HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Jamie Storr SV% Paradox

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-05-2009, 05:20 PM
  #1
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,909
vCash: 500
Jamie Storr SV% Paradox

Jamie Storr, a first round draft pick of the L.A.Kings arrived in the NHL bringing much promise and a fair history of success. He had some very interests streaks in the NHL as evidenced by his SV% stats:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...storrja01.html

Note the .929 SV% during the 1997-98 season. But he never developed into a reliable or better NHL goalie. The talent, desire was there, no history of injury or illness, no personal issues or flaws. Why did he not develop? Was he given a fair chance?

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2009, 05:25 PM
  #2
LAX attack*
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Danger Zone
Country: United States
Posts: 14,543
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to LAX attack*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Jamie Storr, a first round draft pick of the L.A.Kings arrived in the NHL bringing much promise and a fair history of success. He had some very interests streaks in the NHL as evidenced by his SV% stats:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...storrja01.html

Note the .929 SV% during the 1997-98 season. But he never developed into a reliable or better NHL goalie. The talent, desire was there, no history of injury or illness, no personal issues or flaws. Why did he not develop? Was he given a fair chance?
Oh, he had personal issues and flaws. He felt entitled to be the franchise goalie of the Kings based on where he was drafted, and he seemed like he didnt feel the need to earn his way to get there. Also, his confidence was shattered after he was run in the playoffs against the Blues early in his career.

LAX attack* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2009, 05:32 PM
  #3
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,909
vCash: 500
No

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doughty Number 8 View Post
Oh, he had personal issues and flaws. He felt entitled to be the franchise goalie of the Kings based on where he was drafted, and he seemed like he didnt feel the need to earn his way to get there. Also, his confidence was shattered after he was run in the playoffs against the Blues early in his career.
No, Jamie Storr bounced back from the 1998 playoffs incident with the Blues to post relatively similar results.

Could you be specific about flaws.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2009, 05:57 PM
  #4
LAX attack*
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Danger Zone
Country: United States
Posts: 14,543
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to LAX attack*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
No, Jamie Storr bounced back from the 1998 playoffs incident with the Blues to post relatively similar results.

Could you be specific about flaws.
Well you can say that looking at his stats, and I wasn't a fan enough to watch him play, but no Kings' fan addresses him as a reliable starter after that incident. He was replaced as a starter by an old and unreliable (at the time) Felix Potvin.

The guy had talent, but didn't have much of a mental game, or consistency or reliability.

LAX attack* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2009, 06:25 PM
  #5
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,725
vCash: 500
He had a great sv%, one year, over 17 games. What's the big deal? His career sv% of .908, below the league average over that time, tells the true story.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2009, 06:35 PM
  #6
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,909
vCash: 500
Not Really

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
He had a great sv%, one year, over 17 games. What's the big deal? His career sv% of .908, below the league average over that time, tells the true story.
Jamie Storr had a serious technical flaw in his game. When going down into the butterfly position his skates would lose contact with the ice making reversals difficult. Goalies with attractive SV% but lacking technique get exposed very quickly in the NHL and coaches are very reluctant to use them as their game may fall apart very quickly and is hard to bring together again.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2009, 06:53 PM
  #7
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,725
vCash: 500
...and as you can see from his very average sv%, he was not a very special goalie.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pp/p...er_by=save_pct

Tied for 20th out of 47 goalies from 1995 to 2004. Average.

Considering he was a backup basically this whole time not playing many games per season and assumedly against weaker teams, I'd also take Tugnutt, Turek, Richter, Thibault, Beezer, Salo, Dafoe, Irbe and Potvin ahead of him. 29th out of 47 IMO, looking at it from an admittedly simplistic view, sv%.

------------------------

If you knew the answer, why did you ask and then wait for me to reply??

Quote:
Goalies with attractive SV% but lacking technique get exposed very quickly in the NHL
I think you mean "goalies lacking technique get exposed very quickly in the NHL" - I'm not sure having an attractive sv% has anything to do with being exposed quickly! And as I showed you, his sv% was far from "attractive".

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2009, 08:17 PM
  #8
Moses Doughty
Long term bandwagons
 
Moses Doughty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Drewbacca
Country: United States
Posts: 8,214
vCash: 500
As any Kings fan would say, he was mentally fragile after the Blues game. it destroyed him. After a goal he would break down.

