Quoting: OldNYIfan
It's a chicken-and-egg conundrum -- is Gibson bad because the team is bad, or is the team bad because Gibson is bad?
In the first half of the season, while the team was completely healthy, Gibson was 15-10-8 and was only one of nine starting goalies with a save rate over 92% and a GAA under 2.5, and the team was in a playoff spot. Since then, the team has stunk and Gibson's numbers have collapsed. But last night's game was typical -- Gibson made 29 saves on 32 shots, but some of those saves wouldn't have been made by at least half of the starting goalies in the NHL. And one game in the current string of ten consecutive losses the Ducks have suffered his save rate was 92.9%.
You can argue that his numbers aren't good, but numbers are just facts; facts aren't truth. I have no doubt that if Gibson played for Boston, say, his numbers would be better than their two goalies' numbers, and that Gibson will be our starting goaltender for at least the next three seasons.
He's allowed 3 or more goals in every single one of his last 15 starts. His GSAx over that span is -22.76!! You can't blame the team for that - not when Stolarz posted a GSAx of +2.23 in 7 games in the same span.
Here are their stats from the past 2 months:
Stolarz: 2-1-1, 2.44 GAA, .922 sv%
Gibson: 2-12-1, 4.61 GAA, .860 sv%
Stolarz hasn't had an easier ride, either:
Stolarz: 2.83 xGA/60, 9.59 HDSA/60, 3.14 Rush Attempts Against/60
Gibson: 2.89 xGA/60, 9.22 HDSA/60, 1.81 Rush Attempts Against/60
The Ducks season is in the toilet because they insist on starting Gibson when he's clearly struggling. That's not in the defense, that's on Gibson and Eakins.