Wednesday, August 19, 2009

If Brodeur Was a Winner, is He Now a Loser?

My recent look at Brodeur vs. Luongo in the 2000s was linked on a couple of message boards, and many of the resulting comments were some variant of "Brodeur is a winner, he has the Cup rings, he is obviously the better goalie." Brodeur's team did win 2 Cups, so I guess by most standard definitions it is fair to call him a "winner". It is the rest of the suggestion, the part where that alone makes him the better goalie, that I have a problem with.

Brodeur's team successes in the 2000s are concentrated in the first half of the decade. More recently he has not had much playoff team success. In the last 5 playoff seasons the Devils have combined for a 15-22 record. The only goalie who has played at least 1,000 minutes in the playoffs over the last 5 seasons and has a worse record than Brodeur is Jose Theodore.

This raises the question: What happened to Brodeur's ability to just win hockey games? Can we now use the same logic as before to call him a "loser"?

Brodeur's teams are mediocre now, you say? Hang on a second, you can't have it both ways. He can't be a winner for winning on strong teams and then get absolved from blame when playing on weaker teams. Either the team matters or it doesn't.

Let's compare Brodeur's playoff record in the last 5 seasons against his record in the previous 5:

1999-'03: 1.84 GAA, .917 save %, 22.3 SA/60 (LgAvg: 2.22, .916, 26.5)
2004-09: 2.51 GAA, .915 save %, 29.7 SA/60 (LgAvg: 2.40, .915, 28.3)

What we see is that Brodeur's save percentage is pretty much identical relative to playoff average during both periods. In the more recent sample, Brodeur's GAA increased by 36%, and about 27% after adjusting for league scoring levels. New Jersey's shots against increased by 33%, and about 25% after adjusting for league scoring levels. It looks like the difference in New Jersey goal prevention did not have much to do with Martin Brodeur and a whole lot to do with the team in front of him.

Let's look at a few more numbers:

1999-2003: 2.52 goal support, .160 SO/60, .612 win % (2.22, .100, .500)
2004-2009: 2.48 goal support, .080 SO/60, .405 win % (2.40, .081, .500)

The earlier Devils scored about 14% higher than the average playoff team, while the later Devils scored just 3% above average. Put that together with the goal prevention difference, and that explains why the Devils were so excellent earlier in the decade. Brodeur's shutouts are closely correlated with the number of shots against. His shutout rate was twice as high from '99-'03 as later on, again despite putting up an equivalent save percentage, which shows how much easier it is to record shutouts on a low shot team.

The popular perception of those early '00s New Jersey teams is that they were a defensive team that won a lot of grinding, close defensive battles because of great goaltending. Was that actually the case? Let's look at their record in playoff games that were decided by different goal margins:

Games Decided by One Goal:
1999-2003: 19-18
2004-2009: 6-13

Games Decided by Two Goals:
1999-2003: 11-10
2004-2009: 3-4

Games Decided by Three or More Goals:
1999-2003: 22-5
2004-2009: 5-5

Turns out that wasn't true at all. The '99-03 Devils were a dominant two-way team that won more blowouts than one-goal squeakers. The more recent version does not have that same capacity to blow teams out. They have also either performed poorly or not had any luck in close games. That's probably a bit of a small sample size fluke given that the regular season Devils were usually very good at winning close games.

I think Brodeur deserves just as much blame for his team's performance from 2004-2009 as he deserves credit for his team's success from 1999-2003. After all, his play was probably quite similar over both periods. If you think he was a crucial element of the earlier teams, then applying the same logic means you have to figure that he was a major reason for the more recent flops. I don't give Brodeur much extra credit for the earlier team success (solid goaltending is the same solid goaltending whether the team wins or loses), and as a result I also don't assign him much blame at all for the last few years.