Moses Doughty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2009, 11:54 PM
  #9
MS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 14,529
vCash: 500
Storr was an odd case.

He seemed to have the skills, and seemed to have been brought along well by LA in the years from 1997-2000. Performed well, and was given an increased share of the workload alongside veteran Stephane Fiset through each of those years, and usually put up better numbers than Fiset.

But when he was handed the #1 job in 2000-01, he faltered badly. Didn't seem to mentally be able to handle the grind of being sharp and on top of the play every single night. Was rattled by bad goals. Just wasn't nearly as sharp on a 60-game workload as he had been on a 30-game workload, and was replaced by Potvin as the starter about 2/3 of the way through that season.

Interestingly, when his workload was cut back, his numbers improved drastically again the next year. But again in 2002-03, he faltered when given another shot at the #1 role.

His career ended really strangely. At the end of the 2002-03 season, he was 27 and no-one would have thought he was anywhere close to being done as an NHL goalie or had won his final NHL game - was still considered an elite backup/platoon guy at worst. But he went to Carolina and was terrible as the backup there for a season, and then the lockout happened, and all of a sudden he was 30 and couldn't find an NHL job, and off to Europe.

_________

Some guys just don't seem able to maintain their level of play when their workload is increased from backup levels to the 60-odd games you expect from a starter. Mathieu Garon has been similar - great as a backup in Montreal to earn a shot as a starter in LA, but blew that chance, then has a great stretch drive in '08 for Edmonton but stinks again when named the outright #1 for 08-09.

Mikhail Shtalenkov was another one - elite backup, but awful in a couple chances to be a #1 guy.

Being able to be consistently prepared for 60-70 games, stay on an even emotional keel, not get rattled by bad goals, etc. is a skill that not all guys have.

MS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2009, 09:18 AM
  #10
FissionFire
Registered User
 
FissionFire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Country: United States
Posts: 10,898
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Jamie Storr had a serious technical flaw in his game. When going down into the butterfly position his skates would lose contact with the ice making reversals difficult. Goalies with attractive SV% but lacking technique get exposed very quickly in the NHL and coaches are very reluctant to use them as their game may fall apart very quickly and is hard to bring together again.
I'm not sure if that's true. Dominik Hasek would seem to be the foil to that theory since his technique and positioning were never better than average, yet he had a very successful NHL career. Although it might explain why two coaches were so reluctant to give him a starting job if the coaches were worried that his style of play would implode with a starters workload. That would certainly explain why Muckler felt more comfortable with a "known" goalie like Fuhr in net who has a clearly defined style over Hasek, even though Dom was the better player that season.

FissionFire is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2009, 09:26 AM
  #11
SealsFan
Registered User
 
SealsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 958
vCash: 500
Don't know his story but relying solely on the stats, apart from his last season with Carolina it appears he performed better when in the role of "backup", i.e. playing less than half his teams' games.

His best save percentage years were '97-98, '98-99 and '01-02, when he played 17, 28 and 19 games respectively. It could be that LA saved him for the weaker teams in the league, hence the better save percentage. (I'm not including his first three seasons when he only played 5 games each year, not enough data)

In years when he played half of LA's games ('99-00, '00-01 and '02-03), his save percentage was much more "ordinary." Maybe he just wasn't that good and coaches didn't see anything in him that warranted first-string status.

SealsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2009, 09:26 AM
  #12
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Let's not fall into the trap of believing that save % tells you something about a goalie. The team in front of the goalie affects save % in such a significant way that save % is a worthless way to evaluate the talent of a goaltender.

Ogopogo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2009, 09:48 AM
  #13
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,909
vCash: 500
SV%

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo View Post
Let's not fall into the trap of believing that save % tells you something about a goalie. The team in front of the goalie affects save % in such a significant way that save % is a worthless way to evaluate the talent of a goaltender.
Actually SV%, if used properly, tells you alot about a goalie. If you look at SV% as reflecting saves then you are misusing the stat.

