Pro Canuck Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Let me run through the salary cap and what it means and how to beat the system. I'll use goalies as a prime example since in this market, Luongo is King. Quote #1: "It takes amazing goaltending to win the Cup." Quote #2: "Your goalie should not be your highest paid player." These two lines are often said and debated. The truth is, they are both exactly right. 1. Yes it does take amazing goaltending. Whether the player is paid 8 million or 1 million, no doubt, most Stanley Cup winners have had great goaltending in the playoffs. This does not mean however, that you should pay to get the best goalie. Let's look at Luongo. Over the course of an 82 game season, Luongo will prove he is an elite goalie, and he is likely to be in the top 5 in GAA, save % etc. No question. And his value shines through very clearly on the ice and in the standings. If you look carefully at the stats though, you will notice that the gap between Luongo and a mediocre starter is only about 1 to 1.5% in save percentage. Over the course of a playoffs, you have to look at it as 4 seasons of 4 to 7 games. This compares with the regular season which is a season of 82 games. A goalie's play is very volatile given that it is being played by a human being who has emotions, physical changes, differences in opponent's efforts etc. This volatility can be balanced out over 82 games, but it is much harder to equate over just 4 to 7 games. Now the numbers don't lie. Luongo as a player, still gives you a better chance over a series, it's just that it is drastically reduced since your risk increases dramatically. Let's say I play basketball. My odds of winning each game is 60%. If I played 82 times, I can say with a great deal of certainty (over 95% confidence), that I will end up winning more than 50% of the time. If I just played only 7 times however, I would be much more vulnerable to losing more than half my games. It's the Law of Large Numbers. It has nothing to do with Luongo choking. It has to do with the variance in his play and the play of any goalie for that matter. They will have shutouts and will have bad outings. The regular season gives you a chance to overcome it, the playoff format doesn't. So to combat this risk, you diversify. The solution is not to get the cheapest goalie possible, because then you would have to overspend on other parts of your team. In the playoffs, ever hear the quote "you need your 3rd and 4th liners to step up to have a chance". The underlying reason behind that for forwards is much the same as it is for a goalie. You can't depend on a forward to continue his regular season domination over 82 games to for sure perform in a 4-7 game span. There's volatility in goal scoring as well, with droughts etc. The best way is to 1) Spend to the cap. 2) Diversify your spending by spreading your cash over more players to increase your chances of getting performers on any given night. 3) Take advantage of any loopholes as an artificial way of increasing your cap. (Sign to mega-long term deals, make "unfair" trades for players on the rookie scale etc.) Martin Brodeur won the cups pre-salary cap. Since then, cheaper goalies have won. It's not because those goalies are better than Martin Brodeur over the long run. However, I would argue that they did play at Brodeur esque levels for a short span. The best way to try and increase your chances is to understand that there's a lot of volatility and hence luck involved in getting a goalie to play well during the playoffs. So it's best to save your money on the goaltender, and get an extra forward/defenceman to get you/prevent some goals to increase your chances. Does this mean I am advocating that you go get the cheapest goalie possible? No. You decide how much you spend on a goalie by looking at market prices. Right now, this is the salary structure for goalies with the following save %'s: Save % of 88% = 500K 90% = 1 M 91% = 3 M 92% = 6 M Why would I pay 3 million to increase my goalie's save % from 91% to 92% when it only required 500K to increase it from 88% to 90%? Obviously with no cap, I would always prefer the 92% goalie. With a cap, you have to look at marginal utility. And this is a diminishing curve based on current prices of goalies. Hence, I would opt for a 1 to 3 million dollar goalie. The same trends can be seen in forwards. (These are oversimplified examples. A more complete algorithm would have to be bulit to factor in defence, chemistry, consistency, etc) 10G = 1.5 M 15G = 2 M 20G = 2.5 M 30G = 5 M 40G = 7.5 M Hence you should go with a team of 20 goal scorers. Not only do you diversify and increase the chances that one of them produces during a sudden death game in the playoffs, you can also notice that the cap cost per goal is cheaper on a 20 G scorer than it is on a 40 G scorer. In conclusion, maximizing