HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Interesting goalie numbers...

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-27-2003, 11:58 AM
  #1
Ensane
EL GUAPO
 
Ensane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 15,404
vCash: 500
Interesting goalie numbers...

Take these stats for what they are, just numbers . I'm not trying to imply anything with them. I simply got bored and felt the need to compile them, and since I took the time to gather them, I figure I'd pass it along and those who read it can draw their own conclusions from it all.

You'll see time and time again many people will argue that so and so is only a good goalie because he sees so few shots, or so and so has stellar numbers because he gets in a groove by seeing so many shots. This readout ranks goalies by how many saves they see per minute (rounded to the nearest minute; goalies who haven't played more than 900 minutes were ommitted). The second column gives the goalies ranking by save percentage.

SA / Minute SV% Rank
Fleury .593 24
Luongo .567 2
Caron .553 33
Burke .508 19
Denis .510 21
Giguere .509 23
Kolzig .495 32
Conklin .491 15
Toskala .486 3
Dunham .485 22
Nurminen .484 25
Nabokov .480 10
Theodore .479 9
Fernandez .476 13
Aebischer .474 5
Leighton .470 28
Roloson .466 1
Khabibulin .464 6
Snow .464 30
Vokoun .460 18
Biron .457 31
Raycroft .451 7
Cloutier .450 12
Noronen .449 11
Weeks .437 8
Belfour .432 16
Osgood .419 14
Hackett .418 17
Cechmanek .404 27
Dipietro .399 29
Lalime .392 26
Turco .391 20
Brodeur .390 4

Goes to show you how great Luongo is doing with his situation. He's the only one in the top 8 (SA/M) who has an above average SV%.

Ok, I'm done. Anyone else have any "super observations"?

Ensane is offline  
Old
12-27-2003, 12:19 PM
  #2
BruinsGirl
Registered User
 
BruinsGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Bruinsville, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,159
vCash: 500
This is irrelevant to what you are trying to show here...but to me it shows that Boston has better D than many of us think B's have.

BruinsGirl is offline  
Old
12-27-2003, 12:28 PM
  #3
Ajacied
Remember #9
 
Ajacied's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Netherlands
Country: Netherlands
Posts: 23,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruinsGirl
This is irrelevant to what you are trying to show here...but to me it shows that Boston has better D than many of us think B's have.
Heh, same here.. Derian who?

But, like you mentioned Ensane, there are goalies who excel the more rubber you throw at them and there are ones that like to see a minimum of shots in order to play at the top of their game. So, what your stats prove is how the defense has been, rather then the actual performance of the netminder.

Interesting stats nonetheless.

Ajacied is offline  
Old
12-27-2003, 03:37 PM
  #4
Ensane
EL GUAPO
 
Ensane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 15,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruinsGirl
This is irrelevant to what you are trying to show here...but to me it shows that Boston has better D than many of us think B's have.
I really wasn't trying to show anything -- just wanted to see where goalies stood in the respective categories and felt that since I did hte work, might as well share it.

Ensane is offline  
Old
12-27-2003, 03:53 PM
  #5
Oiler94
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Oiltown
Posts: 866
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Oiler94
Funny how Brodeur is dead last, yet 4th in SV%

Oiler94 is offline  
Old
12-27-2003, 04:14 PM
  #6
Unthinkable
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oiler94
Funny how Brodeur is dead last, yet 4th in SV%
The Devils as a team only give up 23.9 shots against per game. By virtue of this fact alone, saves per minute stats like these are going to suggest he's not as clutch as he is when compared with his competitors.

 
Old
12-27-2003, 05:09 PM
  #7
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 29,239
vCash: 500
Give me a goalie who get my team points. I need not see any other statistic, ever.

Last night was a classic example. Isles up 3-0 in the second vs. NJD, including one goal (Kvasha) that Brodeur would love to have back. From that point forward. Brodeur was fantastic. Isles took it in OT 4-3, but Brodeur was a major reason why his team walked away with a point on a night neither he nor his team were at their best.

