HFBoards Single most important goalie statistic?
 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
 National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

# Single most important goalie statistic?

02-28-2009, 10:34 AM
#76
Viqsi
carrying the flag

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: The Scary Internet
Country:
Posts: 22,800
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Dojji Over at Sons of Sam Horn someone came up with a possible new metric that I hope catches on. You know how in baseball you have the "quality start," 6+ IP, 3 or fewer ER, that is generally supposed to be enough to give your team a chance to win on a relatively consistent basis. Well this SoSH poster decided to try to correlate that for goaltenders and create a QS% metric -- percentage of total starts with a certain in-game SV%. I believe the standard was that the in-game SV% had to be .900 in order to quality as a quality start. The idea was to smooth out the peaks and valleys you get with a statistic like SV% which measures ALL shots vs. ALL GA. In general that would establish whether a goalie is consistent or whether he runs hot and cold. More consistent goaltender = higher QS%. For example: in a game Goaltender X takes 40 shots and allows 1 goal, and in the next game he faces 20 shots and allows 4 goals, we have a total of 5 goals allowed over 60 shots for a .917 GAA, but only a .500 QS%. This tells us that the goalie is doing all right in aggregate, but has a bad game mixed in there. I honstly think that if this QS% metric became more popular and started entering the hockey lexicon it would tell us something about goaltenders than the stats we have now can't tell us and would take the discussion of consistency vs. streakiness out of the colloquial and into the statistical realm where it belongs.
Innnteresting. Out of raw curiosity, I decided to go ahead and try to calculate this for a few goaltenders for this year, using ESPN's per-player game logs to get per-start SV% stats.

So! As of right now...

Tim Thomas: .750 (30 of 40)
Steve Mason: .643 (27 of 42)
Ryan Miller: .700 (35 of 50)
Chris Osgood: .355 (11 of 31)
Ty Conklin: .633 (19 of 30)
Evgeni Nabokov: .638 (30 of 47)
Niklas Backstrom: .720 (36 of 50)
Jean-Sebastien Giguere: .500 (19 of 38)
Miikka Kiprusoff: .627 (32 of 51)
Marty Turco: .490 (25 of 51)
Scott Clemmensen: .641 (25 of 39)
Roberto Luongo: .599 (20 of 34)
Tomas Vokoun: .725 (29 of 40)
Craig Anderson: .714 (15 of 21)
Mike Smith: .700 (28 of 40)
Jonathan Quick: .667 (16 of 24)
Erik Ersberg: .667 (14 of 21)

These aren't in any particular order; it's just something to think about. I can probably do other goaltenders pretty easily (I have an Excel spreadsheet that autocalculates it if you copy-paste); I just got bored with it after a while.

Incidentally, I am now more convinced than ever that Tim Thomas should win the Vezina.

__________________
Remember - when you're a hockey fan, it's not "reckless driving", it's "good forechecking".
"Viqsi, you are our sweet humanist..." --mt-svk on the CBJ boards

Thanks, Howson, for cleaning up MacLean's toxic waste. Welcome, Kekalainen; let's get good things built!

 02-28-2009, 10:47 AM #77 arrbez bad chi     Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Toronto Country: Posts: 12,668 vCash: 500 It's definitely sv% Wins shouldn't even be attributed to one player, they just aren't useful when judging goalies on their individual merits. Why does Jose Theodore get a win but not Alexander Ovechkin? It doesn't really make any sense when you think about it.
 02-28-2009, 10:48 AM #78 RoyBoyCoy Habs and Rugby     Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Lennoxville, QC Country: Posts: 19,090 vCash: 500 I'm going to have to go with SV% on this one because GAA and Wins are more about the team they play for.
02-28-2009, 10:49 AM
#79
CASUAL KEV

Join Date: Apr 2007
Country:
Posts: 8,969
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Valic Goals for.
You mean least useful?

02-28-2009, 10:52 AM
#80
Jedrik
Registered User

Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,819
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by K-PAX First thing I look at is save percentage.
Same. Even all three stats together don't really tell you everything without watching, but this one gives you the best idea, I think.

02-28-2009, 10:58 AM
#81
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,395
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Refuse A goalie winning a game ending 10-9 must be awesome. That win is all his. Don't confuse important stat to determine the quality of a goaltender with most important stat for the team.
Using logical arguements against a person who thinks wins is the best measurement for a goalie is an excercise in futility. They can't grasp the concept of logic to begin with.

02-28-2009, 11:15 AM
#82
Jedrik
Registered User

Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,819
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Viqsi That's just it. You can't and you shouldn't, because they're all flawed.
The guy (or gal) said if you had to. Jesus.

