NHL Goaltender Ratings, TBL Rosters 2013-14

[batdad]

Anderson is nowhere near those guys. He had a couple of good years, but yeah definite inconsistencies in his game as well as ROberto. Craig is a goalie who had high hopes, but can only show that top form in very rare circumstances. Last season was basically an anomaly for him. He did have another good year, but he has reaped benefits form solid defensive systems when he has done well, not really his ability. Roberto, Henrik, and PRice have all proven top level goalies with not so good systems in front of them. Roberto in Florida (and sometimes Van), Henrik in New York and Carey in Montreal. They are solid goalies who can win games all by themselves. Totally different category than Anderson, who would fall more into a tier below those guys, with Brian Elliott, Halak...and sometimes have a tendency to look as bad as say Alex Montoya or that other goalie in Winterpeg and Dubnyk.

Same for Bryz....tier lower than Roberto and Carey. And I would argue that King Henrik is a bit above Roberto. Carey is about equal, but Roberto is showing signs of age. Bad games, pressure issues at times, and injuries here and there.

[CJ]

Goalies are one of the hardest positions to "rate". We all should know that. In the new 6.x DB I've rated Anderson as a mid level goalie. He's not in the Top and he's not one of the worst goalies either. We can't rate him as a Top tier goalie with bad constitency, that would require a lot of simulating and researching in-game and see how they land at the end of the season, and that would require a lot of work (and this is just one "player").

Anyone remember the Vezina trophy winner "1996" Jim Carey? (Not Ace Ventura Carrey )

[coombs14]

I have zero problem with Anderson being rated as a mid-level goalie because that is what he is. There are probably ten guys I would take ahead of him (King Henrick, Price, Luongo, Rinne, Quick, Miller, Niemi, Rask, Schneider) and then a whole bunch who are probably on par.

My point is that there are some guys like Anderson, Bobrovski or Varlemov who have a much greater range in their game than other mid level goalies.

Last season was basically an anomaly for him. He did have another good year, but he has reaped benefits form solid defensive systems when he has done well, not really his ability.

I think you over estimate Ottawa and Colarado circa 2010's ability to play defence. Last season Ottawa gave up the seventh most shots in the league, this year the forth most. Even during Anderson's good years in Colorado, they gave up the 5th most shots in 2009-2010 and the 2nd most in 2010-2011. However, when the Avalanche actually improved in 2011-2012, Anderson was terrible and put up at sub-900 save percentage. I think that Anderson does have the ability to play at an exceptionally high level and win games for his team. However, you never know when you are going to do it.

Now, all of what I typed above is essentially irrelevant because I'm not arguing for Anderson to be upgraded in any way.

[batdad]

LOL. Yeah mid level goalie, with consistency issues. That is what he is and it is right or as right as can be. Giving up shots does not always mean bad defensive team. Sometimes those shots are from bad bad spots. But I do agree that Colorado was not a really strong defensive team when Anderson was there, nor was Ottawa. But they were not horribly weak either. Anderson is a really in and out goalie, and the last couple of years more out than in.

[coombs14]

Anderson is a really in and out goalie, and the last couple of years more out than in.

Which seeing as I'm from Ottawa, makes me sad. I wish it was the inverse, except when playing Les Canadiens.

[ElPayaso]

I think John Gibsons PA needs to be higher, he is considered to be one of the worlds biggest prospects when it comes to goalies and that doesn't show in the game. Hell, when i started a game with the Ducks he wasn't even on my top10-list of prospects in my "team report" and I'm pretty sure he'll be the #1 goalie in Ducks in a couple of years.

[batdad]

In terms of goalie prospects who does he compare to? Again, rating him high just because in a few years when Hiller and Fasth are gone.....and Gibson is the starter, does not mean he is a star goalie. It just means he is the goalie that is Ducks property that looks to be the best Duck goalie.

For example, in Buffalo....Nathan Lieuewen appears to be the next in line after Miller and what is his name (Enroth) who never plays. But is Nathan Lieuwen going to be a star? No.

