Monday, February 23, 2009

Washington's Goalie Mistake

In the past offseason, the Washington Capitals had the choice of resigning deadline acquisition Cristobal Huet, or bringing in another goalie as a replacement. The Caps attempted to sign Huet, but were not able to meet his asking price of $5.6 million per season, and had to settle on paying Jose Theodore $9 million over 2 years as a backup plan. So far this has not worked out particularly well for the Capitals as Huet, despite getting off to a slow start in Chicago, has significantly outplayed Theodore.

This has been unsurprising to anyone familiar with recent save percentage history for the two goalies. Theodore has played 2,321 minutes this season and has faced 1,086 shots against. He has stopped 90.1% of shots against, and Hockey Numbers estimates his shot quality neutral save percentage to be .899. Huet is at .918 in raw save percentage and .923 in adjusted. Both these marks are about in line with recent performance - in a post from before this season I used results from the past three seasons to predict both adusted and raw save percentage numbers. The adjusted save percentage predictions were .917 for Huet and .898 for Theodore, both of which are pretty similar to actual results so far.

If Huet faced Theodore's shots this season and put up the same raw save percentage in Washington as he did in Chicago, he would have allowed 89 goals, or 19 fewer than Theodore. If we evaluate the hypothetical using adjusted save percentages, we could expect Huet to allow about 82 goals, or 26 fewer than Theodore has. The effect on Washington would be to improve their goal differential to +55, which would rank them right behind Boston (+63) and San Jose (+59) as the third-best team in the league.

According to some reports, Washington tried hard to sign Huet but he wanted to test the waters of free agency. Still, it is hard to imagine that the Capitals front office doesn't have at least some regret about their decision to go with Theodore - I assume that Ted Leonsis would be quite willing to pay an extra $1.125 million this season (the difference in cap hits between Huet and Theodore) for a 20+ reduction in goals allowed for and as a result a team that, with the division they play in, could possibly have been leading the NHL in points right now.

64 comments:

Anonymous said...

Or, once again you are being subjective, and purposely leaving out relevant information because it does not help your case. Any idiot could tell you Washington plays little defense, while Chicago is quite good at it. Where are your oh so reliable "backup" studies? Khabibulin, a slightly above average goalie has significantly outplayed Huet. Whether Huet is better than Theodore or not, I just can not believe you are so dense that you refuse to acknowledge the teams these guys play for influence their save percentages.

Anonymous said...

Further, it appears as though you like to give yourself credit for making blanket statement or general assumptions. Anybody who has followed hockey could have told you Huet would have better numbers than Theodore this year based on the teams they played for. Its similar to when you had that New Jersey poll and the majority of people, including yourself predicted they would be a bubble playoff team (5-8 seed), and yet recently you've tried saying you predicted their success without Brodeur. Did you also predict Ty Conklin would have more wins than losses in Detroit? Or that the Flyers would have a goaltending controversy sometime this year?

The Contrarian Goaltender said...

I just can not believe you are so dense that you refuse to acknowledge the teams these guys play for influence their save percentages.

Did you miss the part where I referred to shot-quality neutral save percentages? Of course save percentages are always influenced by the team in front of the goalie.

Any idiot could tell you Washington plays little defense

If someone told you that, then they would be an idiot. Washington was top 5 in the league last year in shot quality against, and they're pretty close to that again this year. They are 5th in the Eastern Conference this year in shots against, with exactly the same shots against number (29.1) as Chicago. In his 13 games with the Caps last season, Huet had a 1.63 GAA and a .936 save pct.

Where are your oh so reliable "backup" studies? Khabibulin, a slightly above average goalie has significantly outplayed Huet.

First of all, you exaggerate the gap between Khabibulin (2.37, .924) and Huet (2.23, .918).

Secondly, Jose Theodore has been significantly outplayed by his backups, and Brent Johnson is a lot worse than Khabibulin. Theodore is at 2.79, .901, and his backups are at 2.61, .916.

The backup stats do nothing but back up the shot quality numbers. When you have an above average starter putting up a .924 on one team, and below average backups playing at .916 on another, that suggests that both teams are pretty good and that they aren't too far apart in shot quality.

Anybody who has followed hockey could have told you Huet would have better numbers than Theodore this year based on the teams they played for.

Based on the teams they played for, or because Huet is a much better goalie? I'm not saying I made a great prediction - that previous post was based on a math formula suggested by one of my commenters. All I did was run the numbers. Yet apparently nobody on the Capitals did, and that is why it was worthy of a post.

yet recently you've tried saying you predicted their success without Brodeur.

I didn't say that either. I said I wouldn't have predicted their level of success without Brodeur, but that I "imagined the possibility of the New Jersey Devils getting on just fine without their franchise goaltender."

JLikens said...

Anonymous:

CG did in fact take team quality into consideration by using each goalie's SQN S% from hockeynumbers in addition to unadjusted SV %. It would appear that Theodore has faced slightly below average (read: less difficult) shots this season, with the reverse being true for Huet. Therefore, not only does Huet have a better raw save percentage than Theodore, but the gap actually widens once shot quality is accounter for.

And while Khabibulin has indeed posted impressive numbers this year, this cannot be attributed to team factors, as he -- like Huet -- has faced higher than average shot quality thus far (which makes sense, given that they play behind the same defence).

The fact that Chicago allows higher shot quality against than Washington is supported by Alan Ryder's data from last season, which had the Hawks as the league's 4th worst team in relation to shot quality against. The Caps, by contrast, were 4th best.

JLikens said...

heh. Looks like CG beat me to the rebuttal.

Anonymous said...

so the justification for using save percentages is based on a made up stat like shot quality neutral save percentage? when are you guys going to realize that sqns% is not an accurate statistic either, in fact all it is, is some made up stat that is only recognized by bloggers and math geeks. sqns% is not reliable and i cant believe that you people draw so many of you "conclusions" on it. it is unreliable, and admittedly flawed by the guy who made it up. it also fittingly, does not account for team influenced factors or the quality of the chance.

Anonymous said...

again, if this sqns% stat was so reliable, why is it that you bloggers are the only ones who give it any value? i mean, wouldnt other teams, or scouts, or gms place some kind of faith in it? these adjusted numbers and whatnot have been around for quite some time so its not like people in the hockey world havent heard of them. yet it seems like the people who are paid to judge talent and evaluate it, do not give it much value. they do however look at things like gaa, REAL save percentage numbers and other actual on ice skills.

Statman said...

Anonymous - Other teams & scouts place value on stats like SQN% (& who knows what else they have come up with). You seem to think that there are only (1) traditional "official" "publicly released" stats & (2) subjective opinion (which could also be 'popular' opinion) out there.

