HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
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
11-24-2010, 11:16 PM
  #176
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,952
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
Of course you may think the analysis is biased, and I could understand that, given the title of the blog. But it's all backed up with numbers. And the author's opinion on Brodeur (and Roy, and Hasek) is follows naturally from the belief that save percentage tells you almost everything about goaltending. If you're looking for bias, I think it says something that he rates Hasek over Roy, despite being a Habs fan.
Hey, I'm a huge Habs fan too and I have no problem with him ranking Hasek #1 over Roy either, in fact, I agree with it....for the regular season anyway.
Playoff's is a different story, Roy any day of the week and twice on Sunday's imo.
I also agree that Brodeur has been overrated to a certain degree over the course of his career, just not to the degree that's presented in that blog.
But hey, that's just my opinion based on stats and more importantly having had the pleasure of seeing the careers of all three from start to finish or almost finish in the case of Brodeur.


Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
More importantly, it is the premise that goalies get far too much credit for wins and far too much blame for losses that is the important point of that blog that should not be lost on anyone.
Couldn't agree more.
Like I said earlier, the guy does make some good points. Just a shame that he has a habit of cherry picking the data from time to time.
Then again, he is a blog writer not a professional writer so I guess I can't really be too hard on the guy.
As long as others take this into account and don't present it as gospel.


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 11-24-2010 at 11:23 PM.
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2010, 11:18 PM
  #177
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 Trottier View Post
Hmmm. You are generalizing. If you go back in this thread (post #147), I suggested that I have heard and read many coaches and players speak highly about the goaltender who makes "the save" that preserves win. Moreso than anything else. No mention of any other types, be it media hacks, fans, etc.

Please know that I make that distinction. Always.



My "side"? I didn't realize we were in a street fight.

If you read my couple of posts carefully, I never even came near the topic you are raising, i.e., six goals, etc. Frankly (no disrespect) I have no idea what you are talking about!

I simply responded to a poster who talked about clutch saves. Yikes!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier View Post
Yes, to answer your question, I trust the opinions of people in the game about their profession. Exponentially moreso than all others. And no, they, like every one else, are imperfect. But some hockey knowledge is universal...except on HF, where every basic tenet of the game is amusingly contested.

A goalie who makes the one save late to preserve a 6-5 win in Game Seven Of the Cup Finals is all that matters to me. I'll leave it to better minds to ponder, dwell on (and criticize) his inability to make a save earlier in the game...or better yet, to rave about the netminder who made 50 saves....in a 2-1 loss.



My, what a prejorative, inaccurate summation of the many fine posters here who possess the experience of watching and playing hoceky...and the ability to articulate those experiences. We certainly bring more to the table than simply ""I watched all those games too and you're wrong."

'Tis a shame if that is truly how you choose to misread the many, many insightful narratives offered up here, at least on this particular board.

Happy Thanksgiving.
????

Derick* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2010, 07:30 AM
  #178
Infinite Vision*
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,862
vCash: 500
Interesting read. Strongly agree with Cognition.

Infinite Vision* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2010, 03:08 PM
  #179
ContrarianGoaltender
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 570
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master_Of_Districts View Post
I remember TCG mentioning that he was a Roy fan.

He posts on this forum from time-to-time, so perhaps he could clarify.
I am the Contrarian Goaltender, I've been a longtime lurker at the HOH boards but I'll take up the invitation to clarify a few points. I have also changed my user name for the sake of clarity.

For those interested in my background, I am a Habs fan, Patrick Roy was my favourite player growing up, and on the day I started my blog I probably would have told you he was the best goalie ever. My level of admiration for Dominik Hasek is entirely from watching him in action and from being repeatedly blown away when digging into his statistical record.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
TCG is notorious for selectively picking his starting points before going into his long statistical analysis. He's not a neutral analyst at all. He's just as biased as anyone, he just covers his biases in statistical smoke. I'm surprised it isn't more well known by now.
I'm not sure what you mean by "selectively", but yes I do define the parameters before I do an analysis. I'm not sure why that would be considered "notorious". Define the criteria beforehand, run the numbers, and post the results, that's what I do, that's what people in this forum like Hockey Outsider, Overpass and Seventieslord do and that's what anyone should do when working with statistics. That is the opposite of cherry-picking or selectively choosing stats, where one is working with a pre-determined conclusion in mind and looking for evidence to help them get there.

I think it is fair to say that I have some biases, for the same reasons that it's fair to say that everyone has some biases. We all have our favorites, our blind spots, our knowledge gaps, our selective memories. I do my best not to let those things affect what I write, but I can't guarantee that they don't do so anyway. That's why I believe so strongly in the use of statistics evaluated in context. Stats are limited in what they can capture and need to be adjusted for certain flaws, but the advantage is that numbers provide a level of objectivity that is unavailable to essentially all human observers.

If someone makes a statistical argument, anyone else can replicate the study to verify it, or can introduce evidence of their own to disprove it. Like anyone I rely on feedback to keep me honest, I've been proven wrong before and I'll be proven wrong again. If I made a mistake in the numbers or you feel the model was flawed, then by all means point it out. But the numbers are what they are, whether you think I'm biased or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Has he been forced to acknowledge the routine undercounting of shots at the old arena in the swamp yet? I remember when an article on puck prospectus first raised the issue, he dismissed it as unimportant.
I never said it was unimportant, I said it required further study to account for all potential variables. I agree there is good evidence of undercounting of shots in New Jersey that cost Brodeur some points off of his save percentage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
The amount of mental pressure a goalie is facing is entirely different in a regular season game and in the 3rd period of a close playoff game.
I find it interesting that after criticizing me for my definition of clutch, you use exactly the same definition yourself when giving an example of a pressure situation.

The point of the Nieuwendyk article was that GWG is a poor and arbitrary definition of clutch. Pick any definition that you want of cluch play that is more expansive than GWG, and it's going to be very close between Modano and Nieuwendyk in '99.

I chose the "3rd period and OT of a close game" definition I used because I thought that was the type of thing that might be convincing to a media person or hockey fan that equates GWG with clutch play. I personally give much, much greater weight to the overall numbers than to any smaller sample, because I agree with Cognition's argument that most of the game is a clutch situation since most of the game is played with the score close.

ContrarianGoaltender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2010, 01:52 AM
  #180
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 ContrarianGoaltender View Post
I never said it was unimportant, I said it required further study to account for all potential variables. I agree there is good evidence of undercounting of shots in New Jersey that cost Brodeur some points off of his save percentage.
Why is further study required? Do you account for it at all in your models? Have you tried looking at away-only? Do you like my user title?

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 03:56 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.