Please explain this cup winning goalie anomaly

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by BACKCHECK!!!

I think the simplest explanation is that goalies peak earlier than people think.

The average age of those guys was 26. Crawford was the only one over 30.

It’s easy to get bamboozled by players like Brodeur and Thomas, but most goalies are playing their best hockey in their mid 20s, just like everybody else.

So most elite goalies are at their peak while they’re still with the team that drafted them.

This is how I feel.

I'd take it a step further and say most goalies only have a handful of truly effective runs, and it's rarely a matter of experience, but just the years they're at the top of their game. You can have a Matt Murray who in his early 20s can backstop a back to back cup winner and then be totally irrelevant, or you can let him spend those same peak years in the AHL but it won't change his irrelevance later on. UFA goalies... guys like Markstrom... they've probably already had their peak years where every variable came together. And maybe some of his most holistically complete years were when he was backstopping the Utica comets. Even if one's mental game may have been polished, the physical reaction times are not the same at age 32+.

The other factor is cap hit. A lot of the goalies who won cups were on cheaper deals, and more of their team's salary went to skaters.

Just my feelings though

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by skeena1

Interesting stat: Of all the goalies the Canucks have drafted in their history, the leader in wins as a Canuck is....

..Thatcher Demko (67).

That is a painful statistic which highlights the ineptitude of the Canucks drafting. It isn't as though they have drafted any better goaltenders who went on to NHL success with a different franchise. Literally their next best drafted goaltenders are Cory Schneider and Glen Hanlon. In over 50 years they have drafted two starting goaltenders in Schneider and Demko.

[Poe969]

Goalies are important, everyone knows that. I don't understand why people are just starting to notice the homegrown goalies win cups thing, it's been this way for a while. Drafting and developing goalies has nit been one of the Flames strengths and has to improve but the team has to start taking risks and draft goalies early. When the top goalie in the draft is available at your pick, you need to take the gamble unless you think there is a game breaking C or D available.

Having Wolf play the way he's playing is great for the organization but if the top goalie in the draft is available (maybe not this year since they don't have a first, and if they trade for a first it will likely be a high pick where a game breaking C or D would be available) you have to strongly consider it. Look how good both Cossa and Wallstedt are doing, I'm excited for Coronato but I think it was a mistake to pass on Wallstedt.

[GirlySports]

The winners yes, the finalists as well? Price, Rask, Jones, Rinne, Bishop, Lundqvist etc...

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

The winners yes, the finalists as well? Price, Rask, Jones, Rinne, Bishop, Lundqvist etc...

Bishop was on a bunch of different teams so he wouldn't count. Rask was originally a Toronto pick but moved when he was really young.

[powderjunkie]

I don't really get the small sample size argument. Every year there are like 1300+ reg season games to determine seeding for a gruelling 4x7 tournament. There is always puck luck and some randomness involved, but its a pretty rigorous 'test'.


If we just flipped a coin 10 times, the odds of 10 straight heads is 1/1024.

Now the question is what is the proportion of homegrown vs. other goalies [as starters]? We know the last 2 rounds will be 50/50.

Rd 2 loser teams were 1 hg (Binnington/Husso) to 3 other.
Rd 1 losers IIRC: WAS, NAS, DAL, LAK

PIT was pretty weird with DeSmith and Jarry homegrown playing just the first and last games I think?

So we started with 7 homegrown, 8 UFA/trade, and PIT's weird situation. I'd imagine most years it's not far off 50/50 either...

[Azhouse]

My son and I had this very chat this morning. I stated that I hope Wolf is ready soon. Given Marky’s performance against the Oilers I honestly don’t think they are going anywhere with him… I know, I know, Vezina season. The Flames went nowhere until flopping Lemelin was gone and replaced with (Flames draft pick) Mike Vernon.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by BACKCHECK!!!

I just looked at a couple of decades worth of Vezina winners. Most of the winners in the last decade had their best sv% around 25 years old.

Even most of the “late bloomers” like Lundqvist, Miller, Kipper, etc, posted their best numbers before 30.

You have to go all the way back to the 80’s to gather even a handful of guys who hit their best sv% over the age 30. And most of those are just guys who played the tail end of their career in the dead puck era (ie Grant Fuhr’s career best numbers in St Louis, or Ed Belfour’s “peak” with the 2002 Maple Leafs).