You better believe that even the most backward franchises keep track of "scoring chances", & this is a crude approximate of shot quality.

Do you think that teams that DO use more sophisticated stats are eager to have them publicized, & have their more complicated ways of evaluating players revealed to everyone (including rival teams)? It's called beating the competition. The salary cap has forced teams to work harder to evaluate players, in order to get better players at a cheaper price, because teams can't just open the cheque book & sign anyone.

Teams in some cases don't want their own players to know how they rate using various non-"official" stats, because the teams use this inside knowledge to keep salaries lower; it deprives the players from a tool that they can use to demand higher pay. Players (& their agents) have been using stats like penalty minute plus-minus in order to win arbitration awards/have salaries increased. Have you ever heard of penalty plus-minus? It's not an "official stat". Does that mean anyone who uses it to evaluate players is an "idiot" & "dense"? Noooo.

At one time, traditional plus/minus was a 'secret' stat that clubs kept track of, but wouldn't release to the public or even the players! (Not officially released until 67-68.)

I suggest you read Moneyball sometime.

http://www.cognos.com/newsletter/business/st_071017_03.html

http://www.mc79hockey.com/?p=3066

The 2nd link contains a link to a NY Times story which is very interesting... it's about basketball, but the idea is the same: using non-traditional stats to get a better understanding of player quality. Teams that do this are very smart.

The SJ Sharks are rumoured to be involved with high-tech, non-trad'l stats, as are the Canucks.

Do a search of 'hockey', 'moneyball', etc.

[And really, why all the juvenile language all the time? It doesn't help your argument, it weakens it. It's a little embarrassing, to be honest. You're not likely to get responses as a result.]

Statman said...

Anonymous - "sqns% is not reliable"

I'm curious as to how you come to that conclusion.

Anonymous said...

how is sqns% not reliable. it is admittedly flawed by the guy who created it. it also does not account for shot quality, and is prone to reporting bias regardless of were it is taken.

Anonymous said...

either way, sqns% is not some top secret statistic. it has been on blogs like this for a while, yet never in my life have i heard of it from somebody with a credible hockey background or nhl employment. its not like teams would "keep secret" or "protect" something that is not much of a secret. plus/minus is a completely different story because although it was not an official stat, is was a stat that was frequently mentioned in the papers/magazines/on television. again, as i said before, NEVER has sqns% been mentioned outside of these blogs.

The Contrarian Goaltender said...

Reading what Alan Ryder actually wrote about shot quality would be a good start. Yes, it is prone to reporting bias, but so it is almost every single other stat tracked by the NHL. There are ways to adjust for reporting bias (like using road numbers, or adjusting for observed scorer error in different rinks). There is certainly no reason to throw the whole thing away.

Product Recall Notice for Shot Quality

Direct quote from Ryder's conclusion:

"It's not really a recall. Shot quality is not broken. Just don't use it without understanding it. Use the road factors!

Shot quality is a very powerful tool. Like any tool the user needs to understand (a) how to use it and (b) its limitations...Properly used, it remains a powerful tool."


it also does not account for shot quality

This is a curious bit of criticism. Shot quality measures do account for shot quality by taking into account shot distance, shot type, and game situation, and then assigning the average probability of a goal for that type of chance.

What do coaches mean when they say they want quality scoring chances? They mean shots that are close to the net, shots that have a high probability of going in. That is what shot quality tracks.

rananda said...

What do you make of the fact that since getting pulled in a game at the Rangers on December 23rd, Theodore is 15-4-2 with a 2.20 goals-against average and .921 save percentage (a game Theodore and the Caps came back to win)? Huet was lights out for the Caps down the stretch, and Theodore was terrible before Dec. 23, but he's been very good since. If he continues his recent play, a big if for sure, you can't reasonably ask for better goaltending.

Regardless, I don't think Huet at four years and that money made any sense for Washington. First, they've been up against the cap all year and the extra 1.125 would have forced them to make significant roster changes. Only Chris Clark going on LTI earlier in the year and now for the rest of the season allowed them to have Alzner up for a developmentally important 40-game stint (and he'll likely be back sooner than later). Second, the Caps have 2 very promising goalies in the pipeline in Varlamov and Neuvirth. Theodore's 2 -year deal allows one of them to be the full-time backup next season before stepping into the starting role (or some type of platooning situation with the other) while both are on their entry-level deals. Huet at 4 years wouuldnt have allowed that and would have potentially blown up their cap situation.

Trust me, no one hated Theodore more than I did for the part of the season before the calendar turned, but he's been great since. Is it just small sample size and we'll see inevitable regression in his game, or did something finally click with him on a new team and new setting? It might be wishful thinking, but he looks like a different player (and not merely one with different results) and I wouldn't be surprised if it's that latter.

He also single highhandedly got Col past Minn last spring before he fell ill, lost the zone, and got lit up by Det. But that Minn series, more than anything I think, got him the job in Wash. He won't ever need to that good with Was to win a series. He will need to be better than .901 though.

rananda said...

Also, I'm not suggesting that not having Alzner around would have been the only roster fallout from that extra 1.125M. Perhaps most importantly, I don't think they would have been able to sign Fedorov. The Caps opening day roster did not have Alzner, and they were barely under the cap at that point (and that was carrying 21 not 23 players). I think it's impossible to quantify how much Fedorov has contributed to the team's success because not only are his on-ice contributions so varied and difficult to gauge, but his off-ice contributions are significant (to the extent that such a contribution can be significant, I think they can, i.e. his effect on Semin's game and his ability to make the Caps skilled players play less "loosey-goosey," sometimes a problem for them, not to mention influencing a shortening of their shifts, another major problem). Just looking at which goalie the Caps would rather have in terms of spending real dollars, no sane person on the planet, and certainly none in the Caps front office, would have wanted Theodore, then or now, over Huet. But, good or bad, it's not nearly as simple as that. I'll take Theodore and Feds over Huet now, and I'll certainly take Neuvirth and Varlamov, and 3+M in cap space in two years over Huet. The Caps are going to desperately need that cap space if they want to keep Semin and Backstrom and ice a complete team.

Statman said...

Anonymous - From your writings it appears that you value GAA over SV%, & SV% over SQNSV%.

Correct?

(Although it's interesting that you say Khabibulin (2.37, .924) is better than Huet (2.23, .918) this year, yet Huet has a better GAA... I guess in some circumstances SV% is a better measure, at least as far as you're concerned? And you accuse CG of picking & choosing data...)

But I guess SV% shouldn't be used at all, because shots are taken from various distances, game situations (EV vs. PK), & no doubt shots recorded are not 100% accurate... e.g. I suspect "shots" are overestimated because some shots would probably miss the net (if only be a few inches) except the goalie stops it anyway.

