HFBoards

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

Halak: 229 minutes, 2 shutouts.........0.889 SV%

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-05-2013, 05:27 PM
  #51
Doctor No
Mod Supervisor
Retired?
 
Doctor No's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 23,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sh724 View Post
On the whole save percentage and workload are not correlated but if you break it down to goalie by goalie you will find some goalies do better with lots of shots and other goalies perform better with less shots.
I'd love to see that analysis (particularly if the results are distinct and truly not the result of statistical variation at smaller sample sizes).

Intuitively, I agree - there are likely goalies who do better with high workloads (I'd guess Craig Anderson would fall into that category), and there are likely goalies who do better with low workloads (Ken Dryden seems to be the archetype here).

However, I've tried to tease out this in the data on multiple occasions now, and I've never been able to show anything that couldn't be explained by sample size.

Doctor No is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-05-2013, 05:31 PM
  #52
Doctor No
Mod Supervisor
Retired?
 
Doctor No's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 23,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco MacArthur View Post
there are likely goalies who do better with low workloads (Ken Dryden seems to be the archetype here).
Something I've never noticed until now, but looking at the above, Ken Dryden's shots per game decreased from year to year in every single one of his seasons (from 38.7 in his short rookie season to 25.4 in his last year).

Doctor No is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-05-2013, 05:38 PM
  #53
GuineaPig
Registered User
 
GuineaPig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Montréal
Posts: 2,135
vCash: 500
It's a losing battle, I'm afraid. A lot of people will simply accept that save percentage is worthless, and that shot quality varies wildly (but is apparently undetectable) from team to team. It's because it allows them to claim their favourite goalie is better while downplaying the success of another team's goalie.

GuineaPig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-05-2013, 05:52 PM
  #54
Mike Farkas
Hockey's Future Staff
Moron!
 
Mike Farkas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,118
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuineaPig View Post
It's a losing battle, I'm afraid. A lot of people will simply accept that save percentage is worthless, and that shot quality varies wildly (but is apparently undetectable) from team to team. It's because it allows them to claim their favourite goalie is better while downplaying the success of another team's goalie.
Oh stop. Shot quality is somewhat detectable. You have to understand what's happening on the ice and realize that the number is a by-product of a series of events. Understand what creates the number, don't try to re-create what the number appears to represent.

Mike Farkas is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-05-2013, 06:04 PM
  #55
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 18,852
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoopALoop View Post
Say Halak Faces a whopping 16 shots and 2 manage to get by him, he's looking at a measly save% .875
What if he has a 32 shot night with 4 getting passed him?

me2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-05-2013, 06:04 PM
  #56
Doctor No
Mod Supervisor
Retired?
 
Doctor No's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 23,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuineaPig View Post
It's a losing battle, I'm afraid. A lot of people will simply accept that save percentage is worthless, and that shot quality varies wildly (but is apparently undetectable) from team to team. It's because it allows them to claim their favourite goalie is better while downplaying the success of another team's goalie.
I don't think that that's the case (maybe it's the professor in me).

I agree that there will always be naysayers, but I also think that there are people who genuinely want to learn about this stuff (plus, once you're educated on this stuff, it's easier to selectively apply it to your own team anyhow ).

And you can risk-adjust this stuff (with the modern level of data available); even-strength save percentage is one of those flavors (and the easiest available), but you can do so much more. The problem is that you can't then apply it backwards to the older time periods.

Shot quality does vary, but we don't really fully understand yet *how* (or to what extent different factors wash out or don't wash out).

Ultimately, statistics reflect events on the ice, and to the extent that they can be done better or more accurately, that's good, but they're always going to be a one-dimensional representation of a four-dimensional process.

EDIT: Just saw Mike's response - good stuff.

Doctor No is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-05-2013, 06:40 PM
  #57
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 18,852
vCash: 500
The best ones around atm are the digr based ratings but they are hard to get up to date data for. It's not perfect, they don't take into account high/low workloads, no idea of whats happening in the ice with defense placement etc. It's just shot distance/angle, but they are better than sure sv%.

http://statsportsconsulting.com/main.../DIGR10-11.pdf

me2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-05-2013, 07:33 PM
  #58
CanadianHockey
Smith - Alfie
 
CanadianHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DL44 View Post
It actually kinda suggests that Sv% is the meaningless stat here..
Not really.

It basically suggests the basic goalie stats need context to be relevant.

Halak's shutouts are potentially inflated by playing behind a great defensive team. Halak's SV% may be deflated because he doesn't face enough shots to keep him sharp.

__________________
CanadianHockey________ __ __________Sens, Oilers, and Team Canada
CanadianHockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-05-2013, 07:57 PM
  #59
BlueDream
Registered User
 
BlueDream's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 6,996
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cudi View Post
Which is why I think the Blues D should let more shots get to Halak
Just wow... Good thing you aren't a coach.

BlueDream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-05-2013, 08:06 PM
  #60
Doctor No
Mod Supervisor
Retired?
 
Doctor No's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 23,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueDream View Post
Just wow... Good thing you aren't a coach.
Yeah, this I couldn't figure out, either.

Generally, a team's defense has two primary goals (in one order or the other): limit the number of shots a goaltender faced, and limit the quality of those shots.

