's psyche" and does a young team searching for their game have the ability to rebound? To this point, often I've felt the air go out of the arena, if not the players, when Cam has let in a usually stoppable goal.

 

Saying all these things, and again thanking you for your insight, I'd prefer to bring in a goalie, possibly like Darling, who could grow and "form", with this young team. Further, with a new goalie coach at the helm, I've not totally discounted Lacko Taco!! just my humble thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record again, I'm not necessarily advocating for a MAF trade, I just think it makes sense as far as a hockey trade, but I don't think he's nearly as bad as he's being portrayed.  I would honestly take any name mentioned in this thread over our current goalies, whether it's MAF, Darling, Grubauer, or Bishop.  Elliot ended up having a decent season after a rocky start, but he looked like hot garbage vs Anaheim, and got pulled after 1 goal last night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After that series, pencil Calgary in as another team competing for a goalie upgrade next season.  Elliot is history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, hag65 said:

After that series, pencil Calgary in as another team competing for a goalie upgrade next season.  Elliot is history.

 

That's not good, more competition, although I've got to believe that Raleigh is going to be more attractive than Calgary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it worth noting that, as the team builds, we are very steadily moving out of our traditional identity as the place an NHL goalie would want to come only if out of all other options. We are building a strong defense, that should only get better over the next few years. Last year, in the midst of a lot of stats that came up short, we were #5 in shots allowed on goal. We also managed to be #18 in goals allowed despite having the #48 and #53 goalies in save percentage for at least 10 games played. (If you raise the bar to 30 games played Ward is #37 out of 41 goalies that started 30 games or more.

 

This suggests that even last year, the major defensive issue was goalie.

 

So yes, if this team had decent goalie play? Well if Ward and Lack combined to be the #10 goalie, they would have allowed 29 fewer goals (22 Ward, 7 Lack).

 

This is an ironic number because a goal differential of +9 was the every team in line for Easter Conference playoffs this year. The Canes ended up -21. Give us 29 fewer goals against and we'd have been +8. This suggests that fixing goaltending alone would push last year's team right to the cut line. (Obviously, add a top scorer on top of that, and we're in comfortably).

 

So one point is that a good goalie alone should result in a good team. And a potential goalie coming here knowing we are also improving up front should be able to be sold on a good, playoff team next year.

 

But even better, a good goalie coming here next year will be timing their arrival perfectly to be the hero. A. The defense is way better than advertised. B. The defense will be even better next year. C. A goalie with a true #1 ability will look like the guy that made it all happen; the Canes got X and took off. D. Part of a good young team.

 

So, a location that for years was a good place for back up goalie's careers went to die, is a hidden gem, almost perfect opportunity for the right guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, remkin said:

Give us 29 fewer goals against and we'd have been +8.

 

Or 29 more goals scored. My point isn't that we don't need another goalie, we do. My point is pinning all our hopes on a better goalie isn't the fix alone. Only four goalies in the top ten gave up 29 less goals than Ward. There is no question in my mind that we need better play in the crease and a upgrade in goal but that alone won't make the difference.

 

But an upgrade is a starting point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Goalie stats are tricky for a lot of reasons, but one is that you have to filter out guys who played only a handful of games. But if you take the difference in save percentage between the #10 best goalie and Cam, and multiply that by the number of shots Cam faced, you get Cam letting in 22 more goals.

 

Interestingly if you set the bar as 40 starts then Pecca Rinne is the #12 best goalie by save %. He had very close total shots faced to Ward:

 

Renne 1757

Ward 1711

 

Based on his save percentage, Renne would have let in 4 less goals on those extra shots, so adjusting Renne down 4 goals you get:

 

Goals Allowed per 1711 shots:

 

Renne 140

Ward 162

 

Exactly 22.

 

Ward, vs a upper mid pack goalie cost us 22 goals. Lack cost us 7 (due to less starts).

 

 

If we translate Scott Darling's save percentage, it would be 32 less goals than Ward.

 

 

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do agree that one goalie alone is not enough.

