Goalies

I had been intending a better researched, more edited post on this topic, but never seem to make time, so instead you get the poorly written version.

I want to use Kevin's post about goalies as a springboard to offer some possible solutions. Specifically, I want to suggest that, if we accept Kevin's summation, we should look at these issues as possible forms of competitive advantage.

One - owners don't appreciate goalie value. I think that this is true - I also think that, from my perspective, at different times, owners have not appreciated the relative value of centres, rws, lws, d, older players, rookies, draft picks. I have seriously, at some point in these three years, lamented that people have different feelings than I about all of these things. I have come to accept that this is a good thing. That is why this league is fun - because there are so many different ways to win. For a current example - Sarah has only six wingers for her six positions. I think that she should be offering me all of her top picks right now for my depth wingers, because I can't imagine not having a back up at either wing position. Yet she has not made such an offer. Now, the proof is in the pudding - I think my team structure makes more sense than hers, but I have not won, and she is on her way to 2-0. Her strategy, to this point, has offered a competitive advantage to her. I might wish that she valued my players more, but she doesn't, and my feelings are my problem. Til my strategy wins, I can't say anything to her.

With the goalies, those of us who have not valued them (like me) were, when we consider Kevin's numbers and the points made during this discussion, CLEARLY WRONG. I have wrongly valued goalies. It took this sort of discussion for me to realize that, and now I am trying to find a way to rectify it (I wish we had done all of this before the draft...)

So, Sarah, when you are ready to trade a goalie for a depth winger, give me a call....

Two, Number of games: I think this is again an issue of competitive advantage. Obviously, a goalie who plays a lot is its own skill. Just like a player who never gets injured, they are more valuable than a player who is injured regularly (just ask Kevin). I appreciate that this a much more significant issue with goalies than players, but I still feel like it can be solved through research and preparation, which (theoretically, though J may prove this wrong) separates successful owners from less successful owners. Mostly it is guesswork, but there are some easy signs - back to backs, for example, or the proclivity of teams to play their backups in the middle of road trips or occasionally against opponents that are important to them/in their hometown/on hockey night in Canada.

That said, I recognize that there is randomness and it has a huge effect on the results of the week (more on that below). So I do think we should do something to rectify this. I don't like the "draft the whole team" solution, because it essentially means we want to pick the best defensive teams, not the best goalies (as individuals). And I don't like the idea of playing two goalies at a time - that means goalies will immediately be the most valuable players in the league, and I don't think that goalie dominated leagues are as fun as the one we play in now.

I do like the idea of creating another roster spot, though, that can only be used for a goalie. I like this because it exaggerates the existing scarcity (more on that in a second too); because it mirrors actual NHL rosters (23 man rosters, everyone carries at least two goalies); and it does not upset the positional balance of scoring, but does ensure that having a really strong goalie is harder to do, and thus more valuable.

Which brings me to my last point of this rambling post. When we discussed this at the draft, we all agreed that we wanted more positional scarcity among goalies. But I think our discussion, and Kevin's stats, suggest that this is not an issue. That is to say, there already IS positional scarcity. As Kevin said, having the best goalie last year (not counting Thomas, who had an historically amazing season) was worth .5pts/g more than having the 13th best goalie. In comparison, having the 2nd best centre last year was worth .6pts/g. So we are (roughly) in the range of the scarcity at the other positions.

In fact, last season, I went from having one of the best goalies (Jonas Hiller) to one of the worst (Miika Kiprusoff, who I plucked off the waiver wire) and immediately faltered. I picked up Niemi (available very late because he did not have a steady job until February last year) and immediately recovered, then outsmarted myself in the playoffs and played Kipper, and went the way of, well, the Flames. Now, because I misunderstood this issue, I didn't realize that goaltending was what had caused my collapse. But it is clear to me now that part of the reason I was knocked out of the playoffs last year is because I had misunderstood this important part of roster building.

My point is, I feel like we have a lot of what we want from goalies already, and to the extent that we don't, we need to make minor tweaks (adding that goalie bench slot) rather than major ones (adding a second playing goalie or playing teams instead of individual goalies). Especially when we add two more teams next year, having a bench spot that can only be used for a goalie will mean we dig really deep into the goalie market, and the scarcity will be felt keenly by teams who are not well prepared.

Who wants to trade me a goalie?

Dale