HFBoards

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

Sarno for Tyler Moss

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-16-2004, 11:58 PM
  #51
Oi'll say!
Registered User
 
Oi'll say!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Oil in 9
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,125
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZIM

Is 53% significantly better than 40%? I know which of these numbers I'd pick.
Is allowing .29 fewer goals per game significantly better? Sure looks like it.

Paying an extra $3M for poorer numbers - priceless.
Johnson had an extra $25M (or so ) worth of teammates in front of him including 2 Norris Trophy/Team Canada calibre d-men and our former #1 center whom we couldn't afford. If his numbers weren't better than Salo's he wouldn't have lasted three weeks in this league.

Oi'll say! is offline  
Old
02-17-2004, 12:10 AM
  #52
Boondock Saint
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,659
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZIM
To show that you can prove anything you want via statistics try these numbers:
Johnson GP 143 Wins 76 = 53% wins
Salo GP 512 Wins 204 = 39.8% wins

Johnson GAA - 2.26
Salo GAA - 2.55

Is 53% significantly better than 40%? I know which of these numbers I'd pick.
Is allowing .29 fewer goals per game significantly better? Sure looks like it.

Paying an extra $3M for poorer numbers - priceless.
Had Salo played on the Blues for the last couple of seasons and Johnson on the Oilers, I can guarantee you Salo would have better numbers than Johnson.

GAA is just as much a reflection of the team in front of a goalie as it is a reflection of the goalie himself. So is winning percentage...

Without looking at the bigger picture, those stats aren't particularly relevant.

Would Johnson have the same GAA had he been on the Oilers the past couple years???? The same winning percentage???

Monumentally flawed argument, ZIM.

Boondock Saint is offline  
Old
02-17-2004, 12:44 AM
  #53
ZIM
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boondock Saint
Had Salo played on the Blues for the last couple of seasons and Johnson on the Oilers, I can guarantee you Salo would have better numbers than Johnson.

GAA is just as much a reflection of the team in front of a goalie as it is a reflection of the goalie himself. So is winning percentage...

Without looking at the bigger picture, those stats aren't particularly relevant.

Would Johnson have the same GAA had he been on the Oilers the past couple years???? The same winning percentage???

Monumentally flawed argument, ZIM.
Flawed?. The challenge posed by DG was "So where is the significant bit better?". I simply chose a set of numbers that was not flattering to his, or your, cause. The specious response, if the teams were reversed Salo is guaranteed to have better numbers, may or may not be true and cannot be proven.

Actually I thought the objective was to win so I consider winning percentage highly relevant.

 
Old
02-17-2004, 03:51 AM
  #54
Boondock Saint
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,659
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZIM
Flawed?. The challenge posed by DG was "So where is the significant bit better?". I simply chose a set of numbers that was not flattering to his, or your, cause. The specious response, if the teams were reversed Salo is guaranteed to have better numbers, may or may not be true and cannot be proven.

Actually I thought the objective was to win so I consider winning percentage highly relevant.
You talk as if winning percentage is based solely on the performance of the goaltender. So you're telling me that if Martin Brodeur played on the Pittsburgh Penguins and had a terrible winning percentage, that would be the stat that you would choose to judge him by. He'd still be the best goalie in the league, but he'd be losing almost every night. Would having the lowest winning percentage in the league make him one of the worst goalies in the league???

Your argument of judging goalies by their winning percentage would be like judging each player strictly by his plus/minus. While each player obviously contributes to his plus/minus rating, it is just as much a measure of who else is on the ice, both with him and against him.

Marek Malik has a +23 rating this year, while Sergei Gonchar has a rating of -21. Gonchar is head and shoulders better than Malik, yet Malik has a much stronger plus/minus. This is because he is on a stronger team, and plays with better players.

If you were to choose any stat, save percentage would be a much more telling stat. While it is also a measure of how many good scoring chances a team gives up, it is much more telling in regards to goaltender performance.

Brent Johnson was fortunate enough to be a subpar goalie on a very good team, while Salo has struggled on a team who hasn't been nearly as good over the same period.

If you can't understand why there are many contributing factors other than goaltender performance on winning percentage, making it a very poor stat with which to judge goalies then there is no point continuing this discussion.

Boondock Saint is offline  
Old
02-17-2004, 05:42 AM
  #55
orcatown
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,684
vCash: 500
I think the trade is of little consequence. However Edmonton comes out somewhat ahead. Moss could at least backup in the NHL while Sarno has only a small chance of doing anything.

I think its another example of Burke trying to built up his reputation as a fair GM who doesn't screw people around. After the way he messed around with Baron and Klatt probably needed to do this. The Slegr deal was done to appease Slegr after a near guarantee he would start with the Canucks. Allen's development deep sixed that. Now he does the right thing by Moss. Moss was virtually guarantee backup when he signed but then along came Hedburg. After sitting out through most of the early part of the year and watching Auld play, Moss desparately wanted out. Burke satisfied him. Now he gets the chance that he was never given in Vancouver.

orcatown is offline  
Old
02-17-2004, 08:09 AM
  #56
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZIM
To show that you can prove anything you want via statistics try these numbers:
Johnson GP 143 Wins 76 = 53% wins
Salo GP 512 Wins 204 = 39.8% wins

Johnson GAA - 2.26
Salo GAA - 2.55

Is 53% significantly better than 40%? I know which of these numbers I'd pick.
Is allowing .29 fewer goals per game significantly better? Sure looks like it.

