If Developing Goaltenders is Alchemy, Are These Guys Alchemists?
|
|
After reading Derek Zona's piece on Tyler Bunz here - where he goes on record as "comparing the process of developing goaltenders to alchemy" - and perusing Scott Reynolds' piece comparing goaltenders to their draft positions (Drafting Goaltenders (1997-2005), I decided to take a look at organizational success at developing goaltenders. Reynolds' piece would seem to indicate that outside of the top few picks draft position is a lousy predictor of a goaltender's future development and success. I have no argument with that. However, if draft position is a poor predictor of a goaltender's future development and success, perhaps there is a better predictor? What about an organizational factor? With that in mind, I took a look at starting goalies in the NHL and which organizations they have come from.
First off, I agree with Derek Zona and Scott Reynolds that producing goaltenders is far from an exact science and that draft position outside of the top few picks means very little as a predictor of a goaltender's future success. However, a first glance at recent starter-quality goaltenders (including platoon starters) from the last decade or so and where they developed leads me to believe that if goaltender development is alchemy, a select few organizations may very well be alchemists. That is, some teams may have, at least to a certain extent, "figured out" how to effectively spot goaltending ability and develop goaltenders.
Before getting started, a few definitions. I have separated goalies into three categories:
- A clear-cut starting goalie is someone who starts at least 60% of his team's games.
- Goalies who start 40%-60% off their team's games are considered "platoon starters".
- Anything less than 40% is a clear backup.
By these definitions, 23 NHL teams have a clear starting goaltender while seven teams have some sort of platoon system. The platoon teams are Colorado, Columbus, Edmonton, Florida, the Islanders, St. Louis and Toronto. They have 12 platoon starters between them (I know it seems odd, but due to injuries the Islanders and Panthers have only one goalie with 40%+ starts). This means there are 35 "starting" goaltenders currently in the NHL. One could argue - and I would agree with them - that Florida, the Islanders, and Toronto all have clear starters (Jose Theodore, Evgeni Nabokov, James Reimer) who currently start fewer than 60% of the time only due to injury. However, for the sake of sticking to definitions I will consider these three to be platoon starters.
Now, those few organizations and their significant goaltending successes who played in the last decade are:
- Montreal Canadiens: Carey Price, Mathieu Garon, Jose Theodore, Jaroslav Halak, Tomas Vokoun, Patrick Roy*
- San Jose Sharks: Evgeni Nabokov, Miikka Kiprusoff, Vesa Toskala, Thomas Greiss*
- Anaheim Ducks: Jonas Hiller, Ilya Bryzgalov, Martin Gerber,
- Nashville Predators: Pekka Rinne, Tomas Vokoun*, Chris Mason*
- Los Angeles Kings: Cristobal Huet, Jonathan Quick, Jonathan Bernier*
Asterisks Explained:
- Patrick Roy really pushes "last decade or so" to the brink, having retired after the 2002-2003 season. Furthermore, while he came up the ranks in the 80s, all of the other goalies on this list developed in the late 90s or 2000s. He is a definite outlier, but he is nonetheless a product of the Canadiens' system.
- Tomas Vokoun was drafted in 1994 and stayed in the Canadiens' organization until 1998 but only saw action in one NHL game before being acquired by Nashville in the expansion draft. He then split parts of two seasons with the Predators and their farm team before becoming a full time NHLer.
- Chris Mason was drafted by the Devils and played one season (47 games) for their AHL affiliate. However, I am considering him a product of the Predators' organization as he spent considerably more time in their system (5 seasons and 172 GP in the AHL, as well as NHL call-ups) than he did with the Devils prior to becoming an NHL regular.
- Jonathan Bernier has just 38 career starts at this point. Whether his opportunity to start comes with the Kings or elsewhere remains unclear, but every indication is that Bernier may already be a "starter-quality" goalie and barring injury he will eventually be given the opportunity to start. Again, barring injury, he seems a sure bet to have multiple 40%+ start seasons.
- Thomas Greiss is somewhat of a personal favourite. I consider him to be better than several current starting NHL goalies and thus "starter-quality". He may never get an opportunity to start, but I somewhat expect him to be given an opportunity to start, at least as a platoon starter, when his contract expires.
