HFBoards Tommy Salo: Fan Perception and Home Truths
 Register FAQ Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
 Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
 Notices Edmonton Oilers Prospects:    Darnell Nurse, D   » Martin Marincin, D   » Oscar Klefbom, D   » Mitchell Moroz, LW   » Jujhar Khaira, C/LW   » Laurent Brossoit, G   » Marc-Olivier Roy, C/RW   » David Musil, D   » Dillon Simpson, D   » Taylor Fedun, D   »

# Tommy Salo: Fan Perception and Home Truths

03-24-2005, 08:14 AM
#101
oilswell
Registered User

Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Wandering the globe
Posts: 1,760
vCash: 500
Thanks for taking the time to help shed light on this. Brief not on the math, which is really dead simple. The first graph is a scatter plot with team GF-GA differential (full year) on the Y axis and goalie SV% (all conditions) on the X axis. The clear trend (IMO) is that as one rises the other rises. The strength of this trend is .87 as measured by correlation between the two variables (team GF-GA and starter SV%). The second graph is a line graph with two lines, starter (blue) and 1st backup (pink). The Y axis is SV% (all conditions) and the X axis is rank. The purpose of showing it as a line plot is to give a subjective feel about how starter/backup SV%s relate as a function of team goal differential. If either starter or backup SV% are not related to team ranking on GF-GA, the plot will look like a random graph with lines bobbing up and down unpredictably. On the other hand a trend would be indicated by a fairly discernable line and relations between starter and backup would be revealed if the general line trends are apparent in both lines (no relation would mean the lines wander about independently). The line graph (IMO again) appears at first glance to indicate some weird and unexpected relationship between starter and backup.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by igor I don't know either. But the first guess would be the SELs criterion for a SOG might be different.
Good point. Not sure what that would do.

Quote:
 Are the empy-netters filtered out here? ... because they bugger things up in a low scoring league like the NHL or SEL.
I have no way of filtering them so yes they're buggering it up. So the crummier the team the more likely the SV% drops (although you could argue the likelihood of a close enough score is only high enough for the middle group of teams).

Quote:
 If the NHL were truly a "free market" for players, then the teams that scored a lot would usually have the bast Save%'s too ... because DET, PHI, NYR or TOR would have Nabakov and Luongo on their rosters fairly early into their careers. And they would also have more than their share of good skaters.
Again, we're in lock step here as I figured that would be a relationship. But, really, wouldn't you think that (a) the draft buggers it up, particularly since until guys like Luongo, Dipietro, Fleury and Letonen, but also before when goalies were crap shoots, and (b) teams without infinite cash will spend their money differently, meaning some will invest in F instead of G and thus scattering the money:effectiveness relationship.

Quote:
 Bear in mind that random chance alone means that about a third of goalies must have save% numbers 8 points off of their recent career average after a season of hockey. And with the same group a third will be 16 points off their average at the quarter pole of the season. Just keeps on happening, year after year after year. No need for concern. (all rough numbers)
Of course that's the main point. Still, if you take that as a given, it's a head-scratcher, don't you think, if even with these random deviations the correlation between goal differential and SV% is so high for the SEL? If we assume random drift from career SV%, why should the pecking order be largely maintained?

03-24-2005, 08:36 AM
#102
igor*

Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by oilswell Thanks for taking the time to help shed light on this. Brief note on the math, which is really dead simple. The first graph is a scatter plot with team GF-GA differential (full year) on the Y axis and goalie SV% (all conditions) on the X axis. The clear trend (IMO) is that as one rises the other rises.
Fair enough, but isn't that inevitable? Since SV% will, by definition, have a big impact on goals against?

How about GF vs SV%? in a cartel league with perfect parity this should be flat or only rise a bit (because of empty netters). In a free market system this should be an upward trend, since teams that can afford better goalies can presumably afford better skaters. The NHL errs towards the cartel with parity (though not very well) and the SEL, I assume its like soccer over there, it's nearer a free market system.

If I get the chance today I'll run the same numbers for the NHL. Which should be a flatter than the SEL because of the draft structure.

