HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Round 2, Vote 6 (HOH Top Goaltenders)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-11-2012, 05:03 PM
  #76
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,320
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Still your comparable is which one of the two - Giacomin and Esposito is worse during the playoffs.
You're the on who said it was a toss-up, not me. If Esposito is the 2nd worst playoff performer seen thus far that still doesn't mean he's necessarily close to the worst. With a spread of 18 points, he isn't close to Giacomin. In fact, he's much closer to the best (Billy Smith, +17) than the worst (Ed Giacomin, -14).

Quote:
No other goalie who is their contemporary playing more than 60 NHL playoff games slips in between the two or below.
That is correct if talking about W/L or GAA, but false once relevant stats are used. Only 6 goalies played 60 playoff games between 1967 and 1983. Three of them are Smith, Dryden and Parent, who obviously performed well above the league average. Then there is Esposito (+4) and Giacomin (-14). Despite setting these extremely narrow criteria, you managed to include another goalie - Gerry Cheevers - who does, in fact, fall between Esposito and Giacomin, with a career playoff sv% 2 points below the league average.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 05:06 PM
  #77
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,178
vCash: 500
I have no doubt that Billy Smith was awesome in the playoffs during the Islanders dynasty. Every older fan who was around to watch the Islanders dynasty talks about Smith as one of the best playoff goalies they ever saw. I'm sure the fact that Smith's strongest performance was in 1983 during the 4th Cup might color memories of his performance for previous Cups, but I've never seen any reason to doubt that he was great in the playoffs.

I do, however, think Mike brought up a good point earlier. If Smith played for a team that wasn't dynasty-caliber, would he have even gotten a chance to be routinely clutch in the playoffs? In the Fuhr vs Smith thread I posted earlier, even Islanders fans say that Smith's regular seasons weren't particularly HHOF calibre, that he's in based entirely on the playoffs.

Fuhr and Worsley have at least a little bit of meat on their resumes outside of the dynasty years. Though one can question how important Worsley was to the Canadiens dynasty, as he tandemed with Vachon for some of the long runs.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 05:25 PM
  #78
Mike Farkas
Hockey's Future Staff
Moron!
 
Mike Farkas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,850
vCash: 500
Early on him and Resch even split the playoff duties. In fact, when the high-octane Pens collapsed in 1975, it was Smith who they were sniping...it was Resch that came in and won four straight (with the help of some goalposts). Chic-meister was right there with him throughout the 70's and then he moved on and was replaced with a replacement-level keeper in Melanson (who did post the league's first ever .900+ save pct. on this Islanders team we're speaking). Smith took over because he was better than Melanson, but what does that say?

Can we discuss a little more about Smith's opponents in the playoffs also? The Habs and Bruins and Flyers of the 70's were all but broken up or diminished it seems, no...?

Now, I don't want to diminish a goalie that rattled off 4 straight Stanley Cups, no sir. That's no accident. But, did he get away with some good timing? That is, until the Oilers ransacked the place...

Can anyone speak more about the opponents he faced (outside of the stupid preliminary round nonsense - the '82 Penguins, blick...)? The '81 North Stars and '82 Canucks strike me as kind of cinderella teams and the clock turned to midnight pretty quickly for both of them...the '83 Oilers were a young squad and got taken to school pretty well and good the first time around. The 1980 Flyers looked like a pretty good team (both on video and paper) minus their defense which seems suspect...but they weren't exactly lining up Robinson/Savard/Lapointe in 1975 either...

Can anyone speak of the league landscape at that time, roughly?

Mike Farkas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 05:49 PM
  #79
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
Early on him and Resch even split the playoff duties. In fact, when the high-octane Pens collapsed in 1975, it was Smith who they were sniping...it was Resch that came in and won four straight (with the help of some goalposts). Chic-meister was right there with him throughout the 70's and then he moved on and was replaced with a replacement-level keeper in Melanson (who did post the league's first ever .900+ save pct. on this Islanders team we're speaking). Smith took over because he was better than Melanson, but what does that say?