I'm sure more than a few readers are thinking about the trapezoid rule right now. That is an unknown factor, and it likely did have some small effect, but I don't think there is much evidence to suggest that the trapezoid rule had a huge effect on New Jersey's shot or goal prevention. From '98-99 to '02-03 Brodeur's backups faced 23.9 shots against per 60 minutes during the regular season, and from '03-04 to '08-09 their average jumped to 28.3. The team was very obviously not as strong defensively in the latter period.

I haven't thrown Luongo's playoff stats up yet, so let's just do that for completeness. I've included the league averages from the same period as Brodeur (2004-2009) for easy comparison:

Luongo, '04-09: 2.09 GAA, .930 save %, 30.1 SA/60 (LgAvg: 2.40, .915, 28.3)
Luongo, '04-09: Goal support: 2.07 goals/60, .500 win % (LgAvg: 2.40, .500)

We can't conclude too much from this small sample size, but the numbers show a team with below average offence and below average shot prevention that still managed to win as often as it lost.

Players don't win Cups, teams do. Martin Brodeur is one of many examples of a player who performed at a roughly consistent level, yet happened to have spectacular playoff success when his team was really good and very little playoff success at all when it wasn't. If Brodeur truly is a "winner", then it must have been pure coincidence that all his team success came when the team in front of him was strong.

In short, I don't see the logic of claiming that Brodeur's team successes alone justify his position ahead of Luongo in the "goalie of the decade" debate. Team success is by far mostly determined by circumstance. Evaluating individual players by team results makes little sense at all.

37 comments:

Anonymous said...

Amazing how there is this facination among that stat junkies to harp on the fact that the guy has not won a cup since 03. Truth is, not many have. Luongo certainly has not. Giguere won a Cup sandwiched between losing his job twice.

Sure Brodeur has not won a cup since 03, he also has not utterly choked the way Luongo did during the homestretch of the 07-08 season, dropping his team from 4th, all the way out of the playoff picture.
It's funny too how you number nerds continuously point out Brodeur giving up 2 goals in 90 seconds in game 7. What you guys never mention was that up til that point he was spectacular, and even after those 2 goals, his overall save % (the golden stat apparently) was still around .89 for the game. Not too shabby for a guy who apparently played horrible that game. Yet we should not overreact when the supposed best goalie to never win shit gives up 7 goals in game 6 (an elimination game by the way), during that span blowing 3 separate leads; winds up with a terrible save percentage, and then cries like a 2 year old. This is not even mentioning the fact that throughout the entire Chicago series Luongo was blowing leads, including giving up a 3-0 lead late in the 3rd in game 1.

Otherwise, another predictably typical, and amusingly ironic CG blogpost.

FatMan said...

I love how Anonymous #1 completely failed to grasp the point of this post.

Anonymous said...

FatMan said...

I love how Anonymous #1 completely failed to grasp the point of this post.

August 19, 2009 8:51 PM
..............

No, you just have not been keeping up with the comments on this blog. Basically anytime anyone suggests Brodeur is better than Luongo, the self proclaimed "unbiased" CG always seems to follow up with a bunch of pro Luongo/anti Brodeur posts. It has little to do with actually making a point most of the time, rather it always seems to be pushing that pro Luongo agenda. There are hundreds of goalies who have played in the NHL. Yet 90% of this guys posts concern Brodeur. Which is fine and all because the name of the blog concerns Brodeur... except for the fact that CG claims it is not supposed to be taken seriously. This guy is a such a Luongo apologist its ridiculous.

FatMan said...

No, you just have not been keeping up with the comments on this blog. Basically anytime anyone suggests Brodeur is better than Luongo, the self proclaimed "unbiased" CG always seems to follow up with a bunch of pro Luongo/anti Brodeur posts. It has little to do with actually making a point most of the time, rather it always seems to be pushing that pro Luongo agenda.

I think it has a lot more to do with the insane difference in team effects between the two goalies: one has been on what was an elite team for most of his early career, and now his team is closer to league average. Meanwhile, Luongo has been on a poor team until recently, and is only now on a fairly strong team. What seems to be CG's contention is that team effects do exist, and it's easier to post up bigger counting stats on high quality teams.

