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
Notices

The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

How much does a goalie impact wins and losses.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-19-2010, 12:46 AM
  #26
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,827
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starchild74 View Post
I never said that the goalie that lost didn't play well. I mean there are times a goalie makes 50 saves and the opposite goalie only make 20 saves. Yes the one who faced the more shots probably played better. But that is the point. He had to make those saves. SO even though he might not have been the best goalie in the game it doesn't make his work that much less important. I mean in history there are games where a goalie only faces 15 to 20 shots and leaves in 5 goals.

What I am saying is that the game is decided by goalies more often then not. You can always look back in a game and see where a goalie let in a goal he shouldn't have. It usually changes the game.
That's subjective and not really backed up by fact.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2010, 12:47 AM
  #27
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,415
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starchild74 View Post

What I am saying is that the game is decided by goalies more often then not. You can always look back in a game and see where a goalie let in a goal he shouldn't have. It usually changes the game.

...or made a save that he shouldn't have, once again usually a game changer as well.
Can't down play the effects of the big save that either energizes a home crowd or takes them out of it on the road.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
That's subjective and not really backed up by fact.
Which part?

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2010, 12:52 AM
  #28
Starchild74
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 324
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cognition View Post
When is the wrong time to make a save?

Brodeur saves 13 out of 15 in a 3 - 2 win against the Leafs.
Joseph saves 32 out of 35.
They both save the last shot against them in the game, and it's similar quality. Everyone says "Brodeur wins because he makes the key saves."

Why was Brodeur's key/big/etc. and Joseph's wasn't? Because the Devils scored more and allowed fewer shots, meaning Brodeur had the opportunity to lose the gave for them if he missed it, while Joseph's team was going to lose regardless.

There's no such thing as a "key save." All saves are worth the same no matter when they are.

This whole "big save" thing is ridiculous. Goals in the first period are just as valuable. The idea that goalies that win but have lower save percentages because they aren't as good in blowouts or something is a ridiculous myth. Something like 80% of the game is played with the score tied or within one.

A "key save" is "a save while playing for a good team."
First of all there is a thing as a big save. THeir are saves when a game is tied. Their are saves when they are losing and when they are winning that can change a game.

So you are saying that Mike Richter's save on Pavel Bure's penalty shot wasn't a big save. That Joseph's save against the Stars in 1997 wasn't a big save.

All saves are important but a big save is a save where a goalie takes away a sure goal from the oppisition. These are not easily made on a regular basis.

So yes of course evey save is important but their are some saves that truly change a game. Just like their are big goals.

A key save in a game can truly change the momentum. How many times do you see a team get a great chance to score and stopped by the goalie and then go down the other way and score. That happens all the time in regular season and playoffs.

Starchild74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2010, 12:57 AM
  #29
Bear of Bad News
Mod Supervisor
 
Bear of Bad News's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Windsor
Posts: 4,622
vCash: 663
One way I estimate the value of a goaltender to a team is via their support-neutral win-loss percentage. Given league-average offensive support, and league-average defense, what would the goaltender's record be?

For Martin Brodeur in 2009-10, I get an estimate of 40-36, which suggests that Brodeur was two wins better than an average goaltender in 2009-10. You'd really want to compare him to a replacement level goaltender, but there we are.

Now, 2009-10 wasn't a particularly strong year for Brodeur by this metric, but he had two seasons where he was eight wins above average (40-24 in 1996-97, 47-31 in 2006-07).

Dominik Hasek had some amazing seasons by this metric - 39-17, 27-13, 44-23, 45-24, and 42-20 in his Buffalo prime.

Patrick Roy didn't quite peak out at that level, but he had some good campaigns: 28-16, 34-18, 28-18, 42-24, 39-24, 37-23.

Anywho...standard caveats: if you don't like save percentage (and it isn't perfect), then you won't like this. There are other ways to measure this, and they're all estimates (including this estimate).

