|
|
Post by Oxford United on Sept 12, 2023 11:51:16 GMT -7
CHL teams between them have 23 NHL starting goalies, and a further 13 NHL backup goalies. At the end of the draft there will be 24 starting goalies on 12 teams.
These goalies start 1,086 NHL games, or 290 CHL games.
There are 264 CHL games, so we have 1.10X the number of starters needed.
Add to that another 0.34 in backups and we have 1.44X the number of goalies needed to play a season.
So... Is this a glut of goaltending? What, if anything, needs to be done about this glut? Are small adjustments to the goalie supply needed?
Discuss.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shamrockville on Sept 12, 2023 12:04:09 GMT -7
I think that with goaltending being sorcery at best, that having more is better. Season over season, many of these goalies will have injuries, or be traded, or simply be moved to a platoon like system.
Also, with our teams, one has to consider that you can't "force" people to trade goalies and some folks seem to collect them like pokemon and some need to have a goalie with enough games to cover them from season to season.
A few of these goalies have gone form backups to starters which may be skewing some of the numbers when considered over a number of years.
Personally, I'd just leave it as is until we see a definitive issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by nash on Sept 12, 2023 15:20:07 GMT -7
There is absolutely a glut in goaltending. I think I was adding goalies when we had <110 games per team but haven't added in a number of seasons. Too little is an issue.
If you have a suggestion on how to make the appropriate adjustment lets discuss.
|
|
|
|
Post by nash on Sept 13, 2023 11:50:48 GMT -7
So I've been thinking about this a little.
Instead of the <110 games value we could do a range. Add goalies between 110 and 150 games hypothetically. If over 150 games we stop adding goalies until back within the 110-150 range.
The problem with this is if the range is too narrow we may run into goalie issues until we've had a couple of seasons of adding goalies.
Right now because there is zero scarcity goalie demand is impacted.
Anyways, something to consider.
|
|
|
|
Post by Oxford United on Sept 13, 2023 12:06:08 GMT -7
I was thinking of the value we use now - 1.34 or 110 Starts/Team.
If the total game starts divided by CHL teams is less than 110, add goalies to the draft until 110 is reached.
If greater than 110, do not add goalies.
As the rookie teams are random (except for CGY), add forwards and defencemen as usual, but only add goalies until the threshold is reached, then ignore goalies on subsequent teams added to the rookie pool.
This might mean a couple of years without goalies in the draft, but as it's a threshold we already use for minimum goalies, there should never be a shortage. (Remember that if the current goalies plus rookie goalies do not reach 110, goalies are added from the rest of the league to make up the numbers.)
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by revelstoke on Sept 13, 2023 12:11:44 GMT -7
I think only a few years ago we had a goalie shortage, it seemed. So I don't mind the ebbs and flows as they are today. I mean, in one year, I'm betting I have at least one if not two goalies of my own team, are washed out of the league, causing me to need to draft more still. We don't care about a glut of centres, or other positions, why should goaltending be treated differently?
|
|
|
|
Post by QC Mike on Sept 13, 2023 13:03:41 GMT -7
Goalie's can have long career's and that one you drafted a few years ago when used as the team's 5th stringer due to injury is just now becoming a starter and if they're at all decent will be on someone's roster for the next 10-12 years.
And a goalie's a goalie. Forwards may often start on the wings, move to center in their prime and then fade off the roster as a winger again but a goalie's a goalie. With the ebb and flow, in five years Nash may have to be adding them back to the pool to get our numbers back up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Oxford United on Sept 13, 2023 14:10:53 GMT -7
We don't care about a glut of centres, or other positions, why should goaltending be treated differently? Good point. We’ve limited draft picks in the future to address the glut at other positions. There’s no reason to think it won’t work on goalies as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Oxford United on Sept 13, 2023 14:12:12 GMT -7
With the ebb and flow, in five years Nash may have to be adding them back to the pool to get our numbers back up. Good point. |
|
|
|
Post by nash on Sept 13, 2023 14:49:36 GMT -7
If goalie additions are going to cease that will solve the over supply problem. However, it will be important to determine what are the criteria for adding back goalies once that situation is resolved.