Therefore, we are just left with GAA. And W-L-T records. And Cups. Let's all just forget about trying to pin down very accurate stats... let's all just come up with our subjective lists in our heads based on "consistency" or "fitting in with the team" & how much praise sportscasters give them.... at least, whatever "consistency" or "fitting in with the team" means.... probably the sportscasters will tell us (how many made it past grade 12, & how many even took Grade 12 Math?)

Statman said...

Wait! I just remembered: GAA is based on minutes played, & there is some question as to whether MIN are accurately compiled.... some stats show MIN down to the second, some don't.

So rule out GAA. I guess whoever wins the Cup is the best.

Problem solved!

Statman said...

Anonymous - "either way, sqns% is not some top secret statistic. it has been on blogs like this for a while, yet never in my life have i heard of it from somebody with a credible hockey background or nhl employment."

What is the typical background of an NHL coach/GM/scout? Would you expect someone who barely made it past Grade 12 to understand any kind of semi-complicated metrics?

That said, the NHL is gradually getting up to speed, with better educated head office personnel.

So yeah, NHL teams in general are no doubt keeping track of "scoring chances" (again, a stat that doesn't officially exist & so therefore of no use to you) & watching video & charting opposition tendencies, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if at least a handful of teams are using "shot quality" as referred to by Alan Ryder.

Do you regularly have confidential meetings/conversations with NHL staff?

"plus/minus is a completely different story because although it was not an official stat, is was a stat that was frequently mentioned in the papers/magazines/on television."

You were around pre-1967 to see that it was "frequently mentioned in the papers/magazines/on television"?

Anonymous said...

@CG
"This is a curious bit of criticism. Shot quality measures do account for shot quality by taking into account shot distance, shot type, and game situation, and then assigning the average probability of a goal for that type of chance."

Shot quality is subjective. Anytime somebody looking at a box score tries to break down the game as if they had watched it themselves, there will be errors. How is a point blank one-timer towards an open net calculated? Does sqns% account for the one-timer in which the shooter gets all of it and whips a 95 mph slapper top corner? Is there a difference noted by sqns% when the same scenario happens but the shooter rips it right into the goalies chest. Or how about the same scenario with the shooter shanking the shot, resulting in a 15 mph dribbler the goalie covers?

Are you familiar with the scientific method? If so you would easily be able to tell me why sqns% is garbage.

@Statman
"Anonymous - From your writings it appears that you value GAA over SV%, & SV% over SQNSV%.

Correct?

(Although it's interesting that you say Khabibulin (2.37, .924) is better than Huet (2.23, .918) this year, yet Huet has a better GAA... I guess in some circumstances SV% is a better measure, at least as far as you're concerned? And you accuse CG of picking & choosing data...) "

I am starting to question whether or not you actually look at things objectively, or just blindly defend everything CG says. When did I say Khabibulin is better than Huet. I said he has outperformed him this year, which is not a farfetched statement, and can be verified by anybody who has watched the Blackhawks play.

Sure I value gaa, however I have clearly, and quite explicitly stated than many things have to be taken into consideration when evaluating a player. You however, from your logic in claiming that it is contradictory of me to say Khabibulin has been better than Huet, seem to once again be falsely assuming that a person has to use only ONE statistic to determine who is better. That is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard, yet seems to be a common perception around here. The reliance on using just one stat, or multiple manipulations of that one stat is highly erroneous as it is, not to mention when the statistic itself is flawed, there is further reason to discredit it.

Anonymous said...

The other point is, that anybody can make up statistics. Anybody with an agenda, can take those stats and "adjust" the to make them say whatever they want. It seems like CG's case for his argument is completely contingent on other bloggers, your own studies! and this guy Alan Ryder, somebody I have never heard of, but who I am assuming has some kind of background with professional hockey? Otherwise, if he doesnt, I would find it hard to listen to him. Even if he is somebody associated with hockey, that does not automatically give him credibility. I could quote Sean Avery and use it about a study relating to the overall intelligence of professional athletes. Is it relevant, maybe a little but since he is an athlete, however does it make it correct just because he is one, no.

Statman said...

Anonymous - "When did I say Khabibulin is better than Huet. I said he has outperformed him this year,"

Oh, thanks for clarifying that. I thought that "better than" was equivalent to "outperformed him", but I see I was mistaken. I suppose Goalie A could be worse than Goalie B, yet outperform Goalie B throughout the entire season. (?)

"... which is not a farfetched statement, and can be verified by anybody who has watched the Blackhawks play. "

You've seen every one of the games that Khabibulin as well as Huet have played? Impressive. I'd love to see your notes on the 58 Chicago games you've watched, carefully detailing who is better... sorry, who has "outperformed" the other.

How do your notes on the 58 games compare to the stats?

And again, with the language - "stupidest"... seriously, do you speak to people that way in person? What city do you live in, where people snap & swear & criticize others incessantly?

Anonymous said...

Obviously teams refer to "scoring chances" and quality chances. I have heard those things mentioned by people who know hockey, as has anyone who has watched a game in the last few decades. However I have still yet to hear of sqns% outside of the blogger world.

Statman said...

Anonymous - you've never heard of Alan Ryder? What publications do you read? Have you ever read Canada's most widely circulated newspaper?

In what way are the stats on here (or whatever stats you're ranting about) "adjusted" incorrectly and 'made up'?

Why do you even bother posting on here? If you go back to sites like TSN & team/fan sites where teens argue about their favourite players & teams, you'd be a lot happier. And then we wouldn't have to waste time responding (& responding, & responding...) to your accusations & showing you where such & such number came from, & what it means, etc., all the while you're ranting & red in the face that it is impossible to measure player skill, the numbers are lies & made up, we have an agenda, etc. It's just kinda weird.

Anonymous said...

Statman, your insistence on just disagreeing with everything simply because you support CG takes credibility away from your own opinions. The fact that you seem to think that a person is required to use only one statistic to evaluate a goalie is "less than intelligent". Crying about an assessment of the logic used is also not helping your case.

I have not stated I have seen every Blackhawks game, yet you seem to jump to outrageous conclusions to somehow support your outrageous claims. Ask anyone who has followed hockey this season who has been better Khabibulin or Huet?

And is it possible for a goalie to outplay his counterpart without being the better overall goalie? Absolutely. This is where watching the games is relevant, and the whole stat freak obsession becomes less relevant. Who has played better this year? Giguere or Hiller? Who is the better goalie? Halak or Price? Biron or Nittymaki? Now before you spark up google in search of those guys statistics as you surely have to seeing as you probably do not watch the games, I will tell you that your insistence on using a narrow minded method of evaluation, only limits your ability to draw productive conclusions. I mean, if everything simply came down to the evaluation of stats, then why do teams have scouts?

Anonymous said...