Not condemning the effort Ensane, just pointing out how many statistics, while interesting, are irrelevant. The danger is when people hold them up for more than they are (which happens here all too frequently; not in this case).

Trottier is offline  
Old
12-27-2003, 05:18 PM
  #8
Ensane
EL GUAPO
 
Ensane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 15,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier
Give me a goalie who get my team points. I need not see any other statistic, ever.

Last night was a classic example. Isles up 3-0 in the second vs. NJD, including one goal (Kvasha) that Brodeur would love to have back. From that point forward. Brodeur was fantastic. Isles took it in OT 4-3, but Brodeur was a major reason why his team walked away with a point on a night neither he nor his team were at their best.

Not condemning the effort Ensane, just pointing out how many statistics, while interesting, are irrelevant. The danger is when people hold them up for more than they are (which happens here all too frequently; not in this case).
Well, I wanted people to draw their own conclusions because I know how dangerous it can be to use blanket statements with stats as support. But moreso, perhaps we can tell more about a specific goaltender rather than just comparing.

If we're talking Brodeur, it shows that he doesn't necessarily need a lot of shots to still be effective--which is something that people will use as an excuse for a goalie who doesn't face a lot of shots. With Brodeur now though, it's almost automatic that he'll be effective no matter what the situation.

Of course, when it comes to examining things like shots face and save percentage it's even more dangerous because no two shots will be the same. Unfortunately a shot is a shot and there's no telling the difference between a simple dump in and a three on one break.

Ensane is offline  
Old
12-28-2003, 02:03 AM
  #9
Wings9
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 86
vCash: 500
I do not want to start a new thread, so I'll post some other interesting stats here.

Schwab '99 GAA 3.52 SV%.891 (Tampa Bay)
--------'00 GAA 3.56 SV%.861 (Vancouver)
--------'01 GAA 2.73 SV%.894 (Toronto)
--------'02 GAA 1.46 SV%.933 (New Jersey)
--------'03 GAA 0.48 SV%.980 (New Jersey)

Schwab's numbers look great with the Devils, unbelievably great. Which leads further to easily say that Brodeur's numbers are a joke. Plain and simple.

Wings9 is offline  
Old
12-28-2003, 02:11 AM
  #10
Ajacied
Remember #9
 
Ajacied's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Netherlands
Country: Netherlands
Posts: 23,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wings9
I do not want to start a new thread, so I'll post some other interesting stats here.

Schwab '99 GAA 3.52 SV%.891 (Tampa Bay)
--------'00 GAA 3.56 SV%.861 (Vancouver)
--------'01 GAA 2.73 SV%.894 (Toronto)
--------'02 GAA 1.46 SV%.933 (New Jersey)
--------'03 GAA 0.48 SV%.980 (New Jersey)

Schwab's numbers look great with the Devils, unbelievably great. Which leads further to easily say that Brodeur's numbers are a joke. Plain and simple.
Old news, Brodeur's numbers are redicouly inflated by his system, but you have to give credit where its due, his consistency is simply above the rest.

Ajacied is offline  
Old
12-28-2003, 02:31 AM
  #11
meehan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: new york
Country: United States
Posts: 1,960
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to meehan Send a message via AIM to meehan Send a message via MSN to meehan Send a message via Yahoo to meehan Send a message via Skype™ to meehan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Modano = God
Old news, Brodeur's numbers are redicouly inflated by his system, but you have to give credit where its due, his consistency is simply above the rest.
And let me also add that "numbers" don't matter....winning matters. All the great ones were/are winners.

meehan is offline  
Old
12-28-2003, 04:38 AM
  #12
Daryl Shilling
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 145
vCash: 500
Ensane,
I appreciate your work here with goaltenders, however I feel the need to make a point here in regard to a goalie's workload: goalies that face more shots per game do not suffer a negative impact to their save percentages.

Correlation between Shots Faced per 60 Minutes and Save Percentage
2004: 0.161
2003: 0.325
2002: 0.135
2001: 0.121

If facing a large number of shots per 60 minutes was harmful to a goalie's save percentage then we should be seeing correlations in the negatives, around -0.6 or lower. However examining the correlation coefficient shows values of above zero, indicating a very very small positive effect on save percentages. Even at that, in order to infer a strong relationship, we need a correlation of 0.6 or more.

