Buppy

Really? How is Fowler better than Barrie? Ristolainen is emerging as one of the top scoring defensemen in the league, and plays huge minutes, all situations. Reilly is maybe the most debatable, but he plays a similar role and produces at a similar rate to Fowler. What makes you think Fowler is so much better?

Seriously? Ok, keep Howard or replace him with an established #1. Feel better? Do I really need to type out the qualifier every time? Because that has been the argument since the beginning. " you better trade for an established number 1 goaltender to fill his spot " " But if you're gung-ho about getting rid of Howard, you best trade for an established number 1 NHL calibre goalie " " if Howard is traded away, Holland better find another goalie to work with Mrazek " I've said all along I don't care about Mrazek's consistency, because Howard isn't any better. Replacing Howard with an average backup doesn't make us any worse. You keep wanting to make it about Mrazek's consistency, despite me saying numerous times it's a different argument. In regards to that argument: Let's say you have two goalies, both played exactly 231 games. 4 years as a regular starter basically. One has a stdev of .07227, the other is .05752. What does that difference mean in real terms? How does that help you decide which is better? What kind of different performance would you expect from one to the next? Can you glean anything remotely useful from that? The reason I lumped the save%s into ranges is because it gives useful information on what you might expect. To post a save%of .950 or higher means allowing one goal or less most of the time. Two if you face 40+ shots. In either case, your team should have an exceptional chance to win the game. .920 but below .950 is mostly going to be two goals, and again a good chance to win. Excellent chance if you're keeping the shots low, but getting risky if allowing a lot. .89-.92 you need to either keep the shots against low, or do a lot of scoring of your own. Most likely a game that could go either way for most teams. .85-89 you really need the rest of the team to bail you out. Usually going to be 3 or 4 goals, fair chance for an OT point if the shots are lowish and the offense is good. Below that is either giving up 4+ goals or getting pulled early, either way probably a loss. If you want more data: 94.00% 2.4% 6.1% 93.00% 8.0% 6.9% 92.00% 10.4% 5.2% 91.00% 5.6% 5.2% 90.00% 8.8% 6.1% 89.00% 5.6% 3.5% 88.00% 2.4% 6.1% 87.00% 3.2% 4.8% 86.00% 1.6% 2.6% 85.00% 3.2% 2.2%

Barrie, Ristolainen, Reilly.

And none of that address the question of why we need to keep Howard. Secondly, standard deviation doesn't really mean anything. A large percentage of any goalies stdev is going to come from a small number of games that are well below the norm (below because you can't go much higher). So if Mrazek is in fact prone to 1 or 2 extra complete s*** games in a full season, so what? >95% 32.00% 38.53% 92-95% 20.80% 18.18% 89-92% 20.00% 14.72% 85-89% 10.40% 15.58% <85% 16.80% 12.99% The above is two goalies, 125+ games each, and the percentage of games in each save% range. What really is the difference there?

Debatable, but also irrelevant. If it's a problem for Mrazek, it's a problem for Howard. So why do we need, or want, both?

But if you have similar feelings and concerns about both, I don't understand why having both is better. I guess there's situations like this year, where one is playing well while the other is slumping, but you'll also have spells where both are bad or both are good. I'd rather have the extra cap space and a roster spot open for someone else who could potentially become our future, particularly right now during a rebuild when it's less important. In regards to the bold: If you look into goaltending data, high and low extremes are actually far more common than "average" performances. In any given game, giving up 2 or fewer goals is probably going to be above average, while 3 or more is below. It's pretty rare for a goalie to be completely consistent with an "above" game, then a "below" game (much less above and below by equal amounts). So even when you go out to a 5 or even 10 game stretch, chances are it's going to be either above or below average. In some cases (and I'm guessing probably much less rare than people would think) it can be well above or below. Even when you look at full season stats for a goalie it's fairly common to have some significant variation year to year. But when you get a good sample size, like 100+ games, it should give you a good idea about what a goalie is. Mrazek may or may not be prone to unusually long "down" periods and conversely, unusually long "up" periods, but it's more likely that it's just a fluke. In the future, we should probably expect a more normal distribution of both. But regardless, based on his career to date, we should expect a more high than low, with all of it adding up to fairly average.