Using save percentage, or manipulated adjustments of it to draw conclusions about who the best goalies are is about as dumb as using shooting percentage as the sole method for figuring out who the best forwards are.

Statman said...

Anonymous - "Ask anyone who has followed hockey this season who has been better Khabibulin or Huet?"

Oh, ok, now I see what I must do in order to evaluate players. Just anyone who has followed them... whatever "followed them" means... & whoever "anyone" is.... could mean someone who has watched a few games, or most of the games, or some sportscaster.

"Better than"... "outperformed"... ok, whatever. Someone who consistently outperforms someone else is soon to be considered "better than" by 'those who follow hockey'. Sort of like how some players have a certain reputation of being 'good'/'great'/'bad' whatever & then as their actual performance changes (for better or worse) they are 'outperforming' or 'underperforming' & their reputation changes accordingly.

You're way too over the top, & you don't really back up any of your accusations. Your argument always comes down to, "ask anyone who knows...!!!!"

You mean scouts don't look at stats? FYI, scouts watch games & while doing so keep track of stats that aren't "offical" stats... you should angrily write in to your favourite team & tell them to stop doing this asap.

Statman said...

Anonymous - "Using save percentage, or manipulated adjustments of it to draw conclusions about who the best goalies are is about as dumb as using shooting percentage as the sole method for figuring out who the best forwards are."

No, it would be dumb to conclude that forwards can only be assessed according to shooting %. I'd want to know where they are shooting from, what situation (PP, EV), among other things. I'd also want to know whether they are good passers, checkers, etc etc etc. All skills that goalies have almost zero use for.

Accordingly, it would be dumb to conclude that the following is untrue: by far the main function of a goalie is to stop the puck from going into the net.

Are you just kind of winging it now... kind of in free-form angry-man at keyboard?

Anonymous said...

I cant help but get a kick out off your assumption that I am somehow "angry" "rageful" blah blah bla. We are talking about sports. You are on a computer? How are you possibly concluding I am "getting loud" or whatever. I'd love to see what "quality stats" lead you to that conclusion.

"Accordingly, it would be dumb to conclude that the following is untrue: by far the main function of a goalie is to stop the puck from going into the net."

Once again you must have been swallowing CG's biased reports hook, line and sinker. The main job of a goalie is to prevent goals. The statement you mention is the perfect example of the use of "half-truths" and partially correct or out of context statements that this site of filled with, in order to support some outlandish claim.

"Oh, ok, now I see what I must do in order to evaluate players. Just anyone who has followed them... whatever "followed them" means... & whoever "anyone" is.... could mean someone who has watched a few games, or most of the games, or some sportscaster."

Again, I am sorry you feel the need to conclude that there must be ONLY ONE method for evaluating.

Anonymous said...

"You're way too over the top, & you don't really back up any of your accusations. Your argument always comes down to, "ask anyone who knows...!!!!""

I know you firmly believe that a person must be bound to only using one method of evaluation, however taking into consideration the general opinions of those who know the game best, is one of many things statistical, and non-statistical, quantifiable or unquantifiable, that I take into consideration when coming to a conclusion. Geez, you remind me of those kids in high school with 4 inch thick glasses who during lunch would sit in the corners and read math books, snarling at anybody who questions them with the arrogance and bitterness of somebody pissed that nobody wants to hear their silly little against the grain theories.

Statman said...

Anonymous - I conclude you're 'angry' because of the derogatory language you use (often capitalized), your use of exclamation marks, your posts every few minutes demanding that your concerns be addressed, etc. etc. You're either angry or blog like a kid (teen, pre-teen) would.

If a goalie's main job is to prevent goals, how does he do this? Go check the definition of a "goal" in the NHL (or any hockey association), & how it relates to a shot, & how stopping shots from entering the net is the defintion of goal prevention (I feel like I'm telling a novice hockey player the rules of hockey... sigh...). Can you prevent a goal from occurring without stopping a shot on goal?

Really, the reports here are "biased"? "half-truths"? "out of context"? "outlandish claim"? I really don't see that. Provide evidence, please. My impression is that CG & others have responded appropriately to your claims.

If anything, you provide very little evidence of a claim (usually along the lines of: the stats don't back it up, or stats are just stats & don't matter) & then your final word on it is "ask anyone who knows!!!"

"I am sorry you feel the need to conclude that there must be ONLY ONE method for evaluating."

I've never said that. But there are some stats that are better than others. As stats get more in-depth, then we'll move closer & closer to an all-encompassing goalie rating.

Ahhh, but we've been over this before. Again, why bother posting? I'm pretty sure you wouldn't speak this way to my face, in person. No one does, actually.

Statman said...

"Geez, you remind me of those kids in high school with 4 inch thick glasses who during lunch would sit in the corners and read math books, snarling at anybody who questions them with the arrogance and bitterness of somebody pissed that nobody wants to hear their silly little against the grain theories."

That's quite a school you went to. Which school?

Again, why do you bother posting here? It's not like anyone asked you "contribute"?

Statman said...

Anonymous, look!!!

http://www.mc79hockey.com/

There are guys on the internet, using misleading & bogus stats like "scoring chances" & points/60 minutes (EV, PP, PK)!!!

Get on it!! Blog the hell out them!!! Tell them where to go!!! Why, those arrogant & bitter guys with their 4 inch thick glasses & their silly little against the grain theories!! It INFURIATES ME!!! Someone stop them!!!

Anonymous said...

Statman, how much does CG pay you to loyally defend all of his "work" day in and day out?

To answer your question "If a goalie's main job is to prevent goals, how does he do this?"

I will say it is simple. My mistake in assuming you would know, is that I assumed you watched hockey. The way goalies prevent goals are, but necessarily limited too, rebound control, blocking shots, positioning, and puck handling. To quote Brendan Shanahan "He (Brodeur) is one of the greats. There are not many goalies who get inside an opponent head the way Marty does. He really makes the shooter think before he shoots, because guys know how hard it is to beat him". Wow, this coming from a guy with 650+ goals in his career. But hey, what does he know? The funny thing is, what Shanahan said, is not all that different from what people around hockey have been saying for years. Yet some how all these people are wrong because a couple of bloggers think they know better.

Anonymous said...

Statman, whats wrong, for somebody who so quickly accuses everyone else of getting angry, you seems to be getting a little bit on edge.

And I always love how either you, or CG always point to other blogger to support your claims. Do any of you guys actually operate a website. It may give you a touch more credibility in terms of trying to spread your narrow minded theories.

Anonymous said...

CG
"It's not really a recall. Shot quality is not broken. Just don't use it without understanding it. Use the road factors!

Shot quality is a very powerful tool. Like any tool the user needs to understand (a) how to use it and (b) its limitations...Properly used, it remains a powerful tool."