For every Tim Thomas or Marc Andre Fleury, there’s a dozen guys who peak at 24-29.

Is this true? I just took 3 random goalies from the best save percentage list - Lundquist best run was from 29-34. Hasek was 33 with his best season. Rask was 32 with a .929 save percentage (had his best year at a younger age with 930).

It does show that Markstrom is likely to decline in the next couple of years though and likely will be a buyout at some point.

[CSharp]

A goalie is only as good as the team in front of him. Chicago won 3 cups - one with Neimi and 2 with Crawford. The Hawks organization was smart to dump Neimi and went with a lower price Crawford. The team was really good. Neimi turned out to be a dud everywhere else he played afterwards. I think the Hawks could've won with any goalie in their 4 or 5 Cup run years. For LA, Quick was a strong goalie no doubt but the team in front of him are big and skilled. Same with the Pens. They had a making of cup contending teams with so many seasons of tanking and drafting first overall. Before they actually won their first 2 cups with Lemieux and Jagr, they bolster the team with size and depth. It's the same with the Lightnings. However, I have to say, Vasilevsky is truly talented and a great goalie. Nonetheless, the team they have now for the last 4-5 years is a big fast paced team that can play any way the opposition wants it. Cripes, they disposed the Panther in 4 games! They could've had Koskinen and still won the series in 6 games! They had McBackup as the backup and they won LOL!

[Kovaz]

I'd argue it's pretty simple.


You need an elite goaltending performance to win a cup. The majority of elite goaltending performances come from elite goalies, and elite goalies generally look like starters pretty early, so their teams tend not to trade them.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Is this true? I just took 3 random goalies from the best save percentage list - Lundquist best run was from 29-34. Hasek was 33 with his best season. Rask was 32 with a .929 save percentage (had his best year at a younger age with 930).

It does show that Markstrom is likely to decline in the next couple of years though and likely will be a buyout at some point.

I think OP was just looking at 1 year career high, which is far too simplistic. Career high relative to league avg sv% would be more relevant, but best 3-5 year run even moreso.

Originally Posted by Kovaz

I'd argue it's pretty simple.


You need an elite goaltending performance to win a cup. The majority of elite goaltending performances come from elite goalies, and elite goalies generally look like starters pretty early, so their teams tend not to trade them.

I don't think that is necessarily true. You need consistently solid goaltending that steals at least as many games as it loses for you.

Were (m)any of the PIT/CHI goalie performances particularly elite? Or just 'good enough'?

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Is this true? I just took 3 random goalies from the best save percentage list - Lundquist best run was from 29-34. Hasek was 33 with his best season. Rask was 32 with a .929 save percentage (had his best year at a younger age with 930).

It does show that Markstrom is likely to decline in the next couple of years though and likely will be a buyout at some point.

that is not likely actually...more likely his is an expensive backup or 1b to a young goalie (Wolf?) for a season or two.
He only has 4 years left not 8

even a trade seems more likely than a buyout

[Macho0978]

Imo it’s simply due to the impact of drafting and developing an impact/star player has on a team and where goalies get drafted vs defence and forwards

31 80 point forwards this year draft breakdown:

Top 10 - 19
Rest of 1st - 5
2nd - 1
3rd - 2
4th -1
5th -1
7th - 1
Not Drafted -1

33 40 point dmen:

Top 10 - 12
Rest of 1st-7
2nd - 4
3rd - 4
4th - 2
5th - 1
6th - 1
7th - 1
Not Drafted - 1

Goalies with 30 games and .910 save percent:

Top 10 - 0
Rest of 1st - 4
2nd - 3
3rd - 4
4th - 6
5th - 1
6th - 2
7th - 1
Not drafted 2

Superstar forwards are almost always first rounders and very high percent are top 10 picks. You need to suck to draft them. Almost as high percent for d as well but your a little more likely to get a good 1 later than top 10

Goalies are coming in the mid rounds. So any team can pick them and they aren’t for the most part going to rebuilding teams. Good team or great teams are just as likely to pick them and when they do it’s often what puts them over the top from a great to to the best team