Paying an extra $3M for poorer numbers - priceless.
Once again, do you think that Johnsons numbers had more to do with his ability than the team that played in front of him?

I don't. His GAA and Wins are directly attributed to the fact he has played on one of the best teams in the Western conference.


Last edited by dawgbone: 02-17-2004 at 08:14 AM.
dawgbone is offline  
Old
02-17-2004, 08:19 AM
  #57
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZIM
Flawed?. The challenge posed by DG was "So where is the significant bit better?". I simply chose a set of numbers that was not flattering to his, or your, cause. The specious response, if the teams were reversed Salo is guaranteed to have better numbers, may or may not be true and cannot be proven.

Actually I thought the objective was to win so I consider winning percentage highly relevant.
That's fine to bring up numbers, but defend them. Are you arguing that Brent Johnson would have had the same number of wins or the same GAA if he didn't play on a top team? Simple logic says no.... and of course there is no way to definitively prove that.

But at some point in time, common sense must prevail... Johnson put up bad numbers on a very good team, Salo's put up bad numbers on a mediocre team.

dawgbone is offline  
Old
02-17-2004, 09:21 AM
  #58
ZIM
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
That's fine to bring up numbers, but defend them. Are you arguing that Brent Johnson would have had the same number of wins or the same GAA if he didn't play on a top team? Simple logic says no.... and of course there is no way to definitively prove that.

But at some point in time, common sense must prevail... Johnson put up bad numbers on a very good team, Salo's put up bad numbers on a mediocre team.
You and the Saint don't understand my reply. Here's what you said to LMHF#1
Quote:
No they aren't a significant bit better than Salo's... try actually looking something up before spouting off:
...
Did you even look, or did you just start typing?
You threw up some numbers (did not defend them I notice other than the spouting off comment if that can be considered a defense).

Regardless I chose to respond by putting forth some numbers that favor Johnson. Now I'm not saying that you typed before thinking, that you didn't look at all the numbers, I'm simply saying that there are other numbers. Since they don't support your viewpoint I understand why you don't like my numbers.

In terms of Johnson I dismissed acquiring him long ago when I heard on the radio some accounts of bizarre behavior - I thought this guy is nuts - no way do we acquire him.

 
Old
02-17-2004, 10:42 AM
  #59
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZIM
Regardless I chose to respond by putting forth some numbers that favor Johnson. Now I'm not saying that you typed before thinking, that you didn't look at all the numbers, I'm simply saying that there are other numbers. Since they don't support your viewpoint I understand why you don't like my numbers.
I did look at all the numbers. But when 2 goalies have similar save %, the one who plays on the better team (both overall and defensively) is going to have a better GAA and Winning %. The fact that you brought up numbers that don't fit my argument doesn't mean I don't like them and dismiss them without merit... We have been discussing them, and I have said why I think they are flawed. If you have an argument about why you feel they aren't flawed, then lay it out... that's what these message boards are for.

I don't like your numbers primarily because they don't tell a full story. When I compared the goalies, I looked at their record, GAA and sv%, which are usually the 3 categories you look at.

It;s like me saying Salo has more wins over the past 3 years, so he is a better goalie (wins are the important thing)... well that's a little skewed because Salo has had significantly more starts to accumulate those wins than Johnson has. In order to compare, you need some tangible numbers, and some tangible facts.

dawgbone is offline  
Old
02-17-2004, 11:37 AM
  #60
ZIM
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
I did look at all the numbers. But when 2 goalies have similar save %, the one who plays on the better team (both overall and defensively) is going to have a better GAA and Winning %. The fact that you brought up numbers that don't fit my argument doesn't mean I don't like them and dismiss them without merit... We have been discussing them, and I have said why I think they are flawed. If you have an argument about why you feel they aren't flawed, then lay it out... that's what these message boards are for.

I don't like your numbers primarily because they don't tell a full story. When I compared the goalies, I looked at their record, GAA and sv%, which are usually the 3 categories you look at.

It;s like me saying Salo has more wins over the past 3 years, so he is a better goalie (wins are the important thing)... well that's a little skewed because Salo has had significantly more starts to accumulate those wins than Johnson has. In order to compare, you need some tangible numbers, and some tangible facts.
To test your supposition that Johnson played on a better defensive team and so by definition would have a better GAA I decided to look at the past.

My first choice was 2001 - 2002. That year St. Louis, 5th in league in GAA had 98 points and a 2.29 GAA. Edmonton, 2nd in league in GAA, had 92 points and a 2.22 GAA. St. Louis outscored Edmonton so maybe that accounts for the 5 more games they won. Regardless, these numbers don't show St. Louis being better defensively than Edmonton.