Youngsters and Roy aside, regardless of what you think of these players and their recent play, they have all been at least platoon starters at some point. In addition, they have all achieved a degree of longevity, which is important in order to weed out backup goaltenders who may have started 40%+ or more games due to an injury to the true starter (Scott Clemmenson in 08-09, for example). Among the starters who appear questionable at first glance, Mathieu Garon has had six seasons of 30+ GP, Gerber had five consecutive seasons of 25+ starts (including two seasons of 55+ starts), and Toskala had four consecutive seasons of 30+ starts as well as 242 career starts. The rest have unquestionably been starting goaltenders and many continue to start for their current teams.
Each of these teams has produced at least 3 starting-quality goaltenders, with the exception of perhaps Nashville. I consider the situation with Vokoun questionable since Vokoun spent 4 years in the Canadiens' organization. However, as he spent parts of two seasons with the Predators' affiliate and made the jump to the NHL with the Predators, I felt the need to give Nashville at least partial credit for developing Tomas Vokoun.
Of the 23 clear starters and 12 platoon starters in today's NHL, these five teams have developed 8 clear starters and 3 platoon starters for this season. Accounting for the injury situations in New York and Florida, one could even argue that these teams developed 10 clear starters and just one platoon starter. Either way, that's five teams, or 16.7% of the league, accounting for 31% of the league's starting goalies. Furthermore, if you attribute Vokoun's success to his time in the Montreal system and argue Nashville doesn't belong on this list (a fair point), the remaining four teams, or 13.3% of the league, account for 10 (28.6%) of this seasons starting goaltenders.
Alright, these teams clearly produce a disproportionate amount of starting-quality goaltenders relative to other teams, accounting for 11 current starters out of just 35. Furthermore, looking back a few years, that total would be even higher as Theodore (a current platoon starter), Mason (a current clear backup), Toskala (out of the league), Gerber (current AHLer), and Huet (out of the league) were all starting goalies for their respective teams just a few seasons ago. In 2007-2008, for example, Chris Mason's 45 starts make him the only one of the five of the aforementioned goaltenders to start fewer than 50 games that season. But what about elite goaltenders? Looking at the past 10 seasons, these 5 teams and their goaltending products have accounted for
- 8 Vezina nominations, or 26.6% of all Vezina nominations during the previous decade
- 2 Vezina winners, with Kiprusoff and Theodore both winning the Vezina once
- 2 Hart nominees
- 1 Hart winner
- If we want to go back farther than 10 years to include all of Patrick Roy's awards, that makes five Vezina wins as well as several more nominations
Now it would appear as though these teams produce a disproportionate amount of starting-quality goaltenders and, by extension, a disproportionate number of elite goaltenders too. However, one thing not taken into account here (which I looked at briefly but decided to put off until later) is the number of goalies drafted by each team. That is, do these teams have a greater success rate at developing goaltenders or, alternatively, do they just draft more of them than the other teams? Put otherwise, is it the quantity of goaltenders drafted or the quality of developing them that allows these teams to develop a disproportionate amount of good goaltenders? Perhaps a combination of the two with some these teams achieving their success through quality while others achieved their success through quantity? This is an important factor that I intend to look into in the near future.
However, this being an Oilers-centric blog, I did look at the Oilers' draft history to see how this relates to the Oilers. How successful has Edmonton been at developing goaltenders? Unfortunately, what I found was quite ugly. Getting back to what led me down this road, because of this I don't have high hopes for Tyler Bunz. Devan Dubnyk, currently with 41.3% of the starts, is in his first season of 40%+ starts. We're not sure what the future holds for Dubnyk and he has yet to achieve longevity as a starting goaltender, but his current start % makes him a platoon starter by my definition. If Dubnyk continues at this rate (and it appears he will, since Nikolai Khabibulin will miss at least the next week), this would also mark the first season that an Oilers-developed goalie has started 40% or more of the team's games since Ty Conklin got 42.7% of the team's starts in 2003-2004. Essentially, Devan Dubnyk, who has barely achieved anything at this point in his career, is already the best goaltender the Oilers have developed in the last decade. He's the best homegrown goaltending talent since Ty Conklin.
If that sounds bad, it's because it is. But wait, it gets worse. Conklin started 42.7% of the team's games in 03-04 only due to injuries to starter Tommy Salo. Outside of Conklin's one injury fill-in season, Dubnyk's current season would mark the first time a goaltender developed by the Oilers has started 40% of his team's games since Grant Fuhr, the Oilers' 8th overall draft choice in 1981. Fuhr turned out pretty damn well, but he also hasn't been the Oilers' starter since the late 80s. Thus, put another way, Devan Dubnyk - who has barely any major achievements to speak of at this point - may have already achieved enough to make him the best Oilers-developed goaltender in 30 years. And Dubnyk's only real competition for that honour is Ty Conklin. Not good.