On the other hand, in Minnesota a young goalie by the name of Darcy Kuemper has done pretty well in limited NHL experience. He does appear to be better than what Minnesota has right now, but is young yet.

Now...to help you out...Gibsons is somewhere around what Darcy Kuemper appears to be. A pretty darn good goalie, but not a Vezina winner, and definitely a better prospect than Lieuwen.

But...he may very well also turn out to be Kevin Poulin. A solid and decent back up, but nowhere near a starter.

You cannot judge prospects in absolutes. He is not a top level Potential guy, but he may be in the low 2nd area, or in the high third (speaking of the -9, -8 stuff which I have never really paid total attention to other than knowing the -9 may be the top one, and I may be wrong there)

[ElPayaso]

Well, to be a starter in an NHL team you'll need a CA of at least 130 and I'm pretty sure he'll be a #1 goalie in a couple of years. I wouldn't be too surprised if he end up being a top goalie in the NHL and even win a Vezina one day, I think he's got the potential to do so. I've heard really good things about him and his performance in the WJC20 last year was outstanding. He's had a decent first season so far in Norfolk and if it wasn't for the fact that the Ducks goalie position are kinda crowded at the moment I'm pretty sure he would've started in the NHL during this season.

[CJ]

As for young players we us the random PA, or whaterver you guys call it (-7,-8,-9 or -14, -15). Anyway, I've rated Gibson as a -9. He is one of NHL's biggest goalie prospects.

But...he may very well also turn out to be Kevin Poulin. A solid and decent back up, but nowhere near a starter.

The guy is still young. You didn't know who T.Thomas or P.Rinne (to name a few) were at the same age as Poulin is. They developed later. You talk like Kevin has reached his full potential.

[ElPayaso]

PA -9 sounds about right in my opinion, previously he had a PA of -14 which barely made him an NHL-player.

[batdad]

Actually no offense jhc, but I have known who Timmeh was since he was 20. And Rinne. And to me, Thomas was the only surprise of those two. Kevin Poulin may not have reached his upper level, but he is never going to be more than at best an average starting goalie on a team that does not have a strong starting goalie. (Rushed by Isles and that is forever that organization's problem...that they finally seem to be learning from at least with defensemen)

The random potential is absolutely the way to go with the youngsters as we stated above (or somewhere else) like Gibson. So for fans of young guys...they may or may not turn out in game, and that is just the way it is. Luck of the draw. One game they will be stud, one game they will be average, one game they will be brutal. Absolutely the way it should be. That is why random is there.

I have no issue with a -9 for Gibson, he gets tons of press. I am just not sure personally that he will turn out in the Martin Brodeur, Dominek Hasek type of prime. Maybe a Luongo or Hiller type of prime....2nd level starting goalie where there are only 5 or so guys better than him at any given time (should really say 5-10 guys, but that 10 is alot to have as top tier)

Again though, in comparison to other young goalies where do you see Gibson fitting in? Is he the top goalie prospect for his age level (say 20-24) in the world? Or are there a few ahead of him?

I agree that he may be a backup learning the job right now on many other NHL teams, but he would not be a starter anywhere if that team was doing goalie development properly. Look at St Louis and what they have in the minors still. Allen is pretty darn good, but not there yet because of Elliot and Hasek. Absolutely the right way to go. And then look at Cory Schneider and how long it has taken him (and still taking in some ways thanks to Marty and the Canuck trade).

But...the way teams should develop goalies is not really akin to how EHM deals with them. But even there with goalies .... if you leave in the minors til age 23 they can get better and better and better and get closer to achieving true potential IMHO.

If they (and any player) cannot achieve an above 8 average rating in the AHL in EHM....they IMHO are NOT ready for the NHL, unless they are one of those big ass forwards that just do well everywhere they go. And for goalies I am on the verge of changing that to an 8.3 and above average rating as saying are ready for the show to start as a backup and develop there.