 

If Pecca Renne was our starter, we'd still have given up Lack's goals, and would likely have still just missed. If Darling were our starter, we'd have to project his numbers over more games, and if it held up, it would net us 32 goals, which would have put us at +12, which likely would have gotten us in this year.

 

But Darling was tied for #4 in the NHL in save percentage with 30 games played. That is very elite and not a fair goal.

 

I would actually argue that given the likeihood of improvement from this team next year, getting a top 5 goalie would be enough. But first, good luck with getting that guy, and then that guy has to start a ton of games and play up to elite potential and stay healthy.

 

Plus, a top 10 goalie only gets this team to the cut line. And we want a plan with a higher upside than that.

 

So we must add as elite of a scorer up front as possible also. We need more goals than we got also.

 

 

But the beauty is that we really need just those two. Yes, we should try to add more, but a 20 plus goal scorer and a top 15 goalie really should get us in when added to a very young and improving team.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think MAF is a no go based on age and salary. If we acknowledge that any goalie we bring in is an unknown to some degree, then there are a lot of reasons not to go with one making $5.75/year for 2 years. I think Fleury is 32. He was #1 overall pick in the draft where we drafted Eric Staal 2nd. 2003 draft, I'm pretty sure. As to the argument that young goalies coming from successful teams may be products of a system, how do you really adjust for this, except to minimize risk by thorough scouting? It's chicken and the egg. You are not going to find goalies displaying measurables you would want on bad teams. Eddie looked promising when we traded for him. Didn't work out like we hoped. I would be okay with Grubauer or Darling, and I'm sure there some other guys with potential that are not getting a shot to be a full-time #1. Wonder if losing in a 4 game sweep might move Chicago to sign Darling and try to move Crawford? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just go with a massive guy, as is the trend.  Coach 'em to cover more net and play a sound position.  Yes, like Rinne. Too much exposed net with our current 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While we are on the goalie subject, wonder if it'd be allowable/possible, or even worthwhile to see if Calgary would consider a trade for their goalie lent to us in Charlotte, McCollum? Reports from there make it sound like he is playing well, and certainly there is a spot up here for him RIGHT NOW, Obviously, we don't know if his play in AHL would translate to the bigs, but just a thought, however I'd guess Calgary would be less than enthusiastic unless he is viewed as expendable? Anyone have thoughts about this? Seeing where Peters was in Charlotte taking in the game last pm, could he be having similar thoughts, or just there to look over his future group?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly wouldn't mind making McCollum ours but Calgary's in the same boat as us their looking for goaltending answers. They went out and threw the dart at the board on Elliot as GMRF would say and failed imo. I don't think their gonna trade any of their goaltending prospects especially one doing as well as McCollum.

Edited by legend-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would actually presume Calgary doesn't see McCollum as their answer, else they would have kept him in Stockton and loaned Charlotte one of the other guys.  Which, along with what i saw last night, tells me he's not the next big thing.  He wasn't bad by any means, but he looked like a solid AHL goaltender facing the likes of Ty Rattie and giving Adam Musil his first career AHL goal.  I'd have to think he'd be fairly cheap, though, for the same reason.  But if RF were to honestly target him and bring him in, i don't think we'd be any closer to solving our goaltending issues than we are now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lies, damn lies, and statistics. All these comparisons of GAA and save percentage assume every goalie faced the same quality of shots, had the same defense (and this is not only played by defenseman) in front of them, and every team played the same system. More aggressive offensive teams likely give up more quality scoring chances against. And I'm not advocating keeping Cam as our starter by any means, but in 11 years since the Stanley Cup, how many years has he been overused because our backups were inadequate. I'd say nearly all of them. I'd say with a quality 1A, Cam could well be a solid 1B. Or a very solid backup. And for a variety of reasons, Eddie has never been given the crease for a consistent run of games. Maybe when he was healthy, he didn't earn it. Clearly, one of them needs to go, but all the numbers floating around about potential replacements make my head spin.

 

Regarding McCollum, I just saw his name reading about the Checkers playoff games. Is he considered a prospect or has he been in the AHL a while? And btw, where is Leighton?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...