It could be argued that all three of those teams have a defenseman as good or better than Fowler. Not saying Mantha for Fowler would be a terrible move, but in general when rebuilding it's assets like Mantha that you want to keep.

Well I'm not entirely sold that Coreau is an NHL goalie, but more or less yes. Regardless of the red flags, we do not need "an established #1" as you said earlier in order to justify getting rid of Howard. We only need a solid backup. I brought up Howard because you are saying we can't get rid of him unless we get a reliable starter. I'm not sure how to make this any more clear. If Mrazek is not the answer for our future goaltending, and Howard is not the answer...then we don't have an answer. How is it worse to also not have an answer without Howard? I'm not saying getting rid of Howard is the solution to our goaltending future. I'm saying keeping him is not. Whether or not Mrazek is our future is a separate issue. If he's not, then we also need to get rid of him. Ok, maybe you're not saying I think Mrazek will be elite, but you mention it in every post as if someone is arguing that. In the previous post you said: " What I'm arguing is that Mrazek is not necessarily the god that everyone made him out to be early in his career and continue to do so despite evidence to the contrary." So if that wasn't directed at me, who was it directed at and why did you include it in a reply to me? And I didn't say you thought anything about Mrazek or Howard. I was asking you if that is what you thought. There's a difference. I'll try to be more direct. Do you think Mrazek is particularly likely to be anything less than what he has been so far in his career; good at times, bad at times, overall pretty average? Or do you think he has not been average overall in his career? Do you think Howard is particularly likely to be anything more than what he has been so far in his career; good at times, bad at times, overall pretty average?

Columbus is not a good possession team. If it's a focus for them, they aren't very good at focusing. The Wings may suck at it this year, but given our history, suggesting it's not something the organization values is idiotic. The Wings are the main reason "possession" is even a thing in the NHL.

Actually, I'm saying 20+ players with NTCs were traded in the last TWO seasons, including this one, plus the summer prior to last season. If I were to go back to the 2014 trade deadline, it'd probably be 30+. Dave Bolland, Derick Brassard, Bryan Bickell, Niklas Backstrom, John-Michael Liles, Alex Tanguay, Eric Staal, Rob Scuderi (twice), Andrew Ladd, Raffi Torres, Dion Phanuef, Colin Greening, Milan Michalek, Vincent Lecavalier, Luke Schenn, Patrick Sharp, Trevor Daley, Troy Brouwer, Phil Kessel, Kevin Bieksa. Might have missed a couple. Obviously Howard is unlikely to be traded right now. But if he comes back and finishes strong, there'd be a chance during the summer. By your logic, Mrazek would be equally impossible to trade. What you're arguing is a strawman. I'm not saying Mrazek is going to be elite. I don't think anyone is. That is not the reason I think we should try to move Howard. I'm saying it doesn't matter. If Mrazek has red flags and isn't reliable and isn't the answer, and Howard has red flags and isn't reliable and isn't the answer...WHY do we need someone who is in order to get rid of Howard? (Or Mrazek for that matter.) How do we get worse by swapping one unreliable non-answer for a different, cheaper, unreliable non-answer? Do you just think Mrazek sucks? That what we've seen from him this year is likely to continue? Because if you actually look at his career, that is just as absurd as thinking he's likely to become elite, and far, far, far more absurd than thinking he could solid, mid-range starter.

Where did that info come from? Everything I've seen says it's the same as last year, with just the first 3 picks being lottery. We'd have a chance at one of those, but otherwise we'd be 8-11 (by today's standings).

But I'm not looking at just the first half of his career. I'm looking at all of it. His entire career, including playoffs...all the good, all the bad, all the ugly. 125 games, 111 starts, 6828 minutes, 3271 shots against. Over that period he has a .917 sv%, .577 QS%, 2.39 GAA. Respectable numbers. The sample may be small, but it's everything there is. In regards to the recent stats, Howards numbers from 2014 through today: .912 sv%, .52 QS%, 2.52 GAA. Even going back to 2012: .914 sv%, .583 QS%, 2.47 GAA. You're basically saying there is a high chance that a 100+ game sample might be anomalous, while also saying there's a high chance that a 17 or 21 game sample isn't. You can't have it both ways.