As Scott Reynolds displayed here, a goaltender's draft position outside of the top 5 seems to mean little. Picks from #6 overall until the end of the 3rd round appear to turn into successful goaltenders more often than late picks though, spawning a successful goalie about 20% of the time (15 successes out of 77 picks) compared to just a 10.1% success rate for picks later than round 3. When you pile on that the Oilers drafted 26 goaltenders - including five drafted in the top 3 rounds - between drafting Fuhr and Dubnyk, plus who knows how many undrafted free agents like Conklin, the Oilers' record at developing goaltenders looks downright pathetic. For the sake of comparison, the Canadiens drafted 22 goaltenders in the same period, also had five selections in the first three rounds, and developed five starters, two Vezina trophy winners and one Hart trophy winner. ( In addition, as an interesting if only somewhat related aside, one of those 22 draft choices was pretty much wasted on Vladislav Tretiak in the hopes that he would come to the NHL, essentially making the Canadiens' success rate 5/21.)
Whatever that "it" factor is that it takes to develop goaltenders - the scouting, the coaching, the system, the environment, the organization, perhaps the alignment of the moon - the Oilers clearly don't have it. Upon first glance though, some NHL teams seem to be quite effective at developing goaltenders regardless of draft position. Call it witchcraft or alchemy or whatever you want, but it appears that some teams have figured the process out. Sort of.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this FanPost are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or position of the staff.
19 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Very interesting.
I am on the view that having an elite goalie can cover up for a myriad of other sins, and therefore is worth every penny you pay for one. It would be nice to see the Oilers draft and develop one (and soon) and I would not mind at all if the Oilers used thier second round pick this year on Dansk or Subban, or trade for one like Schneider.
The Niemi – Leighton final was an annomoly. I would bet we are much more likely this year to see Thomas-Luongo level elite goalies in this years’ final rather than Niemi – Leighton again.
I agree. I’d certainly feel a lot more comfortable knowing I have an elite goaltender on my team and players likely feel the same way. A goalie playing at an elite level can carry an average team into the playoffs (Miikka Kiprusoff or Henrik Lundqvist for nearly a decade) and/or can steal multiple playoff rounds (J.S. Giguere, Jaroslav Halak). Truly elite goaltenders are needles in a haystack, but when you finally find one, you’d better hold on to him.
We’ll see what happens with trades at the deadline and draft but currently the top goaltending prospects seem projected to go later than the Oilers pick. Craig Button’s rankings were the only ones I saw with a goalie in the first round at all – ranked early 20s – so I don’t expect the Oilers to end up with a Subban-like prospect. Based on the Oilers’ track record at developing goalies, I’m not sure that’s a bad thing. Drafting a top goalie prospect that high might be a waste of the pick since (A) outside of the top few picks a goalie’s draft position doesn’t seem to predict future success well; and (B) the Oilers’ track record would seem to indicate they can’t develop goalie talent anyway.
Furthermore, the Oilers have drafted a non-forward in the first round just five times out of 28 picks in the last 20 years of the draft. We’ll see if this changes now that there is finally some real offensive talent at forward not named Hemsky, but historically they draft forwards. I’m okay with that since picks 31-90 seem to be the best value for goalies anyway, although I’d like to see them draft more defensemen. Dubnyk may work out well for the Oilers anyway, it’s too soon to tell. Sometimes he looks fantastic, other times he can look like garbage. If he doesn’t work out though, I would expect his replacement to come through trade or free agency, not through the Oilers’ system.
Have you looked at the free agent goalies for this summer on gapgeek? Garbage for the most part. Vokoun is there but he isn’t coming to Edmonton and he is risky at his age. Then you have Harding and Nabokov (who seems likely to re-sign in long island for some bizarre reason). And that’s about it.
So then you are looking at trades and god help us if Tambi is still at the helm and we need to get one via trade.
This is a weak summer for goalies, no doubt about it. The good news is I don’t necessarily expect that move to be made this season anyway. The Oilers are currently nowhere close to contending, Khabibulin is still under contract for next season and Dubnyk will almost certainly be offered a new deal to show he can be the starter. The Oilers have at least another year to commit one way or another.
Jimmy Howard, Kari Lehtonen, Nicklas Backstrom and Jonathan Quick all become UFAs in the summer of 2013 though, as well as potential platoon starters like Theodore, Giguere and Greiss. Not a bad crop. Then 2014 has Lundqvist, Miller, Kiprusoff (though he’ll be 37), Hiller, Halak, Crawford, and Brian Elliot.