Look at SV% from the standpoint of goals let in. Then break down the goals let in. For the purposes of explanation. Suppose a hypothetical goalie has a .930SV% looks great BUT if his SV% on a specific type of shot is only .850% then his career may not last because once word gets around and he cannot fix the flaw = game over. If its high glove side or 5-hole or whatever the team in front of him becomes irrelevent.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2009, 10:01 AM
  #14
Trebek
Mod Supervisor
 
Trebek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,610
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo View Post
Let's not fall into the trap of believing that save % tells you something about a goalie. The team in front of the goalie affects save % in such a significant way that save % is a worthless way to evaluate the talent of a goaltender.
All this tells me is that you've discovered the weaknesses of save percentage, but have yet to discover the weakness of other methods to evaluate goaltenders.

You may have to work harder to properly understand some statistics than others, but no statistic in the NHL is "worthless".

(And yes, I do understand that "Save Percentage is Worthless" is track eight on "The Greatest Hits of Ogopogo")

Trebek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2009, 10:04 AM
  #15
Trebek
Mod Supervisor
 
Trebek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,610
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FissionFire View Post
I'm not sure if that's true. Dominik Hasek would seem to be the foil to that theory since his technique and positioning were never better than average, yet he had a very successful NHL career. Although it might explain why two coaches were so reluctant to give him a starting job if the coaches were worried that his style of play would implode with a starters workload. That would certainly explain why Muckler felt more comfortable with a "known" goalie like Fuhr in net who has a clearly defined style over Hasek, even though Dom was the better player that season.
I think that it's unfair to say that Hasek didn't have technique, or that his technique was average.

I've studied Hasek for hours on video, and his understanding of the geometry of hockey - specifically where it relates to the vertical angles - was so far beyond his peers that people are still catching up now. His consistency was not a fluke.

Trebek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2009, 10:35 AM
  #16
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Actually SV%, if used properly, tells you alot about a goalie. If you look at SV% as reflecting saves then you are misusing the stat.

Look at SV% from the standpoint of goals let in. Then break down the goals let in. For the purposes of explanation. Suppose a hypothetical goalie has a .930SV% looks great BUT if his SV% on a specific type of shot is only .850% then his career may not last because once word gets around and he cannot fix the flaw = game over. If its high glove side or 5-hole or whatever the team in front of him becomes irrelevent.
Exactly my point. You need to WATCH the goaltender play to really evaluate him.

Ogopogo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2009, 10:35 AM
  #17
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor No View Post
All this tells me is that you've discovered the weaknesses of save percentage, but have yet to discover the weakness of other methods to evaluate goaltenders.

You may have to work harder to properly understand some statistics than others, but no statistic in the NHL is "worthless".

(And yes, I do understand that "Save Percentage is Worthless" is track eight on "The Greatest Hits of Ogopogo")
The only proper way to evaluate a goaltender is to watch him play.

Ogopogo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2009, 10:46 AM
  #18
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,909
vCash: 500
SV% Counterpoint

Quote:
Originally Posted by FissionFire View Post
I'm not sure if that's true. Dominik Hasek would seem to be the foil to that theory since his technique and positioning were never better than average, yet he had a very successful NHL career. Although it might explain why two coaches were so reluctant to give him a starting job if the coaches were worried that his style of play would implode with a starters workload. That would certainly explain why Muckler felt more comfortable with a "known" goalie like Fuhr in net who has a clearly defined style over Hasek, even though Dom was the better player that season.
Bolded you are reaching a conclusion based on a limited statistical reading. You do not like my "smoke and mirrors" expression but it is very accurate.

Let's look at Dominik Hasek since you interjected him into this thread. His 1997-98 season was probably his best statistically from the standpoint of games played, wins and shutouts plus SV% - 2nd:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...hasekdo01.html

Now lets look at the Sabres season and the number of 4 or more goals allowed games.

http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin/hspgames.cgi

Likewise for the Devils:

http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin/hspgames.cgi

The Sabres played app twice as many games where they allowed 4 or more games as the Devils. Back-ups are not a consideration.

From a coaching and a team standpoint this is very hard to live with because your game preparation is subject to the goalie being hot or cold. Coaches and teammates prefer a flatline performance, game in game out.

That is why you have to look beyond the "smoke and mirrors" of stats to evaluate performance. SV% is the worst "smoke and mirrors" stat going if simply taken at face value.