[Macho0978]

Take a team like the Flames. Zary Pelletier Valimaki coronato might all be higher rated prospects than Wolf but of the 5 Wolf probably has the best chance of being a superstar where the other more likely will be 2nd line pairing at best type of players

Wolf becomes a star it could be what puts us over the top

Teams like Toronto Edmonton Colorado Carolina Boston are all teams that if they got the next Shesterkin they could be unstoppable. To get the next Hedman or McDavid you need to rebuild and cups won’t be just around the corner

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by dino7c

that is not likely actually...more likely his is an expensive backup or 1b to a young goalie (Wolf?) for a season or two.
He only has 4 years left not 8

even a trade seems more likely than a buyout

What tends to happen of late is the goalie gets hurt and become less effective or unable to play.

Rask got hurt at 33/34 and now is done after a good season at 32.
Bishop was having good years at 32/33 and got hurt and now is done.
Crawford lasted until he's 35 and was still pretty good and then immediately disappeared.
Lundqvist was more of a fade away then the rest but his last elite year was at 33.
Quick was elite up until 32 and has struggled/lost his job since. He rebounded a bit this year but still not great stats.
Price led his team to the cup final at 33 (although he wasn't good during the seaon). Now he's hurt and possible done.

The mid/late-30 goalie class is 1B type starters like Talbot, Smith, Quick, Fleury, Anderson and guys playing out the string like Elliott.

[Kovaz]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I think OP was just looking at 1 year career high, which is far too simplistic. Career high relative to league avg sv% would be more relevant, but best 3-5 year run even moreso.



I don't think that is necessarily true. You need consistently solid goaltending that steals at least as many games as it loses for you.

Were (m)any of the PIT/CHI goalie performances particularly elite? Or just 'good enough'?

Niemi is a good counterexample, but Crawford put up a .932 and a .924 in the cup years, Matt Murray had a .923 and a .937 and Fleury had a .924 in 2017 when he split time with Murray.



Murray and Crawford are good examples of goalies that aren't necessarily elite overall, but did have elite playoff performances.

[powderjunkie]

The homegrown trend actually extends beyond goalies for the last 10 Cup winners, 29 out of 30 #1D + #1C +#1G have been drafted and developed:

Spoiler!

Point/Hedman/Vasilevskiy = 79/2/19

ROR/Pietrangelo/Binnington = Trade/4/88

Backstrom/Carlson/Holtby = 4/27/93

Crosby/Letang/MMMAF* = 1/62…83/1

Toews/Keith/Crawford = 3/54/52

Kopitar/Doughty/Quick = 11/2/72
...
Bergeron/Chara/Thomas = 45/UFA/ homegrown UFA

And yes, every one of these involved a top 4 pick.


Now, the issue isn't really how you get the player, but getting an elite* player at each of these positions seems nearly impossible without breaking your cap via UFA, or giving up too many assets in a trade.

*my definition of elite is any player that would very likely make a Team Canada roster (regardless of their actual nationality) on their own merit (not a Kunitz or Muzzin) - I'd argue that applies to all 30, with Carlson/Letang/Murray being the only borderline cases)


For Calgary, we haven't necessarily broken the bank or asset base (more debatable) to acquire ours, but they probably just aren't quite good enough:

Lindholm (trade) - as much as I love him, I don't think he outranks any of the above (but maybe not too far off ROR or Backstrom)

Markstrom (UFA) - he's certainly got the potential to be as good as almost anyone on that list...but he certainly didn't last week...

#1D by committee = 1 drafted/1 trade/1 UFA. None of these are as good as Letang or Carlson (arguably the 'worst' guys above). Even with a healthy Tanev, our #1-3 D don't compete with TBL, CHI, or STL. The others:

Doughty/Mitchell/Scuderi
Doughty/Muzzin/Voynov or Mitchell
Letang/Daley/Dumoulin
**Dumoulin/Hainsey/Maatta or J Schultz
Carlson/Niskanen/Orlov

IMO the Flames three are only really in the mix with PIT 2 and maybe WAS...

**too lazy to edit above but I forgot Letang was injured for the repeat. The Pens acquired Dumoulin before he played any NHL games in the J Staal trade.