A team's goaltender has one primary goal: of the shots he faces, stop as many of them as possible.

Doctor No is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-05-2013, 08:21 PM
  #61
MeowLeafs
LM is awesome
 
MeowLeafs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Baconland
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,883
vCash: 500
Elliot allows 4 goals on 11 shots tonight, gets pulled, Jake Allen replaces him and allows a goal on his first shot.
All St Louis goalies are doing badly sv% wise

MeowLeafs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-05-2013, 08:25 PM
  #62
Bob Sacamanu
Registered User
 
Bob Sacamanu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 563
vCash: 500
Wow, this is the worst I've seen this team play in twoish years. Poor Jake Allen just got thrown into the lions den.

Bob Sacamanu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-05-2013, 08:35 PM
  #63
nik jr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Congo-Kinshasa
Posts: 10,526
vCash: 500
i may be wrong, but it seems to me that one of the main problem of measurements of shot quality is that they do not account for passes before the shot that force the goalie to move.

wrist shot from the faceoff dot on the rush and wrist shot from the faceoff dot off a cross-ice pass are very different, but i think are recorded the same in shot quality.

nik jr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-05-2013, 08:36 PM
  #64
Do Make Say Think
Soul & Onward
 
Do Make Say Think's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 18,103
vCash: 500
Halak is massively overrated

He's not that good

Do Make Say Think is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-05-2013, 09:38 PM
  #65
Wizeman*
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,624
vCash: 500
I think the Blues play a defensive system that tends to make the goalies look a bit better than they may ordinarily be.

Wizeman* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 12:07 AM
  #66
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 22,111
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nik jr View Post
i may be wrong, but it seems to me that one of the main problem of measurements of shot quality is that they do not account for passes before the shot that force the goalie to move.

wrist shot from the faceoff dot on the rush and wrist shot from the faceoff dot off a cross-ice pass are very different, but i think are recorded the same in shot quality.
Exactly, and I believe you're right about how they're recorded.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 01:40 AM
  #67
DL44
Registered User
 
DL44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 5,854
vCash: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianHockey View Post
Not really.

It basically suggests the basic goalie stats need context to be relevant.

Halak's shutouts are potentially inflated by playing behind a great defensive team. Halak's SV% may be deflated because he doesn't face enough shots to keep him sharp.
Oh definitely.. i was just countering his extreme statement with another.

Context is everything when it comes to stats... you cant take one in a vacuum hoping it tells you the whole story.

DL44 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 02:08 AM
  #68
Master_Of_Districts
Registered User
 
Master_Of_Districts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Black Ruthenia
Country: Belarus
Posts: 1,745
vCash: 500
I have to say, I'm interested in the mathematical principle that dictates that facing a lower of number shots inexorably leads to a lower save percentage.

Perhaps all of the mathematicians in this thread who have asserted such a relationship can enlighten me.

Like through adducing some kind of supporting evidence.

Master_Of_Districts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 03:55 AM
  #69
Darth Yoda
Registered User
 
Darth Yoda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Grovebranch's Crease
Country: Sweden
Posts: 2,866
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sh724 View Post
When you only face 15 shots a game it is hard to have a high save %.
He had great % last year though.

Darth Yoda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 11:56 AM
  #70
Beville
#ForTheBoys
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Engerlanddd!
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 3,548
vCash: 500
Looks just like my stats on NHL...

Beville is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 05:58 PM
  #71
deckercky
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,688
vCash: 500
I'd say the obvious thing is that when you face less shots, your save percentage is more variable than a larger sample size. If a few shots are lucky, perfect shots, or you have a small lapse, it affects you far more than the same occurring with more shots.

deckercky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 09:47 PM
  #72
Bleedred
I lost a SO to NJD!
 
Bleedred's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Seminole Florida
Country: United States
Posts: 34,135
vCash: 500
Halak is still a very good goalie. However I think Elliott is just a good backup. When you're playing for a team that gives up few shots a night you can't expect to just give up only one goal just because you only surrender 15 shots.

Also facing fewer shots can cause a goalie to get cold. I'm pretty sure Brodeur has a much better save percentage career facing a lot of shots, than he does facing fewer. I think most any goalie does.

Bleedred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2013, 06:37 AM
  #73
JustOneB4IDie
Everyone Overpayment
 
JustOneB4IDie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: St. Louis MO
Country: United States
Posts: 3,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleedred View Post
Halak is still a very good goalie. However I think Elliott is just a good backup. When you're playing for a team that gives up few shots a night you can't expect to just give up only one goal just because you only surrender 15 shots.
This.

Elliot has proven he can't handle a starter's role, IMO. Halak needs to take the bull by the horns and to be the clear cut #1 Goalie for the Blues, and stay healthy!

JustOneB4IDie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2013, 08:34 AM
  #74
One Man Rock Band
Slater's Gonna Slate
 
One Man Rock Band's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Habville
Country: Canada
Posts: 44,907
vCash: 500
SV% is the best stat to judge a goalie, however, in St. Louis wins are the best stat.

Why?

Simple. They give up like 4 shots per game. All they need their goalie to do is look pretty and come up with a big save when needed to get the win.

One Man Rock Band 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 02:26 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.