Can we discuss a little more about Smith's opponents in the playoffs also? The Habs and Bruins and Flyers of the 70's were all but broken up or diminished it seems, no...?

Now, I don't want to diminish a goalie that rattled off 4 straight Stanley Cups, no sir. That's no accident. But, did he get away with some good timing? That is, until the Oilers ransacked the place...

Can anyone speak more about the opponents he faced (outside of the stupid preliminary round nonsense - the '82 Penguins, blick...)? The '81 North Stars and '82 Canucks strike me as kind of cinderella teams and the clock turned to midnight pretty quickly for both of them...the '83 Oilers were a young squad and got taken to school pretty well and good the first time around. The 1980 Flyers looked like a pretty good team (both on video and paper) minus their defense which seems suspect...but they weren't exactly lining up Robinson/Savard/Lapointe in 1975 either...

Can anyone speak of the league landscape at that time, roughly?
Here's an old thread called "which dynasty had the most luck?" that discusses the Islanders in detail: http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...d.php?t=541034

It's from 2008 and nice to see the history board has always had its share of hostility.

Anyway, MS summed it up pretty well I think:

Quote:
Originally Posted by MS View Post
Undoubtably. But the strength of opposition faced in various Cup runs is not always equal, and the 1981 and 1982 Islander teams had probably the two easiest runs in NHL history since the 4-round playoff format was introduced. The best team they had to face in those two years was 7th in the NHL. Of the 10 best regular-season teams over those two years, the Isles didn't have to face any of them. Like it or not, that is a fair chunk of 'luck' in their favour.

Of course, they did prove how strong they were with strong runs against strong competition in 1980 and 1983, so it's a moot point in terms of deciding whether they were a great team or not.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 06:09 PM
  #80
Canadiens1958
Moderator
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,445
vCash: 500
Body of Work

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
You're the on who said it was a toss-up, not me. If Esposito is the 2nd worst playoff performer seen thus far that still doesn't mean he's necessarily close to the worst. With a spread of 18 points, he isn't close to Giacomin. In fact, he's much closer to the best (Billy Smith, +17) than the worst (Ed Giacomin, -14).



That is correct if talking about W/L or GAA, but false once relevant stats are used. Only 6 goalies played 60 playoff games between 1967 and 1983. Three of them are Smith, Dryden and Parent, who obviously performed well above the league average. Then there is Esposito (+4) and Giacomin (-14). Despite setting these extremely narrow criteria, you managed to include another goalie - Gerry Cheevers - who does, in fact, fall between Esposito and Giacomin, with a career playoff sv% 2 points below the league average.
If you include the complete body of work Cheevers is well ahead of Giacomin and Esposito:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...cheevge01.html

Cheevers had a winning record while facing better competition. Look at Esposito's and Cheevers sv% in SC finals and deciding games and Esposito pales badly.


Last edited by Canadiens1958: 12-11-2012 at 06:25 PM.
Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 06:13 PM
  #81
Chalupa Batman
Mod Supervisor
 
Chalupa Batman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 21,928
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
If you include the complete body of work Cheevers is well ahead of Giacomin and Esposito:
Did Cheevers play some playoff games outside of the 1967-1983 range?

Chalupa Batman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 06:22 PM
  #82
Canadiens1958
Moderator
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,445
vCash: 500
Appropriate Goalie

Quote:
Originally Posted by thom View Post
Everyone has a point of view but how does one choose a goalie due to fact he played in from of great defence and coach was more defensive oriented.Example I will give is Vachon and Dryden.1976 Canada Cup Vachon had 1.33 gaa average.Dryden played poorly against russians.Now I do think Dryden was better but is it close or not?Dryden was a standout with habs but how much was it due to team.VACHON HAD A GOOD career some say borderline hall of fame.
Point is choosing the appropriate goalie for the situation.

