@Young:
Was talking to a buddy at work who is also in a “pick a player in each box” type of pool, and I was telling him how I picked Anaheim’s goalie Gibson, but was pissed when I found out it was Anderson who got the shutout last night. He told me that in his pool, you pick two teams and you get the goalie points for those teams no matter who is in net. This made a lot of sense to me considering that only half the teams in the playoffs have bonified #1 goalies while the rest have starters on short leashes, and equally capable backups ready to jump in, not to mention an early injury to a star goalie that might kill any poolies hopes.
I have gone back and forth on this issue myself, because there have always been (and will always be) goalie controversies when doing this pool.
Currently, in the pool I run the assumed “starting” goalie for each playoff team is listed and you get to pick two… as you well know. I do my best to pick out who that goalie will actually be, especially given how reluctant teams are to publish that if there is anything approaching a “controversy”. If one of the goalies listed ends up not playing for any reason, you are kinda SOL. Which sucks. I do understand that.
It would be easier for me definitely) and for all of the pool players to just list the teams, say pick (2) of them and you get points for that team’s goalie(s) regardless of who it is or why they are playing.
However, my rationale for not doing so is this:
-
Everyone has the same choices and is therefore on equal footing. The same, obviously, can be said of the picking by the team method. But anyone can just pick two teams that they think are good or were in the regular season. The only two parts of my pool that really benefit from some level of NHL knowledge are the Wildcard and Goaltender boxes. This knowledge can be gained by anyone though, it just is usually had by those who pay attention to the league and are up on current happenings.
-
Simply picking goalies by teams (rather than by individuals) becomes more like a bracket and less like the type of pool that I find interesting.
-
Goaltender performance is an enigma and challenge to predict; that is true of most all teams, but definitely so for some teams in particular. This may be the result of long team history of goalie drama, goaltender inexperience, injury and poor late season performance, reputation as a playoff choker, among other factors. I believe that a pool such as the one I run, is simultaneously the most stressful and the most rewarding when you as the poolie have to weigh the factors of the individual goaltender you are choosing. This really makes you think about what teams you assume are going to do well.
- Take last year for example… I was one of the people who picked Corey Crawford and began cursing myself for doing so when Crawford had multiple terrible performances in the first round, to the point where he got benched and Scott Darling came in and began winning games. I very nearly thought I was ruined then and there, but fortunately they ended up starting Crawford for the rest of the playoffs. It was pretty inexplicable, but in hockey random stuff like that happens.
- Continuing from above, if only about half the teams in the playoffs have true No. 1 goalies who can be implicitly trusted as being “THE guy”, it forces you to predict what you think will happen. It is a hard thing to do, for sure, and most times it will be chalked up to a lucky guess, but you look really smart if you play it right… not to mention that your decisions can distance you from your competitors in a way that would be less possible if it was ‘pick by team’.
Ultimately, I think it more challenging and more interesting to weigh the pros and cons and play it safe on a reliable No.1 or gamble on a team/goaltender you just are not totally sure of. But like I said, everyone has the same choices, not everyone has the same knowledge or insight. That is where a degree of skill can benefit a longstanding hockey fan. There is a lot in hockey that is a crapshoot.