chances of winning the cup begins with 1) Spending to the max 2) Diversifying your assets 3) Taking advantage of any loopholes in the system as a way to increase your maximum cap threshold (signing players to long term contracts, trading for undervalued players in the rookie contract scale are examples) P.S. I would love to work as a researcher in the Canucks front office looking at the Sabermetrics side of hockey. This is the type of stuff Mike Gillis wants to look into right? Discuss. -- For those confused due to my lack of coherency, please refer to Eaves88's post on Page 5, Post #85 for the ultimate expansion and explanation of what I wrote above. Other's have contributed as well and the discussions have been on the whole, very healthy and interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marian Hossa Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Rypien for Crosby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Chicoutimi_Cucmuber Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 91-barrasso 92-barrasso 93-roy 94-richter 95-brodeur 96-roy 97-vernon 98-osgood 99-belfour 00-brodeur 01-roy 02-hasek 03-brodeur 04-khabibulin 06-ward 07-giguere 08-osgood 09-m.a. fleury Top goalies win cups... salary cap era might be different, but its in line with the rest of the league, were seeing younger, more unproven, cheaper goalies succeed, but i think it will show itself to be an aberation... eventually these guys will be considered elite and will be paid as such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pro Canuck Posted June 23, 2009 Author Share Posted June 23, 2009 Top goalies win cups... salary cap era might be different, but its in line with the rest of the league, were seeing younger, more unproven, cheaper goalies succeed, but i think it will show itself to be an aberation... eventually these guys will be considered elite and will be paid as such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scope1230 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 And once they are, they will for the most part, stop winning cups. And the next crop of cheap unproven goalies will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhoWeThoughtTheyWere Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Very good post. I had not seen it in this way yet. The only part I disagree with you on is that Luongo still gives the Canucks the best chance to win. Two things need to happen. 1. Have a goalie who is able to get hot. We most likely have this in Schneider. 2. Use the extra cap space (~5M) to your advantage. Is harder for us to do. Who knows if we will be able to use this. Also we have to get rid of Luongo. It's extremely unlikely Luongo gets traded although I think for the good of the Canucks longterm it would be nice to get a couple of first rounders for him. I don't think Mike Gillis believes in trading players much not to mention core, franchise players or captains with NTC's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jodiju Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 06-ward 07-giguere 08-osgood 09-m.a. fleury Top goalies win cups... salary cap era might be different, but its in line with the rest of the league, were seeing younger, more unproven, cheaper goalies succeed, but i think it will show itself to be an aberation... eventually these guys will be considered elite and will be paid as such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salmon Arm Canuck Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 "It takes amazing goaltending to win the Cup." "Your goalie should not be your highest paid player." These two lines are often said. The truth is, they are both exactly right and I will explain why. 1. Yes it does take amazing goaltending. Whether the player is paid 8 million or 1 million, no doubt, most Stanley Cup winners have had great goaltending in the playoffs. There's no question that you need goaltending to succeed in the finals. This does not mean however, that you should pay to get the best goalie. Let's look at Luongo. Over the course of an 82 game season, Luongo will prove he is an elite goalie, and he is likely to be in the top 5 in GAA, save % etc. No question. And his value shines through very clearly on the ice and in the standings. If you look carefully at the stats though, you will notice that the gap between Luongo and a mediocre starter is only about 1 to 1.5% in save percentage. Over the course of a playoffs, you have to look at it as 4 seasons of 4 to 7 games. This compares with the regular season which is a season of 82 games. A goalie's play is very volatile given that it is being played by a human being who has emotions, physical changes, differences in opponent's efforts etc. This volatility can be balanced out over 82 games, but it is much harder to equate over just 4 to 7 games. Now the numbers don't lie. Luongo as a