Let's look at Save Percentages in the context of shots faced per game:

Below League-Average Shots Faced/GP:
2004: .910
2003: .904
2002: .907
2001: .904

Above League-Average Shots Faced/GP:
2004: .915
2003: .911
2002: .909
2001: .906

I don't see alot of very convincing evidence that the number of shots faced per game negatively (or even very positively) effects a goaltender's save percentage. Goals against would definitely be effected; 90% of 30 is more than 90% of 20, after all.

Again, good work. It's nice to see somebody else that likes to play with numbers.

Daryl

Daryl Shilling is offline  
Old
12-28-2003, 08:03 AM
  #13
Wings9
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 86
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by meehan
And let me also add that "numbers" don't matter....winning matters. All the great ones were/are winners.
I am not so sure. The Devils just won the cup and are playing very well, but nevertheless the attendance at their games is terrible. There are just few teams in the league which struggle as much as the Devils to get the fans to watch their games.
The Devils also lost around 10 mill $ even though they won the cup and are a low budget team.
There are some great chess players. They are very smart and so on. But I can tell you that I have never watched a sec of a chess match. The same goes with some hochey teams. They play so boring hockey that you have to see 3-4 games and then you do not have to watch any more games. You can just check the score box and that is enough.

Brodeur is a good goalie, but his numbers are misleading big time. He is not close as good goalie as his numbers look like.

Wings9 is offline  
Old
12-28-2003, 08:21 AM
  #14
Missionhockey
Registered User
 
Missionhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 7,584
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wings9
I am not so sure. The Devils just won the cup and are playing very well, but nevertheless the attendance at their games is terrible. There are just few teams in the league which struggle as much as the Devils to get the fans to watch their games.
The Devils also lost around 10 mill $ even though they won the cup and are a low budget team.
There are some great chess players. They are very smart and so on. But I can tell you that I have never watched a sec of a chess match. The same goes with some hochey teams. They play so boring hockey that you have to see 3-4 games and then you do not have to watch any more games. You can just check the score box and that is enough.

Brodeur is a good goalie, but his numbers are misleading big time. He is not close as good goalie as his numbers look like.
Did we not talk about this last time you posted? The Devils are around 20th in attendance I believe. Not horrible as you are implying but the arena in the middle of no where and people can't spend an hour or two getting to the arena. Plus I have seen plenty of exciting Devils games (the Isles game the other night, every Flyers game this season) Even the 1-0 game vs the Isles was exciting. Lots of saves by both goalies Snow and Broduer. I think you should actually watch a Devils game and not just say what other people tell you.

Missionhockey is offline  
Old
12-28-2003, 09:54 AM
  #15
btn
Gone Hollywood
 
btn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: ATL
Country: United States
Posts: 15,675
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wings9
Brodeur is a good goalie, but his numbers are misleading big time. He is not close as good goalie as his numbers look like.
3 Cups, 1 Vezina(should be more), should have at least one Conn Smythe(it was the Lemieux one I missed)

I would put those numbers up against any goalie in the league. The lack of shots against Brodeur does have to do with the style the Devils play, but it also has to do with the fact that Brodeur does a great job not giving up rebounds and he is one of the best puck handling goaltenders in the league.

He will go down as one of the greatest NHL goalies ever.

The top goalies on the list here also happen to be among the worst in the league at controlling their rebounds, which is just as important as the quality of your defense IMO. Luongo is the main reason why he has so many shots against him, and it is the reason why he frustrates all of his coaches.


Last edited by btn: 12-28-2003 at 10:08 AM.
btn is offline  
Old
12-28-2003, 10:04 AM
  #16
Missionhockey
Registered User
 
Missionhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 7,584
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by btn
3 Cups, 1 Vezina(should be more), 1 Conn Smythe(should be more)
Stevens has the Conn Smythe, not Brodeur.

