Jacob Markstrom (is better than Cam Talbot)

[Vinny01]

This has been a disappointment so far no doubt. There is no way this team will make the playoffs without above average goaltending. They simply won’t be able to score 4+ a game with the style they play.

I do like Markstrom and his mentality. I am going to give him some rope before I join the mob who are starting to pile on. I was so hopeful about this signing so not ready to write him off yet.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Toonage

Calgary, Edmonton, Carolina and (naturally) Vancouver were all in on Markstrom as I recall. Might have been others.

And a year later he pretty much untradeable at with the contract he got from the Flames. The Flames could have left him exposed in Seattle expansion draft.

Philipp Grubauer age 29 6 x 5.9

Chris Driedger age 27 3 x 3.5

[Toonage]

^ Seattle paid Grubauer more or less what Calgary paid Markstrom. He would have been claimed.

[Young Guns]

Not ready to pile on Markstrom to much just yet either. But watching that Leaf's/Rangers game last night and seeing both goalies standing on their heads, specially in overtime. You need your goalie to stop those long, unscreened shots. Occasionally coming up with a ridiculous save to preserve a win. Flames let in a sofite or two every game it seems. Once last year Rittich stole a game from the Leafs but not sure I recall any others.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

And a year later he pretty much untradeable at with the contract he got from the Flames. The Flames could have left him exposed in Seattle expansion draft.

Philipp Grubauer age 29 6 x 5.9

Chris Driedger age 27 3 x 3.5

You are comparing Chris Driedger to Markstrom?

[sa226]

I wonder if Markstrom needs to learn how to play behind a team that doesn't give up many shots.

Much like Smith *shudder* he gained his notoriety standing on his head for a team that gave up a ton of shots. Now he's playing behind a team that has strong shot and possession metrics. The ratio of shots to high danger scoring chance is much lower here. He has less chance to stay warm.

I hope he figures it out.

Sent from my SM-G973W using Tapatalk

[1Nite]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

You are comparing Chris Driedger to Markstrom?

Well none of them are Hellebucyk.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Lol

Rewrite history? Markstrom has career stats that are decidedly average. That is history. No need to rewrite it.

His stats last year on the whole were below average. Many goalies have hot and cold streaks.

He had one decently above average year and he got paid, he’s the 8th highest paid goalie in the league

Last year, he was below average, but with excuses and with a story to tell. Yep, he had lots of great games. And lots of stinkers. Pros get paid for their consistency, which does end up showing in their stats over time

And for the record, I do think he is a solid starter. A good goalie, but replaceable among his tier. I think he will improve statistically under Sutter to the point where some people will be very pleased.

But I also think that the first goal last night shouldn’t go in, through the gap between his blocker and his pad. And that contributed to the team taking one point and not two (and Anaheim getting 2, not zero)

Sure man, whatever gets you through.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Toonage

^ Seattle paid Grubauer more or less what Calgary paid Markstrom. He would have been claimed.

Grubauer has a career .919 and last year had a .922 sv%. You think Seattle would have preferred Markstrom’s .910 career and .904 last year? Or even tossed a coin?

I still hold out hope that he rounds in to shape, but at some point don’t you have to think GMs may look at the body of work over 6+ full seasons

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It will. Someone has twice posted the stats from last year that show Markstrom’s stats were cratered by a rough middle after his injury and turned back up once Sutter arrived.

He’s a solid starter, people just have a habit of trying to rewrite history to give themselves something extra to complain about when any player shows any sign of weakness.

Stats are like that though. They count good and bad games. His career save %, to pick one number is .91. That seems like a fair starting point for an expectation for him. Is that solid starter quality? I think it depends if you believe he is actually better than that based on some excellent seasons with the Canucks.

Markstrom is far from the only goalie who has been injured so when you compare stats to his peers, IMO you need to take that into account too. Gibson last night was coming off a minor injury and he played great.

I

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Grubauer has a career .919 and last year had a .922 sv%. You think Seattle would have preferred Markstrom’s .910 career and .904 last year? Or even tossed a coin?

I still hold out hope that he rounds in to shape, but at some point don’t you have to think GMs may look at the body of work over 6+ full seasons

Grubauer wasn't available at the time of the draft. They had no way of knowing he'd be made available / wouldn't sign in Colorado. Yes, I do think they would have taken Markstrom. He'd be pretty familiar with two of their division rivals

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Toonage

Grubauer wasn't available at the time of the draft. They had no way of knowing he'd be made available / wouldn't sign in Colorado. Yes, I do think they would have taken Markstrom. He'd be pretty familiar with two of their division rivals

Well, the scenario about whether Markstrom would have been taken also would depend on him being available, and he wasn’t available either then, if that’s how we are going to look at it

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Well, the scenario about whether Markstrom would have been taken also would depend on him being available, and he wasn’t available either then, if that’s how we are going to look at it

The scenario was that he would be left exposed. So, yes he would be available. The draft and free agency were two different events. Ricardodw suggested the Kraken wouldn't take Markstrom. They ended up paying a similar goalie similar money so I think they would have taken him as that seemed to be their wheelhouse. But we're veering off topic a bit I guess.

[Lanny_McDonald]

The only thing you can say about Markstrom is he's been a disappointment. He hasn't been that big time goaltender we hoped for, he's been nothing but a puck stopper. He rarely makes "a save", he's tends to just get in the way of pucks. Unfortunately, the Flames give up way too many clear high quality scoring opportunities that require a goaltender to make a save, and Markstrom has not been able to provide that. We paid for a guy that could make the save, but we got a guy who just gets in the way.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

You are comparing Chris Driedger to Markstrom?