 02-28-2009, 12:15 PM #83 ryz Registered User     Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Canada Country: Posts: 3,245 vCash: 500 Wins easily. I'd far rather my goalie put up 40-20-5, 3.26, .892 than 20-40-5, 1.67, .931 It's not even close.
 02-28-2009, 12:24 PM #84 NOTENOUGHBREWER Registered User     Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 8,692 vCash: 500 Lawsuits and arrests. That is why Belfour > Hasek > Roy > Brodeur.
 02-28-2009, 12:30 PM #85 BlueMonk Registered User     Join Date: May 2007 Location: Detroit, MI Country: Posts: 631 vCash: 500 Assigning goalies wins and losses is slightly less ridiculous than assigning them to left wingers.
02-28-2009, 12:32 PM
#86
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,395
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by ryz Wins easily. I'd far rather my goalie put up 40-20-5, 3.26, .892 than 20-40-5, 1.67, .931 It's not even close.
That's not the frikkin point. Ofc you want to have more wins as a team.
The question who you get more wins with, with a goaltender who lets in 3.26 goals with an .892% or a goaltender who lets in 1.67 goals with a .931 save %.

This thread is making me fear for the future of the human race , seriously.

02-28-2009, 12:35 PM
#87
sparr0w
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 16,377
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by RedLeader That's not the frikkin point. Ofc you want to have more wins as a team. The question who you get more wins with, with a goaltender who lets in 3.26 goals with an .892% or a goaltender who lets in 1.67 goals with a .931 save %. This thread is making me fear for the future of the human race , seriously.
If that's the question, why would you look at anything but the record?

 02-28-2009, 12:35 PM #88 BlueMonk Registered User     Join Date: May 2007 Location: Detroit, MI Country: Posts: 631 vCash: 500 One of the most intriguing sites attempting to get to the bottom of team-independent goalie metrics is http://brodeurisafraud.blogspot.com/ Regrettably, the title of the blog is likely to piss people off so that they don't read the content, which is really quite in depth and worthy of attention.
02-28-2009, 12:35 PM
#89
Sensfanman
Registered User

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Country:
Posts: 10,182
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by RedLeader Using logical arguements against a person who thinks wins is the best measurement for a goalie is an excercise in futility. They can't grasp the concept of logic to begin with.
If a goalie wins 10-9, that must mean the game was all offense no defense. I guess goalies in the all-star game suck because the score is 13-12 or whatever. There are a variety of examples to prove any argument. If I were trying to argue against wins, I'd just say a goalie facing 1 shot, letting in 1 goal in a game but winning 2-1 with a 0 Sv%, 1 GAA and 1 Win.

Unless a goalie posts a shutout and loses in a SO, if they don't win they could have played better because they didn't win. If a goalie wins but plays terribly, then it doesn't matter, the goalie played well enough to win so they are good.

 02-28-2009, 12:44 PM #90 Newhabfan Registered User   Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Montreal Posts: 2,061 vCash: 500 Stanley cup rings
02-28-2009, 12:46 PM
#91
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,395
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by norrisnick If that's the question, why would you look at anything but the record?
Huh? I'm asuming they are playing on different teams..

If team A can win 40 games dispite having a lousy goaltender who lets in 3.26 goals per game. They would logicly win even more games if they had goaltender B who only lets in 1.67 goals per game but obviously has the worst offence the world has ever seen since still they cannot win.

02-28-2009, 12:47 PM
#92
mmfs*

Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,709
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Newhabfan Stanley cup rings
yeah. ward > luongo.

02-28-2009, 12:54 PM
#93
Sensfanman
Registered User

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Country:
Posts: 10,182
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by RedLeader Huh? I'm asuming they are playing on different teams.. If team A can win 40 games dispite having a lousy goaltender who lets in 3.26 goals per game. They would logicly win even more games if they had goaltender B who only lets in 1.67 goals per game but obviously has the worst offence the world has ever seen since still they cannot win.
Why? You need to know the teams before you can make that assessment. Team A might have tons of offense and no defense leaving their goalie out to dry game in and game out but winning 4-3 or 5-4. Team B might have a crappy offense team who is forced to play defense first hockey and lose 2-0 or 2-1. Trade goalies but keep the same system and there goes your "logic".

02-28-2009, 12:56 PM
#94
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,395
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by familyguyman If a goalie wins 10-9, that must mean the game was all offense no defense. I guess goalies in the all-star game suck because the score is 13-12 or whatever. There are a variety of examples to prove any argument. If I were trying to argue against wins, I'd just say a goalie facing 1 shot, letting in 1 goal in a game but winning 2-1 with a 0 Sv%, 1 GAA and 1 Win. Unless a goalie posts a shutout and loses in a SO, if they don't win they could have played better because they didn't win. If a goalie wins but plays terribly, then it doesn't matter, the goalie played well enough to win so they are good.
10-9 game means both goaltenders sucked. But I cant tell for sure without knowing the save%. Maybe they had no defenders had faced 100 shots each.

