HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Los Angeles Kings
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Kings v. Leafs: Post Game 3 in a row THOUGHTS & TIDBITS

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-27-2010, 11:03 PM
  #151
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
 
Ziggy Stardust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 32,740
vCash: 500
Here are some numbers to swallow:

Jon Quick's record when he has a Save % over .900: 37-17
Jon Quick's record when he has a Save % under .900: 13-27

More often than not, his save percentage is over .900, giving the Kings a greater chance of winning. Here is the game-to-game save percentage of all 17 losses in which Quick's save percentage was .900 or above:

1.000 (shootout loss)
0.967
0.964
0.958
0.951
0.947
0.938
0.933
0.933
0.923
0.917
0.917
0.914
0.914
0.913
0.909
0.905

I list those numbers to prove that even he keeps the Kings in games, even in losses, he gives the team a higher probability of winning, more so than the painful excuses for starters we had to endure, notably, Jason LaBarbera.

Ziggy Stardust is offline  
Old
01-27-2010, 11:28 PM
  #152
BigKing
Spot Picker
 
BigKing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Belmont Shore, CA
Posts: 3,504
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust View Post
Here are some numbers to swallow:

Jon Quick's record when he has a Save % over .900: 37-17
Jon Quick's record when he has a Save % under .900: 13-27

More often than not, his save percentage is over .900, giving the Kings a greater chance of winning. Here is the game-to-game save percentage of all 17 losses in which Quick's save percentage was .900 or above:

1.000 (shootout loss)
0.967
0.964
0.958
0.951
0.947
0.938
0.933
0.933
0.923
0.917
0.917
0.914
0.914
0.913
0.909
0.905

I list those numbers to prove that even he keeps the Kings in games, even in losses, he gives the team a higher probability of winning, more so than the painful excuses for starters we had to endure, notably, Jason LaBarbera.
...And Ziggy delivers a huge left hook out of nowhere.

This is fun.

BigKing is offline  
Old
01-27-2010, 11:30 PM
  #153
KingsRule
Registered User
 
KingsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: SoCal
Country: United States
Posts: 2,952
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to KingsRule
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigKing View Post
...And Ziggy delivers a huge left hook out of nowhere.

This is fun.
it doesnt matter. the dude will never admit hes fighting a lost cause..

KingsRule is offline  
Old
01-27-2010, 11:30 PM
  #154
DIEHARD the King fan
Registered User
 
DIEHARD the King fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: blueline to slot
Country: United States
Posts: 6,244
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust View Post
Here are some numbers to swallow:

Jon Quick's record when he has a Save % over .900: 37-17
Jon Quick's record when he has a Save % under .900: 13-27

More often than not, his save percentage is over .900, giving the Kings a greater chance of winning. Here is the game-to-game save percentage of all 17 losses in which Quick's save percentage was .900 or above:

1.000 (shootout loss)
0.967
0.964
0.958
0.951
0.947
0.938
0.933
0.933
0.923
0.917
0.917
0.914
0.914
0.913
0.909
0.905

I list those numbers to prove that even he keeps the Kings in games, even in losses, he gives the team a higher probability of winning, more so than the painful excuses for starters we had to endure, notably, Jason LaBarbera.
Thanks for the compilation Ziggy. I gets irksome to hear someone (you can all guess who) constantly use meaningless stats to try to prove a point. I think however that the numbers you just used are far more useful in showing just how effective Quick has been as a goalie for us, far more than all his recent predecessors.

Maybe next we'll hear (again) how despite the PP having only one goal in, what is it, the last six or seven games, there is really nothing wrong with it at all.


Last edited by DIEHARD the King fan: 01-27-2010 at 11:56 PM.
DIEHARD the King fan is offline  
Old
01-27-2010, 11:38 PM
  #155
DIEHARD the King fan
Registered User
 
DIEHARD the King fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: blueline to slot
Country: United States
Posts: 6,244
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Dutch View Post
... I look at both the games and the results.