player, still gives you a better chance over a series, it's just that it is drastically reduced since your risk increases dramatically. Let's say I play basketball. My odds of winning each game is 60%. If I played 82 times, I can say with a great deal of certainty (over 95% confidence), that I will end up winning more than 50% of the time. If I just played only 7 times however, I would be much more vulnerable to losing more than half my games. It's the Law of Large Numbers. It has nothing to do with Luongo choking. It has to do with the variance in his play and the play of any goalie for that matter. They will have shutouts and will have bad outings. The regular season gives you a chance to overcome it, the playoff format doesn't. So to combat this risk, you diversify. The solution is not to get the cheapest goalie possible, because then you would have to overspend on other parts of your team. In the playoffs, ever hear the quote "you need your 3rd and 4th liners to step up to have a chance". The underlying reason behind that for forwards is much the same as it is for a goalie. You can't depend on a forward to continue his regular season domination over 82 games to for sure perform in a 4-7 game span. There's volatility in goal scoring as well, with droughts etc. The best way is to 1) Spend to the cap. 2) Diversify your spending by spreading your cash over more players to increase your chances of getting performers on any given night. 3) Take advantage of any loopholes as an artificial way of increasing your cap. (Sign to mega-long term deals, make "unfair" trades for players on the rookie scale etc.) At the end of the day, if you want to win the cup, you still need the goalie to play magnificently. It is undoubtedly the most important position. However, GM's make the mistake of tying importance to extra salary. So what's the solution I am suggesting? Well there isn't none. At the end of the day, because of the odds changing between the regular season and the playoffs, you can't get guarantees from your goaltending position. It doesn't hurt to try and get the best one, but it could hurt when you have take into consideration the salary cap. Martin Brodeur won the cups pre-salary cap. Since then, cheaper goalies have won. It's not because those goalies are better than Martin Brodeur over the long run. However, I would argue that they did play at Brodeur esque levels for a short span. The best way to try and increase your chances is to understand that there's a lot of volatility and hence luck involved in getting a goalie to play well during the playoffs. So it's best to save your money on the goaltender, and get an extra bonafide forward/defenceman to get you/prevent some goals to increase your chances. Does this mean I am advocating that you go get the cheapest goalie possible? No. You decide how much you spend on a goalie by looking at market prices. Right now, this is the salary structure for goalies with the following save %'s: Save % of 88% = 500K 90% = 1 M 91% = 3 M 92% = 6 M Why would I pay 3 million to increase my goalie's save % from 91% to 92% when it only required 500K to increase it from 88% to 90%? Obviously with no cap, I would always prefer the 92% goalie. With a cap, you have to look at marginal utility. And this is a diminishing curve based on current prices of goalies. Hence, I would opt for a 1 to 3 million dollar goalie. Hence, I am not bashing Luongo. Unfortunately he does not ultimately give you the best chance to win a cup given his salary. On a pure hockey level though, I am first to admit that I think he is the best goaltender in the NHL. Discuss. Didn't Detriot try to do that with Hossa? Regardless, a decent perspective on the post. I'm willing to bet you there are people within the Canucks organization doing this kind of Sabrenomics to confirm this finding. This being said, a bird in hand (luongo) is better than a bird in the tree many times!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoaobrook Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 91-barrasso 92-barrasso (belfour) 93-roy (hrudy) 94-richter (mclean) 95-brodeur 96-roy 97-vernon 98-osgood (kolzig) 99-belfour (hasek) 00-brodeur (belfour) 01-roy (brodeur) 02-hasek (irbe) 03-brodeur (giguere) 04-khabibulin (kipper) 06-ward (roloson) 07-giguere (emery) 08-osgood (fleury) 09-m.a. fleury (osgood) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Shirokov Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Some say that the reason the WCE never won the cup was because of bad goaltending but I always believed it was because we never had legit two way players. Naslund and Bertuzzi were one dimensional, one way player. Players like Zetterberg, Datsyuk, Hossa, Lidstrom are what you should spend your $$$. You get double the utility, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pro Canuck Posted June 23, 2009 Author Share Posted June 23, 2009 Pro Canuck... you've graced the boards with original thought a couple times over now, and sparked decent conversation; that's kinda new at CDC. At the end of the day though, this list doesn't lie. GOOD GOALIE = STANLEY CUP. Heck, the list of goalies who LOST the Stanley Cup (int the finals) is almost as impressive. See the brackets above, those are good goalies who lost, I don't see many names that look outta place (see: roloson). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinhead Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 we are looking at a salary cap era. There has only been 4 cup champions in the salary cap era 2006 Carolina - Cam Ward at age 22 . Entry level contract 2007 Anaheim - Giggie at age 30 but it was his second time. First time was at age 26 and he won the con smythe but lost game 7. I believe he was making 3mil a year at this time. 2008 Osgood - shall we say anymore? make a mil per year. Won the cup as a starter at age 25 i believe in 1998 2009 Fleury at age 24. Had made the finals the year before and had signed his big fat contract for 5mil. It aint no 7 mil like Luongo but its 5mil nonetheless. All of them had made the finals for cheapie contracts. I dont know what Giggie was making in 03 when he made game 7 and won the smythe but I bet it was dog wage. How does Luongo fit into any of the above categories? Luongo is 30 and has never made it out of the second round. None of the above 4 can say that. Also, none had ever been paid some outrageous amount before they had ever played a playoff game. They all made the finals for dog meat wage. So according to the above, Luongo wont fit into the criteria necessary to win the cup in the cap era NHL . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemmy Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 You dont need an expensive goalie to win in the playoffs but you do need one in order to make the playoffs in the first place (especially in Vancouver). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
А. Овечкин Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Rypien for Ovechkin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElfShotTheFood Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Thanks for posting your term papers for all of us to read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pro Canuck Posted June 23, 2009 Author Share Posted June 23, 2009 Some say that the reason the WCE never won the cup was because of bad goaltending but I always believed it was because we never had legit two way players. Naslund and Bertuzzi were one dimensional, one way player. Players like Zetterberg, Datsyuk, Hossa, Lidstrom are what you should spend your $$$. You get double the utility, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pro Canuck Posted June 23, 2009 Author Share Posted June 23, 2009 You dont need an expensive goalie to win in the playoffs but you do need one in order to make the playoffs in the first place (especially in Vancouver). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pro Canuck Posted June 23, 2009 Author Share Posted June 23, 2009 Thanks for posting your term papers for all of us to read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 I do not agree with the "spend to the cap" principle. Calgary did this and it screwed them up heading into the playoffs. You need a cushion of $3-4 million before the trade deadline. That way you can pick up a player from teams that were stupid enough to spend to the cap and got into salary problems. Depth in lots of positions, and yes 2 way play is very important. You need to get contributions from 3 lines, and your goalie has to come through when things get tight. (i.e. like Fleury bouncing back from a horrible loss against Detroit and didn't fold like a cheap umbrella, or Cloutier... ) There's more to a cup winner than people think. It's almost a magical alchemy. You have to have a lot of the right mix of players to do the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pro Canuck Posted June 23, 2009 Author Share Posted June 23, 2009 I do not agree with the "spend to the cap" principle. Calgary did this and it screwed them up heading into the playoffs. You need a cushion of $3-4 million before the trade deadline. That way you can pick up a player from teams that were stupid enough to spend to the cap and got into salary problems. Depth in lots of positions, and yes 2 way play is very important. You need to get contributions from 3 lines, and your goalie has to come through when things get tight. (i.e. like Fleury bouncing back from a horrible loss against Detroit and didn't fold like a cheap umbrella, or Cloutier... ) There's more to a cup winner than people think. It's almost a magical alchemy. You have to have a lot of the right mix of players to do the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.