The only "random sampling" going on here is from you. Looking at the entirety of the careers for both players, the stats are nearly identical. In the most recent years (which as you say is more relevant, plus also removes possible bias from the team in front of them) the stats tip in Mrazek's favor. This year it's tipped to Howard. But also looking at this year, both are far from their career numbers. Given the small sample size, we should conclude that what we've seen this year is an anomaly, and should not be expected to continue. Most likely going forward both will trend back toward their norm. Again, it has nothing to do with Mrazek being the future or a potential star. That doesn't matter. Over the course of 7 seasons Howard has shown he is just an average starter. He's not going to be more than that. Mrazek has shown the same thing. So why do we need both? If your answer is because of this year, you are doing the exact thing you've been mocking others for doing. It's a stat from hockey-reference.com. A start with a sv% > the league average for that season, or at least .885 if facing 20 or fewer shots. For players with NTCs, I stopped counting when I got to 20-ish. That was going back to the summer before last season.

Oh I see, you're saying Scotty retained the player personnel role even after Holland was made GM. I'm not sure if that's true, but I don't think it matters. Of course the coach, regardless of his official authority, is going to have input on the roster. And of course losing off-ice talent can hurt a team just like losing on-ice talent. I don't think any of that adds to the silly attempts to discredit Holland.

You should probably look at Howard again. And also Mrazek. And also note that the world existed prior to the start of this season. Mrazek has 58 quality starts, in 101 career starts. A slightly better percentage than Howards 205 of 373. 53 of 93 in the last 3 years for Mrazek, 52 of 98 for Howard. Ignoring this year, 46 of 75 for Mrazek and 42 of 83 for Howard. Howard has been the better goalie this year. Mrazek was better the last two. And players with NTCs get traded pretty frequently. Well durn, that might just stop us from winning the cup. But at least it's fun to see you confirm that your attachment to Howard is based on 17 games, after you were so incredulous that people could think something positive about Mrazek after just 80-ish.

I don't think anyone has an issue with the idea that Mrazek might not become anything special. Some here have suggested giving up on Mrazek (though I kind of think #9 is just trolling with all that), and I'd think quite a few would take issue with that, but not with reasonable skepticism. Beyond that though, if you acknowledge that both goalies have reliability questions, what difference does it make if we get rid of one? If we don't have a long-term solution now with both, how it worse if we also don't have a long-term solution with just Mrazek? We'd need a solid backup, and that's it. Hopefully, Coreau can show at least that much while Howard is out, and we won't need to even worry about that. Then we can start worrying about whether we need to upgrade.

Oh come on. If it's asinine to hand the reins to Mrazek, how is it any less so to keep Howard, who has shown the exact same unreliability over the course of 7 years? If anything, you should think keeping both is the absolute worst thing we could do. Getting rid of one would at least create the opportunity for someone more reliable, plus ease our cap situation. And if we're getting rid of one, Howard makes the most sense. There is no future commitment. Mrazek may or may not be the long-term answer, but it should be pretty obvious by now that Howard for sure is not. What baffles me is that people can mock the hype for Mrazek while simultaneously jerking themselves raw over a 17 game stretch from Howard.

Scotty was director of player personnel. If he wanted someone he could do it himself. Since he was also the coach, he might not have done all the leg-work, but yeah, he was making roster decisions. It was literally part of his job description. That's all common knowledge. I don't know what point you're trying to make.

That's very misleading. It's never been a tandem. Mrazek started 9 of the first 12. Howard took over and started 8 out of 9, got hurt, then after coming back started 4 of 6. So 12 of 15 total while healthy after taking over as the starter.

You really need both a good offense and a good defense (including good goaltending). Of the last 11 Cup winners, 8 have been top-8 in scoring, and 5 in the top-3. 9 have been top-7 on defense, 6 finished 1st or 2nd. Our problem this year is we're just not very good at anything. No doubt the offense is worse, but the defense isn't helping either.