Is this really what it says, or did you pick and choose which pieces of Ryder's warning about sqns% you wanted to present?

Statman said...

Anonymous -

Sorry, I've never met CG.

Am I on edge? haha not really... you frequently confuse sarcasm & irony with someone spreading "outlandish claims" etc etc etc. (E.g. when I commended you on watching all 58 Chicago games this year to come to your conclusion about their goalies.)

I was merely pointing out that there are many other sites where you can go wail & moan.... don't limit yourself! (You didn't get it; I wasn't referring to MC Hockey as backup for any of my claims.)

Well, you've ignored most of what I had questioned you about... Now you're back on the Brodeur thing? Ok.... as to the Shanahan quote:

"because guys know how hard it is to beat him (Brodeur)."

I'm assuming Shanahan was referring to Brodeur's ability to stop the puck... & not the other things you listed (rebound control, positioning, and puck handling). I agree with B.S. that beating a goalie aka scoring on him aka making the goalie NOT make the save is the most important thing.

In any event, it's not very likely that a player is going to publicly say another player (especially if he was his teammate at the time) is overrated. (Before you jump all over me, I know that B.S. has only rarely played with Brodeur.) Even the worst goalie in the NHL will be defended by players, especially teammates.

And besides, no one here is saying Brodeur is a bad goalie.

As for rebound control, positioning, and puck handling... that's been covered before.
"trying to spread your narrow minded theories"

Uhhh, who is trying to spread what? This is a website, where people come TO... it's not a newspaper on the newstand, or a tv show. YOU'RE the one who has come TO this little site, to spread your beliefs. We've heard it dozens & dozens of times from you now.

As for Ryder's shot quality & the limitations... you dismiss it, but then don't provide quotes or links or anything. Stop being so lazy. ("did you pick and choose which pieces of Ryder's warning about sqns% you wanted to present?")

And I'll ask for the zillionth time... why do you bother posting here? Why hide behind the computer?

Anonymous said...

Statman
"I'm assuming Shanahan was referring to Brodeur's ability to stop the puck... & not the other things you listed (rebound control, positioning, and puck handling). I agree with B.S. that beating a goalie aka scoring on him aka making the goalie NOT make the save is the most important thing."

Maybe, but he is also without a doubt referring to the effect Brodeur has on shooters, i.e. "one of the few guys who gets in the head of other teams", as one of those "unquantifiable" effects that apparently "has no value" which is noticed by Shanahan, or in other words, somebody with knowledge of the game, as opposed to some dude writing a blog. On the same note, I didnt hear Brendan, or anyone else for that matter referring to "adjusted" stats, or "sqns%". Just further proof that the people who are paid to know what they are talking about do not place all their faith in ONE statistic as you 2 do, however they rely of observations to complement what the stats say.

Anonymous said...

Statman
"And I'll ask for the zillionth time... why do you bother posting here? Why hide behind the computer?"

Hide behind a computer? Are you kidding? I supposed you are referring to the fact that you would like to meet me? I am sorry but in terms of the internet, everyone is "behind a computer, so technically aren't you hiding behind one too?

Statman said...

Anonymous - "he is also without a doubt referring to the effect Brodeur has on shooters, i.e. "one of the few guys who gets in the head of other teams","

Sooo....? Do we give a goalie extra points for 'getting in the head of shooters'? Who cares whether a goalie "get in the head" of other teams/shooters? It's only relevant if it's reflected in his ability to stop the puck. And how do we calculate that? Hmmm, how about SV%.

Dominik Hasek certainly "got in the heads" of the other teams, when he was convulsing all over the ice & making saves with every square inch of his body... but this is reflected in his ability to stop the puck, not whether or not someone is quoted as saying he "got in their heads". If a goalie isn't hard to score against, then he probably isn't "getting in the heads" of others.

If Brodeur has one of the lowest SV%'s in the league, no one would be saying he "got in their heads".

You're reading way too much into what your hockey gods are saying.

Seriously, man, why bother? All your rants... do you even have a job, or are you some student? Your spelling, punctuation & grammar lead me to believe that you certainly aren't white-collar and/or don't have a background in sciences or math or numbers.

Statman said...

By the way, back to the original points... WASH has the 5th least shots against in the East... that's "shots against", not some fancy-dancy-confusing "shot quality" thing.

Yet you you say that "Any idiot could tell you Washington plays little defense"

Why do you say this? Please provide quotes.

Anonymous said...

Statman
"Sooo....? Do we give a goalie extra points for 'getting in the head of shooters'? Who cares whether a goalie "get in the head" of other teams/shooters? It's only relevant if it's reflected in his ability to stop the puck. And how do we calculate that? Hmmm, how about SV%"

This again is where the flaw in your logic is. Not everything needs to be quantified in order to give someone credit for it. If a shooter, which many admittedly do, decides to pass from a sharp angle, as opposed to shooting the puck, because he feels the goalie will easily stop it, then that is a shot prevented. Read the quote from Barry Trotz on the New Jersey Cowbell posting. If a team just throws everything on net, as opposed to making sure they have the perfect shot, changes are the goalie who sees anything from anywhere, will have the higher save percentage.

"Seriously, man, why bother? All your rants... do you even have a job, or are you some student? Your spelling, punctuation & grammar lead me to believe that you certainly aren't white-collar and/or don't have a background in sciences or math or numbers."

What rants are you referring to? Do you confront everybody who corrects when you are wrong as being "angry". I do not recall expressing any anger, however your inability to interpret and extrapolate significance from situations, especially in situations where there is no quantifiable measure, leads me to believe you have something personally invested in the credibility of this blog.

Also, being a grammar and spelling Nazi on a blog of all things is usually a sign of somebody who lacks an argument and thus resorts to discrediting others through insignificant quarreling. You get on my case for calling a lousy argument "stupid", and what do you do? You go on a tangent about grammar.

Anonymous said...

Statman
"By the way, back to the original points... WASH has the 5th least shots against in the East... that's "shots against", not some fancy-dancy-confusing "shot quality" thing.

Yet you you say that "Any idiot could tell you Washington plays little defense"

Why do you say this? Please provide quotes."

For a stat nerd you really do pick your spots quite poorly. Obviously Washington has a lower then average shows against total, they play a puck possession game. However because of it they give up more transition opportunities, which complemented with a mediocre penalty kill, would qualify as "playing little defense". You dont even have to "watch" the games to know Washingotn is an offense first team, however apparently you couldnt even find the stats to draw that conclusion.

I will however, since I am a nice guy, point out to you the flaw in again, using your "the can only be one statistic used" theory. If saying, Washington allows few shots, you are again neglecting the fact that the chances they give up are more dangerous than teams who give up more shots. Notice the parallel between this "team defense as per shots against" assessment, and the whole "save percentage" or "sqns%" argument? They do not accurately indicate all variables. Is that clear enough for you.