Ken Dryden was the appropriate goalie in 1971 because he could stand-up to the Bruins and other team's crash the net style. Vachon a much smaller goalie had worn down and could not handle the physical demands of a crash the net style.

1976 - from memory Dryden was rehabing an injury. Bowman chose mobile and reliable goalies for Team Canada - Resch, Cheevers, Bouchard - not Tony Esposito.Of the goalies available to Team Canada, Vachon was the best choice but if you review the series you will see that Vachon's stamina issues surfaced as the series progressed. His performance started to lag.

Stamina and handling a physical offense are not team or coaching issues.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 06:29 PM
  #83
Canadiens1958
Moderator
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,445
vCash: 500
Complete Body of Work

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco MacArthur View Post
Did Cheevers play some playoff games outside of the 1967-1983 range?
Complete body of work vs superficial, as in looking at the sv% numbers against the level of opposition, importance of the playoff games, finals, deciding games.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 06:29 PM
  #84
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 20,715
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
If you include the complete body of work Cheevers is well ahead of Giacomin and Esposito:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...cheevge01.html

Cheevers had a winning record while facing better competition. Look at Esposit's and Cheevers sv% in SC finals and deciding games and Esposito pales badly.
I've got a couple of concerns here. First, why would we give a bonus for W/L record to the Bruins goalie of the Orr era? If a winning record while facing better competition is the criteria, how high are you going to promote Fuhr? Secondly, if we look at SV% in SC finals and deciding games, what kind of sample sizes will we be comparing, one to the other? Hasn't the strength of team leading to goalie opportunities thing just been touched on with Smith, and how will the raw numbers suggest one "pales" vs the other, in and of themselves? That sounds like a shortcut around a lot of context.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 06:31 PM
  #85
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,315
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Complete body of work vs superficial, as in looking at the sv% numbers against the level of opposition, importance of the playoff games, finals, deciding games.
Has this been done? Would be interested in seeing sv% analyzed in those categories.

Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 08:10 PM
  #86
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,178
vCash: 500
The impression I get is that Tony Esposito was usually above average in the playoffs, but above average was still a drop from his regular season play. And in both his Stanley Cup finals, he bombed, which is why there is such a lasting memory of him being so poor in the playoffs.

Ed Giacomin, on the other hand, appears to have been below average in the playoffs more often than not.

It was controversial when I said it in the preliminary thread, and it probably still is, but I still don't see what makes Giacomin any better than Roberto Luongo.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 08:19 PM
  #87
Canadiens1958
Moderator
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,445
vCash: 500
SV%

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
Has this been done? Would be interested in seeing sv% analyzed in those categories.
This was done for Tony Esposito earlier in the project and is referred to by TDMM above.


A quick glance at other SC Finals from the seventies shows that Tony Esposito was unequaled or matched in his futility, especially in 1973.

The interesting aspect of your bolded comment is that it questions the sufficiency of the SV% studies, the usage of the data and the resulting weak conclusions grounded in SV%.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 08:25 PM
  #88
Canadiens1958
Moderator
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,445
vCash: 500
Completeness

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
The impression I get is that Tony Esposito was usually above average in the playoffs, but above average was still a drop from his regular season play. And in both his Stanley Cup finals, he bombed, which is why there is such a lasting memory of him being so poor in the playoffs.

Ed Giacomin, on the other hand, appears to have been below average in the playoffs more often than not.

It was controversial when I said it in the preliminary thread, and it probably still is, but I still don't see what makes Giacomin any better than Roberto Luongo.
The O6 goalies and those from the next generation had a much more complete game than your modern goalies - exception being Martin Brodeur.

