More About First Round Goaltenders

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: More About First Round Goaltenders

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    First round.

    Can't draw new lines.

    The line here is already drawn.

    It is at the end of the first round.

    If you would like to make a new argument, start a new thread.



    I think the problem here is that that's such an arbitrary line.  There's nothing about the first round that really says much about whether or not it's wise to pick a goalie, and, on the other hand, it's hard to establish the measuring stick when at least half the players drafted in the first round are forwards vs. maybe two or three goalies.  Some years the number of first round forwards might be pretty close to the total number of goalies drafted.  Even the top 20 goal-scorers test is only so effective when 1/3 of the top 24 last year (including all players tied with 31 goals) were drafted in the top 5 (and note that the stats for that article are not from 2011-12).  Using that same top 24, 5 guys were drafted outside the first round and Pavelski, Moulson and Ryder were picked in rounds that no longer exist.

    I would generally agree that drafting a goalie top 5 is foolish - Fleury may have a cup, but Luongo, Lehtonen and DiPietro are the other 99%, and I've made my point about Fleury in arguments with kel in the past.  Beyond that - maybe even beyond the top 10 - I think you have to start asking in terms of rank against position.  Maybe it's better to take the 15th best forward available rather than the best goalie?

    Ultimately, I think the farthest this debate can go is that goalies are the bigger risk, but a young starting goaltender you can run with for 20 years like Marty Brodeur is an even bigger reward than a Giroux or a Perry or a Getzlaf - high end scorers drafted, like Brodeur, in the second half of the first round.  However, if you look at the forwards available and you see goaltender vs. Joe Colborne or Jordan Caron, maybe the upside on the forward isn't high enough to justify playing it safe.  Roll dem bones.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: More About First Round Goaltenders

    I have always agreed with the OP on this one, even if it is not something I can support with convincing statistical evidence (too lazy to even try to put that together).

    It is not just about whether goalies picked in the 1st round are making it or not (at a comparable percentage than say forwards).  It is also about how many make it for the team that drafted them.  Because goalies, unlike most 1st round forwards, take so long to develop, they are often dealt away anyhow during the development phase (Rask, Luongo, Varlamov) before they ever develop into good starting goalies.  So Toronto or the Islanders may have hit a potential home run drafting Rask and Luongo in the 1st round, but they still missed out because they couldn't wait long enough to see the fruits of the pick.

    I also think there is a higher percentage of goalies taken in the first round that fail completely, compared to forwards.  The list of first round goalies seems to be littered with names you'll never hear again from guys who never got close to the NHL.  I think that happens less frequently with forwards by far.

    You've got to consider the length of development time with your first round picks as a significant factor, whether they be a goalie or a Joe Colborne type.  I hate 5-year projects with 1st round picks.

    I think the Bruins strategy for getting goalies in recent years is perfect.   Let someone else draft and develop them.  Good goalies can be found in trades or FA signings (Thomas, Rask, Khubodin), and then to hedge a little, you use one longshot 5-7 round draft pick on a raw but promising goalie every year (Volden, Gothberg).  All while pile up promising forwards in the 1st/2nd rounds.  Hope it keeps working...
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: More About First Round Goaltenders

    There's a root problem with this whole debate.  Statistically, what's available to support not choosing any position in the first round..... is irrelevant.  Using Subban, as an example...his success as a pro hockey goalie will be determined by hundreds of criteria.  His position in the draft will not even make the list.
    Barry Gibbs, was a #1 pick as a defenseman.  So was Denis Potvin.  About the only thing in this world they had in common....was they were first round picks.  Irrelevant. 
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: More About First Round Goaltenders

    More about goalies being the bigger risk - in the infamous 2007 Hamill draft, all of the goalies selected in all rounds?  They've played a grand total of 12 games.  11 by Allan York in Columbus.

    In 2006, though, the top 6 goalies selected have all played in at least one game, and Bernier and Varlamov have played their way into careers of some kind even if neither will play their best hockey for the team that drafted them.

    The only two first round goalies in 2005 will be starting next year, one for the team that drafted him (Price and Rask).  It should be noted that while Rask is not playing for the team that drafted him, that has more to do with bad evaluation by a team that thought it already had a top notch goaltending prospect and so could deal Rask for a stop-gap goalie while he developed.

    Of the four goalies chosen in the first round in 2004, the fourth, Corey Schneider, is most likely to be an impact player.  Dubnyk in Edmonton isn't a write off yet, but Montoya and Schwartz look like busts.

    The first three goalies taken in 2003 - Fleury, Corey Crawford and Jimmy Howard - were all starters for the teams that drafted them last year.  Fleury was #1 overall, so you'd hope he was the class, but Howard has contended for a Vezina.

    Kari Lehtonen has more or less revived his career as a starter in Dallas, but he's not a star goalie.  Then again, 2002 was rather uninspiring and, after Nash, the best first round pick may be Cam Ward.  The less said about Hannu the bettu.