[CJ]

Actually no offense jhc, but I have known who Timmeh was since he was 20.

None taken.

I'd compare Gibsons potential to Malcolm Subban or Zachary Fucale (though he's younger), and why not Jake Allen also... But still, I know goalies potentials are the hardest to predict in the young age (the draft is the real proof of that). And I won't rate them as superstar potential (= -10), that would be Brodeur, Roy, Hasek potential.

[Peter_Doherty]

Is the goalies at the start still overrated on purpose to deal with the high scoring? if so then the prospects need to be overrated aswell (Lehner suddenly a -10 instead of -9?)

[philou21]

Fucale is really hard to predict IMO. He did really well in the Q but he had/has a really good team in front of him. Plus he has a small shape so I don't know how it will look like for him in the AHL/NHL in the futur.

Subban got more potential then him IMO.

[CJ]

Is the goalies at the start still overrated on purpose to deal with the high scoring? if so then the prospects need to be overrated aswell (Lehner suddenly a -10 instead of -9?)

I don't know about that stuff. After the ratings are done, there has to be a lot o simulations and testings to see how it all works out. You mean in 6.0 & 6.1 there were too many goals scored?

[Peter_Doherty]

Is the goalies at the start still overrated on purpose to deal with the high scoring? if so then the prospects need to be overrated aswell (Lehner suddenly a -10 instead of -9?)

I don't know about that stuff. After the ratings are done, there has to be a lot o simulations and testings to see how it all works out. You mean in 6.0 & 6.1 there were too many goals scored?

Not in 6.0 and 6.1, original DB had way too many goals scored and i know that at some point in some edition of the db they made the goalies alot better to try and fix it. Maybe that was reverted when they started messing with the consistency instead.

[philou21]

But they only dropped fowards consistency to try to drop goals amount. They let consistency of goalies and d-men normal to give them to occasion of been better.

[Peter_Doherty]

But they only dropped fowards consistency to try to drop goals amount. They let consistency of goalies and d-men normal to give them to occasion of been better.

I know, i never said anything else, did i?

[philou21]

.....I was just replying lol Doesn't seems like you knew it if you asked that.

[batdad]

Like with all the prospects...be careful about over rating goalie prospects. You could very easily end up with too many goalies in the league at 1 time with top level CAs and #s if you do so. For example, if you rate Fucale, Allen, Gibson, Subban all as -9...that is 5 goalies in a very short time frame in terms of age that COULD easily turn out in the top level elite in the NHL. Then you would have those 5 plus the other goalies within a 10 year age span (say 3-5 of them) with super high CAs and then a few more coming after them.

That will then lead to a constant cycle of having 10-15 goalies with elite level status in the game. That will then lead to problems with the accuracy of the game and DB when you have half the teams in the league with top level goalies.

Just works exactly the same way if you underrate.

At the most, for every couple of years of birth you should be rating 2-3 goalies with the top level prospect PA....or you will end up with too much CA. Or if you rate too many NHL potential goalies too low....you end up with 20-25 teams with scrub goalies at the top level of the game....and the goal rate will be too high to portray accuracy.

Simple study says...elite goalies come along what ...1 in every 3 or 4 years? 2 or 3? 5? Certainly NOT one per year which is what the #s above are suggesting. You only get SUPERSTAR, FRANCHISE goalies once every few years.

So if you rate all 5 of the listed above that is

Allen-birth year 1990
Gibson birth year 1993
Malcolm Subban birth year 1993
Zach Fucale 1995

Right there you have the possibilty of 4 goalies within 5 birth years being superstars.

That is too many in my humble opinion.

If you take ALlen out that is 3 goalies in 3 years of birth. Definitely too many.