Modern goalies - since 1995 tend to be one dimensional with limited skill sets - limited adaptability, puckhandling skills, with little ability to manage the defensive end of the ice.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 09:54 PM
  #89
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,178
vCash: 500
I went back to CG's post from last thread listing Billy Smith's save percentages vs the field with a focus on his stats versus his backups and it really doesn't look that impressive for Smith:

1972-73:

RankGoalieTeamGPSV%
-League AverageNHL78.896
21Billy SmithNYI37.878
23Gerry DesjardinsNYI44.866

1973-74:

RankGoalieTeamGPSV%
9Gerry DesjardinsNYI36.902
14Billy SmithNYI46.897
-League AverageNHL78.896

1974-75:
RankGoalieTeamGPSV%
4Chico ReschNYI25.915
10Billy SmithNYI58.904
-League AverageNHL80.890

1975-76:
RankGoalieTeamGPSV%
1Chico ReschNYI44.928
5Billy SmithNYI39.908
-League AverageNHL80.890

1976-77:
RankGoalieTeamGPSV%
2Chico ReschNYI46.917
3Billy SmithNYI36.916
-League AverageNHL80.891

1977-78:
RankGoalieTeamGPSV%
5Billy SmithNYI38.909
6Chico ReschNYI45.907
-League AverageNHL80.889

1978-79:
RankGoalieTeamGPSV%
1Chico ReschNYI43.913
6Billy SmithNYI39.899
-League AverageNHL80.883

1979-80:
RankGoalieTeamGPSV%
3Chico ReschNYI45.901
6Billy SmithNYI38.898
-League AverageNHL80.882

1980-81:
RankGoalieTeamGPSV%
6Billy SmithNYI41.895
9Chico ReschNYI32.894
-League AverageNHL80.876

1981-82:
RankGoalieTeamGPSV%
3Billy SmithNYI46.898
4Rolie MelansonNYI36.896
-League AverageNHL80.873

1982-83:
RankGoalieTeamGPSV%
1Rolie MelansonNYI44.910
2Billy SmithNYI41.905
-League AverageNHL80.875

1983-84:
RankGoalieTeamGPSV%
1Rolie MelansonNYI37.903
2Billy SmithNYI42.896
-League AverageNHL80.873

1984-85:
RankGoalieTeamGPSV%
8Kelly HrudeyNYI41.886
13Billy SmithNYI37.879
-League AverageNHL80.875

1985-86:
RankGoalieTeamGPSV%
2Kelly HrudeyNYI45.906
16Billy SmithNYI41.881
-League AverageNHL80.874

1986-87:
RankGoalieTeamGPSV%
23Kelly HrudeyNYI46.881
-League AverageNHL80.880
38Billy SmithNYI40.869

1987-88:
RankGoalieTeamGPSV%
5Kelly HrudeyNYI47.896
7Billy SmithNYI38.894
-League AverageNHL80.880

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...9&postcount=40

Now I think that comparing a goalie to his backup has its issues - a lot of times the backup plays only against weaker competition. But in a tandem situation like Smith played, I'd have to think that both goalies saw a variety of opponents.

Just to be clear, these weren't your run of the mill "backups" that Smith tandemed with. Chico Resch was a 2nd Team All Star in 1975-76 and 1978-79. But even so, I think Smith has to have the weakest regular season resume of any goalie who came up for a vote so far, and I don't think it's all that close.

Also interesting to note that when Smith and Melanson split the Jennings Trophy in 1982-83, Melanson was 2nd in both Vezina and All Star voting. This is after Smith won both the Vezina and 1st Team in 1981-82 (the only season when Smith led the league in wins).

I think we need to be careful not to judge Smith too much on his regular season performances - as qpq said, something needs to be said simply for the fact that Smith never "dropped the ball" for 19 straight playoff series.

But I'm pretty sure I'll have Grant Fuhr over Smith.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 12-11-2012 at 10:08 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 10:09 PM
  #90
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,178
vCash: 500
Vezina Trophy Shares

Here are the top 10 goalies in Vezina Trophy shares since the trophy was first voted on in 1981-82:

times = times a player received at least 1 vote from a GM
share = sum of seasonal Vezina shares
playertimesshare
Martin Brodeur155.4072
Dominik Hasek114.7591
Patrick Roy174.6216
Ed Belfour112.5044
Tom Barrasso71.9833
Grant Fuhr81.5901
Roberto Luongo71.5600
Tim Thomas31.5533
John Vanbiesbrouck91.5329
Henrik Lundqvist71.4933

Compare to Billy Smith:

playertimesshare
Billy Smith30.6190

Smith didn't receive all-star consideration before 1982, so this isn't underrating his regular season awards portfolio.

