View Single Post
11-19-2012, 03:42 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 591
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
CG presented rather incomplete and biased data previously. HE WAS CAUGHT.
For the record, I pointed out in the original post that the data was incomplete. The exact quote: "The numbers are not fully complete, but a significant majority of the season is covered." I sourced the data, since it was not my own work, I posted the correct numbers as presented by the original compiler, and I offered to share the data with anybody who wanted to see it. Anybody who is part of the Hockey Summary Project group on Yahoo Sports can download their own copy.

When you raised valid concerns about the incompleteness and possible bias to the data, I recalculated the numbers to account for the missing information and posted them. I have also referred to the potential data issues every time I have brought them up since. The suggestion that I was or am trying to hide something does not match the facts of the situation.

Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Now there is another introduction of the mystery hand to support or bring down certain goalies. The undercounting of shots as in the case of Belfour,
There is no mystery hand, only evidence. I am not the only poster in this thread who has brought it up, see BM67's post which does a great job of presenting the case.

Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
This first started with Martin Brodeur - victim of CG"s blog, now the tactic is extended to Belfour,Durnan, maybe others. So according to CG, SOGS and SV% cannot be trusted because of undercounting or incomplete or inaccurate data. But CG is constantly presenting data based on SOG and SV% yet somehow this data is not tainted.Factor in that he was caught presenting incomplete data - five minutes of work short of completion, that presented a false picture.
The subjectivity of the home scorer can be a source of bias, but it is a consistent source of bias since they usually record games the same way night after night. This means it can be adjusted for, and the best way to deal with under- or overcounting is to look at the evidence, assess the likely magnitude of the effect, and add that back in to the goalie's stats. Another option when there is suspicion of unusual shot counting is to look at road save percentages to try to remove the effect. I have used both methods.

That does not mean that save percentages cannot be trusted, it merely means that there is an additional variable that should be considered in some cases. It's no different than taking into account team effects like shot quality for goalies on strong or weak defensive teams.

Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
CGs points are based on multiple conspiracy theories.

1.) That there was a demonstrable effort to name the Vezina winner as the first AST goalie. But what was the numerical gap in goals allowed between the Vezina winner and the runner-up and/
or third place goalie? Why would writers or coaches engage in such a practice? What would be the actual benefit to coaches to do so? What goes around comes around - coaches especially would only be hurting their own players - payback voting at other positions. What would be the benefit to GMs to game the Vezina voting?
Three conspiracies would have to hold - writers, coaches and GMs over a period of well over 70 seasons for this to have legs.
I have never claimed there was an effort to name the Vezina winner as the first AST goalie. In the original post on my blog where I pointed out the fact that the two were nearly always awarded to the same goalie, I in fact stated that I think that the voters were sincerely trying to pick the best goalie, and were probably largely unaware of how much weight they were putting on GAA in their evaluations. I still hold that opinion.

Subjective evaluations are influenced by stats, that should not be a controversial statement. Look at the goal totals and plus/minus numbers for Selke Trophy winners, for example. It is very difficult to separate the goalie from the rest of the team. That's why many voters have posted about how difficult this project has been so far.

Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
2.) Undercounting first Brodeur now Durnan and Belfour. Throw in Nashville, maybe Florida so 4 out of 30 teams are not reliable, app 14% of the goalie stats - SOGs, SV% since 1993-94 are unreliable.
Interesting conspiracy amongst 4 NHL arenas. To what benefit? Who benefits from such undercounting? Well CG benefits by using the generated stats as if they were accurate yet disclaiming them when it is necessary to promote or denegrate a goalie.
Again, no conspiracy is required. RTSS stats vary from rink to rink, and there is some subjectivity in recording shots. Nobody has to benefit for this to be the case, it's simple operator error. Two humans will not always perceive the same event in the same way.

My only response to the suggestion that I am using scorer bias as a way to make the numbers fit my preconceived conceptions is to point out that I was originally a skeptic that shot counting was a significant issue. I changed my mind when others presented convincing arguments that it needed to be taken into account. I have almost seven years' worth of posts online that show that I have changed my opinion on a number of topics based on evidence, and when the voting records of this project are released they will show that I have changed my opinion a number of times already based on arguments other voters have presented.

Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
The Durnan undercounting argument is especially interesting. Two considerations. Same era as the "phantom assists" awarded Red Wings to the detriment of Maurice Richard - long disproven. Then there is the debate about frequency of assists in the various NHL from the 1920s thru the O6 era. Why would the stat keeping in a rink be so inconsistent? What is the benefit? Again if Durnan's stats are tainted then so are the stats of all the goalies who played against him. Yet only Bill Durnan gets punished.
I never claimed that Durnan's shots were definitely undercounted, I pointed out that there may have been potential undercounting because his home shots against rate was lower than his road shots against rate by 5.6 shots per 60 minutes of play, as recorded by S. Klages from the newspaper data.

Furthermore, goalies aren't punished when an adjustment is made for potential undercounting at their home rinks. Such an adjustment adds back the shots that were assumed to have been missed, thereby increasing the goalie's save percentage. It was in fact being charitable to Durnan to suggest it is possible that he may have got credit for fewer saves in Montreal than he otherwise deserved.

Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
But your admitted biased presentation has further tainted the project. You only make disclaimers and changes when caught. You are basically using the Broad Street Bullies approach to this project.No one, individually or collectively, has the time to verify everything you post so enough nonsense gets thru to influence the results.

The data you post lacks integrity.
If you have specific examples of "nonsense" or data lacking integrity, please bring them up, because I don't appreciate generic and baseless accusations.

And I am not "admitting bias" at all. The whole point of bringing new information to the table is to have other people consider it and weigh in. Sometimes that new information is valuable, sometimes it is limited, that's the point of having a discussion with a group of expert voters. If you want to disregard that data because it doesn't meet your standards, then feel free to disregard it. And if you want to change the mind of the people who don't have Durnan rated as highly as you do (and it's not just me), make a good argument for him. I appreciate your efforts in the last post, although it seemed to completely omit the impact of WWII on the NHL from 1942-43 to 1943-44, and I don't agree that a goalie must have deserved a First All-Star Team because his team was weak offensively.

As for combining GVT numbers going back to 1944, the inventor of the metric Tom Awad did that in an article on the top goalies of all-time for Puck Prospectus, where he rates Durnan fairly highly based on his GAA results. I think it is important to compare across eras, and not just based on All-Star/Vezina voting, but I accept the criticism that it is better to avoid doing so where possible because the metric is based on different statistics for different years.

ContrarianGoaltender is offline   Reply With Quote