Jared Crozier: Why Are Senators Goaltenders Being Given A Pass For Team Failure?

Excellent blog. This is indeed an area people (including myself) are overlooking. Good to see it written in a clear manner. Well done Jared.

To me, the most important note in this is the penalty killing stats. In the comments a few days ago people wanted answers to how to fix the penalty kill. One of the ways, is better goaltending. As Jared said, the goals needs to be your best penalty killer. One save here and there can make a real big difference. However, there is the opposite side of the coin, which may have been apparent last year, that good goaltending can hide roster problems. Especially on the back end. The PK is a difficult area to point to a problem and fix. The easiest way I think is to just try and take less penalties. But back to goaltending, key saves at key times are important. The better goalies are able to do this. It's a hard to blame goalies at the same time. The skaters should be responsible for trying to allow the least dangerous scoring chance so the goalie has the best chance to make the save.

Another interesting point in the blog was the shot and "dangerous attempts" against. No one likes to be at the bottom in shots against, but it's interesting to see the jump from that to the dangerous attempts. I don't think shots against is a huge deal. If shots aren't all that dangerous who cares really. I do understand the possession side in that if you are getting outshot, you are probably having the puck less than the other team. Adding a couple of good forwards would help reverse that I think.

Bottom line, I don't think goaltending was a problem this year, but certainly didn't steal any games like we got used to last year. The average goaltending brought out the average roster. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing if you want to improve. You just have to hope ownership and management recognize this and address it properly.

Now if you want to talk about the goaltending future, then things get a little messy.

I think the thing here is lots of shots every game is going to be exhausting over the long haul on any goalie. The bad defense in front certainly doesn't help. Relying on a goalie to continually have to shoulder the load and bail the team out to steal wins is a real recipie for disaster. Sure a game here or there but not consistently all the time.

I think if the team plays tighter and with more structure in front of them, the goalies will likely step back up as well. Wasn't long ago both carried the team on their backs so I think a lot of people look at that and say they have another level in them, we just need to support and play better in front over the long haul.

I think the thing here is lots of shots every game is going to be exhausting over the long haul on any goalie.
- Roadrunner75

The heavy load may be a valid point when you consider Anderson is 34yo now. Not exactly a spring chicken.

I'd be interested to see a rolling save% at 5v5 and short handed throughout the season for him.

I think Anderson is highly over-rated. He was a back-up goalie for a reason, but came to Ottawa at a time when we needed a change and has been 'good enough' to stay as the #1 guy. He would have been the back-up or gone by now if Lehner had been more consistent and healthy, and had someone -- anyone -- seen the same beast I saw in Bishop! What a mistake. Hammond came in and made history last year and had he not been injured early this season, likely would have been the #1 guy. He should have played more often once he was healthy, but that was yet another bad coaching decision on the long list of mistakes. Even after the playoff chances were slim to none they never played him. Why not? Could Hammond have played better at times? Yes, but you usually start to play better by getting playing time building some confidence. He never got that chance this season despite the fact that the team seems to play better with him in goal. Although Anderson let in a fair share of weak goals, they continued to start him over Hammond.

Then there's O'Conner, who regardless of his loss vs Montreal as noted in the Melnyk tirade as a 'stupid' decision. still looked good. Where does he fit in?

So now what? In my opinion, Anderson is not going to be the guy who 'steals' us enough wins or makes enough 'timely saves' to push us that step further, but I think Hammond can be. Are Anderson and Hammond a decent duo? Yes, but without a better defensive zone coverage, better PK and team play they aren't enough to backstop this team to a Cup.

When looking at stats especially the stats your choosing to reference like shots per 60 minutes against at even strength or total shots against we are dealing in the 100's of decimal points. 29 isn't even remotely close to 31.8. Not even close to the same ball park. When people want to break things down to even strength, short handed, PP etc they make for a great reference point to various strengths or weaknesses but all games are played from start to finish with no balance to any specific category. It's almost as simple as goals for & against.

Just look at teams who make the playoffs over the last 10 years & with a few minor exceptions primarily in the east the teams with the higher goal differential make the playoffs & seed out accordingly by placement. Now it's not that simple but it holds 95% of the time.