I do think Smith was probably more impressive in the playoffs than Grant Fuhr, but by how much?

I had Smith exactly 1 spot ahead of Fuhr on my submitted list, but I'm probably going to have Fuhr in my top 4 this round and Smith in my 5-8 range.

(And yes, Dennis, Brodeur is ahead of Roy and Hasek because this metric is better at measuring longevity as an elite player than absolute peak )

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 10:13 PM
  #91
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Now I think that comparing a goalie to his backup has its issues - a lot of times the backup plays only against weaker competition. But in a tandem situation like Smith played, I'd have to think that both goalies saw a variety of opponents.
See this thread.

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...d.php?t=846924

Quote:
Strength of Opposition – Billy Smith vs Backups
Year GP(BS) GP(Oth) OppW%(BS) OppW%(Oth) OppG/G(BS) OppG/G(Oth)
1973 37 45 0.530 0.527 3.32 3.29
1974 46 36 0.530 0.503 3.23 3.17
1975 58 25 0.517 0.459 3.49 3.28
1976 39 44 0.452 0.524 3.29 3.48
1977 36 46 0.490 0.493 3.34 3.29
1978 38 46 0.517 0.466 3.28 3.24
1979 40 43 0.500 0.491 3.53 3.45
1980 38 47 0.497 0.501 3.50 3.53
1981 41 43 0.486 0.489 3.82 3.80
1982 46 36 0.514 0.459 4.04 3.90
1983 41 44 0.487 0.487 3.79 3.82
1984 42 49 0.495 0.485 3.84 3.88
1985 37 49 0.488 0.491 3.80 3.85
1986 41 45 0.512 0.485 3.85 3.84
1987 40 46 0.494 0.505 3.67 3.73

Billy Smith is an interesting case. He split regular season playing time equally with his fellow goaltenders for almost his whole career. And his regular season results were very similar to theirs. It appears that he faced slightly stronger opponents over most of his career, but not by much.

Weighted average estimates
Win %: Smith was 0.026 worse than his backups. He faced opposition that was, on average, stronger than his backups faced by 0.007.

GAA: Smith was 0.14 worse than his backups. He faced opposition that was, on average, identical in this respect to that which his backups faced.

Smith played opposite a number of different goaltenders, so we can break his results down by goaltender.

1973-74 (Gerry Desjardins): Smith’s winning percentage was better (0.034) against stronger opposition (0.015). His GAA was better (-0.29) against stronger opposition (0.05).

1975-81 (Chico Resch): Smith’s winning percentage was worse (-0.040) against stronger opposition (0.003). His GAA was worse (0.21) against stronger opposition (0.01).

1982-84 (Rollie Melanson): Smith’s winning percentage was worse (-0.038) against stronger opposition (0.017). His GAA was worse (0.09) against equal opposition in this respect.

1985-87 (Kelly Hrudey): Smith’s winning percentage was worse (-0.038) against stronger opposition (0.004). His GAA was worse (0.23) against weaker opposition (-0.03).
The numbers above adjust based on the seasonal record of each opponent and whether each game was at home or on the road. They are not adjusted for back-to-backs or which players were in the lineup.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 10:16 PM
  #92
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,315
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
This was done for Tony Esposito earlier in the project and is referred to by TDMM above.


A quick glance at other SC Finals from the seventies shows that Tony Esposito was unequaled or matched in his futility, especially in 1973.

The interesting aspect of your bolded comment is that it questions the sufficiency of the SV% studies, the usage of the data and the resulting weak conclusions grounded in SV%.
Save percentage, by definition, is an average and that can obscure important aspects of the data. It's possible that a player with a lower save percentage is actually a better performer than a player with a higher save percentage, but it depends on context (quality of opposition faced, performance in blowouts vs close games, etc).