Per usual it is tough to understand what he is trying to say. Dumps in a bunch of random numbers and stats and nothing more. It is an adventure trying to find out what point he is trying to make. The logic is always flawed so that is the added wrinkle to the mix

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Stats are like that though. They count good and bad games. His career save %, to pick one number is .91. That seems like a fair starting point for an expectation for him. Is that solid starter quality? I think it depends if you believe he is actually better than that based on some excellent seasons with the Canucks.

Markstrom is far from the only goalie who has been injured so when you compare stats to his peers, IMO you need to take that into account too. Gibson last night was coming off a minor injury and he played great.

I

For sure, but there's always some context required when looking at stats. 1/3 of Markstrom's games came before he became a starter. Tim Thomas was 33 with only 80ish games to his name (at a SV% less than .910) before he came on. Obviously I'm not making the comparison, but the closer you look at the stats, the more accurate of a story they tell. Kiprusoff is regarded as one of the best Flames of all-time, an absolute world-beater. Most of us saw him carry the team on his back for a lot of years. Career SV%? .912. Taking career SV% isn't entirely helpful for a lot of guys, nor is judging based on one season or a couple games. That's how you get boneheads relying on some revisionist history to argue Talbot was some no brainer choice over Markstrom. You have to hone in a bit more than that.

Even look at Gibson. Looked like a world-beater last night, right? He was worse than Markstrom last year. And the year before that. His SV% over the last two seasons is .904, but we can all confidently say he's a pretty stellar goaltender, right? Carey Price, good? or trash? .907 over the last two years. I think most people would still call him one of the best in the league. Maybe not $10M good, but way up there.

[Harry Lime]

Markstrom is exactly as advertised. If you want to win a game with him in net, score three goals. He is steady and predictable, which makes it easier to gameplan in front of him. That is what Tre wanted, and that is what he got. He then went out and got Sutter, to run a three goal team in front of him. This team is not 'run and gun', all of the wins will feature exactly three goals. Buckle up, it's going to be a slow predictable ride.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

For sure, but there's always some context required when looking at stats. 1/3 of Markstrom's games came before he became a starter. Tim Thomas was 33 with only 80ish games to his name (at a SV% less than .910) before he came on. Obviously I'm not making the comparison, but the closer you look at the stats, the more accurate of a story they tell. Kiprusoff is regarded as one of the best Flames of all-time, an absolute world-beater. Most of us saw him carry the team on his back for a lot of years. Career SV%? .912. Taking career SV% isn't entirely helpful for a lot of guys, nor is judging based on one season or a couple games. That's how you get boneheads relying on some revisionist history to argue Talbot was some no brainer choice over Markstrom. You have to hone in a bit more than that.

Even look at Gibson. Looked like a world-beater last night, right? He was worse than Markstrom last year. And the year before that. His SV% over the last two seasons is .904, but we can all confidently say he's a pretty stellar goaltender, right? Carey Price, good? or trash? .907 over the last two years. I think most people would still call him one of the best in the league. Maybe not $10M good, but way up there.

Markstrom's never posted a GAA below 2.5. Gibson and Price have. Markstrom's claim to fame is a year he posted a GAA of 2.77.

The problem with the Markstrom hype is that it revolves around "look what he did behind a team that gave up a lot of shots" and not "look what he did".

The Flames are not a team that give up a lot of shots. Goalie play doesn't translate linearly from lots of shots to few shots (hence why the quality start% stat has a modifier for shots fewer than twenty!).

In Markstrom's claim to fame year, he had a QS% of .581 which is... a good year, but not a superstar year. His career QS% is .518

In Price's peak year, he had a QS% of .667 - and his CAREER QS% is .574

See the huge gap there? Most people would tell you Carey Price is overpaid - even though his average year is about on par with Markstrom's absolute best possible year.

Markstrom has had two starts this year and neither is, statistically, a quality start. It's astounding the free pass he's been given. David Rittich as a Flame had a QS% of .559 and few felt he was good enough. Markstrom's is good enough though, somehow. Because [insert Canucks had bad D excuse, even though we know defense does not impact goalie performance outside of shot volume]

[ReinhartonD]

Originally Posted by HarveyWallbanger

Markstrom likely misses goalie guru Ian Clark just like Sergei Bobrovsky did when he left Clark for Florida as an UFA. Jason LaBarbera's resume as a goalie coach is pretty thin. I don't see any goalie coach success stories he can point to on his resume.

This is bang on. I don't know if you can massage the stats to show it, but Drance was always going on about how Markstrom's game tended to slip over time if he didn't get some concentrated practice with Ian Clark. When he has a competent backup the coach trusts to give some starts, he can get the work time in. When he's being played a lot, and has less time to retune his details, he begins to make some mistakes with his angles and such.

I was a proponent of us taking a shot at Clark last spring when Vancouver looked like they were going to lose him because their owner was too cheap to resign him. Both their goalies went public with how crucial Clark was, and they had to pay him way more than most Goalie coaches make to keep him.

There are other guys in the league who can clean up details as well--quite possibly Lababara can if he has enough time to work with Markstrom.

[ReinhartonD]

Quick correction--It was Kevin Woodley from InGoal Magazine who used to point out that Markstrom's details would slide when he didn't get a chance to work with Clark.

That stats we have are useful, but the real analytics goalie people have a lot of stats about the types of shots goalies face. When Markstrom's numbers in Vancouver those last couple of seasons were adjusted for high danger chances, he was regularly top 4 in the league.