From a coaching standpoint if no other alternative is available you live with it BUT no coach if,a viable alternative is available, will be willing to waste significant preparation time.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2009, 10:50 AM
  #19
Trebek
Mod Supervisor
 
Trebek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,610
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo View Post
The only proper way to evaluate a goaltender is to watch him play.
And you've apparently yet to discover the limitations of trying to do this for every goaltender in the league as well as every prospect in the league. And then to do this for every period in history.

Either that, or you're aware of the limitations but choose not to acknowledge them.

Trebek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2009, 10:53 AM
  #20
FissionFire
Registered User
 
FissionFire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Country: United States
Posts: 10,898
vCash: 500
Someone was mentioning that Storr as a backup likely played weak teams. I'm not sure if this is true so I've listed all the games he played each season as a backup, and the team and record of his opponenet.

NOTE: Teams who finish .500 are considered +.500 for calculations

1994-95 Season
DateSaves/ShotsOpponenetRecord
1/24/9535/38Dallas17-23-8
1/26/9531/34St. Louis28-15-5
1/28/9522/24Winnipeg16-25-7
1/29/9513/17Chicago24-19-5
2/7/9534/39St. Louis28-15-5
Teams +.500: 3
Teams -.500: 2
SV% vs +.500: .867
SV% vs -.500: .919

1995-96 Season
DateSaves/ShotsOpponenetRecord
10/12/9514/18Vancouver32-35-15
10/21/9524/26Pittsburgh49-29-4
10/31/9531/33Calgary34-37-11
11/13/9532/34Anaheim35-39-8
11/16/9534/36NY Islanders22-50-10
Teams +.500: 1
Teams -.500: 4
SV% vs +.500: .923
SV% vs -.500: .917

1996-97 Season
DateSaves/ShotsOpponenetRecord
3/6/979/10NY Rangers38-34-10
4/3/9729/33Phoenix38-37-7
4/5/9737/40Dallas48-26-8
4/12/9726/27San Jose27-47-8
4/13/9735/37Colorado49-24-9
Teams +.500: 4
Teams -.500: 1
SV% vs +.500: .917
SV% vs -.500: .963

1997-98 Season
DateSaves/ShotsOpponenetRecord
12/22/9732/32Chicago30-39-13
12/27/9731/35Phoenix35-35-12
1/1/9832/36Phoenix35-35-12
1/14/9822/24San Jose34-38-10
1/22/9828/29Florida24-43-15
1/29/9828/31Calgary26-41-15
2/3/9812/12Calgary26-41-15
3/2/9830/32Vancouver25-43-14
3/5/9826/28Carolina33-41-8
3/10/9827/30Phoenix35-35-12
3/16/9825/27San Jose34-38-10
3/24/9828/31San Jose34-38-10
3/30/9838/40Toronto30-43-9
4/2/9821/24Philadelphia42-29-11
4/9/9810/11Edmonton35-37-10
4/13/9827/29Calgary26-41-15
4/15/9831/31Vancouver25-43-14
Teams +.500: 4
Teams -.500: 13
SV% vs +.500: .888
SV% vs -.500: .944

1998-99 Season
DateSaves/ShotsOpponenetRecord
10/12/9820/23Vancouver23-47-12
10/18/989/11Colorado44-28-10
11/21/9821/21Chicago29-41-12
11/28/9827/31Phoenix39-31-12
12/2/9824/27Toronto45-30-7
12/17/9820/25NY Islanders24-48-10
12/19/9818/22St. Louis37-32-13
12/20/9824/25Chicago29-41-12
12/22/9825/25Pittsburgh38-30-14
12/26/9829/31Phoenix39-31-12
12/28/9832/34Phoenix39-31-12
12/30/9831/32San Jose31-33-18
1/2/9924/26Colorado44-28-10
1/5/9933/36Edmonton33-37-12
1/7/9921/23Buffalo37-28-17
1/14/9922/22Calgary30-40-12
1/16/9913/18Pittsburgh38-30-14
1/21/9937/40New Jersey47-24-11
1/30/9927/30Buffalo37-28-17
2/6/9927/27San Jose31-33-18
2/10/9937/40Phoenix39-31-12
2/20/9925/27Calgary30-40-12
2/26/9933/34Chicago29-41-12
3/4/9918/22Nashville28-47-7
3/21/9939/42Phoenix39-31-12
3/28/993/5Colorado44-28-10
3/30/9924/25Boston39-30-13
Teams +.500: 16
Teams -.500: 11
SV% vs +.500: .905
SV% vs -.500: .932

Have to run to class.....will add the 2001-02 season when I get back.