That doesn't mean that save percentage should be ignored, it should be supplemented by additional research.

Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 10:16 PM
  #93
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
See this thread.

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...d.php?t=846924



The numbers above adjust based on the seasonal record of each opponent and whether each game was at home or on the road. They are not adjusted for back-to-backs or which players were in the lineup.
Thanks for posting that. I forgot that thread existed; good stuff.

Wonder if Tony Esposito would have still gone 16th if we were reminded that he faced weaker competition than his backups, since Chicago liked to play their backups on the road. Even so, he outperformed his backups by significantly more than the discrepancy in competition, so maybe it wouldn't have made a difference.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 11:17 PM
  #94
Canadiens1958
Moderator
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,445
vCash: 500
Point

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
Save percentage, by definition, is an average and that can obscure important aspects of the data. It's possible that a player with a lower save percentage is actually a better performer than a player with a higher save percentage, but it depends on context (quality of opposition faced, performance in blowouts vs close games, etc).

That doesn't mean that save percentage should be ignored, it should be supplemented by additional research.
Combined contributes to my point.

Same could be said about Batting average, passing % in the NFL, Shooting % in the NBA but in those sports the effort is made to break the stat down. Example length of pass/shot, etc.

These seems to be too much work or an effort that is too complex for SV% in hockey.

We will know immediately a player's BA against each opponent, LHP/RHP or other circumstances. Not so in hockey.

Yet throughout this project raw SV% has been used as something that carries great weight.


Last edited by Canadiens1958: 12-11-2012 at 11:22 PM.
Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 11:44 PM
  #95
unknown33
Registered User
 
unknown33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Europe
Country: Marshall Islands
Posts: 2,965
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Combined contributes to my point.

Same could be said about Batting average, passing % in the NFL, Shooting % in the NBA but in those sports the effort is made to break the stat down. Example length of pass/shot, etc.

These seems to be too much work or an effort that is too complex for SV% in hockey.

We will know immediately a player's BA against each opponent, LHP/RHP or other circumstances. Not so in hockey.

Yet throughout this project raw SV% has been used as something that carries great weight.

The correct Hockey equivalent to those stats you've mentioned would be shooting percentage for skaters, not save percentage for goalies.
There isn't a position with a similar purpose in any of the other three sports. Just because stats somehow are measured in percentages doesn't mean they are compareable.


Last edited by unknown33: 12-11-2012 at 11:56 PM.
unknown33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 02:19 AM
  #96
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,447
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I went back to CG's post from last thread listing Billy Smith's save percentages vs the field with a focus on his stats versus his backups and it really doesn't look that impressive for Smith:

<snip>

But I'm pretty sure I'll have Grant Fuhr over Smith.
How does that lead to almost identically performing goalie like Fuhr to be ranked ahead of him?

Fuhr's SV% differential from league average / the SV% differential of his backups:

83-84 +.010 / +.009
84-85 +.009 / +.019
85-86 +.016 / +.015
86-87 +.001 / +.002
87-88 +.001 / +.019*
88-89 -.003 / -.002
89-90 -.013* / +.006
90-91 +.011* / +.007
91-92 -.007 / -.012* & +.017*
92-93 +.008 / +.023 & +.013 & +.007
93-94 -.012 / +.035
94-95 -.028 / +.006
95-96 +.005 / -.037*
96-97 -.004 / -.039*
97-98 -.008 / -.003
98-99 -.016 / -.015
99-00 -.048 / +.001

* - low/meaningless sample of games

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 03:50 AM
  #97
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
How does that lead to almost identically performing goalie like Fuhr to be ranked ahead of him?