Bear of Bad News is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2010, 01:12 AM
  #30
Derick*
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,624
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Derick*
The difference in importance varies between games, but not within games. The reason we remember Sidney Crosby's goal and not Perry's or Toews is that when Crosby's was scored, we knew it was an overtime game. Take away Perry's goal or Toews' and there is no overtime for Crosby to score in, the USA wins in regulation. The same applies to saves.

Fuhr makes a "key save" in overtime in a game the Oilers win 6 - 5. If he had made more saves earlier in the game there wouldn't have been an overtime, and playing better would make his saves less key!

As for between-games, i.e., blowouts versus close games, there's nothing at all to suggest the "team goalies" you're defending were better during close games. Every study I've seen that looks at save percentages "only when tied or leading by one, in the third period and overtime," the goalies with the better overall save percentages are better there too, there's no Dryden or Fuhr or Brodeur or Osgood suddenly topping the charts.

Now there is a difference in quality of shots and that affects save percenage but you aren't basing Dryden or Brodeur or any other notorious team goalie's quality of saves (or "save bigness") on anything but the fact that you remember that their team won. Further, if the reason they're great but don't show up on the stat sheet is they stopped the harder shots, that means they let in more softies. Isn't consistency just as important? A goalie that stops more difficult saves but lets in softies (Nabokov) isn't better than a goalie that's average at both if they both let in the same number of goals.

The best way to consider quality of shots is to compare to backups, and when people say goalies like Hasek are superior to goalies like Brodeur they're considering factors like that. A lot of goalies like Dryden and Brodeur come up underwhelming when you compare to their backups.

There may also be an affect on momentum depending on when the save is, but again, there's nothing at all to suggest that certain goalies are more likely to make a save if it's momentum-influencing than others.

Goalies are influential simply by virtue of the fact that there's only one person in the position and play the entire game. But they aren't nearly as important as media and folk lore, or attributing their small sample size figures entirely to them, make them out to be.

I think you can only really judge a player by a combination of watching a lot of their games and a sober consideration of contextual statistical analysis to see whether your visual opinion is biased by something. While on the one hand going entirely off of statistics is naive, on the other hand often the person complaining about save percentage is himself just going by his memory of career wins and championships won, and that's much worse.


Last edited by Derick*: 11-19-2010 at 01:18 AM.
Derick* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2010, 01:28 AM
  #31
RabbinsDuck
Registered User
 
RabbinsDuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brighton, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,761
vCash: 500
Ignoring "clutchness" is a mistake - especially when it comes to goalies. Especially.
Guys with an extraordinary game winning goals are rightfully praised - with goalies, it is even more important. I strongly disagree that all goals are created equal, especially on a per game basis.

RabbinsDuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2010, 01:34 AM
  #32
Bear of Bad News
Mod Supervisor
 
Bear of Bad News's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Windsor
Posts: 4,622
vCash: 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by RabbinsDuck View Post
Ignoring "clutchness" is a mistake - especially when it comes to goalies. Especially.
Guys with an extraordinary game winning goals are rightfully praised - with goalies, it is even more important. I strongly disagree that all goals are created equal, especially on a per game basis.
Intuitively, I believe this. However...

Empirically, every study which has attempted to rigorously define "clutch ability" has come to the conclusion that clutch ability is essentially random.

Bear of Bad News is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2010, 01:38 AM
  #33
Derick*
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,624
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Derick*
Quote:
Originally Posted by RabbinsDuck View Post
Ignoring "clutchness" is a mistake - especially when it comes to goalies. Especially.
Guys with an extraordinary game winning goals are rightfully praised - with goalies, it is even more important. I strongly disagree that all goals are created equal, especially on a per game basis.
What matters in any individual game is the other team's shooting percentage, not your goalie. The team with the lowest shooting percentage usually loses, and the team with the higher shooting percentage (and therefore highest save percentage) usually wins. But that's because of the influence of luck, not goaltending. On a wide enough sample, almost all goalies approach somewhere between .905 and .915, and absolutely all goalies not playing for the Leafs approach somewhere between .900 and .920.