1 of the biggest problems with any & all stats is data accumulation which can't account for human error or the subjective nature of what is or isn't a scoring chance, what is high danger, low danger what have you, nor do I buy the danger argument. Any shot on net is dangerous just ask Mason he's looked brutal in these playoffs & allowed a ton of soft goals. Chimera's goal from center ice wouldn't even count as a scoring chance but ended up in the back of the net.

Other examples of the fundamental problem. When Salomaki hit Wideman, the hit that lead to his suspension for hitting the lineman. The NHL didn't even award Saolmaki with a hit in that game! I watched the TB game last night. I had Sustr with 6 turn overs, 2 on 1 play. NHL had him at ZERO!

It doesn't take rocket science or fancy stats to extrapolate what's wrong with Ottawa & how it effects their goalies. No team gives up more shots per game against than Ottawa. They are dead last. Their penalty kill ranks 29th overall. They gave up the 5th most goals against yet Andersen still posted a .916 Sv%. In goal differential they finished 17th at minus 11. Considering they were 9th for goals for this isn't positive.

The easiest & best goalie stat that accounts for all factors is just basic SV%. If you don't get top 16 SV% from your starter that makes the top 16 for goalies playing at least 1/2 their teams games your most likely missing the playoffs. Andersen Finished at .916 good for 20th. 19th if you eliminate StL who had 2 goalies in the top 20. Only 2 goalies that made the top 16 didn't make the playoffs. Schneider & Johnson.

What ails Ottawa was having 1 of the worst defenses in hockey for the vast majority of the season & only got nominally better late after acquiring Phaneuf which at least addressed the top 4. Fix the D. Sign a solid #4 to play as a #5 till injuries hit & a solid #6. Legitimate NHL Dman not Borowiecki, Wideman; in time he may be a #5 depth Dman, Weircioch & Cowen.

Anderson is a very good goalie, would easily be top 10 if he could stay healthy; stop chicken farming. Hammond is a great back up but these guys should sue Ottawa for lack of support. Having to play behind what was perhaps 1 of the worst defenses in the NHL before the Phaneuf trade & still bottom 14 not playoff quality following is the problem. If this isn't addressed Ottawa can't & won't make the playoffs.

Doesn't relate to the blog, but Drouin has had a good playoff showing this playoffs and had a whale of a game last night. The whole time I was watching, I couldn't help but wondering what if the Sens pulled a trigger on a deal a couple of months ago. Surely, his stock has risen a tad with his strong play. Would you be willing to pay a bit more for him knowing he has put forth a strong playoff effort?

As long as your ownership has an internal cap $7-10MM below the max cap allowed there will be big holes in your lineup.

Carey Price at his best still does not overcome the missing parts.

As long as your ownership has an internal cap $7-10MM below the max cap allowed there will be big holes in your lineup.

Carey Price at his best still does not overcome the missing parts.
- Return of the Roar

Well that's not true.

i think, goalies aside, ottawa has a much better roster then the Habs do, yet Price backstopped them to the best record in the conference last year.

the right goalie can take any team and make them look great.

As long as your ownership has an internal cap $7-10MM below the max cap allowed there will be big holes in your lineup.


- Return of the Roar

Explain to me how this makes any sense? Really...

This is such a flawed and out-right wrong argument...

First, let me start by saying I think Melnyk is a complete joke. For many reasons. But, to his credit, he has ponied up to pay a lot of players. Ryan. Macarthur. Anderson. Karlsson and more all got fair market dollar at the time they were signed. He also green-lighted taking on Phaneuf, which I am still shocked at, even though they save money in the short term, theyre paying long term... The only screw up he's made, and I'm not really sure its his fault, is hiring rookie coaches to cheap contracts. I wonder though if thats more Murray thinking he can find a diamond in the rough like Babcock...

Not paying Alfie, although unfortunate, wasn't wrong. The guy was over 40 and asked for 7mil originally.