Fuhr's SV% differential from league average / the SV% differential of his backups:

83-84 +.010 / +.009
84-85 +.009 / +.019
85-86 +.016 / +.015
86-87 +.001 / +.002
87-88 +.001 / +.019*
88-89 -.003 / -.002
89-90 -.013* / +.006
90-91 +.011* / +.007
91-92 -.007 / -.012* & +.017*
92-93 +.008 / +.023 & +.013 & +.007
93-94 -.012 / +.035
94-95 -.028 / +.006
95-96 +.005 / -.037*
96-97 -.004 / -.039*
97-98 -.008 / -.003
98-99 -.016 / -.015
99-00 -.048 / +.001

* - low/meaningless sample of games
I guess I was assuming that since Fuhr tended to play more games in a season than Smith that he was playing higher quality competition. That's kind of supported by overpass's numbers (in the linked thread), but it doesn't look like a huge affect

Fuhr got significantly better regular season awards recognition, yet Smith had much better stats in the regular season. The "vs backup" thing for Smith is a way to explain how he got so little recognition despite his save percentages.

I do have something of a preference for workhorse goalies, and it seems like Fuhr was closer to that than Smith was. You aren't going to see any seasons with a low/meaningless sample of games for Smith's partner.

IMO, Smith is probably the hardest goalie yet to rank since there is such a discrepancy between his regular season and playoff reputation. But Fuhr isn't exactly easy to rank either.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 05:16 AM
  #98
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,447
vCash: 500
Well, Fuhr's award edge is largely caused by him being a workhorse - that Vezina and 1st AT were mostly driven by GP (and thus derivatively the Ws), as his other stats were very average. It's certainly nice to be able to play so many games, but I don't see it as so immensely relevant that a goalie should be awarded the Vezina for it. Especially if most teams in the era platooned their goalies.

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 09:04 AM
  #99
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 20,715
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
Well, Fuhr's award edge is largely caused by him being a workhorse - that Vezina and 1st AT were mostly driven by GP (and thus derivatively the Ws), as his other stats were very average. It's certainly nice to be able to play so many games, but I don't see it as so immensely relevant that a goalie should be awarded the Vezina for it. Especially if most teams in the era platooned their goalies.
Having said that, though, he was runner-up for the Vezina in his rookie year with "only" 48 games played (2nd team all-star), received Vezina votes in '83/84 (45 GP), Vezina and all-star votes in '84/85 (46 GP), was 3rd in Vezina and all-star voting in '85/86 AND '86/87 (40, 44 GP respectively), and got Vezina and all-star votes in '88/89 (59 GP), so it's not like he wasn't proving to be good value under "regular" workloads for pretty much the entire 80s around '87/88, too.

Not only did he enjoy a lot of regular AND post season success over that time, the table provided earlier also shows that Fuhr's SV% was actually above average pretty much the entire decade (and not only better than the Oilers' other in-house option/s, but also better in the playoffs than the regular season, which has value imo). That goes against "conventional wisdom" that he was simply a workhorse that did just enough to not lose year after year on the runnin'-est, gunnin'-est team of the era.

Now, would I argue against someone suggesting that his abilities as a workhorse kept him in a starting role further into his career than perhaps he "should" have? Not at all. By the mid/late-90s I'm not sure Grant Fuhr playing ~60-70+ games should have been part of any team's recipe for attempted success, and his numbers from that point on kind of bear that out. But we're talking ~14/15 years into the guy's career though. Since the other goalies typically up in the 70 GP range those days were Brodeur/Potvin/Irbe in their early/mid-20s - almost a decade younger - I kinda give him some props for that, but it's minor late career padding fluff, honestly.


Last edited by Ohashi_Jouzu: 12-12-2012 at 09:13 AM.
Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 09:09 AM
  #100
Mike Farkas
Hockey's Future Staff
Moron!
 
Mike Farkas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,850
vCash: 500
I also value Fuhr not only playing in different situations and under different coaches, different teams, and all that. But also demonstrably different eras...80's hockey into the dead-puck era...I think that gets overlooked a tiny bit sometimes. But maybe not many value that like I do.

Mike Farkas 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 08:04 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.