Hopefully the Oilers won’t need these guys, but if they do there are some decent free agent options in the next few years.
For the next 3-4 years the Oil may consider “Nashville approach” as the one that works with both the Gs and the Ds: new strategy (emphasis on Gs and Ds plus some power forwards)better scouting (with emphasis on those positions)better (first of all, patient) development. The Oil is 7th in the conference in goals forwarded and the 13th or so in goals allowed. That’s, my friends, the difference between playing well into June and finishing early in April.
I’d love to see it, especially the part about PATIENTLY developing players, but losing Tom Gilbert wasn’t exactly an encouraging start. Jeff Petry, who I consider the Oilers’ most promising D (at least playing in North America since I never get to watch Oscar Klefbom) is in just his 2nd professional season and last night he was already playing on the top pairing with Smid. That doesn’t seem very patient. Talk about throwing a kid to the wolves.
The Stars might not be in the upper tier, but.
During that time frame…
Marty Turco
Mike Smith
Manny Fernandez
Dan Ellis
Roman Turek (iffy to count)
Richard Bachman
Defending Big D Check it out
Twitter
"You guys are talking about living forever like it’s a real thing, but I bust out a man shoving his head into a vagina, and it’s srs time?"
--iorange555 8/23/2011
This has little to do with the spirit of the article at all, but Dallas is also a team that has had clear defined “eras” of goaltending in the last 20 years…since they moved to Dallas, the Stars went Moog-Belfour-Turco-Lehtonen. Other teams are like this too (Buffalo, Anaheim,) but many teams have a season or 5 (LA) where there is no clear starter who sticks, or the starter lasts for a year and moves on. I don’t know what it’s worth, but as a goalie nut I find it interesting.
Hadn't actually thought of it like that.
One of those four goalies has been on the Stars roster every year of the franchise’s existence. I don’t know how rare that is, but it seems like it would be rare for a franchise to have only four primary goalies over close to 20 years.
Defending Big D Check it out
Twitter
"You guys are talking about living forever like it’s a real thing, but I bust out a man shoving his head into a vagina, and it’s srs time?"
--iorange555 8/23/2011
Good point
The Stars honestly didn’t occur to me since I was mostly looking at current goaltenders and Turco, Fernandez, and Turek are all out of the league. Like I said, I plan to look more thoroughly at all teams in a future post. Good find though. I’ll definitely keep Dallas in mind when I write it.
How about the Pittsburgh model. Draft your starting goalie, stick with him for years, even with a SV% less than .910, and win games because goaltender talent is largely variance among goaltenders who have the general skill set to make it to the NHL player pool.
I assume you’re referring to Barrasso and Fleury? There’s nothing wrong with sticking with a good goalie for years but I think it’s preferable to also have a backup plan (read: a guy with future starting potential, not just a career backup) in the system. Keep in mind that there was quite a bit of goalie turnover between Barrasso and Fleury; Jean-Sebastien Aubin, Sebastien Caron, Johan Hedberg, Petr Skudra, Garth Snow and Jocelyn Thibault all got the opportunity to start at various points, as well as probably several other goalies that I can’t remember off the top of my head. It was a rough stretch for the team (for several reasons) but the lack of a replacement for Barrasso certainly didn’t help. Whether they end up playing for you or just end up becoming trade assets, having talented youngsters waiting in the wings is always advantageous.
On another note, I’m not sure the SV% comment is really fair to Fleury since he’s had a SV% above .910 four out of the past five seasons.
That is, do these teams have a greater success rate at developing goaltenders or, alternatively, do they just draft more of them than the other teams? Put otherwise, is it the quantity of goaltenders drafted or the quality of developing them that allows these teams to develop a disproportionate amount of good goaltenders?
That was my first question reading this, as a first blush, I went back to this piece by Scott Reynolds. He had 251 goaltenders drafted outside of the top 5 picks. That’s an average of 8.37 goalies drafted per team per year (or a little higher if we allow that there were not 30 teams in all those years) over the 1997 to 2005 period.
The teams you identified drafted the following number of goalies outside of the top 5:
Montreal: 6
San Jose: 9
Anaheim: 6
Nashville: 10
Los Angeles: 13
So, some teams above average, some teams below average.