Next choice 2002 - 2003. St. Louis, 16th ranked in GAA, gets 99 points and a 2.71 GAA while Edmonton, ranked 19th, gets 92 points with a 2.80 GAA. Again, St. Louis outscores Edmonton and this time is also slightly better defensively.

So what about this year. St. Louis , still 16th, has improved to 2.50 and has 64 points. Edmonton, still 19th, is at 2.58 with 56 points. Edmonton is 14th is goals for while St. Louis is 21st.

Do I have a point? How about St. Louis is not significantly better than Edmonton defensively based on GAA. In fact, Edmonton was second best in the league in 2001 - 2002. From my perspective, since St. Louis is not clearly superior to Edmonton defensively, your argument that Johnson will have better numbers than Salo is not supported by the facts.

These 2 teams have very similar numbers over the past 3 years but they have not had similar results, particularly as they relate to getting in the playoffs. Somehow St. Louis is able to win when the Oilers cannot. I hesitate to say coaching but whatever it is, they have it and we don't.

 
Old
02-17-2004, 12:12 PM
  #61
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZIM
To test your supposition that Johnson played on a better defensive team and so by definition would have a better GAA I decided to look at the past.

My first choice was 2001 - 2002. That year St. Louis, 5th in league in GAA had 98 points and a 2.29 GAA. Edmonton, 2nd in league in GAA, had 92 points and a 2.22 GAA. St. Louis outscored Edmonton so maybe that accounts for the 5 more games they won. Regardless, these numbers don't show St. Louis being better defensively than Edmonton.
And that year, Salo had a GAA of 2.22 and a sv% of .913, while Johnson had a gaa of 2.18 and a sv% of .902. If Salo's GAA was .902, Edmonton's GAA would have been about 2.54. Conversely, if Johnson had a .913 sv%, his GAA would have been about 1.96.

St Louis - 1840 Shots allowed
Edmonton - 2115 Shots allowed

Quote:
Next choice 2002 - 2003. St. Louis, 16th ranked in GAA, gets 99 points and a 2.71 GAA while Edmonton, ranked 19th, gets 92 points with a 2.80 GAA. Again, St. Louis outscores Edmonton and this time is also slightly better defensively.
St Louis - 2040 Shots allowed
Edmonton - 2241 Shots allowed

That is 201 more shots allowed, and with a sv% of .900 that is an extra 20 goals against, and the difference was only 8.

Quote:
So what about this year. St. Louis , still 16th, has improved to 2.50 and has 64 points. Edmonton, still 19th, is at 2.58 with 56 points. Edmonton is 14th is goals for wile St. Louis is 21st.
St Louis - 1483 Shots allowed
Edmonton - 1569 Shots allowed

86 more shots, which equals 8 goals more when you use a .900 sv%, and the current difference is 7 goals.

Quote:
Do I have a point? How about St. Louis is not significantly better than Edmonton defensively based on GAA. In fact, Edmonton was second best in the league in 2001 - 2002. From my perspective, since St. Louis is not clearly superior to Edmonton defensively, your argument that Johnson will have better numbers than Salo is not supported by the facts.
On the contrary. St Louis has given up 562 less shots over the past 3 years than Edmonton has, and has only given up 9 less goals.

Quote:
These 2 teams have very similar numbers over the past 3 years but they have not had similar results, particularly as they relate to getting in the playoffs. Somehow St. Louis is able to win when the Oilers cannot. I hesitate to say coaching but whatever it is, they have it and we don't.
Them Scoring 34 more goals and giving up 9 less over the past 3 years probably has a lot to do with it... thats a 44 goal differential, which has probably been the main factor in them getting 21 more points than us over the past 3 seasons.

dawgbone is offline  
Old
02-17-2004, 02:28 PM
  #62
Matts
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,911
vCash: 500
Both are bad goalies

one played on a way better team and one is much cheaper and younger and the other is a guy who's had his work habits questioned by his GM last summer even though he's a vet.

Id' roll the dice on Brent but notin exchange for too many bones

Matts is offline  
Old
02-17-2004, 02:37 PM
  #63
gpearson1968
Registered User
 
gpearson1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: High Point, NC
Country: Canada
Posts: 665
vCash: 450
How much longer until JDD is going to be ready ?

Cheers,
Geoff.

gpearson1968 is offline  
Old
02-17-2004, 04:14 PM
  #64
Cerebral
Registered User
 
Cerebral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,709
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gpearson1968
How much longer until JDD is going to be ready ?

Cheers,
Geoff.
Quite a while.. he is supposedly a project goaltender and is probably going to need a couple years in the AHL to get ready for NHL action. I wouldn't expect him for another 2-3 years at the earliest..

Cerebral is offline  
Old
02-17-2004, 05:45 PM
  #65
Master Lok
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 6,806
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matts
one played on a way better team and one is much cheaper and younger and the other is a guy who's had his work habits questioned by his GM last summer even though he's a vet.

Id' roll the dice on Brent but notin exchange for too many bones
For once, I agree with you Matts.

Master Lok is offline  
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 11:26 AM.

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.