Statman said...

Anonymous - "If a shooter, which many admittedly do, decides to pass from a sharp angle, as opposed to shooting the puck, because he feels the goalie will easily stop it, then that is a shot prevented."

BECAUSE HE FEELS THE GOALIE WILL EASILY STOP IT -- exactly. How do you measure whether a goalie has stopped the puck or not? SV%.

And of course if teams shoot from anywhere, at any distance, a goalie's SV% will be inflated... but that's what the shot-quality is all about!

As teams learn goalie tendencies, they will shoot (re: distance, location) accordingly. A rookie goalie might face more shots from lower quality areas... as his tendencies are discovered, shooters will hone in on this. But again, that's the whole point of improving SV% by using the shot-quality.

As for the rants, your posts are full of insightful comments like "GARBAGE!!!!!!" "dense" "stupidest" "idiot" etc etc etc. You're probably the same genius who has been posting here for months, offering such wise snippets. I'm sure the blog owner can simply trace your IP address to verify this.

Statman said...

By the way, I (& others) have run regressions on the rel'ship between shots/60 min's & SV%, & there is no significant rel'ship (correlation varies between + & -, depending on the year).

Statman said...

Correction - shots against/60 min's.

Anonymous said...

Statman
"BECAUSE HE FEELS THE GOALIE WILL EASILY STOP IT -- exactly. How do you measure whether a goalie has stopped the puck or not? SV%.

And of course if teams shoot from anywhere, at any distance, a goalie's SV% will be inflated... but that's what the shot-quality is all about! "

Exactly, so if a shooter doesnt shoot as often against a goalie that is an UNQUANTIFIABLE EFFECT. It has nothing to do with whether the guy shooting has personally memorized the goalies career save percentages or not, all it shows is that there are goalies who do not face as many shots as other goalies, which corresponds with a difference in save percentage.

Shot quality neutral bs has little to do with correcting this. Does it notify a shot from the point that deflects in off the defenseman's skate? Or differentiate a shot from the point that goes through a screen top corner, or goes through a screen and hits the goalie in the chest?

I do not see how CG convinced you to buy into this whole "THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE" stat ideology. I mean, you seem pretty gullible but I cant see how anyone would possibly buy into this method.

And whats with the paranoia and anger resulting from your belief that anybody who disagrees with you is obviously me? Dont flatter yourself as there really arent too many people who agree with you and CG on this. As has been shown through your lack of an arguments, it seems as though even you or CG have trouble backing up some of the pillars to which your argument stands on. Your posts for the most part say next to nothing, rather as is evident by you last 3 posts, they just recycle a redundant theory that manifests from extrapolating vague and against the grain viewpoints from cherry picked data.

Statman said...

" It has nothing to do with whether the guy shooting has personally memorized the goalies career save percentages or not,"

What? What are you talking about? What causes the shooter to think that bad-angle shots won't go in on a particular goalie? Obviously, the shooter is using some impression to determine whether or not he should shoot or pass for a better position. Whether or not he's using actual SV% or not is another thing. Ideally, shooters should know all of a goalie's tendencies, including their SV% when facing shots from various distances. That's coming in the future... for now, most teams 'only' track goalie tendencies, watch video, etc.

Why do you say that shot-quality is "redundant"? I'm curious as to where you get your opinions from, other than "everyone knows that!!!"

Did you check out the International Journal of Sports Finance, or any other journals?

As I said, the reason I believe that you are the one posting the brilliant "GARBAGE!!!!" etc. messages, is due to the similarities in writing style, punctuation, words used, etc.

But CG can easily determine this by looking at the IP address(es).

Statman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Statman said...

"Exactly, so if a shooter doesnt shoot as often against a goalie that is an UNQUANTIFIABLE EFFECT."

So basically you are saying that the better a goalies' SV%, the fewer shots he should face, & that the shots he faces should be from a closer distance/better angle.

That is quantifiable, actually. Sorry to burst your bubble.

As for WASH... WASH has a PK% of 80.07; league avg is 81.13. I haven’t checked the PK-specific SV%, but it’s not surprising that they don’t have a stellar PK%, considering the overall mediocre goaltending they receive (measured by overall SV%).

They have allowed the second most PPOA (301), & are tied for second most in PPGA. Yes, you’d think that any team that is high in PPOA is probably allowing a lot of shots, & a lot of high-quality shots.

Anything else you need cleared up?


Seriously, why you don't just check outta here? You still haven't explained why you come here... all of your points have been discredited, you just fall back on "it's unquantifiable!!" and "everyone knows that!!" Obviously, no single stat measures everything.... but a good point to start with is the best "official" stat, & that is SV%. Adding shot-quality to it makes it even better.

You don't agree; so be it.

Anonymous said...

Wow Statman, talk about getting angry. Flipping out to the point where the author of the blog has to remove your comments is hardly acting like an adult. I am sorry if I made you cry.

Further, your continued belief that there can only be one statistic influence on certain areas of the game is absolutely baffling. Yet another example:

"What? What are you talking about? What causes the shooter to think that bad-angle shots won't go in on a particular goalie? Obviously, the shooter is using some impression to determine whether or not he should shoot or pass for a better position."

No, he is likely using observations he or his team has made.


"shooters should know all of a goalie's tendencies, including their SV% when facing shots from various distances. That's coming in the future... for now, most teams 'only' track goalie tendencies, watch video, etc."

I think again you are falsely assuming, this time that these guys get 36 hours to a day, as opposed to the typical 24. To assume the save percentage of a goalie is relevant to how often a guy decides to shoot, is silly. Usually a team changes its strategy from game to game, another example of the flaw involved in save percentage. Shooters shoot based off of a variety of factors, which are determined not only from experience but also by the coach's game plan. This varies from game to game, from goalie to goalie.

Another false assumption:
"So basically you are saying that the better a goalies' SV%, the fewer shots he should face, & that the shots he faces should be from a closer distance/better angle.
That is quantifiable, actually. Sorry to burst your bubble."

Not at all. Yes, the situation you decided to describe would be quantifiable, however that narrow minded interpretation is hardly what I have said. Stop obsessing and thinking that everything revolves around save percentage. What I have been saying is that a goalies ALL AROUND SKILL (again, slow down, that is not code word for save percentage) has an impact on the other team's game plan. Again I am baffled by the fact that you can not seem to let go of your "THERE MUST ONLY BE ONE REASON" theory. Many things influence how a team decides to attack a goalie, save percentage, if it is one, is only one of many, NOT the ONLY thing, as you contest. Have you played hockey before?

Anonymous said...