03-24-2005, 08:39 AM
#103
dynastydays
Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. John's, Newfound
Country:
Posts: 3,606
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by igor That seems a bit harsh on Fuhr. Though I have to admit I am having difficulty finding any good info to the contrary. By playoff numbers alone, and just since 87/88 because that's all I have in CSV format (playoff numbers alone are pretty dodgy ... but still, that's when I remember Fuhr playing great) ... decent but not stellar Save%. Comparing to Roy in the same years ... * When Fuhr was an Oiler, Patrick Roy was averaging a save% .0184 higher in the same years as a Hab in the playoffs. * When Fuhr was a Sabre or Blue and made the playoffs ... in those same years Roy averaged a save% .0196 better than Fuhr in the playoffs. . In fairness, Roy was entering his prime as Fuhr was exitting his. I could dig deeper into this, account for quality of opposition, etc. But I won't (cool if someone else did though) ... it's pretty clear where it's going. But as far as spectacular saves go, the type that nobody else could likely have made ... Fuhr was king IMO.
IIRC The years alluded to here are back when Montreal held the stingiest iron-clad defense in the league, which surely is as much of a factor towards Roys elevated stats in comparison to dynasty years Fuhr stats. Playing behind a defensive outlook that would make Sandis Ozolinsh blush.

03-24-2005, 08:51 AM
#104
igor*

Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by dynastydays IIRC The years alluded to here are back when Montreal held the stingiest iron-clad defense in the league, which surely is as much of a factor towards Roys elevated stats in comparison to dynasty years Fuhr stats. Playing behind a defensive outlook that would make Sandis Ozolinsh blush.
Yet the number stays the same for the years when Fuhr played for BUF and STL and Roy for COL. Mysterious, no?

BTW: Your memory of those Habs teams is very different than mine. To me they were like BUF of the late 90's ... an average (at best) team with a stellar goalie.

03-24-2005, 09:02 AM
#105
dynastydays
Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. John's, Newfound
Country:
Posts: 3,606
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by igor Yet the number stays the same for the years when Fuhr played for BUF and STL and Roy for COL. Mysterious, no? BTW: Your memory of those Habs teams is very different than mine. To me they were like BUF of the late 90's ... an average (at best) team with a stellar goalie.
I was a young person way back then, but it seems I remember their defensive system was heads and shoulders above the league norm. Obviously attributable to Roy to a degree, but in whole their defensive corps and responsible offensive players + system was pretty tight. I may be off base here, id be interetsed in some *older* memebrs here maybe shed some more light on it?

As far as Fuhrs numbers, im not suprised they stay the same, as he was in a steep decline at those years which would jump the gap between playing on a defense-absent Oilers squad, and a defensively responsible latterday nhl squad. You cant look at the numbers and say, theyre the sam eso nothings changed... everything changed except the numbers, that tells a whole different story.

03-24-2005, 09:09 AM
#106
igor*

Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by dynastydays I was a young person way back then, but it seems I remember their defensive system was heads and shoulders above the league norm. Obviously attributable to Roy to a degree, but in whole their defensive corps and responsible offensive players + system was pretty tight. I may be off base here, id be interetsed in some *older* memebrs here maybe shed some more light on it? As far as Fuhrs numbers, im not suprised they stay the same, as he was in a steep decline at those years which would jump the gap between playing on a defense-absent Oilers squad, and a defensively responsible latterday nhl squad. You cant look at the numbers and say, theyre the sam eso nothings changed... everything changed except the numbers, that tells a whole different story.
Ya, there are a lot of apologies out there. I've authored a few myself. :-) Surely someone will be able to come up with something better than this though.

Though I suspect that those that dig for sensible evidence will surprise themselves.

Last edited by igor*: 03-24-2005 at 09:18 AM.

03-24-2005, 09:15 AM
#107
igor*

Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,276
vCash: 500
oilswell: Twas easy ... see team EV goals-for VS team EVsave% below.

A correlation of only .12. Which is moving off goaltending a bit IMO, and into business modelling. And this NHL monopoly (or cartel if you prefer) is actually pretty damn effective at keeping the good goalies out of the hands of the wealthy, relatively speaking (i.e. in comparison to skaters).
Attached Images
 save%-GFjpg.JPG‎ (50.7 KB, 4 views)

03-24-2005, 09:22 AM
#108
speeds
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: St.Albert
Posts: 6,822
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by igor oilswell: Twas easy ... see team EV goals-for VS team EVsave% below. A correlation of only .12. Which is moving off goaltending a bit IMO, and into business modelling. And this NHL monopoly (or cartel if you prefer) is actually pretty damn effective at keeping the good goalies out of the hands of the wealthy, relatively speaking (i.e. in comparison to skaters).
I wonder how much of that has to do with the late UFA age in the NHL specifically, or the draft, or the inability to sell players instead of just trading for other players?

