View Single Post
08-15-2012, 10:06 AM
#60
wgknestrick
Registered User

Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,290
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Czech Your Math I agree that PP and PK effectiveness should be factored out and attributed first if possible. As I said in my post, and you seem to agree, it's very possible that goalies are being given too much credit for the difference between their SV% and threshold. However, just to be clear, GVT's author says that goalies on the same team have only a 15% correlation in SV%, but he does not fully attribute the value from the difference between goalie's SV% and threshold (4% more goals than league avg.) to the goalie, not even 85%. He attributes only 75% of this value to the goalie and terms it "Goalie Responsibility." The question is whether that 75% is the right number and whether the other thresholds (such as 75% of team's avg. per-minute scoring production) are fair and whether other parts of the system are accurate/fair.
I think we are starting to come to the conclusion that the adjustment may not be the same % allocation for team/goalie for every team. While 15% (or 25%) may work as an NHL average, there are certain teams at the extremes where that % may need to be adjusted based on PK minutes and success during those minutes. I think we may be able to borrow from some of the great work on expected goals for goalies that use these inputs.

Teams should shoulder more of the scaled SV% credit with 5v4 min/5v5 minutes as the deciding factor or input.

This still comes back to the tough GVT pill to swallow of a single player costing his team 20+ goals over a replacement goalie. I can't see that ever being the case (unless I personally was playing goalie for said team). NHL goalies just aren't "bad" to that order of magnitude outside of MAF in the 2012 playoffs.

I think offensive GVT is just about perfect, and we may be able to refine dGVT and gGVT to match it.

Does anyone have a GVT calculating spreadsheet to start from?