" a good point to start with is the best "official" stat, & that is SV%. Adding shot-quality to it makes it even better."

Sorry but I cant help but laugh at your meticulous efforts to continually be incorrect. You act like because in your opinion it is the best then it must be. Even if it is the best, how you translate that to it being good enough by itself to be the sole judge of a goalie in quite puzzling. And just because your reading comprehension has limited you to believing sqns% measures "quality shots" does not actually mean it does. The things it does not account for are speed of the shot, and height in relation to the net, while also omitting deflections, and screens.

Statman said...

"The things it does not account for are speed of the shot, and height in relation to the net..."

That's correct. Someday that will be incorporated (e.g. using a chip in the puck, like the old Fox hockey broadcasts).

Yes, that is my opinion.

Again, why do you come here? We come here to talk about hockey stats... you are decidedly against the use of stats. So why spend any time here at all? No friends...?

The Contrarian Goaltender said...

Let's try to keep this debate civil, please.

Anonymous: Some of your critiques of save percentage are valid (although I believe you tend to overestimate their effects), and they are why I have done a considerable amount of research on shot prevention effects. I agree that opposing teams take the goaltender's strengths and weaknesses into account in their game plan, and that does have some effect on his stats (as I argued in one of my recent posts about Clemmensen vs. Brodeur).

However, that doesn't give you license to misrepresent my position or Statman's. Neither of us are claiming that save percentage describes every single thing a goalie does. We are just claiming that it is the best stat commonly available, and that applying a shot quality adjustment makes it even better.

Let me quote again what Statman wrote in a previous comment:

Obviously, no single stat measures everything.... but a good point to start with is the best "official" stat, & that is SV%. Adding shot-quality to it makes it even better.

No single stat measures everything, yet save percentage is the best of the official stats. I find it hard to believe you would disagree with either of those two points.

Statman said...

No, I removed my comment to edit it.

I have no doubt that many shooters don't check SV%, or indeed many stats at all. They should, though. (Again, most of these guys, including coaches/scouts/mgmt, barely made it past Grade 12.) If players don't want to maximize their performance, that's not my problem. Just using "observations" is just the basic, first step. A 7 yr old "observes" what is going on, but certainly isn't going to break down video & chart tendencies & keep track of multistats.... An athlete, or anyone, maximizes performance by analyzing as much info as possible.

Take a few days off from blogging here, & read some articles about sports teams (including basketball, which is somewhat analagous to hockey) & the extent to which they are getting into multi-dimensional stats. It appears you haven't done this.

You should read Moneyball, & many other related articles/discussion. Hockey, & hockey teams & players, are behind other sports in using stats.

This is 2 yrs old, but it's one of the few publicly-accessible journal-published articles:

http://pirate.shu.edu/~rotthoku/papers/ice.pdf

As part of my work, I have access to on-line journals of all kinds, & sports statistics & hockey stats are contained in many, many articles. You might have to go to your local university &/or pay an on-line fee to see these. (But will you? Naaw… too much work. Much easier to just slag people online.)

Re: So basically you are saying that the better a goalies' SV%, the fewer shots he should face, & that the shots he faces should be from a closer distance/better angle -- > "Yes, the situation you decided to describe would be quantifiable"

Thanks for finally conceding that.

"...however that narrow minded interpretation is hardly what I have said."

It's exactly what you said. In that specific instance you weren't referring to anything other than a goalie making a save.

"What I have been saying is that a goalies ALL AROUND SKILL... has an impact on the other team's game plan."

Yeah, so? Impact on "game plan". But how much of an impact? And who cares? I want to know how effective a goalie is at stopping the puck. I don't care if Goalie A causes the other team to shoot it in the right corner because he's not as good turning to his left, or if Goalie B is great at low shots but mediocre at high shots, & Goalie C is weak at backhands, & Goalie D is short & can't see overtop screens, & Goalie E coughs up the puck, resulting in more dangerous shots* against etc. etc... I'm only concerned with the end result... whether the goalie's abilities end up in a higher % of shots going in, & how this interacts with the *quality of shots. I've played a lot of hockey, and the vast majority of a goalie's reason for existence is to simply stop the puck. Goalies vary in ability to turn to each side, to handle backhands, to see over screens or anticipate things, etc etc... but in the end, all that matters is whether they stop the puck.

[We can't measure "anticipation", so I guess that's another downside to SV%! haha Or, we could reasonably conclude that a goalie with good anticipation (however that is measured) tends to stop the puck more often than one who doesn't.]

"Usually a team changes its strategy from game to game, another example of the flaw involved in save percentage."

Huh? I could guess what you mean, but, I'd hate for you to go ballistic if I misinterpret you... are you saying that a changing strategy affects shot quality? Affects SV%? Affects GAA? Affects SOG/60?

"Shooters shoot based off of a variety of factors, which are determined not only from experience but also by the coach's game plan. This varies from game to game, from goalie to goalie."

The manner in which they shoot is also based on the opposition's fwds, their defence, the game situation... of course.

But the point remains that things like shot quality are the best measure of, well, shot quality! Can it be improved? Sure. At some point the stats are going to be improved so much, & become mainstream, such that even the most backward NHL team will have to use them. At one time the NHL only kept track of 1 assist…. Jeez, keeping track of that 2nd assist is ‘stupid’ & ‘useless’ & ‘misleading’….

If you don't agree, fine; get your own blog & you can even link to this one... you can start each day by screaming "GARBAGE!!!" & point to this site & rant all day about why analyzing hockey stats is ridiculous, it's all about "observations" & "everyone knows that!!!" etc. (I guess we shouldn't look at stats at all... just look at who gets the most votes for the all-star team & trophies... after all, the people who vote watch many, many games & have all the 'inside info'. Don’t you agree? These are the experts, after all. Selection for all-star teams & trophies are ALWAYS done perfectly.)

We'll never agree, so I don't know why you bother to argue -- this is only the internet, but you're still a guest here (aka get your own blog).... YOU came HERE… the fact that you frequently "YELL" at others & use profanity & slurs is what really rubs people the wrong way. Why not just post something civil & say ~ "I disagree... I think factors x, y, z are also important." And that would be it. Yet you continue & continue... it's really odd; it's almost like you are personally offended at the existence of these ideas. If that is so, you should set up your own blog, or go where people agree with you. The whole point of this site is to analyze hockey stats -- your whole pt is that hockey stats are inadequate & observation & scouting & "everyone knows that!!" are more important. So why come here?

Have I played hockey? Yep, up to Jr. B, & then a college scholarship. You could even find my stats online. A fair amount of PIM, but I'm a pretty mellow guy now :)

Time for another article, CG! Check on those IP addresses, too :)

Statman said...

Correction - "The whole point of this site is to analyze hockey stats..."