I've always kind of wondered how they decide the effect of these kinds of things, or if they even care and just say "let's work with the system we've got, and not worry about what could be"

03-24-2005, 09:34 AM
#109
dynastydays
Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. John's, Newfound
Country:
Posts: 3,606
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by igor Ya, there are a lot of apologies out there. I've authored a few myself. :-) Surely someone will be able to come up with something better than this though. Though I suspect that those that dig for sensible evidence will surprise themselves.
You're a sharped tounged bugger with a knack for stabbing people as youre shaking their hand arent you

But seriously, I do not consider myself an apologist. Did you watch Oilers hockey back then? It was laughable to an extent, if they didnt have the best collection of talent maybe ever assembled, they would have been perennial doormats playing like they did.

Surely you must agree if you take one goaltender in two opposite environments there most definitely will be fluctuation in stats. Imagine the magnitude of quality chances Fuhr of the Oilers faced versus Fuhr of the Sabres. Its laughable, yet Fuhrs stats remained the same... shoudnt he have elevated his stats with Buffalo logically had he remained the same goaltender?

This isnt bible here obviously, but logic is logic, and it seems fairly sensical to me.

03-24-2005, 09:54 AM
#110
igor*

Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by dynastydays You're a sharped tounged bugger with a knack for stabbing people as youre shaking their hand arent you
That's hurtful.

Quote:
 But seriously, I do not consider myself an apologist. Did you watch Oilers hockey back then? It was laughable to an extent, if they didnt have the best collection of talent maybe ever assembled, they would have been perennial doormats playing like they did.
I watched a lot of NHL hockey back then ... and almost every team played a wide open style. Or rather they didn't keep the forecheckers higher than their man and/or the puck. With very few exceptions.

I like the humour of MacT sometimes, and a while ago he said on the radio, roughly "back then if you circled behind your net you'd beaten three guys, now you don't beat anyone until you're across the red line" I thought it was funny. Wild overstatement, but a lot of truth in their too.

I guess my point is, that for the fans who are looking at the 'good old days' through orange and blue coloured glasses ... seems like the Oilers were 'the' caution-to-the-wind team ... when in fact they were one of many. They just had better players, specifically Gretzky.

As an aside ... I firmly believe that everyone under the age of 35 undervalues Gretzky. Because they remember the 90s Gretzky, after his concussion. He was still a great player then ... but he was absolutely dominant before, as an Oiler and his first bit as a King.

03-24-2005, 10:12 AM
#111
mudcrutch79
Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: The Big Smoke
Posts: 3,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by igor As an aside ... I firmly believe that everyone under the age of 35 undervalues Gretzky. Because they remember the 90s Gretzky, after his concussion. He was still a great player then ... but he was absolutely dominant before, as an Oiler and his first bit as a King.
I wouldn't be so sure everyone under 35 underrates him. The speaker I heard on arbitration in pro sport recently was pretty funny though. He was talking about how whenever you bring up +/- in an arbitration hearing, you get it thrown back in your face that Gretzky had a poor +/-. I suggested that maybe late edition Gretzky wasn't very useful. I earned myself a number of incredulous looks for that.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by dynastydays Surely you must agree if you take one goaltender in two opposite environments there most definitely will be fluctuation in stats. Imagine the magnitude of quality chances Fuhr of the Oilers faced versus Fuhr of the Sabres. Its laughable, yet Fuhrs stats remained the same... shoudnt he have elevated his stats with Buffalo logically had he remained the same goaltender?
1990-91, 1995-96, 1996-97, 1998-99. The only seasons Fuhr had a better save percentage than the predominant other goalie on the team. That says a lot right there. For what it's worth, his save percentage did rise in Buffalo and in subsequent tenures. I'd say that reflected the changing nature of the game, as much as anything.

Grant Fuhr should cut Gretzky and the boys a nice cheque though. Had he spent his mid-80's with Winnipeg, he would have been finished by about 1991. Those guys enabled him to make an extra \$14MM or so. Not too shabby.