... How many soft goals did he allow in that game? A couple? That's just A-OK with you? And whether you like to hear it or not, he IS poor on "big" saves. Hey, the truth hurts, I guess? Put a label on it however you like -- "fantasy stats", whatever. The results don't agree with your assertions. It's that simple.
You know I was at the Buffalo Game when Quick outplayed Ryan Miller and those not so big saves in the shootout and at the end of the game weren't really that big, were they?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Dutch View Post
... Well, it's all in the eye of the beholder. Again, if the quality of the shots are low, that signifies overrated to me. It may not to other people. Obviously we've seen his numbers drop like a stone as the shot quality against him has become better. The evidence shows that he's terrible at stopping high-quality shots, he saves less than 70% of them.
The little I know about statistics is that they are supposed to be OBJECTIVE. When you factor a SUBJECTIVE analysis, like quality into a statistic, OBJECTIVITY is no longer present. So I cant really place much credence in the "low quality", "average quality" and "high quality" shot analysis. That said, there are alot of reasons even a "low quality" shot can go in, such as screens, interference, tips, etc.

Having watched almost every game this season, I'm convinced that Quick is one of the best things to happen to this team in a LONG TIME, you meaningless statistics notwithstanding.


Last edited by DIEHARD the King fan: 01-27-2010 at 11:58 PM.
DIEHARD the King fan is offline  
Old
01-27-2010, 11:43 PM
  #156
DIEHARD the King fan
Registered User
 
DIEHARD the King fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: blueline to slot
Country: United States
Posts: 6,244
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quattro View Post
who has a better % than 100%?
I could tell you that secret, but I'd have to kill right after!

DIEHARD the King fan is offline  
Old
01-27-2010, 11:56 PM
  #157
KingsRule
Registered User
 
KingsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: SoCal
Country: United States
Posts: 2,952
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to KingsRule
Quote:
Originally Posted by DIEHARD the King fan View Post
The little I know about statistics is that they are supposed to be OBJECTIVE. When you factor a SUBJECTIVE analysis, like quality into a statistic, OBJECTIVITY is no longer present. So I cant really place much credence in the "low quality", "average quality" and "high quality" shot analysis. That said, there are alot of reasons even a "low Qquality shot can go, such as screens, interference, tips, etc.

Having watched almost every game this season, I'm convinced that Quick is one of the best things to happen to this team in a LONG TIME, you meaningless statistics notwithstanding.
you must be having withdrawals from court cases...

KingsRule is offline  
Old
01-28-2010, 12:00 AM
  #158
DIEHARD the King fan
Registered User
 
DIEHARD the King fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: blueline to slot
Country: United States
Posts: 6,244
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingsRule View Post
you must be having withdrawals from court cases...
You think? I guess it shows, but thats o.k., I'll win this one in the COURT of public (HFBoards = Public) opinion!

DIEHARD the King fan is offline  
Old
01-28-2010, 12:05 AM
  #159
KingsRule
Registered User
 
KingsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: SoCal
Country: United States
Posts: 2,952
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to KingsRule
Quote:
Originally Posted by DIEHARD the King fan View Post
You think? I guess it shows, but thats o.k., I'll win this one in the COURT of public (HFBoards = Public) opinion!
haha dont worry, there seems to be a 99% majority agreement lately... if we could only be at 100%

KingsRule is offline  
Old
01-28-2010, 12:16 AM
  #160
CowMix
Go Kings Go!
 
CowMix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Tustin, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,064
vCash: 500
I thinking playing Ersberg more than never would help Quick a lot. This is a very heavy load for a kid in his second nhl season

CowMix is offline  
Old
01-28-2010, 01:01 AM
  #161
JT Dutch*
Cult of Personality
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust View Post
Here are some numbers to swallow:

Jon Quick's record when he has a Save % over .900: 37-17
Jon Quick's record when he has a Save % under .900: 13-27

More often than not, his save percentage is over .900, giving the Kings a greater chance of winning. Here is the game-to-game save percentage of all 17 losses in which Quick's save percentage was .900 or above:
... OK, these are his career numbers. Problem with that is the Kings are not the same team last season as they are this season. Also, your cutoff of .900 is a bit weak, because .915 is average in the NHL, but all that’s OK – it’s better than nothing, we’ll use that. If we look at Quick’s entire career, he’s posted .900 or better 54 times in 94 games. That’s 57%.