Missionhockey is offline  
Old
12-28-2003, 10:05 AM
  #17
Unthinkable
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wings9
I am not so sure. The Devils just won the cup and are playing very well, but nevertheless the attendance at their games is terrible. There are just few teams in the league which struggle as much as the Devils to get the fans to watch their games.
The Devils also lost around 10 mill $ even though they won the cup and are a low budget team.
There are some great chess players. They are very smart and so on. But I can tell you that I have never watched a sec of a chess match. The same goes with some hochey teams. They play so boring hockey that you have to see 3-4 games and then you do not have to watch any more games. You can just check the score box and that is enough.

Brodeur is a good goalie, but his numbers are misleading big time. He is not close as good goalie as his numbers look like.
The ten million dollar team loss despite winning the cup was covered previously on here, but I'll summarize it again briefly for you. Basically it focused on Lou Lamoriello making a final arena lease payment from what I've read. I don't get the boring stuff myself as I never once focus on the trap as I'm watching it unfold. I just see textbook defense from the whole team forcing players to the outside of the neutral zone.

As far as Brodeur's numbers being inflated, take a look at what Byron Dafoe managed to do under a similar Pat Burns system in Boston. That is far more misleading and inflated then what Brodeur has done. Marty will put up great stats even when the D isn't so hot. Dafoe had career years under Burns' system and will likely never again reach that dominating appearance.

 
Old
12-28-2003, 10:10 AM
  #18
devildan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,752
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wings9
I do not want to start a new thread, so I'll post some other interesting stats here.

Schwab '99 GAA 3.52 SV%.891 (Tampa Bay)
--------'00 GAA 3.56 SV%.861 (Vancouver)
--------'01 GAA 2.73 SV%.894 (Toronto)
--------'02 GAA 1.46 SV%.933 (New Jersey)
--------'03 GAA 0.48 SV%.980 (New Jersey)

Schwab's numbers look great with the Devils, unbelievably great. Which leads further to easily say that Brodeur's numbers are a joke. Plain and simple.
Look at the number of games schawb has played for the Devils. Now look at the number of games that Schawb played on the other teams. The man simply has no presssure on him to do anything thing more than play in 1 in every 15 games agaisnt teams like pittsburgh and florida on the Devils. Brodeur on the other hand, must play himself into fatigues against mostly good teams all while staying completly healthy.

Anyways, Brodeur holds nothing on the now great trio of Hasek, CUJO and Legacont"3Ajoker:


Last edited by devildan: 12-28-2003 at 10:14 AM.
devildan is offline  
Old
12-28-2003, 10:12 AM
  #19
devildan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,752
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unthinkable
The ten million dollar team loss despite winning the cup was covered previously on here, but I'll summarize it again briefly for you. Basically it focused on Lou Lamoriello making a final arena lease payment from what I've read. I don't get the boring stuff myself as I never once focus on the trap as I'm watching it unfold. I just see textbook defense from the whole team forcing players to the outside of the neutral zone.

As far as Brodeur's numbers being inflated, take a look at what Byron Dafoe managed to do under a similar Pat Burns system in Boston. That is far more misleading and inflated then what Brodeur has done. Marty will put up great stats even when the D isn't so hot. Dafoe had career years under Burns' system and will likely never again reach that dominating appearance.
Actually, I belive the 10 mil loss was based on the fact that the Devils had to play the last 50 to the previous owner of the team.

devildan is offline  
Old
12-28-2003, 10:26 AM
  #20
dragonwyck
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ensane
Ok, I'm done. Anyone else have any "super observations"?
Sure do...

This first table of numbers listed includes all games played during the 2000-03 NHL season by goaltenders that played a minimum of 15 games. The reason why I required 15 games was due to the fact that I wanted to limit the statistics to NHL goaltenders (and exclude those that only played because of injuries).

SHOTS FACED....SAVE PERCENTAGE
Less than 20.... .889
20-24............. .901
25-29............. .915
30-34............. .919
35+................ .929

The next table of numbers includes only the goaltenders with the 10 best save percentages during the 2002-03 season.