03-24-2005, 10:22 AM
#112
igor*

Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by mudcrutch79 I wouldn't be so sure everyone under 35 underrates him. The speaker I heard on arbitration in pro sport recently was pretty funny though. He was talking about how whenever you bring up +/- in an arbitration hearing, you get it thrown back in your face that Gretzky had a poor +/-. I suggested that maybe late edition Gretzky wasn't very useful. I earned myself a number of incredulous looks for that. ...
Sounds like an interesting guy, what else did he have to say?

On Gretzky ... ya, he faded pretty fast. I'm sure he was a dynamite +/- guy in his prime though. Not Bobby Orr ... but damn good relative to the league and his teammates. +100ish one year I think, and amongst the leaders in this regard pretty regularly IIRC.

Messier is another guy who has been a +/- trainwreck since the age of 35 or so. Especially in the playoffs. But how many millions did he earn in the following 8 or 9 years since, just on reputation? ... a few bucks. He should cut Gretzky a check for making him a "winner".

 03-24-2005, 10:34 AM #113 dynastydays Registered User     Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: St. John's, Newfound Country: Posts: 3,606 vCash: 500 I digress as I'm having a very very very busy day at work here. But as MC said his %'s did rise with the sabres and subsequent seasons. MC attributes it to the changing game, as do I. Fewer quality scoring chances all around. Combine that with the degradation in Fuhr's abilities (cocaine anyone?) its a testament to exactly the role he played in the Oilers stanley cup years. Maybe it was all hype and romance when Fuhr was regarded the best goalie in the world outside the mystery of Tretiak... but I'm just gonna end my part in this by saying I've noticed there seems to be a bit of romance and glorification of debunking Oilers lore and history on these boards as well... which is great, but those glasses although not looking orange and blue, are definitely shaded, green skies anyone?
03-24-2005, 10:37 AM
#114
igor*

Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by mudcrutch79 ... For what it's worth, his save percentage did rise in Buffalo and in subsequent tenures. I'd say that reflected the changing nature of the game, as much as anything.
Yup, Roy's rised similarly then too. The beginning of the end of that era. For better or worse.

03-24-2005, 10:57 AM
#115
dynastydays
Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. John's, Newfound
Country:
Posts: 3,606
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by igor Yup, Roy's rised similarly then too. The beginning of the end of that era. For better or worse.
Roys went up. Fuhrs went up. Roy was getting towards his prime years. Fuhr was past his prime on the downgrade years. Logically, it would say that Fuhr past his prime would not increase the same rate that Roys would. Unless of couse, his prime stats were victimized by a care free defensive scheme. Sorry for the apologies, it just makes plain old fasioned sense.

03-24-2005, 11:25 AM
#116
igor*

Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by dynastydays Roys went up. Fuhrs went up. Roy was getting towards his prime years. Fuhr was past his prime on the downgrade years. Logically, it would say that Fuhr past his prime would not increase the same rate that Roys would. Unless of couse, his prime stats were victimized by a care free defensive scheme. Sorry for the apologies, it just makes plain old fasioned sense.
Gawd, you are a halfwit. No handshake there. :-)

Roy's save percentage rose considerably over the timeframe. As I stated in my post on this subject Roy was entering his prime as Fuhr was exitting his. Surely this wordning was not too complex.

Try simulating it on a video game. Weren't you one of the kids who simulated Reasoner into being one of the leagues best offensive players after he was acquired? :lol Lowe owes that NHL 2000 (or whatever) programmer a dinner!

03-24-2005, 11:27 AM
#117
oilswell
Registered User

Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Wandering the globe
Posts: 1,760
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by igor A correlation of only .12. Which is moving off goaltending a bit IMO, and into business modelling.
That's much "better" in the sense that it matches my expectations more. The SEL numbers were too weird, with a pretty high GF correlation. Note that while the GA correlation is "inevitable", the correlation to GF-GA should not be expected to be higher than GA correlation unless the correlation truly is to better team, not better GA.

The explanation you've offered is that the SEL has distributed goalie quality in reasonable match to team quality, making the distribution seem eerie to me. Sounds plausible. If we make that assumption, the implication is that Bjorn Bjurling looks like he could be a good goalie for the Oilers. He's an older prospect but still younger than Conkkanen so they could move one part of that duo. Granted, the half season could be off, what?, 10-16 points from his "true" career SV%, but his SV% was .9134 and his past years (from hockeydb) were .923 and .920 so that's sounding promising. And it has nothing to do with the team in front of him, even if it looks circumstantially suspect.