To compare, we’ll use 40-year-old Dwayne Roloson, who’s been called out in this thread as worse than Jon Quick and is part of the Islanders' goalie situation, which is in flux right now. So, the perceived opinion is that Roloson is a below average goaltender, right? Roloson has played 97 games in the last two seasons, while Quick has played 94 in his career, so we have a pretty close match here.

Roloson has posted .900 or better 63 times in the 97 games he’s played over the last two seasons. That’s 65%. So, he’s more consistent than Quick has been over that time.

If we go by the numbers of just this season, Quick has hit .900 26 times in 47 games. That’s 55%. Roloson has hit .900 23 times in 34 games, that’s 68%. Roloson is even farther ahead.

Now, let’s go by the league average, .915. Quick has hit that 20 times in 47 games, that’s 43%. So what we’re saying here is that Quick is an average goalie in less than half of his games this season. Roloson has hit .915 17 times in 34 games, that’s 50%. Roloson’s better here, too.

Now, let’s use Craig Anderson as a comparison, the guy who was passed over in favor of Quick for the Olympics. Anderson’s hit .900 32 times in his 43 games this season, 74%. Anderson has hit .915 23 times, which is 54%. Compare those to Quick’s numbers of 55% at .900 and 43% at .915, and it’s clear who is the better and more consistent goalie game-to-game, isn’t it?

JT Dutch* is offline  
Old
01-28-2010, 01:10 AM
  #162
Zad
HFB Partner
 
Zad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: OC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,916
vCash: 500
Quick sucks

Sincerely

The USA Olympic Selection Committee.

Zad is offline  
Old
01-28-2010, 08:06 AM
  #163
KingsRule
Registered User
 
KingsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: SoCal
Country: United States
Posts: 2,952
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to KingsRule
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zad View Post
Quick sucks

Sincerely

The USA Olympic Selection Committee.
hahahahahaha, i love it!

KingsRule is offline  
Old
01-28-2010, 09:21 AM
  #164
Muzzinga
Regehr GOAT
 
Muzzinga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Dutch View Post
... Well, it's all in the eye of the beholder. Again, if the quality of the shots are low, that signifies overrated to me. It may not to other people.
Well then surely on the other hand, Quick should be underrated to you, since he faces tons of quality shots day in day out, and gets very few low percentage shots at him to pad his stats with (mainly because he lets those ones it )

Its all well and good saying he isn't good enough to be our keeper, but we have no other option. He is definately middle of hte pack as far as keeping in the league goes, so the fact that we have him locked up for a few years at only 1.5mill is amazing. We should be super greatful. Exceptional keepers rarely come around, but we have Bernier/Zatkoff/Jones to look forward to in the future to maybe give us the exceptional keeper you crave so much

Muzzinga is offline  
Old
01-28-2010, 09:40 AM
  #165
KingsRule
Registered User
 
KingsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: SoCal
Country: United States
Posts: 2,952
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to KingsRule
Quote:
Originally Posted by sw1tch View Post
Well then surely on the other hand, Quick should be underrated to you, since he faces tons of quality shots day in day out, and gets very few low percentage shots at him to pad his stats with (mainly because he lets those ones it )

Its all well and good saying he isn't good enough to be our keeper, but we have no other option. He is definately middle of hte pack as far as keeping in the league goes, so the fact that we have him locked up for a few years at only 1.5mill is amazing. We should be super greatful. Exceptional keepers rarely come around, but we have Bernier/Zatkoff/Jones to look forward to in the future to maybe give us the exceptional keeper you crave so much
I agree. when was the last time we had a goalie in net, and we didnt all cringe when the puck was in our end of the rink? i am confident that quick will make the save 90% of the time the other team has the puck.