    The first five 2001 goalies drafted all stunk, though the first among the worst, Pascale Leclaire, was good but made of balsa wood.

    Lots of bad goalies in 2000.  Three of the top 5 have had some kind of career, but the best of that bunch is Bryzgalov.  This, of course, is the year that the Rangers drafted Lundqvist.

    I would say the point re: taking the best goalie still holds.  Once you're looking at the third or fourth?  Well, let's just say that I don't see many years where more than 2 quality starting goaltenders have been drafted.  Some.  Not many.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: More About First Round Goaltenders

    I think 1st round is relevant because these are players scouts have, you assume, seen and preferred over a host of other guys.  Maybe we just need to get out of "has it been a good idea" and into something a bit more abstract: if all things were equal re: the level of precision with which your scouts can project NHL careers, would you take a goalie in the first round?  Or would you still think that the development curve is too slow/FA status is too near/you're better off with a F?  Assuming you get your top rated goalie, when would you take him?
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: More About First Round Goaltenders

                                                       20 games!
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: More About First Round Goaltenders

    In response to Bookboy007s comment:

      It should be noted that while Rask is not playing for the team that drafted him, that has more to do with bad evaluation by a team that thought it already had a top notch goaltending prospect and so could deal Rask for a stop-gap goalie while he developed.



    I still tie this factor to the draft decision, because bad evaluation is much more likely to occur when drafting a 3-5 year project.  Goalies are more likely to be 3-5 year projects than forwards, so there is an added element of risk in drafting them.  Toronto was smart to draft Rask, but never got the return on the smart move because they misjudged organizational depth and Rask's upside.  It's all part of the risk, and (I think) that forwards are easier to scout as draftees and evaluate as pros while they develop.

    I think the '1st round' is relevant because (typically) you only have one 1st round pick, and one shot at a top two goalie or top ten forward.  Sure, better players may actually come later on, but for the basis of this debate, I am saying that I prefer the shot at a top ten forward over the shot at a top two goalie.  In the second round those guys are gone, and you have a whole new scenario.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: More About First Round Goaltenders

    Everybody makes some good points here, but I kinda disagree how it's all being tied together.  Statistically, we can assign odds on the success probability of a 1st round goalie, however, we're mistaken if we think historical data will help us in determining whether we "should" pick an available goalie in any particular round.
    It's exactly the same kind of logic that would suggest it's a poor idea to bet on the Bruins beating Montreal the next time they play, based on detailed history of the 2 teams.  In these cases, a small sample size is better than a large one, and that shows us...statistically, we're going in the wrong direction.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: More About First Round Goaltenders

    In response to stevegm's comment:

    Everybody makes some good points here, but I kinda disagree how it's all being tied together.  Statistically, we can assign odds on the success probability of a 1st round goalie, however, we're mistaken if we think historical data will help us in determining whether we "should" pick an available goalie in any particular round.
    It's exactly the same kind of logic that would suggest it's a poor idea to bet on the Bruins beating Montreal the next time they play, based on detailed history of the 2 teams.  In these cases, a small sample size is better than a large one, and that shows us...statistically, we're going in the wrong direction.



    I appreciate this point of view, stevegm.

    My view is that goaltenders don't turn into good or great goaltenders until their later years, so it's far too much guesswork to think that they are going to be great by viewing their work as a 17 or 16 year old.

    If they were held back by a few years, then they could certainly be evaluated much better.  If goalies couldn't be drafted until they were 22 (I know that's a ridiculous notion, but it plays here), taking them before the fast skating, hard shooting forwards would make more sense.

    I fully agree that it is illogical to say that, because the Habs beat the Bruins on Tuesdays for 32 years straight that this Tuesday the Habs will definitely beat the Bruins.  To look at the history of goaltenders who are drafted to be starters that barely eeked out a backup career, an AHL career or worse because they don't develop fast enough makes sense.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: More About First Round Goaltenders

    Tuuka was not traded because they felt they had a better goaltending prospect in the system. Tuuka was dealt because the Maple Leafs thought Andrew Raycroft could help them win right away. BTW, Raycroft went on to win more games in a season than any other goalie in Maple Leaf franchise history. Yet Ferguson felt the need to bring in Toskela the next season, anothe rone of his bright moves that led to his showing of the door, he set that franchise back 10 years with the signing and handing out of no movement clauses.

    Bottom line is, for the most part goalies take longer to develop, so if your picking high, chances are your coming off of a bad season, so the G.M, who may need an immediate impact player since his job may be on the line, it doesnt make sense for the team to pick a goalie. The Bruins, had the luxury of being able to pick Subban there. They obviously see a very high upside to him.

    Every first round there are forwards, defenseman and goalies that are busts. But the winningest goalie of all-time was also selected int he first round. And most teams had Trevor Kidd rated higher.

    The scouts dont know, and we dont know, taking a goalie that high is a risk. is it more of a risk than a player. Sure it is, the numbers don't lie, but liek I said, the Bruins kind of has the luxury of picking Subban where they did.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share