He was on a team where Turco and Theodore, respectively, took home .9318 and .9168. But since the team effect is unlikely to have impacted his SV% unfairly we can have at least some confidence that generally he was a good goalie (he played about the same minutes as Turco and Theodore combined). The fact that Bjurling's SV% is similar to two other goalies on the same team is not due to the quality of the team in front of them.

Also, his numbers look good in comparison to Kiprusoff, who came in at .9159. Even though Kiprusoff's team had a better goal differential it's unlikely that this was due to Kiprusoff being heroic in keeping the SV% up that high. Contrary to any apologist explanation he wasn't a .930 goalie carrying a crummy team giving up lots of great chances, rather he was merely a .9159 goalie on the third best team in the league and the one giving up the fewest shots. A mean person might even go so far as to wonder whether Timra should have gotten a better goalie or a better performance/horseshoe. Also, Norrena and Lundqvist sumply had better 2500+ minutes than Kiprusoff did this time...shift happened. It had nothing to do with the fact that these two top goalies happened to be on the teams that scored the most goals in the league. That didn't boost their SV%. And the fact that the two top SV%s are on the best teams is easily explainable because (a) the good results were inevitable from their elite performances, (b) its just happenstance that this holds, and (c) the SEL business ensured that the best goalies (Lundqvist and Norrena) would end up with the better skating teams.

It may sound like a heck of a story, but life is better than fiction. I'm happier with this explanation than the alternative.

03-24-2005, 11:56 AM
#118
dynastydays
Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. John's, Newfound
Country:
Posts: 3,606
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by igor Gawd, you are a halfwit. No handshake there. :-) Roy's save percentage rose considerably over the timeframe. As I stated in my post on this subject Roy was entering his prime as Fuhr was exitting his. Surely this wordning was not too complex. Try simulating it on a video game. Weren't you one of the kids who simulated Reasoner into being one of the leagues best offensive players after he was acquired? :lol Lowe owes that NHL 2000 (or whatever) programmer a dinner!
Whatever. I'll not stoop to childish banter with you. Halfwit? Not at all. Video games? Not me, good one, your dad gonna beat up mine too? Insulting my intelligence because I disagree with you says something about yourself in volumes I may add.

As far as your 'facts' ... rose considerably? not so much.

Grant Fuhr: '82 -> '89 = .876
Grant Fuhr: '90 -> 94 = .890

Pat Roy: '86 -> '89 = .900
Pat Roy: '90 -> '94 = .908

Fuhr made an Increase of +.014
Roy made an Increase of +.008
Fuhr was on his downslide, Roy was a budding superstar with an all star defensive cast in front of him.

Thats not video games... have some class.

 03-24-2005, 12:01 PM #119 igor*   Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 3,276 vCash: 500 oilswell: Good news on Bjurling. Seems like guys who rack up good save%s in the SEL and FEL, year after year, are just good goalies. I never realized he'd done well in the past. A lot of the NHLers have only faced a few shots by the looks of it. I mean you can't get too excited about Turco's .930+ or whatever, because he's only faced 200 or so shots. Even Fernandez has only faced what, 500ish shots. Nurminen has no excuse though ... either a crappy year or he's just not very good. Having said that ... he's only totalled a .904 svae% as an NHLer. Boucher neither ... though he's just a career .901 guy in the NHL. On the economic side of it though ... I guess I just assume that the SEL works like European soccer. And I lived in England for a while and became a Southampton FC fan, and for reasons unknown I've followed them ever since, not fanatically, but still. And with one exception (LeTissier) that team has always lost it's best players as soon as they have a good year. They sell their contracts for cash while hey still have value (i.e. time left on the contract). The Saints had a very good young goalie in about '90, Tim Flowers. At the time he was doing really well and I think most people thought he'd play for England one day (at least Saints fans did) ... he was sold to Blackburn the next year (a very rich team at the time). Nobody shed any tears, that's just the way it works. ManU and Arsenal always seemed to have good goalies. Hell, ManU went through a long stretch of arguably having the best goalies in the work (Schmeichel and then Barthez). I don't know what those guys earned, but it was probably more than the Saints roster. Southampton has had a couple of decent years in between. Some nice cup runs (they are like a separate tourney). Qualified for Europe one year. But for the most part they struggle to avoid finishing in the bottom 3 and being relegated to a lower league (this year might be the one that gets them, its not looking good). Anyhow, looking at the SEL game lines a while ago, it looked like there was a helluva spread in some of these games, for the FEL too. You have to think that there is tremendous disparity between the haves and have-nots. Just like English Premiership Soccer. If there is a way to measure soccer goalies (like a QB rating or something) then I'd be pretty sure that the best goalies are usually on the teams with the best offensive mid-fielders and the best strikers. Because that's just the way it is. So that's the thought I can' get from my head. I don't know the SEL at all. But it would surprise me if it worked all that differently than EPL from an economic standpoint. And from a distribution of talent standpoint. . In the NHL you just don't see terrific young goalies being moved that much before UFA age. Roy is the obvious exception ... Hasek was close and IIRC pretty much demanded a trade. Luongo ... but before he really even got his feet wet (and a bizarre move by Milbury there IMO). Usually they seem to stick around a while with their first team. And it's just not easy to buy a bigtime goalie that still has something left in the tank, no matter how much cash you have. Though with benefit of hindsight, STL probably should have tried to when their window was there.
03-24-2005, 01:13 PM
#120
igor*

Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by dynastydays Whatever. I'll not stoop to childish banter with you. Halfwit? Not at all. Video games? Not me, good one, your dad gonna beat up mine too? Insulting my intelligence because I disagree with you says something about yourself in volumes I may add. As far as your 'facts' ... rose considerably? not so much. Grant Fuhr: '82 -> '89 = .876 Grant Fuhr: '90 -> 94 = .890 Pat Roy: '86 -> '89 = .900 Pat Roy: '90 -> '94 = .908 Fuhr made an Increase of +.014 Roy made an Increase of +.008 Fuhr was on his downslide, Roy was a budding superstar with an all star defensive cast in front of him. Thats not video games... have some class.
Well, looks like you made an effort. So I did too.

Here is Roy vs Fuhr in save%. I'm missing three of the early years for Fuhr's save% ... 81/82, 83/84 and 85/86 ... so the line just goes straight through at those points. I'm missing 85/86 for Roy.

He actually dropped a bit in from EDM to TOR in his first year ... then bounced back but dropped a bit again moving from TOR to BUF ... not huge bounces. Often an unhealthy guy though, so his save% is a little more erratic because of so many seasons where he didn't play many games.
Attached Images
 Fuhr-Roy.JPG‎ (62.1 KB, 9 views)

03-24-2005, 01:48 PM
#121
dynastydays
Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. John's, Newfound
Country:
Posts: 3,606
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by igor Well, looks like you made an effort. So I did too. Here is Roy vs Fuhr in save%. I'm missing three of the early years for Fuhr's save% ... 81/82, 83/84 and 85/86 ... so the line just goes straight through at those points. I'm missing 85/86 for Roy. Obviously Fuhr had a 4 year headstart in his career. He actually dropped a bit in from EDM to TOR in his first year ... then bounced back but dropped a bit again moving from TOR to BUF ... not huge bounces. Often an unhealthy guy though, so his save% is a little more erratic because of so many seasons where he didn't play many games.
Yeah, the first move drops though is sort of insignificant considering he had a .897 over 13 games before his move to his usual .881 over the rest 65 of the season.

But my point was only that its kind of odd for a significant jump in his decline years that matches the jump of a budding superstar, in this case, a higher jump even. Says to me that the percentage of quality scoring chances Fuhr faced, in comparison to his Oiler years, declined significantly. Thus, even though he was older,on the decline, a drug addiction victim, his numbers remained constant and even increased a % higher than likely the best netminder to play in the NHL (ROY), because his situation was nolonger as damning towards his stats like when he was playing with EDM in his prime.

Thats my point, plain and simple (to which I was called an apologist, a half-wit and other related insults).

03-24-2005, 01:57 PM
#122
igor*

Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by dynastydays ... But my point was only that its kind of odd for a significant jump in his decline years that matches the jump of a budding superstar, in this case, a higher jump even. ...
I think you're completely wrong. If you look at that graph any person could carefully select a certain section of it and proclaim a trend. But I think it's pretty obvious, no?

The fact is that Roy's increase represents the shift in save% for the league ... and Fuhr followed along that line roughly ... just below it. Because he was never as capable of stopping as high a percentage of shots as Roy.