That's why every April and every October we hear "Omfg how is (previously non-revered goalie) playing so well?!" Save percentages vary wildly from game to game, and whoever's lucky that week looks like they're playing really really well. It's just that the stats we look at are the season up to this point, so when a goalie gets lucky for seven games in March no one notices.

Derick* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2010, 01:42 AM
  #34
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,415
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor No View Post
Intuitively, I believe this. However...

Empirically, every study which has attempted to rigorously define "clutch ability" has come to the conclusion that clutch ability is essentially random.
I can see that but at the same time it's rather tough to dismiss Roy's playoff OT record of 40-18 as random especially when the all-time league average per goalie is only about .500.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2010, 01:47 AM
  #35
Derick*
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,624
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Derick*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
I can see that but at the same time it's rather tough to dismiss Roy's playoff OT record of 40-18 as random especially when the all-time league average per goalie is only about .500.
A lot of those wins, though, are going to be because he played for a great team and because he was a great goalie in the first place, regardless of clutchness. A better comparison would be to compare his overall playoff record to his overtime-only record. It stands to reason that if you win most of your games you're also going to win most of the ones that go into overtime. I could show you right now that in the last fifteen years the Detroit Red Wings have won a vast majority of their away games. That's not because they were better on the road, that's because they were better.

There's also the fact that he played a lot of those games with Joe Sakic. So if we can show that the Avalanche were somewhat clutch because they won more overtime games, we have to share that value between Sakic and Roy.

There's also the possibility that playoff and overtime hockey are different. Teams employ different strategies for very concrete reasons in the playoffs and in overtime. I think a lot of the reason players are better in the playoffs, aside from randomness, is that their style just matches the style that comes up in the playoffs, not because they try harder because they want it more.

Considering how few goalies have shown a correlation I find it easy to believe those that have a mild one are lucky, not clutch, but I can't be certain. Regardless, Roy was an amazing goalie.

Derick* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2010, 01:58 AM
  #36
Bear of Bad News
Mod Supervisor
 
Bear of Bad News's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Windsor
Posts: 4,622
vCash: 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
I can see that but at the same time it's rather tough to dismiss Roy's playoff OT record of 40-18 as random especially when the all-time league average per goalie is only about .500.
Granted, it's an outlier. And even if you argue that Roy and the Canadiens/Avalanche are better than the opposition, the game went to overtime in the first place, so the other teams must have been decent.

Pure statistical thought - if we assume that overtimes are random (each team has a 50/50 chance of winning), then the chance of a goaltender going 40-18 or better in 58 decisions is 1 in 373. So if it is random, then it's rare that Roy would go 40-18, but not unbelievable.

Another thought - did the Canadiens/Avalanche have greater depth than their average playoff opponent, making them relatively fresher in overtimes?

Anyhow, the people who pay me to do things like this expect me to be there in the morning, so I'm off to sleep.

Bear of Bad News is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2010, 02:00 AM
  #37
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,415
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cognition View Post
A lot of those wins, though, are going to be because he played for a great team and because he was a great goalie in the first place, regardless of clutchness. A better comparison would be to compare his overall playoff record to his overtime-only record. It stands to reason that if you win most of your games you're also going to win most of the ones that go into overtime. I could show you right now that in the last fifteen years the Detroit Red Wings have won a vast majority of their away games. That's not because they were better on the road, that's because they were better.

There's also the fact that he played a lot of those games with Joe Sakic. So if we can show that the Avalanche were somewhat clutch because they won more overtime games, we have to share that value between Sakic and Roy.

There's also the possibility that playoff and overtime hockey are different. Teams employ different strategies for very concrete reasons in the playoffs and in overtime. I think a lot of the reason players are better in the playoffs, aside from randomness, is that their style just matches the style that comes up in the playoffs, not because they try harder because they want it more.

Considering how few goalies have shown a correlation I find it easy to believe those that have a mild one are lucky, not clutch, but I can't be certain. Regardless, Roy was an amazing goalie.
He was only 16-12 in playoff OT's with the "better" team, the AV's actually.
An incredible 24-6 on the Habs, the "lesser" team.