FissionFire is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2009, 11:00 AM
  #21
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor No View Post
And you've apparently yet to discover the limitations of trying to do this for every goaltender in the league as well as every prospect in the league. And then to do this for every period in history.

Either that, or you're aware of the limitations but choose not to acknowledge them.
I am well aware of that limitation, that is why I defer to the award balloting for the Vezina and the post-season all-star teams to provide for that lack of data.

Ogopogo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2009, 11:09 AM
  #22
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,909
vCash: 500
Teachable

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor No View Post
I think that it's unfair to say that Hasek didn't have technique, or that his technique was average.

I've studied Hasek for hours on video, and his understanding of the geometry of hockey - specifically where it relates to the vertical angles - was so far beyond his peers that people are still catching up now. His consistency was not a fluke.
Regardless it comes down to technique and understanding being teachable, then applicable by the student.

Your assessment of Hasek's understanding of vertical angles is right on. Evidenced by how he would spread his limbs vertically when seemingly out of position or beat and the puck would just hit him as if by chance BUT this overlooks other realities. Similar to a baseball outfielder who makes great incoming sliding catches because he is simply too slow to get there on time and make a normal catch. such a player is eventually replaceable.

You also have to account for the time and space factor which introduces teammates and the right marriage between such a goalie and the other players on his team. If the other defensive players do not finish the play or give up on the play then the time and spce factor is mitigated since the offensive players do not have the necessary split seconds or inches required to maneuver around or pick spots free of desperation body parts that are obstacles. The Sabres during Hasek's tenure in Buffalo, had such players and it worked to an extent.

I will not try to qualify Hasek's technique beyond artistic or unique. While you may have some success as a team with such a goalie the coaching aspects takes a beating because of the uncertainty.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2009, 11:17 AM
  #23
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FissionFire View Post
Someone was mentioning that Storr as a backup likely played weak teams. I'm not sure if this is true so I've listed all the games he played each season as a backup, and the team and record of his opponenet.

NOTE: Teams who finish .500 are considered +.500 for calculations

1994-95 Season
DateSaves/ShotsOpponenetRecord
1/24/9535/38Dallas17-23-8
1/26/9531/34St. Louis28-15-5
1/28/9522/24Winnipeg16-25-7
1/29/9513/17Chicago24-19-5
2/7/9534/39St. Louis28-15-5
Teams +.500: 3
Teams -.500: 2
SV% vs +.500: .867
SV% vs -.500: .919

1995-96 Season
DateSaves/ShotsOpponenetRecord
10/12/9514/18Vancouver32-35-15
10/21/9524/26Pittsburgh49-29-4
10/31/9531/33Calgary34-37-11
11/13/9532/34Anaheim35-39-8
11/16/9534/36NY Islanders22-50-10
Teams +.500: 1
Teams -.500: 4
SV% vs +.500: .923
SV% vs -.500: .917

1996-97 Season
DateSaves/ShotsOpponenetRecord
3/6/979/10NY Rangers38-34-10
4/3/9729/33Phoenix38-37-7
4/5/9737/40Dallas48-26-8
4/12/9726/27San Jose27-47-8
4/13/9735/37Colorado49-24-9
Teams +.500: 4
Teams -.500: 1
SV% vs +.500: .917
SV% vs -.500: .963

1997-98 Season
DateSaves/ShotsOpponenetRecord
12/22/9732/32Chicago30-39-13
12/27/9731/35Phoenix35-35-12
1/1/9832/36Phoenix35-35-12
1/14/9822/24San Jose34-38-10
1/22/9828/29Florida24-43-15
1/29/9828/31Calgary26-41-15
2/3/9812/12Calgary26-41-15
3/2/9830/32Vancouver25-43-14
3/5/9826/28Carolina33-41-8
3/10/9827/30Phoenix35-35-12
3/16/9825/27San Jose34-38-10
3/24/9828/31San Jose34-38-10
3/30/9838/40Toronto30-43-9
4/2/9821/24Philadelphia42-29-11
4/9/9810/11Edmonton35-37-10
4/13/9827/29Calgary26-41-15
4/15/9831/31Vancouver25-43-14
Teams +.500: 4
Teams -.500: 13
SV% vs +.500: .888
SV% vs -.500: .944