But going and acquiring money doesn't make this team better. Trading away young assets for expiring contracts or over-priced players isn't a way to do business. Signing UFAs to massive overpriced deals because you were in a bidding war isn't the answer either. Smart signings like Clarke MacArthur (before the concussion issues) is what works. Calculated moves of that nature. We've seen this with many franchises in many sports. It just doesn't work. Til then, you need to draft and develop. Be very smart with your trades. As your team gets better, your budget should grow organically. Now, if they balk on paying Hoffman, then you may have some kind of argument. But til then, its just not valid.

Explain to me how this makes any sense? Really...

This is such a flawed and out-right wrong argument...

First, let me start by saying I think Melnyk is a complete joke. For many reasons. But, to his credit, he has ponied up to pay a lot of players. Ryan. Macarthur. Anderson. Karlsson and more all got fair market dollar at the time they were signed. He also green-lighted taking on Phaneuf, which I am still shocked at, even though they save money in the short term, theyre paying long term... The only screw up he's made, and I'm not really sure its his fault, is hiring rookie coaches to cheap contracts. I wonder though if thats more Murray thinking he can find a diamond in the rough like Babcock...

Not paying Alfie, although unfortunate, wasn't wrong. The guy was over 40 and asked for 7mil originally.

But going and acquiring money doesn't make this team better. Trading away young assets for expiring contracts or over-priced players isn't a way to do business. Signing UFAs to massive overpriced deals because you were in a bidding war isn't the answer either. Smart signings like Clarke MacArthur (before the concussion issues) is what works. Calculated moves of that nature. We've seen this with many franchises in many sports. It just doesn't work. Til then, you need to draft and develop. Be very smart with your trades. As your team gets better, your budget should grow organically. Now, if they balk on paying Hoffman, then you may have some kind of argument. But til then, its just not valid.
- BodyCheckRadio

While admittedly a high level observation, and not accounting for any team's unique poor management decisions, what was the last team to win the cup in the salary cap era that was at or below 90% of the cap maximum, not counting LTIR'd players?

Well that's not true.

i think, goalies aside, ottawa has a much better roster then the Habs do, yet Price backstopped them to the best record in the conference last year.

the right goalie can take any team and make them look great.
- sensarmy_11

A defensive corps that is perpetual swiss cheese is a prescription for what happened to Price - injury. It is not a sustainable strategy.

According to Capfriendly, Anh & Nas both spent less money on salary's this season than Ottawa & NYI & Flo just nominally more.

So much for that argument.

According to Capfriendly, Anh & Nas both spent less money on salary's this season than Ottawa & NYI & Flo just nominally more.

So much for that argument.
- striker777

None of those teams have made the finals since 2007 cup winning Ducks. To be fair, we'll see how far each team goes this year but as it stands, half of your named teams will be bounced in the first round.

Goaltenders are given too much credit for the success and/or failures of their teams.

You get a goalie like Devan Dubnyk that plays like Swiss cheese on Edmonton, then heads to a slumping Minnesota and completely turns their season around and earns a Vezina nomination.

Ben Scrivens is another example. He played lights out for the Kings in 2013-14 with a GAA of 1.97 and a 93.1 SV% when Quick went down with his groin injury. Without him, the Kings don't make the playoffs, and in turn don't win their 2nd Cup. Then he gets traded to Edmonton and has disastrous numbers.

Ilya Bryzgalov, Sergei Bobrovsky. All examples of goaltenders that are products of the teams that they play for. Even Jonathan Quick wouldn't be considered in the NHL's elite if he played for a weak defensive team.

Ottawa's goaltending is getting thrown under the bus due to poor team defense. Anderson and Hammond are fine, they just didn't get much help from the rest of the team this season.

According to Capfriendly, Anh & Nas both spent less money on salary's this season than Ottawa & NYI & Flo just nominally more.

So much for that argument.
- striker777

While I agree that spending wisely is more important, Nashville and the ducks have star player signings coming up. Forsberg alone for the Preds could jump their salary quite a lot.

The ducks have guys like Lindholm, Vatanen, Holzer, Pirri, and others. Basically half their roster is coming up for contracts, and few of them will be getting as low a salary as they have been. Also, Gibson has his new contract kick in next year.