People will then argue that the Habs were usually a better defensive team than most to which I will simply respond with Brodeur's 12-21 playoff OT record.


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 11-19-2010 at 02:08 AM.
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2010, 02:01 AM
  #38
Derick*
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,624
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Derick*
Wow.

Yeah, that is a very strong correlation. Roy may be the exception.

The problem, though, is that a very strong correlation can only prove there is some causality, not what it was. You can calculate that if it were random there'd be a 1 in 373 chance of him winning that many overtime games, so there probably was a reason, but part of that reason is good teams (including his overall pre-clutch good play), some of that could be something like depth, etc.

I don't have the formula like Doctor No has. Can you get his overall playoff record, and can Doctor No calculate the odds that, if it were random, his OT record would be that good?


Last edited by Derick*: 11-19-2010 at 02:07 AM.
Derick* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2010, 02:09 AM
  #39
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,415
vCash: 500
Have fun calculating the odds of his 24-6 record with the Habs then

There really is a reason after having seen every single one of his playoff games with the Habs, that I have absolutely no problem picking him over Hasek for the playoff's.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2010, 02:18 AM
  #40
Derick*
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,624
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Derick*
A better record doesn't necessarily mean the odds are lower if the sample is smaller. For instance, the odds of going 3 - 0 is 1 in 8, much better than the odds of going 40 - 18. Besides, picking a sample for no good reason introduces sampling bias and makes the data meaningless.

Derick* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2010, 02:34 AM
  #41
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,415
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cognition View Post
A better record doesn't necessarily mean the odds are lower if the sample is smaller. For instance, the odds of going 3 - 0 is 1 in 8, much better than the odds of going 40 - 18. Besides, picking a sample for no good reason introduces sampling bias and makes the data meaningless.

Again, fair enough but you have to admit that trying to explain that 24-6 record with the Habs is pretty damned tough without using the word clutch somewhere

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2010, 03:41 AM
  #42
pluppe
Registered User
 
pluppe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 693
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cognition View Post
What matters in any individual game is the other team's shooting percentage, not your goalie. The team with the lowest shooting percentage usually loses, and the team with the higher shooting percentage (and therefore highest save percentage) usually wins. But that's because of the influence of luck, not goaltending. On a wide enough sample, almost all goalies approach somewhere between .905 and .915, and absolutely all goalies not playing for the Leafs approach somewhere between .900 and .920.

That's why every April and every October we hear "Omfg how is (previously non-revered goalie) playing so well?!" Save percentages vary wildly from game to game, and whoever's lucky that week looks like they're playing really really well. It's just that the stats we look at are the season up to this point, so when a goalie gets lucky for seven games in March no one notices.
unless you are a truly dominating individual:

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

pluppe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2010, 08:09 AM
  #43
Goalie Guru*
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Durham
Posts: 121
vCash: 500
I think we are missing the point of thread.

Parent had a losing NHL record before Philly. The season just before Philly he played in the WHA and in 63 games he had a .886 save % and a 3.61 GAA. The very next season in 73 games he had a 1.89 GAA and his first NHL winning record.

So how much did Parent rely on the team compared to how much they relied on him? In the WHA he wasn't great at all. Why? Why wasn't he good? But then all of a sudden he is a star?

He then gets hurt after having two positive seasons then his team does just as well without him. How? If the team can 'step it up' that easily and still win no matter who is in net, then I ask, how important was the goalie in Philly?

Goalie Guru* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2010, 08:26 AM
  #44
Derick*
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,624
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Derick*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goalie Guru View Post
I think we are missing the point of thread.

Parent had a losing NHL record before Philly. The season just before Philly he played in the WHA and in 63 games he had a .886 save % and a 3.61 GAA. The very next season in 73 games he had a 1.89 GAA and his first NHL winning record.

