Honestly, it's amazing that people believe that teams deserve every victory that the get and every loss that they get. How is it even possible to watch hockey while completely oblivious to the impact luck has on outcomes?
Honestly, it's amazing that people believe that teams deserve every victory that the get and every loss that they get. How is it even possible to watch hockey while completely oblivious to the impact luck has on outcomes?
I think it's funny you thinking everyone discounts luck when you're overemphasizing it to the nth degree.
The average even-strength save percentage among starting goalies in the NHL each of the past two seasons has been 0.920. This year, Niemi's posted a 0.925 and last season he had a 0.931.
But, hey, don't let facts get in the way of your argument.
Surely the playoffs won't be played even strength in their entirety, right? So why does this matter?
Maybe you can use a more appropriate stat. Maybe just general save %.
Then we need to figure out how that measures the impact on our team having to play rebound bonanza every time there's a shot against. Is there a stat for this?
In a small sample (like six games), yes. It's not something you can disagree with, it's a fact. The larger the sample size, the less of an impact randomness has on a team's record. This isn't complicated.
You can't see the forest through the trees can you?
Randomness definitely plays a part of a short series but it is by no means the determining factor. By your reasoning an AHL team could have an equal shot at challenging for the cup. Obviously, thats an exageration.. But you can't ignore match-ups, strategy, individual heroic efforts, etc.
Honestly, it's amazing that people believe that teams deserve every victory that the get and every loss that they get. How is it even possible to watch hockey while completely oblivious to the impact luck has on outcomes?
How do you watch hockey and get enjoyment from it then?
Surely the playoffs won't be played even strength in their entirety, right? So why does this matter?
Maybe you can use a more appropriate stat. Maybe just general save %.
Then we need to figure out how that measures the impact on our team having to play rebound bonanza every time there's a shot against. Is there a stat for this?
Career even-strength SV% is the single best indicator of a goaltender's talent level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadmanSJ
You can't see the forest through the trees can you?
Randomness definitely plays a part of a short series but it is by no means the determining factor. By your reasoning an AHL team could have an equal shot at challenging for the cup. Obviously, thats an exageration.. But you can't ignore match-ups, strategy, individual heroic efforts, etc.
Shooting percentage in the short term is completely random and shooting percentage plays a huge part in determining results.
In a small sample (like six games), yes. It's not something you can disagree with, it's a fact. The larger the sample size, the less of an impact randomness has on a team's record. This isn't complicated.
So our overall record isn't random, but it doesn't matter who we start in the playoffs, because the result of those 7 game samples will be random? Is that it?
So our overall record isn't random, but it doesn't matter who we start in the playoffs, because the result of those 7 game samples will be random? Is that it?
This has nothing to do with the subject of this thread, 210 brought up his mangled version of what I'd said somewhere else for no reason.
They should definitely start Niemi. You want the goaltender with a higher talent level and that's obviously Niemi. That said, his SV% in a seven-game sample is going to be unpredictable and random but there's a higher probability of Niemi posting an adequate SV% than Greiss.
Shooting percentage in the short term is completely random and shooting percentage plays a huge part in determining results.
So tell me. Would you rather have Mike Grier or Sidney Crosby with the puck on his stick in a breakaway situation in the waning seconds of a tied game 7 ?
Maybe the stats average out over the long term but this isn't a computer simulation. When the playoffs roll around the teams are all similarly matched to have made it to that point so the team that wants it more and has everyone on board taking very few shifts off will usually win. Very rarely will the team that outplays the other by any measure lose due to flukey bounces and randomness. It is possible but not as plausible. Even less so through 4 rounds of grueling hockey.
Are you a game simulator rather than a game player?
So tell me. Would you rather have Mike Grier or Sidney Crosby with the puck on his stick in a breakaway situation in the waning seconds of a tied game 7 ?
Maybe the stats average out over the long term but this isn't a computer simulation. When the playoffs roll around the teams are all similarly matched to have made it to that point so the team that wants it more and has everyone on board taking very few shifts off will usually win. Very rarely will the team that outplays the other by any measure lose due to flukey bounces and randomness. It is possible but not as plausible. Even less so through 4 rounds of grueling hockey.
Are you a game simulator rather than a game player?
A neat little counterpoint with one of LW's less valued teams, the Preds, is called for. Check their team shooting percentage and the differential with the Sharks. The Preds are a great case in point regarding shooting percentage as they play to increase high percentage chances but give up shots against to do so and get less shots for. The emphasis in a game played to the Preds style is tilted towards the differential in raw goalie play.
So tell me. Would you rather have Mike Grier or Sidney Crosby with the puck on his stick in a breakaway situation in the waning seconds of a tied game 7 ?
Maybe the stats average out over the long term but this isn't a computer simulation. When the playoffs roll around the teams are all similarly matched to have made it to that point so the team that wants it more and has everyone on board taking very few shifts off will usually win. Very rarely will the team that outplays the other by any measure lose due to flukey bounces and randomness. It is possible but not as plausible. Even less so through 4 rounds of grueling hockey.