SHOTS FACED....SAVE PERCENTAGE
Less than 20.... .903
20-24............. .907
25-29............. .928
30-34............. .929
35+................ .938

So, even the the goaltenders with the 10 best save percentages last year had a save percentage of .903 when they faced less than 20 shots in a game.

 
Old
12-28-2003, 10:30 AM
  #21
devildan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,752
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonwyck
Sure do...

This first table of numbers listed includes all games played during the 2000-03 NHL season by goaltenders that played a minimum of 15 games. The reason why I required 15 games was due to the fact that I wanted to limit the statistics to NHL goaltenders (and exclude those that only played because of injuries).

SHOTS FACED....SAVE PERCENTAGE
Less than 20.... .889
20-24............. .901
25-29............. .915
30-34............. .919
35+................ .929

The next table of numbers includes only the goaltenders with the 10 best save percentages during the 2002-03 season.

SHOTS FACED....SAVE PERCENTAGE
Less than 20.... .903
20-24............. .907
25-29............. .928
30-34............. .929
35+................ .938

So, even the the goaltenders with the 10 best save percentages last year had a save percentage of .903 when they faced less than 20 shots in a game.
This right here folks, proves what I have been trying to say for a long time. Facing less shots is not necesarily a good thing. If a goalie dosnt face a lot of shots, he will have trouble getting into a groove. Not exactly a hard concept to understand actually.

devildan is offline  
Old
12-28-2003, 11:11 AM
  #22
meehan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: new york
Country: United States
Posts: 1,960
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to meehan Send a message via AIM to meehan Send a message via MSN to meehan Send a message via Yahoo to meehan Send a message via Skype™ to meehan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wings9
Brodeur is a good goalie, but his numbers are misleading big time. He is not close as good goalie as his numbers look like.
Again, Brodeur's greatness is not about "numbers". It's about winning. No one would care that Brodeur has 72 career shutouts if he didn't have 3 Stanley Cup Championships.

meehan is offline  
Old
12-28-2003, 11:44 AM
  #23
Brad*
 
Join Date: May 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 13,887
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Modano = God
Old news, Brodeur's numbers are redicouly inflated by his system, but you have to give credit where its due, his consistency is simply above the rest.
It would do you good to actually watch him play a game or two as opposed to just reading off the stat sheet. He could have a .900 save percentage and still be a great goalie just by the sheer fact that he wins more than any other goaltender, and wins when it really matters.

Brad* is offline  
Old
12-28-2003, 12:03 PM
  #24
Atma
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Eldred, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 390
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to Atma
Quote:
Originally Posted by devildan
This right here folks, proves what I have been trying to say for a long time. Facing less shots is not necesarily a good thing. If a goalie dosnt face a lot of shots, he will have trouble getting into a groove. Not exactly a hard concept to understand actually.
That's still somewhat misleading. If a goalie stops 18 of 20 shots (.900) and those two are unsavable shots...you're still looking at a somewhat poor save % by NHL standard, and yet a relatively good gaa (2)

Goalies can be in their groove, but still wind up letting in some pretty good shots, even if they only see 15 shots a game.

Atma is offline  
Old
12-28-2003, 06:55 PM
  #25
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,920
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonwyck
SHOTS FACED....SAVE PERCENTAGE
Less than 20.... .889
20-24............. .901
25-29............. .915
30-34............. .919
35+................ .929
I think that's the same set of numbers going around last year. I still don't trust them. Every other analysis (including the two above) shows that there are goalies with high save percentages that face low numbers of shots, and high numbers of shots, and the same for goalies with low save percentages. At best a very small correlation.

Offhand, I'd guess the reason would be the natural self selection of poor goaltending performances into the lower categories. Any goalie who stinks up the joint on any given night (like say 3 goals on the first 6-10 shots) will usually find themself opening the bench door for the second and third periods. Voila, a low save percentage game in a low shot game. But it wasn't the low shots that led to the low save percentage, yet that's the conclusion drawn.

PecaFan 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 11:36 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.