The Isles have Okposo, Nielsen, Cizikas, Martin, Strome who will skyrocket their cap/ payroll.

Make no mistake, the Sens are a budget team that has lotsa cap space to improve, and losta salary they could spend. The willingness to spend to improve isn't there. The space to do so IS. I do agree that spending smart instead of ' SPEND TO THE CAP!' is best, but there is reason to be annoyed.

Also, IMO a great goalie can get an okay / bad team high in the standings, but a bad / okay team can't win the cup on the back of even a great goalie. Price can't do everything himself any more than Hasek could do it for the Sabres back in his peak.

While admittedly a high level observation, and not accounting for any team's unique poor management decisions, what was the last team to win the cup in the salary cap era that was at or below 90% of the cap maximum, not counting LTIR'd players?
- Return of the Roar

Well considering two teams have done most of the winning and the other teams have serious star power or high end talent, this isn't a valid argument.

Chi
La
Chi
La
Bos
Pit

All of those teams have two or more superstars on them or did at the time. Boston may be a slight exception. But chara, Thomas, Bergeron and others count for a lot.

Kane. Toews. Keith. Hossa. Sea rook.

Doughty. Carter. Kopitar. Quick.

Now if Ottawa could actually get those type of players, then your argument becomes valid. But most of those players are "surprise surprise" home grown from the draft and got paid as they became stars and/or won. You don't just find these players kicking around anymore. So back to my argument, who do they pay? Just anyone...??

A better argument is looking at the teams who spend 90% of the cap and have nothing to show for it....

Franchise goalie (A+): Price
Elite goalie (A): Lundqvist, Hotlby, Quick
Star #1 (A-): Rinne, Bishop,
-------Vary^/Borderline------: Raask*, Schneider, Varlamov, Fluery, Mrazek*
Above average #1 goalie (B+): Jones*, Crawford, Luongo,
Average #1 goalie (B): Anderson
Below average #1 goalie (B-): Niemi

This isn't an exact science because goalies fluctuate so much. If I'm drafting goalies right now (for let's say 1 regular season and playoffs) this would be my order: Price, Hotlby/Quick, Lundqvist, Rinne, Bishop, Varalamov, Raask, Schneider, Crawford, Mrzaek, Fluery... I'd even maybe take Anderson over Fluery.

Andy was a B+ goalie to me for the better part of the last 4 years. Every goalie has bad nights but Andy has been steady... just not with cutting onions

I had great difficulty with the basic analysis.

So, Anderson has a very solid save % playing 5 on 5 but when Ottawa goes on the penalty kill his save % drops precipitously. Therefore, Ottawa has poor goaltending when killing penalties.

It seems to me that there are other factors infinitely more important in this analysis.

Aaron_85

Only 2 teams actually make the final every year out of 30 teams. If that's your criteria for being a successful franchise your going to be very disappointed in Ottawa because as a small market Canadian team with limited revenue sources. They need to try & ice a competitive team with in an internal budget.

My argument was more that you don't need to be spending to the cap to be a playoff team nor cup contender. Getting to the Final especially in the west is no easy feat & it comes down to far more than just how much money you spend.

For me success is being a perennial playoff team, having strong regular season success year after year & being in a position to make a run to the cup. Nashville & Anaheim have been perenial playoff teams. Anaheim was & is my team to win the cup this season. Both teams spend less money on salaries than Ottawa at present. Florida & NYI are in similar positions to Ottawa, limited resources, a roster primarily constructed of young players & are moving up in terms of success & are only spending nominally more than Ottawa.

What ails Ottawa has less to do with how much money their spending but the brutal personal decisions made by both Cameron & Murray. Hopefully Dorion won't keep making the same mistakes Murray has made.

While admittedly a high level observation, and not accounting for any team's unique poor management decisions, what was the last team to win the cup in the salary cap era that was at or below 90% of the cap maximum, not counting LTIR'd players?
- Return of the Roar

I wrote this for another site 2 years ago....

http://senshot.com/2013/0...end-to-win-in-todays-nhl/

The numbers are pretty convincing.