Maybe that is a statistical anomoly in terms of birth year providing 3 superstar goalies. Or one providing 2 (1993)....but I am pretty sure that the guys from Brodeur birth year....and draft year that there were not that many

Lets see

drafted highest with 90 birthday...TRevor Kidd (then Brodeur)

Felix Potvin, Trevor Kidd (72), Mike Dunham (72), Mike Lenarduzzi (like 4 spots after dunham--72), David Goverde (70),Greg Louder (71), some other guy (70), Mike Bales (71), Denis Casey (71),Roman Turek *(70), Jeff Levy (70),Mike Power (71) iN FIRST SEVEN ROUNDS.


Later rounds saw Tommy Soderstrom, Corey Schwab, and an unkown (meaning never heard of him) guy taken.

So look at this...

When that draft happened...

There were at least 3 goalies touted as stars at draft time...

Kidd, Brodeur, Potvin (and possibly dunham)

By draft position you can see at least those three plus

Dunham, Lenarduzzi,Goverde, and the next 2-3 in line as starters.

Then the rest...would not have been touted so highly.

And of those...what did you get?

1 star--Brodeur
2 starters-Potvin, and possibly for a shrot time Dunham
and a bunch of scrubs including Trevor Kidd who was touted as THE GUY.

Then in the later rounds....

SOderstrom, Turek, Schwab as guys who played legit times in the league as decent


But you see..3 guys touted as what we would say -9 potential. And how many achieved that high level potential as their CA.

Exactly 1.

Then look at the next draft year...

1st goalie taken--

Andrew Verner in 2nd round
Jamie Maclennan-3rd round
Chris Osgood-3rd round
Marcel Couseneau-3rd
Milan Hnlicka-4th
Dan Ryder-5th
Steve Shields-5th
Jerome Butler-5th
Pauli Jaks-5th
Jack Callinan-5th
Corey Hirsch-8th
Roch Belley-8th
8 unknowns plus Neil little, Andrei Trefilov and Mike Veisor after the 8th round.

Of those..how many goalies would have been given -9 potential or talked about as super prospects at the time.

Probably....and this is stretching it the first 4 (stretch because three were in third round.

How many ended up even playing in the NHL for any length of time as a starter?

ONE...CHRIS OSGOOD....and was he a Franchise goalie? no...

So you see what I mean...we speak about these guys...4 within a 5 year period in the draft as star potential guys.

We have to be realistic and see that maybe ....possibly....2 of them will turn out that way.

Now...EHM does some good in that in the fact that the AI and the way things go, will probably destroy 1 or 2 of them in development. Injuries etc.....

But....you could very well end up with 5 guys in a 5 year period as studs.

I project that WILL not happen.

I mean go back through the draft and look at how guys would rank the players based on draft position and what they EXPECT because of that. How did it work for the drafts I just listed and any other draft.

It does not.

HEre is my projection of the 5.

ELite

1. Allen

Next level

Gibson

Next level

Subban,


Barely making an impact on the NHL--Fucale.

So see what I mean?

[Peter_Doherty]

I agree with what you said batdad, only have one thing to comment on. Lehner should be above them all

[batdad]

LOL

[CJ]

Looking at the CA's I've made there's 19 GK's over 150 CA+ (= -9). Their age is between 25-34. Calculating by that it means there should develope almost 2 (-9 or -10) goalies each year?

I took a look at some past goalies:
1963 Vanbiesbrouck, Vernon
1964 Hextall
1965 Roy, Belfour, Hasek, Barrasso
1966 Richter, Ranford
1967 Joseph, Hebert, Burke
1968 Hackett
1969
1970 Kölzig
1971 Potvin
1972 Brodeur, Osgood
1973 Khabibulin
1974 Thomas
1975 Turco, Nabokov
1976 Vokoun, Théodorer, Kiprusoff

25 goalies in 14 years that I would probably have rated over 150 (= -9).

[batdad]

Argh. I was thinking over 170 for. -9. I will look later.

[nino33]

For reference...


170+ would be either -10 (170-200), -9 (150-180) or -15 (110-190)

140-160 would be -8 (130-160) or -14 (90-160)

110-140 would be -7 (110-140), -6 (90-120) or -13 (60-130)


Clearly some options (such as -15) might result in a lower than desired potential...