So how much did Parent rely on the team compared to how much they relied on him? In the WHA he wasn't great at all. Why? Why wasn't he good? But then all of a sudden he is a star?

He then gets hurt after having two positive seasons then his team does just as well without him. How? If the team can 'step it up' that easily and still win no matter who is in net, then I ask, how important was the goalie in Philly?
As seventies said, his record during his stay there was much better than that of his backups. That suggests that Parent improved before he came there and that the team improved when he was injured, or else the team that was allegedly carrying him would have been able to carry his backups as well.

We haven't been off topic at all.

Derick* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2010, 08:54 AM
  #45
Goalie Guru*
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Durham
Posts: 121
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cognition View Post
As seventies said, his record during his stay there was much better than that of his backups. That suggests that Parent improved before he came there and that the team improved when he was injured, or else the team that was allegedly carrying him would have been able to carry his backups as well.

We haven't been off topic at all.
In three seasons as Bernie's backup Wayne Stephenson went 59-15-16. And those were not against the 'weaker teams'.

So again I ask, why was it so easy for the team to win without their "star" goalie? If the team can still win at the same pace, or step it up, then obviously Bernie was not the difference maker.

The team still won without him. Besides, if Parent was the most important player, why didn't Philly struggle to win? Their win totals should have dropped drastically. Let alone win just as much.


Last edited by Goalie Guru*: 11-19-2010 at 09:03 AM.
Goalie Guru* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2010, 08:55 AM
  #46
Psycho Papa Joe
Porkchop Hoser
 
Psycho Papa Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cesspool, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,349
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cognition View Post
As seventies said, his record during his stay there was much better than that of his backups. That suggests that Parent improved before he came there and that the team improved when he was injured, or else the team that was allegedly carrying him would have been able to carry his backups as well.

We haven't been off topic at all.
Apparantley Parent's time as teammates with J. Plante really helped him develop into the goalie that eventually blossomed in the 2nd go around with the Flyers.

Psycho Papa Joe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2010, 09:42 AM
  #47
Bear of Bad News
Mod Supervisor
 
Bear of Bad News's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Windsor
Posts: 4,622
vCash: 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goalie Guru View Post
In three seasons as Bernie's backup Wayne Stephenson went 59-15-16. And those were not against the 'weaker teams'.
It seems like you want the answer to be "they don't (affect wins and losses)". Since that's not the answer, we've moved on to the actual topic. Feel free to contribute.

Bear of Bad News is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2010, 09:45 AM
  #48
Derick*
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,624
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Derick*
This guy is obsessed with Bernie Parent. Bernie Parent isn't the only goalie of all time. If goaltenders as such makes no difference you're going to have a very hard time explaining the events surrounding this Czech guy you might have heard of.

I haven't looked at any numbers surrounding Parent and except in short Youtube clips I haven't ever watched him play. I have no opinion of him. But seventies said the numbers for him v. his backups showed a high differential. You say there wasn't. I'm not in the mood to stat mine so for now it's his word v. yours and until he has a chance to explain I'll take seventies, who knows everything.

Derick* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2010, 11:20 AM
  #49
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,827
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Have fun calculating the odds of his 24-6 record with the Habs then
.
Although that is a higher win% than 40-18, the probability of it is probably not as dramatically low, because it's a smaller sample size, only about half as much.

As far as Parent goes, here's my bio from ATD2010:

http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=2...0&postcount=73

There is some really great stistical analysis in there, and a ton of anecdotal evidence supporting Parent's greatness, particularly in the 1974-1975 seasons, where he caught lightning in a bottle.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2010, 11:25 AM
  #50
Goalie Guru*
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Durham
Posts: 121
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor No View Post
It seems like you want the answer to be "they don't (affect wins and losses)". Since that's not the answer, we've moved on to the actual topic. Feel free to contribute.
Back on topic. Sorry.

So how much did Parent impact winning for Philly? The answer in stats (wins and losses) states a zero impact.

Therefore Philly didn't need Parent.

Goalie Guru* 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 11:48 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.