Spending to the cap limit does in no way guarantee success, but not spending there (and smartly) pretty much guarantees you won't win.

According to NHLnumbers.com here are the cap hits by team ranking for the Stanley Cup winners going back to 2007-08. As far back as they report.

2015. Chi 11th.
14. LA 20th.
13. Chi 7th.
12. LA 8th.
11. Bos 1st.
10. Chi 3rd.
09. Pit 11th.
08. Det 14th.

If your only gauge on grading a teams success is cup wins draw your own conclusions about how spending money comes into play. These evaluations aren't exactly the most scientific & don't factor a whole range of reasons as to why teams that spend more money may have better cup success. There are a multitude of factors that come into play.

Not the least of which is that teams that perceive they are contenders have veteran rosters & are simply more willing to spend money than teams that are in various states of rebuild or simply lack the resources to spend to the cap. I would argue that these placements above show that spending to the cap doesn't guarantee you any success.

10 teams spent more money than Chi in 15, 19 more than LA in 14, 6 in 13, etc. Anaheim was the consensus favorite to win the cup this season by a significant portion of knowledgeable journalists, broadcasters, bloggers, etc. My self included. They have the 24th highest payroll in the NHL this season.

Winning the cup takes so many things to play out just perfectly not to mention some luck. The fact Chi has managed to win 3 cups & LA 2 in the last 6 years is shocking to me in this cap world.Their willingness to spend is part of it but not the deciding factor. If you have superstars most teams will usually spend to retain them so if you draft & develop players well & wish to retain them they are going to cost you.

Why would success in the NHL be defined by anything other than winning the Cup?

Perhaps that is the issue for a lot of teams right there......

I think in order to attract and retain the best players your team ownership must demonstrate a willingness to do what it takes to win. The elite talent also wants to win. Being able to spend the money to the cap is a part of the equation to show players on your roster the organization is committed to do what it takes on their end to succeed.

With the definition of succeed being critical. If just making the playoffs most years is the goal, to me, that sells things short right out of the gate for great talent to want to play for you. Hell, 50% of the teams make it by design anyway. Not very aspirational to me anyway.

Too much talk about spending to the cap in order to be competitive. Is it necessary? No, of course not. Does it help? It definitely does. People are pointing out that the Ducks have one of the lowest payrolls, which is fine, but in reality, they have 2 NHL quality goaltenders making chump change. With real contracts, they would spike up their payroll. They also have some defence that will be getting raises in the not so distant future.

I think the year LA won their first Cup most of their key player were due for contract years after the championship. You have to mange your assets well at the time of when your competitive.

It's the ability to retain expensive players that is important or be able to replace guys that you loose due to money/cap reasons. Chicago is the one of the best teams at retaining key guys and replacing guys (Ladd, Saad, Sharp, Byflin, Leddy, etc) with guys in their system.

Ottawa has not been good in either of those aspects. They have not been willing to put money down on keeping key players and/or cannot replace those players once they leave.

While I think ownership plays a part, I think it has to do with management and player development more.

Return of the Roar

Because although sports franchises these are businesses & numerous teams are run as such. To turn a profit for the people that own them & not just in asset appreciation, to manage & maintain their assets trying to stay competitive long term until the right opportunity presents it's self to load up for a run at the cup etc.

If you can only grade success on cup victories then very few teams are having success. Success comes in numerous ways. Repeated playoff appearances. I think Detroit has had incredible success with 25 straight playoff appearances, even StL has had great success but has the misfortune of playing in the west. They had a huge repeated playoff appearances until recently. Nashvilles has been a perenial playoff team, as has Anaheim. Anaheim has won a cup Nashville made a serious effort 1 season but couldn't get by Chicago, few have been able to.

NYR surpassed Toronto as #1 in NHL franchise value & makes a ton of money. Always top 3 & with the current state of the Canadian dollar will be #1 for years. Factor in that the same ownership group that owns the Rangers also owns MSG sports & entertainment which makes even more money from this interrelated business than the Rangers will ever make. That's also success.

These are businesses & yes every team wants to win the cup. That's the goal but only 1 team gets that luxury.