HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > By The Numbers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

By The Numbers Hockey Analytics... the Final Frontier. Explore strange new worlds, to seek out new algorithms, to boldly go where no one has gone before.

Goalies: Adjusted Playoff Save Percentage

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-16-2012, 04:14 PM
  #26
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,795
vCash: 500
As requested, here's the list of adjusted save percentage, adjusted to the regular season (rather than playoff) average. In the interest of my limited spare time, I'm only posting the overall summary table showing career adjusted save percentage. This table is current through 2012.

* updated for 2012
* I'm not updating this post for 2016 as the difference between this method and the previous method is immaterial. I may revisit this every few years.

Career Save Percentage - minimum 1,000 shots

GoalieShotsSavesSv%
Patrick Roy* 7218 6646 92.1%
Olaf Kolzig 1446 1328 91.9%
Ken Wregget 1767 1624 91.9%
Tim Thomas 1524 1399 91.8%
Mike Liut 1064 977 91.8%
John Vanbiesbrouck 2039 1872 91.8%
Dominik Hasek 3422 3140 91.7%
Ed Belfour* 4641 4250 91.6%
Jean-Sebastien Giguere 1546 1416 91.6%
Patrick Lalime 1105 1011 91.5%
Kirk McLean 2099 1916 91.3%
Grant Fuhr* 3966 3618 91.2%
Curtis Joseph 4044 3689 91.2%
Felix Potvin 2186 1993 91.1%
Mike Richter 2182 1988 91.1%
Miikka Kiprusoff 1679 1529 91.1%
Martin Brodeur 5439 4950 91%
Cam Ward 1137 1034 91%
Tom Barrasso 3521 3199 90.9%
Bill Ranford 1536 1396 90.9%
Ryan Miller 1448 1315 90.8%
Dwayne Roloson 1478 1342 90.8%
Don Beaupre 1538 1396 90.8%
Chris Osgood 3246 2944 90.7%
Nikolai Khabibulin 2155 1954 90.7%
Kelly Hrudey 2531 2293 90.6%
Ron Hextall 2632 2383 90.5%
Greg Millen 1336 1209 90.5%
Henrik Lundqvist 1565 1415 90.4%
Roberto Luongo 1796 1623 90.3%
Marty Turco 1345 1215 90.3%
Jon Casey 1789 1615 90.3%
Mike Vernon 3493 3154 90.3%
Evgeni Nabokov 2170 1957 90.2%
Jose Theodore 1730 1559 90.1%
Reggie Lemelin 1147 1033 90.1%
Andy Moog 2655 2386 89.9%
Ilya Bryzgalov 1123 1007 89.7%
Arturs Irbe 1513 1357 89.7%
Brian Boucher 1078 963 89.3%
Sean Burke 1101 983 89.3%
Marc-Andre Fleury 2046 1824 89.2%
Antti Niemi 1267 1128 89%

The biggest gainers (compared to the previous version, where I adjusted based on the PO rather than RS average) are Liut (+0.8%) and Beaupre (+0.7%). The biggest losers are Roloson (-0.4%), Thomas (-0.6%), Niemi (-0.7%) and Burke (-0.9%). In total, 37 of the 43 goalies experienced no more than a 0.3% change in their save percentage, and more than half (25 of 43) experienced a change of no more than 0.1%.


Last edited by Hockey Outsider: 06-20-2016 at 05:19 PM.
Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2012, 06:19 PM
  #27
Doctor No
HFB Partner
 
Doctor No's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,769
vCash: 50
I like the update - thanks for putting it together. I'm still torn about the merits of which benchmark to use, but it's interesting to see them both.

Doctor No is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2012, 07:38 PM
  #28
Hank4Hart
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,085
vCash: 500
There's no way to account for this, but depending on who the coach is some goalies get pulled early in the game (maybe giving up 3 goals on less than 10 shots or something), while other coaches would leave them in there no matter what (see Luongo 8 goal game or Roy 9 goal game), obviously for the goalies who didn't get pulled, their save percentage could have been higher

Hank4Hart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2012, 07:45 PM
  #29
Doctor No
HFB Partner
 
Doctor No's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,769
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank4Hart View Post
There's no way to account for this, but depending on who the coach is some goalies get pulled early in the game (maybe giving up 3 goals on less than 10 shots or something), while other coaches would leave them in there no matter what (see Luongo 8 goal game or Roy 9 goal game), obviously for the goalies who didn't get pulled, their save percentage could have been higher
On the other hand, there are goalies who give up 3 goals on 8 shots, are left in the game, and stop the last 22 shots that they face. It works both ways.

Doctor No is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2012, 11:11 PM
  #30
MadLuke
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,398
vCash: 500
Quote:
There's no way to account for this, but depending on who the coach is some goalies get pulled early in the game (maybe giving up 3 goals on less than 10 shots or something), while other coaches would leave them in there no matter what (see Luongo 8 goal game or Roy 9 goal game), obviously for the goalies who didn't get pulled, their save percentage could have been higher
We have a lot of shot for sample size and those stats and we will need a bigger pattern than a specific games to change the final results first decimals.

Luongo in florida was often pulled when the game was out of hand for the panthers, to make him start the very maximum of games, Luongo playing a game being the biggest hope of winning and making the playoff for them.

MadLuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2013, 10:11 PM
  #31
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,795
vCash: 500
Updated for 2013

Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2013, 08:19 AM
  #32
hatterson
Global Moderator
 
hatterson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: North Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 15,218
vCash: 50
Send a message via Skype™ to hatterson
I'd be very interested to see how the results change if you include only even strength play.

