Sunday, December 2, 2007

The Dead Puck Era

The period from 1995 to 2004 in the NHL is sometimes referred to as the "Dead Puck Era" in reference to the decreased scoring environment. In this period, the average goals per game decreased and the average save percentage went up. Some of this effect may have been from improved goaltending play, but a lot of it was due to better defensive play, relaxed rules on clutching and grabbing, increased goalie equipment size, and other factors.

How much did this era help the goalies who played in it? Quite a bit, as it became easier to post high save percentages and low GAA numbers. One of the major beneficiaries, of course, was Martin Brodeur. It is easy to look at his career numbers (even his save percentage numbers), and wonder how anyone could claim that several other goalies could have easily matched his performance in New Jersey. Yet that's what I'm going to try to demonstrate right now.

Roberto Luongo, probably the best goalie in the NHL, is in his eighth season in the league. I wanted to look at the goalies who entered the league between Brodeur and Luongo, i.e. roughly somewhere between 1993 and 2000, to see how playing in that particular era impacted their save statistics. For a fairer comparison, I took only their first 8 seasons, starting with the first year they played more than 1000 minutes. Both are somewhat arbitrary cutoffs, but I needed to set the yardsticks somewhere, and for most goalies 8 seasons includes a few prime years and goes up to around 29 or 30 years old. For goalies in their 8th season like Luongo, I included this year's stats. Here are the save percentage results:

1. Roberto Luongo, .919
2. Manny Fernandez, .913
2. Tomas Vokoun, .913
4. Martin Brodeur, .912
4. Mike Dunham, .912
6. Evgeni Nabokov, .911
6. Guy Hebert, .911
6. Martin Biron, .911
6. Olaf Kolzig, .911
10. Jose Theodore, .910
10. Dwayne Roloson, .910

(There are a few others who didn't make the list because they only had 7 seasons played but would also have ranked ahead of Brodeur, including Manny Legace (.916), J.S. Giguere (.916), Marty Turco (.914), and even David Aebischer (.912).)

What conclusions can we draw from this list? Simply that the effect of the era they played in was much stronger than the individual goalie effect. The difference between #2 and #10 on this list is very slight, just .003 in save percentage (1 goal every 333 shots), and that is over an 8 season span. The only guy who distinguishes himself is Luongo. Brodeur is mid-pack, despite playing on the best teams (especially defensively) of any goalie on the list. It is interesting to see him tied with Mike Dunham, who began his career as Brodeur's backup in New Jersey.

Some of the goalies played fewer minutes, because they spent times as backups, which means one or two good seasons could be skewing their results. Those who played over 20,000 minutes in their first 8 seasons include Luongo, Vokoun, Brodeur, Nabokov, Hebert, Kolzig, and Theodore. So there is a good deal of evidence that except for Luongo they were all pretty close to each other in performance over their first 350+ games in the NHL.

Olaf Kolzig and Martin Brodeur had almost the same playing time and the same save statistics (29,432 minutes and .911 for Kolzig, 30,055 and .912 for Brodeur). Pretty much the only difference between the two of them was the strength of their teams. Olaf Kolzig is certainly one of the league's most underrated goalies - I would argue that over their careers, there is little to differentiate him from Martin Brodeur. The only difference between them is quantity, but not quality.

Martin Brodeur has had a very good career, but this has been primarily because of his great defensive teams and his longevity, durability, and favourable deployment by his team (i.e. his coach sending him out to the net virtually every game). For the majority of his career, he has stopped the puck just as well as the other decent goalies in the league, even before considering how relatively easy his shots were. He just came into the league at the right time and on the right team to put up massive career numbers. The low-scoring era Brodeur played in is another major reason for his impressive career statistics, but relatively speaking they are far from great. Brodeur's save percentages are often invoked in arguments involving some of the slightly older goalies like Roy, Belfour, and Joseph, but once you factor in era there isn't much difference at all (except for Roy, who ranks well ahead of Brodeur).

Just as an aside, there was one goalie that did not make the list because his first qualifying season came in 1991-92, but I thought I'd just mention him for comparison's sake: Dominik Hasek. Despite playing in three relatively high-scoring seasons to start his career, in his first 8 seasons Hasek posted a .926 save percentage, which outclasses everybody on the above list. In the Dead Puck Era, the low-scoring environment made it look like everyone was good at stopping the puck, but the record shows that nobody was even close to Hasek.