KingsRule is offline  
Old
01-28-2010, 10:40 AM
  #166
Defgarden
Registered User
 
Defgarden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Loma Linda, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,827
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zad View Post
Quick sucks

Sincerely

The USA Olympic Selection Committee.
They picked Quick because he was said to have a better chance at future Olympics, and he probably won't play any games in the tourney anyway, so it won't matter much. If you go by the stats alone, Quick should in no way be picked over Anderson.

It's just like Johnson over Greene or Scuderi (though he does have an offensive game despite his large minus).

Defgarden is offline  
Old
01-28-2010, 11:32 AM
  #167
Ollie Weeks
Registered User
 
Ollie Weeks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sioux Lookout, NWO
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,422
vCash: 500
Where is this ".915 save percentage is average in the NHL" garbage coming from? For most high-end netminders, thats about what you expect after a season of heavy lifting. Quick is a little below that, but if your goalie is stopping 90% or more of the pucks coming at him, then he's doing it right. Quick -at worst - is an average goalie right now.

Ollie Weeks is offline  
Old
01-28-2010, 01:28 PM
  #168
JT Dutch*
Cult of Personality
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sw1tch View Post
Well then surely on the other hand, Quick should be underrated to you, since he faces tons of quality shots day in day out, and gets very few low percentage shots at him to pad his stats with (mainly because he lets those ones it )

Its all well and good saying he isn't good enough to be our keeper, but we have no other option.
... I'm not talking about using another option as the number one, I'm talking about not using the same guy 70-75 games this season. They have a backup - why not use him? What has he done prior to this season that would indicate he doesn't deserve to play at all?

He's not an average goalie any way you look at it. I didn't expect much objectivity here from you and the other people arguing with me on this, but to discount every measure of keeping the puck out of the net and to continually harp on Quick's win total as if it meant much of anything at all is ridiculous. Quick has a high win total because he plays every game for a second-tier playoff team in a good conference.

Define these "tons" of quality shots Quick faces. About how many more does he face than the typical NHL goalie? Can you tell me? The Kings allow the second fewest number of shots in the league. So, 90% of those shots are quality? You said earlier in the thread that the Kings' defense is bottom ten for sure; you have anything to back that assertion up? You're saying guys who are out there for defense - like O'Donnell, Scuderi, and Greene - aren't even average, despite them showing otherwise over the course of their careers? On where do you base this assertion? Any facts for me? I'll wait.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slippery Moses View Post
Where is this ".915 save percentage is average in the NHL" garbage coming from? For most high-end netminders, thats about what you expect after a season of heavy lifting. Quick is a little below that, but if your goalie is stopping 90% or more of the pucks coming at him, then he's doing it right. Quick -at worst - is an average goalie right now.
... Well the average for ALL goalies is about .908, but I'm referring to #1's here. Of the 30 or so NHL goalies who are the best for their respective teams, the midpoint is about .915, where Jonas Hiller and Tim Thomas are. The actual midpoint of those guys might be a little lower than that, but it's somewhere between .908 and .915. To use .900 as a cutoff for average or quality goaltending is a fallacy.

JT Dutch* is offline  
Old
01-28-2010, 02:12 PM
  #169
Flour Child
Unleavened User
 
Flour Child's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Drury Lane
Posts: 23,316
vCash: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Dutch View Post
.. They have a backup - why not use him?
Ersberg was hurt part of the year (minor hand injury)and they didn't want to cal Bernier up

Flour Child is online now  
Old
01-28-2010, 02:33 PM
  #170
TonySCV
Moderator
Two Timer!
 
TonySCV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 13,219
vCash: 500
Everyone's made their points clear. Time to move on.

- T

TonySCV is online now  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:40 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.