I don't hate Fuhr, I like him. Hell, I wouldn't have imagined that Fuhr wasn't better until yesterday when Oi'llsay (who actually saw Fuhr play a lot in the 80s) kept ranting on about it. So I checked. And the playoffs show the same trend. relative to the league. And it supports what Oill'say is saying.

I don't have to like facts to accept them.

 03-24-2005, 02:16 PM #123 copperandblue Registered User   Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 10,724 vCash: 500 I don't get the Fuhr/Roy comparison on a couple fronts. First off Roy is the best modern day goaltender and one of the best all time as well as a lock to be a hall of famer. Is it fair to use him as an argument to show that Fuhr is/was over rated? Second, Roy revolutionized the way goaltending was played. Did he do it for giggles or because it proved effective? It should come as no surprise then that Roy's numbers lead the pack for the time period that is being discussed. Does any of this take away from the fact that for a time, in the '80's, with the style of play on the ice and the style of play in the net, Fuhr was regarded as one of, if not the best goaltender in the league? I don't think so. Stats can be used for generalizations but they don't paint the whole picture. As a guy that used to look at Save % as the most telling stat for how good a goalie is, I can now say that Igor has convinced me otherwise.
03-24-2005, 02:27 PM
#124
dynastydays
Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. John's, Newfound
Country:
Posts: 3,606
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by igor I think you're completely wrong. If you look at that graph any person could carefully select a certain section of it and proclaim a trend. But I think it's pretty obvious, no? The fact is that Roy's increase represents the shift in save% for the league ... and Fuhr followed along that line roughly ... just below it. Because he was never as capable of stopping as high a percentage of shots as Roy. I don't hate Fuhr, I like him. Hell, I wouldn't have imagined that Fuhr wasn't better until yesterday when Oi'llsay (who actually saw Fuhr play a lot in the 80s) kept ranting on about it. So I checked. And the playoffs show the same trend. relative to the league. And it supports what Oill'say is saying. I don't have to like facts to accept them.
On the contrary, graphs are derived from numbers and its easy to look at peaks and valleys and make vague comments about them. Do up the numbers and its like I said... .876 -> .890 roughly versus .900 -> .908

The point never was that Fuhr can stop as many shots as Roy. Let me summarize for you...

Igor: Yet the number stays the same for the years when Fuhr played for BUF and STL and Roy for COL. Mysterious, no?

DD: As far as Fuhrs numbers, im not suprised they stay the same, as he was in a steep decline at those years which would jump the gap between playing on a defense-absent Oilers squad, and a defensively responsible latterday nhl squad. You cant look at the numbers and say, theyre the sam eso nothings changed... everything changed except the numbers, that tells a whole different story.

Igor: Ya, there are a lot of apologies out there. I've authored a few myself. :-) Surely someone will be able to come up with something better than this though.

Though I suspect that those that dig for sensible evidence will surprise themselves.

Igor: Yup, Roy's rised similarly then too. The beginning of the end of that era. For better or worse.

DD: Roys went up. Fuhrs went up. Roy was getting towards his prime years. Fuhr was past his prime on the downgrade years. Logically, it would say that Fuhr past his prime would not increase the same rate that Roys would. Unless of couse, his prime stats were victimized by a care free defensive scheme. Sorry for the apologies, it just makes plain old fasioned sense.

Igor: Gawd, you are a halfwit. No handshake there. :-)

Roy's save percentage rose considerably over the timeframe. As I stated in my post on this subject Roy was entering his prime as Fuhr was exitting his. Surely this wordning was not too complex.

DD: As far as your 'facts' ... rose considerably? not so much.

Grant Fuhr: '82 -> '89 = .876
Grant Fuhr: '90 -> 94 = .890

Pat Roy: '86 -> '89 = .900
Pat Roy: '90 -> '94 = .908

Fuhr made an Increase of +.014
Roy made an Increase of +.008
Fuhr was on his downslide, Roy was a budding superstar with an all star defensive cast in front of him.

03-24-2005, 02:28 PM
#125
mudcrutch79
Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: The Big Smoke
Posts: 3,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by copperandblue Stats can be used for generalizations but they don't paint the whole picture. As a guy that used to look at Save % as the most telling stat for how good a goalie is, I can now say that Igor has convinced me otherwise.
It's like Bouchard convincing the French not to separate.

Forum Jump