1998-99 Season
DateSaves/ShotsOpponenetRecord
10/12/9820/23Vancouver23-47-12
10/18/989/11Colorado44-28-10
11/21/9821/21Chicago29-41-12
11/28/9827/31Phoenix39-31-12
12/2/9824/27Toronto45-30-7
12/17/9820/25NY Islanders24-48-10
12/19/9818/22St. Louis37-32-13
12/20/9824/25Chicago29-41-12
12/22/9825/25Pittsburgh38-30-14
12/26/9829/31Phoenix39-31-12
12/28/9832/34Phoenix39-31-12
12/30/9831/32San Jose31-33-18
1/2/9924/26Colorado44-28-10
1/5/9933/36Edmonton33-37-12
1/7/9921/23Buffalo37-28-17
1/14/9922/22Calgary30-40-12
1/16/9913/18Pittsburgh38-30-14
1/21/9937/40New Jersey47-24-11
1/30/9927/30Buffalo37-28-17
2/6/9927/27San Jose31-33-18
2/10/9937/40Phoenix39-31-12
2/20/9925/27Calgary30-40-12
2/26/9933/34Chicago29-41-12
3/4/9918/22Nashville28-47-7
3/21/9939/42Phoenix39-31-12
3/28/993/5Colorado44-28-10
3/30/9924/25Boston39-30-13
Teams +.500: 16
Teams -.500: 11
SV% vs +.500: .905
SV% vs -.500: .932

Have to run to class.....will add the 2001-02 season when I get back.
This provides strong evidence to show that save % is much like +/-. Not really indicative of an individual's performance but so heavily influenced by the other players on the ice - for both teams - that it is really a poor indicator of anything.

Ogopogo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2009, 11:17 AM
  #24
ContrarianGoaltender
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 581
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo View Post
Let's not fall into the trap of believing that save % tells you something about a goalie. The team in front of the goalie affects save % in such a significant way that save % is a worthless way to evaluate the talent of a goaltender.
Saying save percentage is worthless is flat-out absurd.

The team in front of the goalie affects how they are perceived by the people watching them. I bet for the vast majority of hockey observers that effect is larger than any team-to-team shot quality effects. And that includes most of the people who vote on trophies and awards.

Re: Jamie Storr, I think he's like a lot of backup goalies in that, for whatever reason, he just never played well when he had a chance to make the leap to starter. Maybe he was weak mentally, or maybe he just had a couple of slumps at the worst possible time. One half or one quarter of a season is a very small sample size. Unless you're a sure thing, luck can be a big factor in determining how quickly you get into the league and whether you stick or not. After a while you get stigmatized as a bust and a career backup and it's pretty hard to break through after that.

ContrarianGoaltender is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2009, 11:24 AM
  #25
Trebek
Mod Supervisor
 
Trebek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,610
vCash: 500
I can speak to some of that, as I've incorporated many of Hasek's techniques into my own play and into my teachings. (My style is a mix of Kirk McLean and Dominik Hasek if you can imagine that )

It's a very hard style to learn because you've got to have a very good intuition for the game and how flow works. You've also got to have a very good intuition for angles, spacing and other similar concepts (I initially gravitated towards Hasek because it seemed like my mathematics background could really help me). The style also requires a training focus to improve flexibility beyond what typical goaltenders do in their training.

It's hard on your defensemen until you've been together for a long time - when I sub for another goaltender, or when another goaltender subs for me, it's easy to see the problems. With the teams I work with as a coach, it's easier to incorporate because the players all grow together. And although I won't teach the Hasekian style to just any goaltender (it requires a lot of patience and discipline), the vertical angles are taught just about everywhere now, even if the coaches or players don't realize it. Every time you tie ropes to the top corners of the net and move a puck around for a goaltender, you're exposing them to vertical angle concepts (many coaches I've talked with don't consciously realize this).

Some brief (and very basic) material I put together on my website many years back:
http://hockeygoalies.org/advice/rule5.html

Trebek is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 12:53 AM.

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.