And the Wings are notably above that average, but I'm sure you'll just ignore that again. Saying Sheahan and Smith wouldn't be in the NHL is just laughable. Probably wasting my time here, but this is a very poor analysis. Sure, if people had the delusion that the Wings were somehow exceptional at finding stars with late picks, you're right. That was never true, and it isn't true with anyone. Picking outside the top half of the first round gives only around a 5% chance of getting a notably good player, and less than 1% of a star. (Goalies are an exception, since fairly few are even picked before the 3rd round.) That should not be the criteria for measuring draft success. Even looking at picks in just the first 3 rounds the chance of finding a star is very low, and that includes defense. From 2002-2011, there were 232 defensemen drafted between 19th and 90th. Keith, Subban, Burns, and Weber are the only stars. Maybe Letang. About a dozen more good players. ~8% of getting a good player. The Wings have picked 5 of those 232. It's not unusual or even particularly unlucky to not find anyone that good. Only 13 teams have. 5 teams have been lucky enough to find two. 4 of the 5 we drafted at least became regular NHL players, although Kindl is kind of a fringe player. On the whole, only about 25% of players selected in that range make the NHL. We may not be the very best in the league, but we are definitively above average. Kindl, Smith, and Sheahan are not actually subpar, considering the position. They are significantly better than average just by making the NHL. They are about average even counting just the NHL players. I think once again this is a case of the Wings' success setting a ridiculous standard in the minds of fans.

I have to challenge your conclusion. By my count, 57 of those players either never played in the NHL, or only played a little. Another 12 are borderline; played maybe a few years. Only 31 are career players. The Wings got 5 or 6 career players (Jurco could still slip to borderline), 2 borderline, and 2 busts. That is well above average. While we weren't lucky enough to land a star like Getzlaf, we did get some very good players in Franzen, Hudler, and Howard. (In addition to several good players selected outside the arbitrary "first pick in a given year" limit.) Getting star players outside the high first round is pretty much all luck. It happens, but it's very rare. But getting good players who eventually become NHL players is likely far more of a skill (both the drafting and development). By any reasonable measurement, the Wings are very good at it. One of and possibly even the best in the league. Is this going to be a thing now? Are we really going to spend the whole year trying to prove that the Wings are the worst everything in the history of anything? Don't people ever get tired of being miserable? You have to go data mining for ways to be even more miserable, then not even bother to actually do any analysis and just draw a miserable conclusion anyway?

I rest my case.

You are suggesting that we can fix our offense by replacing a struggling NHL scorer with a struggling AHL scorer. If you genuinely need an argument to prove that wrong, I suspect there's no argument you would accept.

In the drafts from 2005-2013 (more recent drafts are too soon to judge), looking at picks between 19-35 (which is the range of most of our first picks): (Groupings might be a bit subjective, and some of the more recent players might move up or down, but it shouldn't make much difference.) 82 of 153 (53.6%) either never made the NHL or played only a short time. 35 (22.9%) are regular NHL players, but not particularly good ones. 25 (16.3%) are pretty good. 11 (7.2%) are impact players. For the Wings picks: 2 of 7 - 28.6% (McCollum and Ferraro) fall in the bust category. Maybe you could put Kindl there too, he's kind of borderline. 3 of 7 - 42.9% (Sheahan, Smith, and Jurco) in the 2nd group. Again, maybe Kindl. Mantha maybe too early to tell, but so far seems the third group is likely. 14.3% there. No impact players seem likely, though I suppose Mantha has a chance. So overall, a little better at finding NHL talent, but a little worse for finding higher-end talent. We also had a few trades. 29th pick for 41 & 47, which ended up being Emmerton and Matthias. Bust there. 19th pick for Quincey. That would probably go in the 2nd group. Plus picked up a few extra picks trading down, but still in the 19-35 range: Nestrasil, Ouellet, and Bertuzzi. All in all, given the low probability of finding a high-end player, doing so is more luck than anything.