The allstar game.. really? You think anyone gives a **** about giving 100%, you must be watching a different game.

And the third stupid part, you do know that you win games by scoring goals don't you. So if your team have the worst scoring in the league your not gonna win a single game even if you had the best goaltender the worlds has ever seen.

That's why it so profoundly stupid to attribute a win to a goaltender when 18 other players also has do their job, neither can win without the other.

02-28-2009, 01:03 PM
#95
miniergoober

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Prince George
Country:
Posts: 41
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by ryz Wins easily. I'd far rather my goalie put up 40-20-5, 3.26, .892 than 20-40-5, 1.67, .931 It's not even close.

But wouldnt you consider the 20-40-5 .931 a much better goalie?

02-28-2009, 01:04 PM
#96
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,395
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by familyguyman Why? You need to know the teams before you can make that assessment. Team A might have tons of offense and no defense leaving their goalie out to dry game in and game out but winning 4-3 or 5-4. Team B might have a crappy offense team who is forced to play defense first hockey and lose 2-0 or 2-1. Trade goalies but keep the same system and there goes your "logic".
Your forgetting about the only strong statistic , the save %. As you can see goaltender A save % is alot worse, which mean if goaltender B is traded to A team, his shots would go up, but he would still give up less goals given the same amount of shots.

Your actually proving my point about WINS, you have to know the different team before attributing any worth to win column. If your goaltender is winning alot but letting in alot of goals, that tells me that your goaltender is carried by the offence of the team.

 02-28-2009, 01:04 PM #97 ItsCarman     Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 181 vCash: 500 Don't need a goalie draft a****ty goalie and use the salary on defense. SV%
02-28-2009, 01:08 PM
#98
Sensfanman
Registered User

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Country:
Posts: 10,182
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by RedLeader 10-9 game means both goaltenders sucked. But I cant tell for sure without knowing the save%. Maybe they had no defenders had faced 100 shots each. The allstar game.. really? You think anyone gives a **** about giving 100%, you must be watching a different game. And the third stupid part, you do know that you win games by scoring goals don't you. So if your team have the worst scoring in the league your not gonna win a single game even if you had the best goaltender the worlds has ever seen. That's why it so profoundly stupid to attribute a win to a goaltender when 18 other players also has do their job, neither can win without the other.
I think the goalies care. That's why they don't like being made fools of (Nabakov?). The players might not, but then why are they scoring 10+ goals?

Also, obviously you win goals by scoring, thanks. But you can still win by not scoring. It's not like every game is a shutout or a blow out. Like I said, there's examples to support any case but at the end of the day winning goalies tend to be good and losing goalies tend to be bad. Obviously there's opposite cases in either group but that's not the point.

02-28-2009, 01:22 PM
#99
Lunatik*

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Lethbridge
Country:
Posts: 17,918
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by DevilsNJ4 In the words of Brodeur: "It's all about the Wins"
the goal is the Cup and winning is how you do it... Marty is right

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Valic Goals for.
I lol'd

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Bluninja The save % tells me that goalie is keeping his team in the game and give his team a chance to win. Wins and GAA is more of a team play than anything.
SV% could tell you that a team allows alot of unscreened shots from the outside

Quote:
 Originally Posted by StrangeVision I wouldn't say Anderson is. But Vokoun? He is up there.
I would take Vokoun before Miller

Quote:
 Originally Posted by RedLeader That's not the frikkin point. Ofc you want to have more wins as a team. The question who you get more wins with, with a goaltender who lets in 3.26 goals with an .892% or a goaltender who lets in 1.67 goals with a .931 save %. This thread is making me fear for the future of the human race , seriously.
I thought the question was 'single most important goalie statistic?' not which single stat tells you which goaltender is better

02-28-2009, 01:25 PM
#100
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,395
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by familyguyman I think the goalies care. That's why they don't like being made fools of (Nabakov?). The players might not, but then why are they scoring 10+ goals? Also, obviously you win goals by scoring, thanks. But you can still win by not scoring. It's not like every game is a shutout or a blow out. Like I said, there's examples to support any case but at the end of the day winning goalies tend to be good and losing goalies tend to be bad. Obviously there's opposite cases in either group but that's not the point.
No No and NO.

It would be an endless tie if you can't score a goal in the NHL.

Saying winning goaltenders tend to be good, is like ignoring every factor which makes you win a game. Teams have different amounts of offence, which means that your goaltender doesn't have to be as good to win. If you can't see this, then I can't help you.

Forum Jump