Lehner: Mediocre or the Goalie of the Future?

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Freud would have a field day with those acid trip charts, RF.

[dudacek]

Would you rather give Cam Ward a 1-year deal at $3MM, or Lehner 4 years x $5MM?

 

How about Anton Khudobin or Anti Raanta on a 1- or 2-year deal?

Very definitely Ward.

But only because I would expect him to complement Ullmark, rather than replace Lehner.

It would be a much different story if we were looking at a duo of Ward and Khudhobin going into next season.

Because there is no way we get a sniff of the playoffs with that duo.

 

I actually don’t think you and I are too far apart in this debate.

The major difference is that I see Lehner as a 12-25 ranked decent starter type and you see him as a 20-35 ranked replaceable part type.

 

I will also admit to a recency bias over his play.

Conversely, I think a lot of you are putting too much weight on his first year here.

 

And I think it is kind of ridiculous how much weight is being given to the idea that the hapless Buffalo Sabres are somehow making Lehner look good.

Edited January 3, 2018 by Mick O’Manly

[Eleven]

The debate going on in the Rangers GDT got me thinking.  Here's where I am on Lehner.  Remember Miro Satan, who could put up 30 goals on a regular basis, but most of them were in garbage time?  I kind of feel the same way about Lehner.  He's better than average until "the game is on his stick."  Then he's not good enough.

[darksabre]

The idea that we're making Lehner look good doesn't seem too far fetched to me. As was the case during the tank years and even now, this team wasn't capable of doing much else except play team defense. They haven't been able to muster good 5v5 play so protecting their goalie is basically all they've got.

 

I'd take Ward for a year over Lehner on a long term deal.

[erickompositör72]

And I think it is kind of ridiculous how much weight is being given to the idea that the hapless Buffalo ###### Sabres are somehow making Lehner look good.

 

Those charts don't lie

[SwampD]

Why do you do this Flagg

And the dark red on the right is just Pominville shooting into the goalie's chest to get a faceoff.

Edited January 3, 2018 by TräskB

[TrueBlueGED]

Cam Ward? I'm confused. Are we tanking next season? That guy hasn't given a starter-caliber performance over a season in about a decade.

[TheAud]

Or if he loses his focus in the playoffs and can't get it back.

 

 

Playoffs? Wouldn't that be great.

[dudacek]

Those charts don't lie

Do you think we would be winning every game 2-1 with a “good” starter like Jake Allen or Cam Talbot in net and they would be having save percentages of .230 under the Housley system?

Do you want to pay the price to acquire a “good” starter?

Do you think we make the playoffs next year with Mrazek, or Halak, or Howard or any of the goalies that might come cheaply?

[darksabre]

Cam Ward? I'm confused. Are we tanking next season? That guy hasn't given a starter-caliber performance over a season in about a decade.

He doesn't need to if he's just backing up Ullmark. With the assumption here being that they want to bring Ullmark up next year and are confident he'll be okay but have some rough patches. I think Cam could play 30 and win half of them.

[rakish]

Those charts don't lie

 

I don't think the charts mean what you guys think they mean.  Look at Ted's final year in Buffalo, he was famous for making the goaltender look good yet the chart makes it look like it's a disaster for the goaltender.

 

Trying to follow goaltenders that have moved around, Chad from old Buffalo to new Buffalo, Darling from Chicago in 16-17 to Carolina 17-18, I can't connect any preconceived notions about what the chart ought to look like, to what it actually looks like.

 

I think those charts might be useful as a comparison of goals against average, if anyone ever looks at goals against average, but I think it fails trying to tie the charts to save percentage because I think you are sliding between metrics.

 

My charts, which I'm not real happy with, show Lehner has saved the Sabres 11.5 goals, the league leader is generally around 30 if I remember correctly, so on pace for 23 is really good, if that has any meaning, which I'm not sure it does.

[erickompositör72]

Do you think we would be winning every game 2-1 with a “good” starter like Jake Allen or Cam Talbot in net and they would be having save percentages of .230 under the Housley system?

 

I think we would have >5 more wins than we currently do, and they would, indeed, have even better sv%'s

Do you want to pay the price to acquire a “good” starter?

 

Yes, but I am biased

Do you think we make the playoffs next year with Mrazek, or Halak, or Howard or any of the goalies that might come cheaply?

 

I think we'd have a much better chance, but it really depends on the team, the soundness of Housley's system, and his ability to implement it.

I don't think the charts mean what you guys think they mean.  

 

What do you think I think they mean?  :P

 

To sum up what I think they mean, I'll defer to the one who provided them originally:

 

Summarizing my points, Lehner has been around 30th at stopping high danger shots of all goalies in the league his whole time here. Our shot profile was meant to indicate that we don't give up a lot of those relative to the rest of the league as a team, rather we give up more shots than average that Lehner, and most goalies, have much higher save percentages against. I used this to explain Lehner's high save percentage relative to the, well, eyesore that is his style. I then put out some random teams that aren't as good at defending the slot as we are and said he wouldn't do well there.

[bunomatic]

Lehner needs his own worthiness thread. Oh wait. He has one.

[dudacek]

Lehner needs his own worthiness thread. Oh wait. He has one.

This is a good point.

If our gracious mods have an opportunity, all this Lehner talk would better be moved there.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Cam Ward? I'm confused. Are we tanking next season? That guy hasn't given a starter-caliber performance over a season in about a decade.

 

Correct.  It was 2006.  :censored: