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.

How much does a goalie impact wins and losses.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-19-2010, 10:37 AM
  #51
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,717
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goalie Guru View Post
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.
let me know how you feel after doing some remedial reading as posted above.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2010, 10:47 AM
  #52
BM67
Registered User
 
BM67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In "The System"
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,583
vCash: 500
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.
I did some work a while ago with the Hockey Summary Project and found that Roy had as many OT wins where he didn't have to make a save as Brodeur, Hasek, Belfour and Joseph combined in the games they had data for.

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=621004

Quote:
The Summary Project doesn't have 88-93 or 97 playoffs up yet, so Brodeur is missing 2 games, Roy is missing 25 games, Hasek is missing 2, and Belfour is missing 3, Joseph is missing 9.

Everything plays a part, era as well as playing for more offensive teams, but Roy has about the same number of OT wins without a single save required on his part as Brodeur, Hasek, Belfour and Joseph combined.
They have added a few years since I did that, so probably worth another look sometime.

BM67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2010, 10:49 AM
  #53
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,280
vCash: 500
In my opinion I'd say that a great goaltender helps out a poor team much more than a great goaltender helps a very strong team.

The poor team is going to give up more and better chances and that is where a goalie will make a large difference in their fortunes.

The strong team gives up less chances and less quality chances and it gives the goaltender less opportunity to make a definitive difference.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2010, 11:11 AM
  #54
RabbinsDuck
Registered User
 
RabbinsDuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brighton, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,756
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.
Not sure if you are dismissing all stretches of good performance as "luck" and that there is always a regression to the mean, but I certainly believe great players, skaters and goalies, have the ability to 'up' their play for games and moments when it matters most. Not sure if you are actually disagreeing with that.

RabbinsDuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2010, 11:17 AM
  #55
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,280
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BM67 View Post
I did some work a while ago with the Hockey Summary Project and found that Roy had as many OT wins where he didn't have to make a save as Brodeur, Hasek, Belfour and Joseph combined in the games they had data for.

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=621004
But that was Roy being clutch... right?

That has all sorts of Chuck Norris jokes.. Roy was so clutch in OT they didn't even bother shooting.

I still put Roy as #1 for my team in the playoffs but that really sheds some light on how the perception doesn't always meet reality.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2010, 11:21 AM
  #56
RabbinsDuck
Registered User
 
RabbinsDuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brighton, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,756
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.
The Contrarian Goalie who had a pretty in-depth study going much further than just looking at OT wins and losses, but more revealing -actual SV% in close game situations, either tied going into the 3rd or a 1 goal differential.

Hasek and Belfour fared extremely well in those situations:
http://brodeurisafraud.blogspot.com/...in-clutch.html

An earlier one that just concentrates on OT and Game 7 SV% in the playoffs:
http://brodeurisafraud.blogspot.com/...rformance.html


Last edited by RabbinsDuck: 11-19-2010 at 11:28 AM.
RabbinsDuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2010, 11:28 AM
  #57
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,717
vCash: 500
The thing about Roy not even facing a shot in OT sometimes is very important to consider; however, there's no denying that he's been dominant in OT. I can't recall the exact number, but his career OT sv% is ridiculous. .953 or something like that.

Those shotless wins helped his win% but did nothing for that sv% - that's all based on games in which he actually faced shots.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2010, 11:32 AM
  #58
RabbinsDuck
Registered User
 
RabbinsDuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brighton, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,756
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
The thing about Roy not even facing a shot in OT sometimes is very important to consider; however, there's no denying that he's been dominant in OT. I can't recall the exact number, but his career OT sv% is ridiculous. .953 or something like that.

Those shotless wins helped his win% but did nothing for that sv% - that's all based on games in which he actually faced shots.
OT Winning Percentage:
Roy .684, Belfour .525, Hasek .500, Cujo .481, Brodeur .296

OT Save %:
Belfour .944, Roy .942, Hasek .935, Cujo .926, Brodeur .908

Game 7 SV%:
Hasek .946, Brodeur .928, Belfour .921, Roy .907, Cujo .900


Last edited by RabbinsDuck: 11-19-2010 at 11:49 AM.
RabbinsDuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2010, 11:53 AM
  #59
RabbinsDuck
Registered User
 
RabbinsDuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brighton, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,756
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goalie Guru View Post
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.
Perhaps not - but that has little to do with whether or not Parent was a 'good' or 'average' goalie.
Everyone accepts that it is easier to win on a good team and harder to win on a bad team, but wins and losses is luckily not our only means of measuring the performance of a goalie.

RabbinsDuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2010, 12:52 PM
  #60
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 42,528
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
In my opinion I'd say that a great goaltender helps out a poor team much more than a great goaltender helps a very strong team.

The poor team is going to give up more and better chances and that is where a goalie will make a large difference in their fortunes.

The strong team gives up less chances and less quality chances and it gives the goaltender less opportunity to make a definitive difference.
Provides stats please or it didn't happen!

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2010, 01:08 PM
  #61
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,280
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Provides stats please or it didn't happen!
I don't have the "my opinion" stats available. All I have is the subjective nonsense that should be common sense but isn't around here.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2010, 02:08 PM
  #62
Ensane
EL GUAPO
 
Ensane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 15,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RabbinsDuck View Post
Looks like an indictment of Brodeur, which I tend to agree with to a degree, but when a set of statistics point to Brodeur being only responsible for •two• extra wins on average per season over a typical goalie, I have a hard time taking them too seriously - in this case, based solely on SV%, which I agree is the most important stat in measuring a goalie's individual performance, but far from the only thing that needs to be considered.

The 2nd link points to a dead end for me.


I don't understand what's going on here. I c&p'd the link right from the browser, but the post somehow got changed from "sab ermetric" [no spaces] to "sabremetric" in the URL. Now when I attempt to edit the post and correct it, it keeps reverting back.

Looks like the board has an auto correct so the term "Sabre" is never mispelled (is this the hand of god? Buffaloed? ). In any case, I guess, you'll have to edit the URL you're directed to if you want to read the link.

Ensane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2010, 02:30 PM
  #63
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,333
vCash: 500
I think its been proven now that a team doesn't exactly need a top goalie to win (ofcourse it helps). I would rather have a elite defense than the NHLs best goalie unless it was one of the top 5 greats who could carry a team on their backs.

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2010, 02:46 PM
  #64
RabbinsDuck
Registered User
 
RabbinsDuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brighton, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,756
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ensane View Post


I don't understand what's going on here. I c&p'd the link right from the browser, but the post somehow got changed from "sab ermetric" [no spaces] to "sabremetric" in the URL. Now when I attempt to edit the post and correct it, it keeps reverting back.

Looks like the board has an auto correct so the term "Sabre" is never mispelled (is this the hand of god? Buffaloed? ). In any case, I guess, you'll have to edit the URL you're directed to if you want to read the link.
Thanks, that worked fine.
Good response to the book!

RabbinsDuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2010, 03:46 PM
  #65
Master_Of_Districts
Registered User
 
Master_Of_Districts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Black Ruthenia
Country: Belarus
Posts: 1,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
There's more than just the numbers though in evaluating one goalie to the next.
As Goalie Guru has tried to say in multiple posts around the forums, he believes NHL goalies are pretty much robots and the difference between them is almost nothing.

There will always be the Jim Carey's that come along and completely dominant for one season then disappear.
I am more than willing to concede that there isn't much difference in technical ability of the 60 or so tenders in the league.
However, at some point that technique won't be enough and things like anticipation, reflexes and instinct have to take over and become the difference between making a save or not.
Notwithstanding the fact that the league's General Mangers erroneously awarded him the Vezina in one season, Jim Carey's play was never dominant for any meaningful period of time.

Master_Of_Districts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2010, 04:30 PM
  #66
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
Not sure if you are dismissing all stretches of good performance as "luck" and that there is always a regression to the mean, but I certainly believe great players, skaters and goalies, have the ability to 'up' their play for games and moments when it matters most. Not sure if you are actually disagreeing with that.
I am, most of them anyway. Perhaps there are some examples of it but there's overwhelming evidence clutchness is randomness. The idea that, in situations where something varies from case to case in a set, and people assume any pattern is causal, is a common cognitive bias, so it's really easy for me to believe that's what clutchness is. Lots of players have good streaks of games in February then a bad streak in March, but no one notices or assumes it's because they're good in February. Math shows that there are just as many players who are better in particular months of the regular season as in the playoffs, which strongly suggests clutchness is random.

"Luck" is also misleading. First of all, being good makes you more likely to have good stretches, so it's mostly not "luck," the "luck" is just where the distribution of good performances is.

There's also concrete factors possibly making certain players better in more important games. Better endurance makes them better in OT, better physically or defensively or close to the net or at ES or being less predictable makes them better in the playoffs, etc. so those aren't "clutchness" but they aren't luck either. If you want to define those types of attributes as "clutch" fine.

But I disagree with this idea that players like, say, Franzen versus a player like, say, Thornton does better in the playoffs because he cares more and wants it more so he tries harder. That doesn't mean it's just because Franzen is lucky and Thornton is unlucky, but I don't think trying harder is the explanation. I don't think that's the case with the vast majority of times it appears that way, anyway. Perhaps it's true of very exceptional situations like say, Patrick Roy, Joe Sakic, and Alexei Kovalev.

Derick* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2010, 04:46 PM
  #67
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,717
vCash: 500
Quote:
Patrick Roy, Joe Sakic, and Alexei Kovalev.
Hey, I don't even like Kovalev, but if you're using him as an example of non-clutch, pick on someone else. He advanced past round 1 every season until 2004, and his playoff PPG is as good as in the regular season.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2010, 05:03 PM
  #68
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,280
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Hey, I don't even like Kovalev, but if you're using him as an example of non-clutch, pick on someone else. He advanced past round 1 every season until 2004, and his playoff PPG is as good as in the regular season.
Well one of those is not like the others.. but I think he was making Kovalev one of the good exception cases?

Which amazes me because I've rarely seen such a waste of talent as Kovalev.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2010, 05:07 PM
  #69
RabbinsDuck
Registered User
 
RabbinsDuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brighton, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,756
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cognition View Post
I am, most of them anyway. Perhaps there are some examples of it but there's overwhelming evidence clutchness is randomness. The idea that, in situations where something varies from case to case in a set, and people assume any pattern is causal, is a common cognitive bias, so it's really easy for me to believe that's what clutchness is. Lots of players have good streaks of games in February then a bad streak in March, but no one notices or assumes it's because they're good in February. Math shows that there are just as many players who are better in particular months of the regular season as in the playoffs, which strongly suggests clutchness is random.

"Luck" is also misleading. First of all, being good makes you more likely to have good stretches, so it's mostly not "luck," the "luck" is just where the distribution of good performances is.

There's also concrete factors possibly making certain players better in more important games. Better endurance makes them better in OT, better physically or defensively or close to the net or at ES or being less predictable makes them better in the playoffs, etc. so those aren't "clutchness" but they aren't luck either. If you want to define those types of attributes as "clutch" fine.

But I disagree with this idea that players like, say, Franzen versus a player like, say, Thornton does better in the playoffs because he cares more and wants it more so he tries harder. That doesn't mean it's just because Franzen is lucky and Thornton is unlucky, but I don't think trying harder is the explanation. I don't think that's the case with the vast majority of times it appears that way, anyway. Perhaps it's true of very exceptional situations like say, Patrick Roy, Joe Sakic, and Alexei Kovalev.
I don't think it is "trying harder" just learning to be able to be more effective in big-game situations... Some learn it and some never do. Clearly Franzen has figured something out Thornton has yet to... maybe it is just the ability to change your game depending on the situation.

RabbinsDuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2010, 05:13 PM
  #70
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,280
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RabbinsDuck View Post
I don't think it is "trying harder" just learning to be able to be more effective in big-game situations... Some learn it and some never do. Clearly Franzen has figured something out Thornton has yet to... maybe it is just the ability to change your game depending on the situation.
What is different about a big game situation and a normal game situation?

What does a player have to do differently that he wouldn't do normally?

Does Thornton have to learn to pass better in the playoffs than the regular season or something?

I am torn about this stuff because I do think that sometimes players do miraculous things in clutch situations but my rational mine also says to me that it is the situation that makes it appear "clutch" in our memories and not the play itself.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2010, 05:32 PM
  #71
Ensane
EL GUAPO
 
Ensane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 15,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
What is different about a big game situation and a normal game situation?

What does a player have to do differently that he wouldn't do normally?

Does Thornton have to learn to pass better in the playoffs than the regular season or something?

I am torn about this stuff because I do think that sometimes players do miraculous things in clutch situations but my rational mine also says to me that it is the situation that makes it appear "clutch" in our memories and not the play itself.
Pressure certainly exists, as I'm sure we can all attest, and sometime it causes one to be nervous and act differently in certain situations. That said, I agree with what Cognition's overarching premise, it's pretty difficult to prove its a trend with certain players.

I mean, I never dedicated a ton of thought to the argument, but it got me thinking now...

Perhaps Franzen is a better player in April and May than Thornton is, regardless of the situation. Of course, absent inversing the schedule it's pretty tough to prove "clutch" vs. "random." If we had more of a sample size of shortened seasons, or these players spending significant time playing in leagues not in line with the NHL's schedule, we could dive into concluding one way or another easier.

It's also interesting that "clutch" players are always players who are otherwise pretty good to begin with, but rarely do you see a guy who was average/below average who somehow doubles his PPG in the playoffs (I'm sure someone will find some examples; they might be random). It's easy to say Michael Jordan was clutch because he hit some jumpers at ideal times in the playoffs, but he also hit similar jumpers in the regular season in great frequency.

It's a fascinating argument either way.

Ensane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2010, 05:32 PM
  #72
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,524
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RabbinsDuck View Post
I don't think it is "trying harder" just learning to be able to be more effective in big-game situations... Some learn it and some never do. Clearly Franzen has figured something out Thornton has yet to... maybe it is just the ability to change your game depending on the situation.

Could be a couple of things here.

First of it could simply be that player A is more willing than player B to battle through the extra attention that comes in the playoff's.

Second, the teams you're facing in the playoff's are more or less the top 16 in the league. There's no last place teams to go against.

Third, you're facing the same team over and over for 4-7 games straight so patterns are picked by and then countered by the other team. Player A might be better at adjusting his game or changing his pattern than player B.

Coincidentally, the last point is closely related to goaltenders as well and why simply being great technically is not enough. They have to have/develop their instincts and have the ability to recognize patterns not only in the players they're facing but also in themselves.
Basically they have to figure out how to successfully "cheat" consistently.


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 11-19-2010 at 05:50 PM.
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2010, 09:25 PM
  #73
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 seventieslord View Post
Hey, I don't even like Kovalev, but if you're using him as an example of non-clutch, pick on someone else. He advanced past round 1 every season until 2004, and his playoff PPG is as good as in the regular season.
I just assumed he was non-clutch based on a vague memory of his reputation as a really lazy, careless player. Maybe he doesn't count because he's even more lazy and careless in the regular season. It was just an example by reputation, I don't actually know much about him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RabbinsDuck View Post
I don't think it is "trying harder" just learning to be able to be more effective in big-game situations... Some learn it and some never do. Clearly Franzen has figured something out Thornton has yet to... maybe it is just the ability to change your game depending on the situation.
My problem is that "big game" isn't a concrete thing you can be better at. If we want "clutch" to be anything than this vague mystical folk lore notion we need to give concrete things that are different about the games that make different players respond do them.

Derick* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2010, 09:57 PM
  #74
RabbinsDuck
Registered User
 
RabbinsDuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brighton, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,756
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cognition View Post

My problem is that "big game" isn't a concrete thing you can be better at. If we want "clutch" to be anything than this vague mystical folk lore notion we need to give concrete things that are different about the games that make different players respond do them.
Claude Lemiuex, Mark Messier, Leetch - Sakic, Forsberg, Fedorov, Zetterberg, Franzen - these guys have all clearly shown an ability to play more effective in the playoffs, which to any naked eye is a completely different game than a regular season game.

Ultimately, I think these players were willing to do the things they might not do during the regular season - dig for pucks, go to the net, shoot more, sacrifice the body - sure, you can fault them for not doing so in the regular season, but these guys are definitely the embodiment of "clutch" play and I doubt many GMs would argue otherwise. Should they be penalized for not doing it in the regular season- sure - but it is a matter of degrees, and not black & white.

RabbinsDuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2010, 09:59 PM
  #75
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
Claude Lemiuex, Mark Messier, Leetch - Sakic, Forsberg, Fedorov, Zetterberg, Franzen - these guys have all clearly shown an ability to play more effective in the playoffs, which to any naked eye is a completely different game than a regular season game.

Ultimately, I think these players were willing to do the things they might not do during the regular season - dig for pucks, go to the net, shoot more, sacrifice the body - sure, you can fault them for not doing so in the regular season, but these guys are definitely the embodiment of "clutch" play and I doubt many GMs would argue otherwise. Should they be penalized for not doing it in the regular season- sure - but it is a matter of degrees, and not black & white.
I'm not denying that there's something there in at least some of those cases. A willingness to take risk or become exhausted, maybe, there's lots of possibilities. People don't usually say that though, naming concrete things like you. They just have this vague idea that if the game is important the players magically gets better. That's the idea that bothers me. There's no being better in big games, just being better at things in big games, or being willing to do certain things in big games.

Derick* 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 11:13 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.