4 comments:

sunnymehta.com said...

No question that Hasek and Luongo are in a different class than Brodeur.

But having said that, I still think your study overlooks a few things.

You claim that longevity has more to do with "coaching decisions" than skills of value. I disagree. Your statement assumes that a replacement goalie will be as good as the players in your above list. Absolutely untrue.

Think of it this way...

Even if we say Brodeur was never the best goalie in any single year he played, would you rather be guaranteed a top-5 goalie for 13 straight years (and 70+ games a season), or gamble that you can fill your goaltender position with a player of equal value? What do you think is the probability that you will be able to fill all those player minutes with someone better than Brodeur, or worse than Brodeur?

That to me is what makes Brodeur's longevity so valuable. The Devils have had that "consistency" in net due to his durability. Most goaltenders haven't posted his career SV% over nearly as large of a sample size. That is a HUGE point. And it's not because of coaching decisions, it's because most goalies' SV% wouldn't stay that high over a large sample size. And then the team would be stuck trying to replace their goalie minutes with someone of equal caliber. (Which is difficult. Top 5 or even top 10 NHL goalies do not grow on trees.)

Looking at small sample sizes wrt SV% is a big error because of the amount of luck/variance involved. The guy at Hockey Numbers says this about the issue:

"One thing people often forget about save percentages is the amount of error is significant, even for goaltenders who play a lot, for example a goaltender who faces 500 shots has approximately 2.5% error, or has a save percentage of 0.908 ± 0.025 or it has a 95% confidence interval of (.934, 882), Luongo with approximately 2500 shots is (.925, .903), which in terms of quality is a huge difference, in fact that range covers the top 20 goaltenders of 2005-2006. When you consider this it can explain why you see a new goaltender on top every year (Huet, Roloson/Kiprusoff, Turco, Theodore, Dunham)."

Again, is Brodeur overrated? Definitely. He's not a dominating player of the likes of Hasek or Sandy Koufax. But it's hard to look at his .913 career SV% over 916 games (!) and assume he's anything but a very good goalie. (Also, interestingly, even though you said you looked at goalies' "prime" years, if you only took into account Brodeur's first eight seasons you missed three very good ones including his very best season last year.)

Anonymous said...

So, one of the considerations you are missing with save percentage is When is a shot a shot? Being an Off-Ice-Official, and even with an NHL standard being applied, each specific rink crew might apply a different standard than other crews or rinks. This suggests that save percentages is a subjective statistic, and that goalies with a +/- 2% might be equal. So to your analysis, Hasek and Luongo are clearly superior, but the next 8-10 goalies form the next tier, including Brodeur.

So for me, as long as Brodeur is in this next group, I move onto the next consideration point (Osgood fails here on save percentage as he falls to the third tier) and I start looking beyond the Save Percentage stat.

So how does Brodeur end up 4 out 10 NHL All-Star teams (2-#1 and 2-#2), and he plays in 8 of 10 all-star games? In that period of time Brodeur is in the top three goalies in wins, shut-outs and ice-time. Brodeur might not be the best goalie of his era, but he's constantly in the top three, over this 10 year span.

As a side note it would be interesting to see goalie save percentages by building.

midi haytham said...

شركة تنظيف واجهات حجر بالرياض
كشف تسربات المياه
شركة تخزين اثاث بالرياض
شركة نقل اثاث بالرياض
شركة تنظيف فلل بالرياض
شركة تخزين عفش بالرياض
شركة نقل عفش بالرياض
شركة تنظيف موكيت بالرياض
شركة تنظيف مجالس بالرياض
شركة تنظيف شقق بالرياض
شركة تنظيف بيوت بالرياض
شركة تنظيف منازل بالرياض

midi haytham said...

شركة تنظيف بيارات بالرياض
شركة رش مبيدات بالرياض
شركة مكافحة حشرات بالرياض
شركة عزل خزانات بالرياض
شركة عزل اسطح بالرياض
شركة تسليك مجارى بالرياض
شركة تنظيف خزانات بالرياض
شركة تنظيف واجهات زجاج بالرياض
ترميم المنازل