This is not my blog, but my presumption is that the point is to objectively & scientifically assess player/goalie skill.

What "everyone says!!" is not relevant, I suspect.

Anonymous said...

Your persistence is incredible. You seem thoroughly convinced I am "yelling" which is funny because at most I am typing. Nothing loud about it with the occasional exception of my fingers hitting the keys. So please explain where this anger thing comes from, you are the only one who is obviously upset.

I have never said stats are useless, I have however stated, that only using one is pretty much irrelevant. What part of "using multiple factors" did you not understand. Either way, your insistence on using vague and redundant arguments is getting old, so either come up with a new one, or at least make your current one a bit more accurate.

Anonymous said...

CG
"Neither of us are claiming that save percentage describes every single thing a goalie does. "

So then how can you possibly use it, or some stat that is a derivative of it, to rank goalies?

Statman said...

You might not be literally yelling - who knows? I guess you don't know how others perceive you, even when you refer to them as 'idiots' & their arguments as the 'stupidest' & 'GARBAGEE!!!!' I mean, if you can't understand that, what hope is there?

Look at your posts... right off the start, your very first post to this article contains slander/personal insults, as well as factually incorrect statements. This is a continuation of your other posts, going back months. When someone responds with facts, you hurl more, move onto other things, etc etc. Classic juvenile behaviour. We're here to discuss things rationally, make observations etc. This isn't elementary school recess.

That is the problem. I don't think this blog, & our comments (at least, not until provoked over & over & over - talk about persistence!), use harsh language & insults... I can't recall a blog article containing anything like "and SV% rules & anyone who thinks otherwise must be a total stupid idiot & is GARBAGE!!!", which is the kind of approach you take. And then you wonder why you are challenged?

The point is to be more polite, or at least get your own blog where you can say whatever you want, however you want, & others can choose to be there or not. You came here; no one has come to you.

Anonymous said...

So then Statman, you have admittedly deviated to just accusing me of things others have done, and try to discredit what I have said because of it? I guess I am the only one in the world who does not agree with you then? And I also suppose that your lack of an argument is the foundation of your hostility towards me.

Statman said...

"So then Statman, you have admittedly deviated to just accusing me of things others have done, and try to discredit what I have said because of it?"

Is that a sentence? I'm not quite sure what you are saying in the first half of that sentence.

"accusing me of things others have done"

The juvenile writing style (insults) of previous "Anonymous"(es) is very similar to yours... same 'arguments', etc.

"try to discredit what I have said because of it"

No, I'm countering your arguments on their merits. The fact that you use juvenile tactics is another facet to all of this.

"I guess I am the only one in the world who does not agree with you then?"

No, there are probably lots of fans who have watched lots of games & listened to the sportscasters & therefore have opinions based not on stats, & so they would probably not agree with me. There are also lots of people who don't believe in global warming, & at one time there were lots of people who thought the world was flat & the sun revolved around the earth.

"And I also suppose that your lack of an argument is the foundation of your hostility towards me."

I explained why I don't appreciate your comments. Do I have repeat it again... and again... and again?

Seriously, 'dude'.... get a life. I see you've posted again on the new article! You're hilarious.

Anonymous said...

Really? Is that a sentence? Do I have to force feed you the definition of a sentence now? Your belief that you along with a handful of bloggers are the only people with this "insight" and anyone who has a differing opinion is wrong, speaks volumes. You assume that because NHL personnel do not agree with you, that they are also wrong, or "behind". You compound a terrible argument, proven over and over again to be completely false, and reliant on false assumptions, with an even worse argument in which you try to discredit me by blaming me for things others have said on this blog. I am glad that you have at least set the example for others, on how not to win an argument. Perhaps "graduating the 12th grade" something you talk an awful lot about as "evidence" for your argument, is something you should consider doing for yourself. So please, continue to show your inability to address anything I have said to discredit your "theory", and make a further example of what happens when an angry individual with an obvious personal investment in faulty philosophies, is confronted with the truth.

Anonymous said...

Statman
"I explained why I don't appreciate your comments"

Really? Please point me to where you said it was because I made you feel stupid by proving your inadequate theories to be up there with similarly incorrect theories such as "the world is flat", and "the Earth is the center of the universe".

Statman said...

Oh, you're back for more? Again... why post here? I don't get it.

Anyway...

"You assume that because NHL personnel do not agree with you"

Yeah, I can't tell you how angry I get when Brian Burke hangs up on me when he & I are discussing shot-quality stats... yeesh. What a weird comment. (seriously, how old are you?)

Did you read the link I gave you to the IJSF? No, I doubt it. Read & think first, THEN blog.

"You compound a terrible argument, proven over and over again to be completely false"

Huh? where was what proven over & over again to be completely false? Wow, do you live in a dream world or something?

I said I didn't appreciate your comments because of your personally-insulting style. It's fine to have an opinion, but if you just come to a site & attack others, & use personal insults, then what kind of response do you expect?

You argue for the sake of arguing. You're a less-eloquent version of "e". I think I've addressed every single one of your points, & you just resort to insults... you have nothing. As I said, we have a difference of opinion... but you're so close-minded (have you read ANY of the links, or any other articles ANYWHERE?)... & you consistently use personal insults. If you hadn't started this off with immediate insults & factually incorrect statements (see your very first post above)...

It would be nice to go for a beer sometime with you... to see if you had the guts to show up.

Naw, you wouldn't show up. But I'll bet a million punches to your head that you'll respond again below...nothing better to do than to come to someone else's blog & hurl insults.

Statman said...

"Your belief that you along with a handful of bloggers are the only people with this "insight" and anyone who has a differing opinion is wrong, speaks volumes."

That is true. I have certain beliefs, based on observation & stats. If people have other beliefs, but can't provide sufficient evidence to dissuade my pt of view, then my point of view won't change. I will consider other viewpts to be wrong (or at least without observable proof), until convinced otherwise. I am open to being convinced otherwise, though. I have no personal investment in any particular team or player. I don't "hate" or "love" certain players.

The thing is... the purpose (I presume) of this site is to analyze players through observable & recordable factors... aka stats -- that's the purpose here. I just don't understand why you don't get it. It's not your blog. You weren't invited. Yet you seem to take great offense at the theories & articles here, & use juvenile language instead of just backing things up/supplying reasoned mature arguments.

Since there is little chance of a personal discussion, or have you show up to get a crack across the cheek, there will be no more responses to you, since you continually fall back on insults rather than mature dialogue.

Anonymous said...

Now you want to meet me again? Talk about weird. I doubt you are even old enough to get into a bar. Quit assuming that just because you say something that it is true. Thats not the way the world works. So grow up, and stop crying like a little girl because you think I am speaking too harshly to you.