If they are added to the rookie pool, that could potentially see a top goalie added into the league.
|
|
|
|
Post by QC Mike on Sept 13, 2023 15:51:11 GMT -7
If goalie additions are going to cease that will solve the over supply problem. However, it will be important to determine what are the criteria for adding back goalies once that situation is resolved. If they are added to the rookie pool, that could potentially see a top goalie added into the league. One thing to remember as well is that going forward there will probably be fewer FA goalies (not that there are a lot now) as I'm not sure how many will make the 40 game threshold to reappear after they've been cut. Think letting this play our for a few seasons to see how the changes that have been implemented already around roster limitations play out. |
|
|
|
Post by Shamrockville on Sept 13, 2023 19:27:55 GMT -7
Also, I'm a little concerned when deal with averages, without thinking of the impact per team. There may be a couple teams that happen to have 2 starters and a backup that puts them over 110 games, but that also could mean that another team may be short goaltending all together.
If I have 2 starters and a backup, and my starters play 60 games and 50 games and my back up plays 15 games, I am over that 110, but if I trade one of those starters, all of a sudden I dont have enough to cover my games. Having 2 starters and a back up doesnt seem like much to me, considering how the NHL is using goalies now more than ever as a 50 + 32 style or even a 40-42 split in some cases. Having a Hellebuyck or a Sarros who play 60 games isn't going to be the direction we see shortly. People will need to carry more goaltending moving forward.
In that instance I do have more games than I need, but I also can't trade one to a team in need of games because I'd leave myself short.
I think a deeper analysis of where the goalie games are on each team should be looked at before we decide if there's a "glut" or not.
As always, you can't force trades on people and we shouldn't be giving goalies more positional leverage in terms of cost than other positions simply because a guy might need games to complete a season.
|
|
|
|
Post by Oxford United on Sept 14, 2023 6:10:47 GMT -7
The current rules set an average of 110 games per team as a healthy minimum to ensure adequate starts league-wide. However, having no restriction on the volume of starts league-wide causes Save Inflation. Save InflationGoalies are a cream-of-the-crop commidity: only the best available get played. So when there is a glut in goaltending, average goaltending increases. For example, Shamrockville has three goaltenders: | Name | CHL GS | Saves | | Hellebuyck | 17 | 131 | | Lyon | 5 | 123 | | Kuemper | 15 | 120 |
If you calculate Shamrockville's average goaltending per game, you'd come up with 125.5. Shamrockville AVERAGE SAVE # = (17*131 + 5*123 + 15*120) / 37 = 125.5But you'd be wrong. Since we play only the best goalies each game, the actual goaltending looks like this: | Name | CHL GS | Save # | | Hellebuyck | 17 | 131 | | Lyon | 5 | 123 | | Kuemper | 0 | 120 |
And Shamrockville's average goaltending per game is 129.2. Shamrockville AVERAGE SAVE # = (17*131 + 5*123 + 0*120) / 22 = 129.2Now if we extend the calculation league-wide, the CHL's average save number is 119.9, where he NHL's is 108. So, a "glut" of goaltending causes save inflation. I'm not taking a position of good or bad here, just noting that Save Inflation seems to exist. I say seems because: - It could be that the current pool of goalies are of higher quality overall.
- Adding several rookies of poor quality and the loss of some veterans of higher quality could cause Save Deflation just as easily.
It's clear there will be no consensus here, but that it is worth watching going forward.
/END THOUGHT EXPERIMENT
|
|
|
|
Post by Oxford United on Sept 14, 2023 7:53:00 GMT -7
By the way, the best goaltending in the CHL this year belongs to Houston (130), Shamrockville (129) and Revelstoke (127).
The worst belongs to Cole Harbour (103), Bonavista (109) and Oxford (113).
|
|
|
|
Post by QC Mike on Sept 14, 2023 11:43:06 GMT -7
By the way, the best goaltending in the CHL this year belongs to Houston (130), Shamrockville (129) and Revelstoke (127). The worst belongs to Cole Harbour (103), Bonavista (109) and Oxford (113). Ooooh! Do mine from last year. |
|