Are you a game simulator rather than a game player?
What's wrong with Grier? We could use his PK skills, for sure.
Nemo's been solid lately, one of the best Sharks in crunch time. Benn breakaway. Leave him in and maybe he can win 4 more series' this year. He is 6 out of 7...
A neat little counterpoint with one of LW's less valued teams, the Preds, is called for. Check their team shooting percentage and the differential with the Sharks. The Preds are a great case in point regarding shooting percentage as they play to increase high percentage chances but give up shots against to do so and get less shots for. The emphasis in a game played to the Preds style is tilted towards the differential in raw goalie play.
So is that why the Preds were 26th in the league in even strength shooting percentage in 2010? Or 22nd the year before?
The question isn't whether or not some teams have higher shooting percentages than others in a season - they pretty obviously do. It's whether or not that higher shooting percentage is a result of talent and seeing as the Predators have definitely not been able to sustain their SH% year over year, there's no evidence they're capable of driving it.
I get the small sample size argument. But there is also the amount of times a 1/2 seed has won it all.
In a single series, if the team is clearly better than you, but you take it to game seven, you could say you played above yourself to achieve that..maybe you were underestimated, you definitely got some bounces, but you also played very disciplined etc..randomness is there but you could also say over a large sample size it just proves how little randomness affects a teams overall performance, while a smaller sample size just makes it harder to show an average..I don't know if that makes sense, it just seems over 7 games it just means you can't accurately map
Out a teams skill, not that randomness actually was a determining factor.
So is that why the Preds were 26th in the league in even strength shooting percentage in 2010? Or 22nd the year before?
The question isn't whether or not some teams have higher shooting percentages than others in a season - they pretty obviously do. It's whether or not that higher shooting percentage is a result of talent and seeing as the Predators have definitely not been able to sustain their SH% year over year, there's no evidence they're capable of driving it.
Their talent says that they should have a low SH%. They optimize their style of play to compensate. Additionally, they got slightly better in the "hands" department this year in terms of personnel. That is an additional boost. The point is that they modify style of play to compensate for raw skill and it is part of the not so random movement in styles across the league which tends to draw percentages to the middle. A coach won't survive long, especially with less talented teams, if he entirely counts on "random". Trotz is a good case study as he admittedly modifies his offensive and defensive styles year-to-year. The second issue in terms of case study is that the Preds have one guy who plays "Sharks" style. His shot percentage for his position is telling and sticks out like a sore thumb for a marginal top sixer (Hornqvist).
Their talent says that they should have a low SH%. They optimize their style of play to compensate. Additionally, they got slightly better in the "hands" department this year in terms of personnel. That is an additional boost. The point is that they modify style of play to compensate for raw skill and it is part of the not so random movement in styles across the league which tends to draw percentages to the middle. A coach won't survive long, especially with less talented teams, if he entirely counts on "random". Trotz is a good case study as he admittedly modifies his offensive and defensive styles year-to-year. The second issue in terms of case study is that the Preds have one guy who plays "Sharks" style. His shot percentage for his position is telling and sticks out like a sore thumb for a marginal top sixer (Hornqvist).
The entire point is that no NHL team in this era is untalented or talented enough to significantly deviate from the main shooting percentage over a large enough sample. The evidence supports that, including that for the Predators.
Are you trying to say Hornqvist, who routinely leads Nashville in goal-scoring, is a bad player?
The average even-strength save percentage among starting goalies in the NHL each of the past two seasons has been 0.920. This year, Niemi's posted a 0.925 and last season he had a 0.931.
But, hey, don't let facts get in the way of your argument.
1) Data source?
2) What do the stats say about Niemi's PK save percentage?
3) What do those stats say about Griess' EV save percentage this year (or Nittymaki's last year)?
2) What do the stats say about Niemi's PK save percentage?
3) What do those stats say about Griess' EV save percentage this year (or Nittymaki's last year)?
NHL.com has even-strength save percentages listed by season for every goalie.
PK SV% is completely random, even over a full season or several seasons. Goalies just don't face enough shots on the penalty kill. That's a big reason to stray away from using overall SV% to evaluate goalies, as well as the fact that it penalizes goaltenders whose teams take more penalties.
Greiss has posted a phenomenal 0.930 even-strength SV% (again, league average is 0.920) but he's only faced 370 even-strength shots so that probably means nothing. Over his entire career, a sample of 729 shots (still not significant), he's posted a 0.920 SV% at even strength.
Niittymaki is a pretty bad goaltender who hasn't belonged in the NHL most of the seasons he's played in it. Injuries certainly haven't helped. On 4863 career even-strength shots, he's posted a 0.912 SV%. You could conceivably pull a goalie out of the AHL or Europe who can give you better numbers than that.
We could use his PK skills, for sure.
)