Do you have your data hosted somewhere? I'd be willing to take a look at it and throw in some ES data from NHL.com which would at least get us back to 98.

__________________
Come join us on the By The Numbers forum. Take a look at our introduction post if you're new. If you have any questions, feel free to PM me.
hatterson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2013, 12:41 AM
  #33
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,374
vCash: 500
Good work, HO!

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-15-2014, 06:46 PM
  #34
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,795
vCash: 500
Updated for 2014.

Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2015, 07:35 PM
  #35
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,795
vCash: 500
Updated for 2015. The single biggest takeaway is how great Henrik Lundqvist`s numbers look in an all-time sense.

Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2016, 05:53 PM
  #36
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,795
vCash: 500
Updated for 2016. Four things stand out:

1. Braden Holtby`s playoff numbers are phenomenal. Yes, he only has four playoff appearances, and has never been out of the second round, but his numbers are consistently great.

2. Henrik Lundqvist had a rough spring, which hurts his numbers. Still, a single trip to the conference finals would probably put him 5th in wins.

3. Patrick Roy was a pretty good goalie in the playoffs. I know this has nothing to do with my 2016 update, but I`m still blown away by his numbers. His ability to maintain an extremely high level of play over an enormous number of games is without parallel among playoff goalies. He has three of the top seven, and four of the top sixteen, individual postseasons.

4. Goaltending is less of a difference-maker these days. Seven of the ten worst performances from a Stanley Cup winning goalie have occurred since 2007. (Most of those were objectively good performances, but "worst" relative to other Cup winning goalies). There are notable exceptions of course (Thomas in 2011, Quick in 2012), but it seems like goalies don't need to steal many games any more. They just need to be quietly dependable. As goaltending continues to improve, the gap between the best netminder and an average one continues to shrink.

Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2016, 06:07 PM
  #37
Doctor No
HFB Partner
 
Doctor No's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,769
vCash: 50
Holtby's playoff career has been underrated, certainly.

In the period where we have save percentages (either actuals or good estimates), Holtby's postseason support-neutral winning percentage is 62.6%, which (among goalies with 20 or more games played) is second highest - behind John Davidson.

Great work on the update - as always!

__________________
The Goaltender Home Page (http://hockeygoalies.org) - Preserving Goaltender History since 1994
2015-16 NHL Goaltending Performances by Team: http://hockeygoalies.org/bio/nhl/logs/NHL2015.html
Doctor No is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2016, 12:42 PM
  #38
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,795
vCash: 500
I also calculated Holtby having a 62.6% win percentage (see post #6), so good to see we're getting the same results.

Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2016, 10:04 AM
  #39
MoonDragn
Registered User
 
MoonDragn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Maryland
Posts: 9,373
vCash: 500
I still feel that not enough data is collected on how Brodeur's puck playing skills have led to an overall better defense in NJD and how his SV% numbers really doesn't reflect how much impact he has on his team. There is a reason he won so many games and while some of it had to do with his teammates, a lot of it was because of him as well.

I feel that Goalies like Brodeur are hard to fit into your neat SV% ranking because he performs so much outside of the box that it is hard to quantify. I find it funny that people are always using statistics to prove how bad he was, but not realizing that the statistics doesn't show everything that was unique about Brodeur.

MoonDragn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2016, 11:20 AM
  #40
Doctor No
HFB Partner
 
Doctor No's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,769
vCash: 50
People can present things as research without them necessarily proclaiming them to be infallible or the be-all end-all.

I don't normally feel comfortable speaking for other people, but I know Hockey Outsider well enough to confidently tell you that he's aware of the limitations of save percentage.

In fact, he says as much in the thread starter: "My purpose isn’t to present one number which is a perfect representation of a goalie’s performance. Rather, I want to improve on what has already been quantified in conventional statistics."


Last edited by Doctor No: 07-25-2016 at 11:39 AM.
Doctor No is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2016, 02:21 PM
  #41
MoonDragn
Registered User
 
MoonDragn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Maryland
Posts: 9,373
vCash: 500
He does say that, but then he added this bit:

Quote:
Iíve stated before that save percentage is, in my opinion, the single best statistic to measure goalie performance.
I realize it is all opinion, I just think that you can't adjust stats that easily as there are many many factors that can affect each one's stats. and as pointed out, all it takes is one anomaly to skew the results.

MoonDragn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2016, 10:45 PM
  #42
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,795
vCash: 500
I appreciate the comments. I said "save percentage is the single best statistic" in order to explain why I did the research in the first place. For example, I could have used another statistic (like wins, shutouts, or GAA) but save percentage is less influenced by factors beyond the goalie's control (such as offensive support, or number of shots faced). I've written about that extensively in other threads, so won't repeat the reasoning here. Of course, every statistic in hockey is influenced by team context - the question is a matter of degree.

Dr. No is absolutely right. My intention is to improve the statistics that already exist. It's better to adjust statistics for known factors, rather than use unadjusted numbers. (Otherwise, Patrick Roy looks like a very good, rather than outstanding, playoff goalie, and Grant Fuhr looks fairly poor by modern standards). It's better to correct for a known problem (even if there are other problems that we can't yet quantify). The only problem with this approach is if someone says that after X adjustments, they have a perfect, definitive statistic (which I haven't done).

I wrote a long post several years ago (maybe 2010?) when I tried to quantify Martin Brodeur's two primary advantages that aren't captured in save percentage - his durability, and his puckhandling skills. I concluded that, based on some plausible assumptions, Brodeur probably matched Roy in terms of regular season performance. There's definitely value in those two qualities that aren't captured in save percentage, so an analysis focusing solely on that would underrate Brodeur.

Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 09:51 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2016 All Rights Reserved.