I think the bigger problem here is that Scott’s data shows that teams turned 31 of the 251 non-top 5 draft picks into starting goalies. That’s a 12.4% rate. We can never get enough data to show that teams drafting 6 or 13 goalies over that period are just getting lucky or that it is repeatable.
And that is leaving aside how you would isolate scouting skill versus development skill? Maybe the scouting staffs at these teams are better than average at picking out guys that are more likely to develop into pro-goalies as opposed to the development teams.
A good stab at a really tough question.
Because Scott’s data doesn’t necessarily cover the same period (although some of it overlaps) and gives a small sample size per team, I intend to take a more thorough look at teams’ draft histories and organizational success at producing goalies. One of the issues I have with Scott’s data is the odd 1997-2005 range. It’s not really a large enough sample size to achieve statistically significant results. I was thinking I’d go back 20 years, maybe 30, and ideally have the data separated by 10 or 5 year segments in addition to the overall data. What I’d really like to do is also track goaltending coaches and scouts (who coached which goaltenders? Did Coach X have a significantly higher/lower than normal success rate?) but I haven’t yet figured out how to go about tracking that.
I intend to look at more than just current starters too. Even then, as you mentioned and I alluded to earlier, the conundrum of determining whether teams are good at identifying goaltending ability vs. developing goaltending ability is a huge question that can’t be answered just by looking at numbers. However, I suspect to find that the numbers will indicate that some teams are historically strong in one or both of these areas and others, like the Oilers, historically aren’t very good.
The point of this article was simpler though, more along the lines of… whatever that “it factor” is in developing goalies, the Oilers don’t have it. Some organizations though, at least at first glance, seem to have things somewhat figured out. The intent was mostly to introduce the subject of an organizational factor in developing goalies and to get a discussion going.
The main reason for those dates was that all of those goalies could be considered prospects in a thirty-team NHL. The shifting number of teams in the league is a big confounding factor. The other thing that makes a larger sample difficult is the turnover in personnel. There would be some continuity over a twenty or thirty year period, but a lot of teams would have very little or even none.
The biggest fanana of the Havana Bananas.
by Scott Reynolds on Feb 28, 2012 6:36 PM MST up reply actions
Absolutely. I’d love to be able to track goaltending coaches and scouts through the years (and their draft choices, of course) but it’s a difficult proposition at best. I would imagine there is a very good chance that I can’t even find all that info and end up with data that isn’t statistically significant.
I don’t find a very compelling reason to include Hiller, Gerber, or Huet on this list… they were found as older European professionals that the teams just happened to use a draft pick on, very little team involvement in developing them into a good goaltender. I’d think Boston deserves more credit for finding and developing Tim Thomas in their system (even though they didn’t draft him) than the Ducks or Kings for their late picks…. when Hiller, Gerber, and Huet arrived they came basically as NHL goalies already (you can argue Thomas did too but he spent parts of three years with the Bruins AHL team).
Puck Worlds: Chasing Pucks from here to Turku.
For Twitter Updates on Puck Worlds, follow @puckworlds. For updates plus additional witty banter from yours truly, follow @saskhab.
I think we have an issue of semantics here. I use the words “develop”, “produce”, “find”, etc. almost interchangeably even when a goaltender didn’t truly “develop” in that system; for that I apologize. What I’m trying to get at is that some teams seem to come up with a disproportionate amount of goaltenders. Perhaps I should say produce, procure, find or something along those lines instead of “develop”. Saying they seem superior at “finding and/or producing” goalies would likely be most accurate but seemed too wordy.
Your comment also relates back to a distinction I only touched on in the article (and has been brought up a couple of times in the comments) regarding the ability to spot and subsequently acquire future NHL goaltenders vs. the ability to turn players into NHL goaltenders. The players you mentioned are included even if they were drafted (or in Hiller’s case, not drafted) after several pro seasons in Europe because I believe they speak to these organizations’ ability to spot goaltending ability that other teams may miss.
The main point I wanted to get across though is that some teams seem to have a knack for developing/finding/acquiring/producing (pick your poison) goaltenders while others seemingly don’t. Whether that success can be attributed to amateur scouting, goaltender coaches or professional scouting is a question I was leaving for another day. My point was merely that these teams seem to have a leg up advantage somewhere. You took it a step farther by pointing out that it seems the Ducks’ scouts in Europe account for their success. Indeed, all three of their goaltenders mentioned here were overagers with pro experience when acquired as Bryzgalov was 20 at the time of his drafting.

by 



























