It is an accepted adage in hockey that the team with the best goaltender wins; that you build from the net out and that you absolutely must have an all-star goalie to be successful in the NHL.
This stuff is accepted to the point where it's almost a cliche. It's accepted to the point where questioning it is likely to be met with insults, but is it true?
Do you really need a top tier goalie to be successful in hockey?
What is a Price, Lundqvist or Quick really worth? Not in terms of contracts, but in terms of actual wins? How many over a season, how many over a playoff series?
Unfortunately, it's impossible to tell, as all I have at my disposal is a whole bunch of anecdotal evidence. As most of you are no doubt aware, anecdotal evidence cannot prove anything. It can, however, help us make dangerous assumptions and faulty conclusions, so I present this with a huge BEWARE sign. I do not profess to know better than anyone else and I don't profess to draw any conclusions. What I mean to do is just simply question the prevailing notion that goaltending is the most important factor in team building or a teams chance of winning.
Let's look at a few things and maybe you can see why I might be starting to question the importance of goaltending.
Actually, scratch that, I am not questioning the importance of receiving good goaltending. If you get above average goaltending, you are going to win. I guess what I am questioning is the difference between a so called "star" or "elite" goalie, and anyone else.
Can a good defense and/or offense make up for a goalie's lack of skill relative to his peers? Is it prudent to acquire a "star" goalie, in terms of trade assets or salary structure?
These are the questions I find myself asking when thinking about the following information:
1) Drafting goalies seems to be a complete crap-shoot. More so than other positions. The Flames once traded up to draft Trevor Kidd, passing on Martin Brodeur. (Ironically, they traded up with New Jersey). Rick Dipietro was selected first overall. Many hall of fame goalies - Curtis Joseph and Ed Belfour spring to mind immediately - were never drafted. While goalies with pedigree like Price and Bernier are finding success, they are often overshadowed by less heralded guys like Jonathan Quick. Again, all anecdotal and just food for thought.
2) Many goalies find success only to be unable to maintain it. Jim Carrey, Andrew Raycroft, Jarislav Halak......the list is nearly endless of one hit wonder goaltenders. It often seems that every year a random goalie - Josh Harding - is setting the world on fire contrary to all reasonable predictions.
In fact, there only ever seems to be 3-5 guys at any time who are consistent over a long period of time. Brodeurs, Belfours, Haseks and Roys are more rare, I think, than people realize. Often, what seems to be a great goalie is only a decent goalie on a great team.
The cases of Raycroft and Toskala are equally fascinating, the Leafs having acquired both in back to back years only to see them both fail miserably. Around here, people like to blame John Ferguson Jr. for "being an idiot" but is that fair? Raycroft was coming off a Calder Trophy season, and looked to be a future star. Toskala was part of the vaunted "goaltending factory" of the early century Sharks, who also produced Kiprusoff and Nabokov. At the time of both deals, they seemed completely reasonable, except for the fact that no one can predict goalie futures.
3) Many star goalies often seem to be appreciated for name-brand reasons when the stats don't bear it out. Check out Martin Brodeur's career save percentage if you don't believe me. This also suggests that maybe Brodeur was the beneficiary of playing in the dead-puck era on that era's defining team, the trap heavy Devils. Maybe Brodeur's entire reputation is based on his being in the right place at the right time. Not to take anything away from his accomplishments, but that is certainly a possibility. If the Leafs had of selected him tenth overall in the 1990 draft, instead of Drake Berehowsky, would we even know who Brodeur was today?
4) Look at this years Blues as a microcosm of what I am talking about here. They had good goaltending in Johnson and Halak, but felt a "great" goalie would put them over the top.
So they traded assets for something they probably didn't need and ended up losing to a team, Chicago, that seems to understand the position is nothing but hype.
The Hawks have been a successful team with Cristibal Huet, Anti Neimi and now Corey Crawford. It seems they were paying attention when Detroit dominated the league for years with Chris Osgood. Now, these guys are all decent, replacement level goalies, but I don't think anyone considers them among the most talented at their position.
Perhaps the Hawks are on to something?
5) Let's look at the Canadiens and Rangers series currently going on: Everyone thought the Canadiens were done when Price went out because Lundqvist is so much better than anyone else the Habs could play. Now, it is probably true that Henrick is better than most goalies in the world, but what difference does it make?
The Canadiens were one millimeter and some bad luck from tying the series. The Rangers didn't really do anything to be up 3-1, with nothing changing in terms of how the teams have played, the series could be tied. Despite the fact that Price, one of the best goalies in the universe, being down with an injury and a rookie taking the reigns.
It begs the question: Unless one of the goalies is playing insane - think .999 save percentage - then what is the true value of a goalie over a seven game series?
How much difference does Lundqvist - playing his normal solid game but not setting the world on fire - make over Tokarski? No question the kid has played well, would the series be any different if Price never got hurt? Sure he CAN steal a game, but it doesn't mean he would have. In fact, the worst game the Canadiens played, they had Price in net.
Obviously these are small sample sizes and all are anecdotal. However, I think it's enough to question the status quo. Do goalies - baring unusual runs when they can't be scored on - make that much of a difference, or does a goalie play to the level of his team more often than not?
The bottom line is that two of the more successful franchises of modern times - Detroit and Chicago - have done so by allotting the money they could have spent on big name goalies to instead have an extra high quality player or two.
Furthermore, it appears that anyone capable of making the NHL as a goalie has the potential to go on a mad run, and that season to season, even among the accepted best at the position, there is extreme volatility.
It is also worth noting that you are a star in the league if you have a .920 save % but not all that good if you have one of .900. That is a difference of only 20 goals on a 1000 shots.
To put that in perspective, at 30 shots a game, a 1000 shots occurs in roughly 33 games. The 20 goal difference over that time amounts to about only a half goal per game difference. Which means that the difference between a star goalie and a dud goalie is only about a half goal per game, which is not insignificant, but does suggest that there are other ways to improve your team drastically instead of changing goalies.
Sure, it makes sense to think a big name goalie will perform to the top of his game more often, but I am really starting to wonder if it's worth going after a big name goalie in the first place.
I am torn. I saw what happened to both Toronto and Phoenix this year when their goalies went down (again, anecdotal, happened, but doesn't mean the cause and effect line up perfectly). If I was building a team, I wouldn't hesitate to sign either Smith or Bernier to long term contracts, and yet, I am not confident that if the Coyotes went with Greiss or the Leafs Reimer that their seasons would have been all that much different.
I still think the Leafs killed the Bernier trade and that the Coyotes were right to sign Smith to a long term contract, but I am less sure than I was.
As to Eklund's rumour that the Canucks are after Miller? I'd say with Lack and Markstrom the Canucks are in great position going forward and that Miller is just more of the same thinking as what got them where they currently are. Don't do it.
No conclusions. Just thinking out loud.
Talk to me in the comments or Tweet me up @james_tanner123
Thanks, as always, for reading.