There are hundreds of goalies who have played in the NHL. Yet 90% of this guys posts concern Brodeur.

Again, he's an interesting goalie to look at as he's a polarizing figure to hockey analysts: some see him as the best ever, while others see him as an average to above average goalie on great teams, and then you have opinions all along that spectrum.

Which is fine and all because the name of the blog concerns Brodeur... except for the fact that CG claims it is not supposed to be taken seriously. This guy is a such a Luongo apologist its ridiculous.

Well, the goal seems to be to "Break down Goaltending by the Numbers"; isn't that kinda what he's doing?

Anonymous said...

Well, the goal seems to be to "Break down Goaltending by the Numbers"; isn't that kinda what he's doing?

............

If you define "breaking down goaltending by the numbers" as obsessively revolving 95% of "research" around trying to say so and so is better than Martin Brodeur, or that such and such accomplishment by Martin Brodeur is not that important, or any of the other typical anti Brodeur/pro Luongo/Hasek/Lehtonen/occasional flavor of the month goalie rhetoric, then absolutely.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous continues to blindly worship his favorite netminder regardless of any facts, reason, or logic.

Now, leaving that aside, Contrarian, even though Giguere is the goaltender of this decade, and I would put Luongo as the runner-up, I will say that his margin of superiority over Brodeur is very slim. Marty, for all his faults, has been extremely consistent and solid. He doesn't outright steal many games, but has performed at a very reliable above-average level throughout his career, regardless of the team in front of him. Luongo might be better, but he has been worse than Brodeur when it comes to falling apart at the worst-possible parts of the season and playoffs. (And no, I don't think Brodeur's Game 7 against Carolina was nearly as bad as Bobby Lou's Game 6 with the Hawks.)

So yes, I do agree with you, but I will say that the margin by which Luongo beats out Brodeur is quite small.

Lawrence said...

Short answer CG: Yes, Brodeur is a loser, just like all the other Goalies who didn't accomplish the objective of Winning the Cup. If you don't win the cup and games, you aren't great enough. AND, that's only one piece of the puzzle.

This:In short, I don't see the logic of claiming that Brodeur's team successes alone justify his position ahead of Luongo in the "goalie of the decade" debate."

Long Answer: Forgive me for repeating myself.

Eliminate team controversy:(control group)

#1 - Have they both have played for the same team at the same time?

2004 and 2006. 02 Luongo passed on.

Who played better under this same team environment?

Brodeur. Significantly. He was also chosen over Luongo as the #1, thus, better, goalkeeper.

Brodeur 8GP 11GA GAA 1.38 SA 179 sv% .953
Luongo 3GP 6GA GAA 1.96 SA 82 sv% .927

So then Brodeur is better.

Are there any contentions to this logic? Yes, sample size is too small. Ok, this is true, but it cannot be discounted because it is our most pure comparison.

#2- Shootouts

Two of the most active goalies in shootout's short history. AGAIN, this negates the 'goalie-team' effects without BIAS/CI/SD etc.

The two are basically equal .716 (37 SO's) vs .715 (42 SO's)

Therefore, they are equally good at stopping pucks, thus far, with a slight edge to Brodeur from item #1

#3 - Further investigation.
What is the objective or vision of a hockey team?

To win, namely, the championship or Stanley Cup.

Have either of these goalies been one of the six players on a team that has won the cup?

Yes, Brodeur... twice in the 2000's and Luongo:0. In fact, Luongo has not advanced past the round of 8 and has twice been part of teams that failed to qualify for the post-season, although being regarded as being playoff-bound teams.

Therefore, Brodeur is better.

Contentions?

Goalies don't single-handedly win the Stanley cup, teams do, there is a huge team bias now introduced.

Ok, FAIR ENOUGH. It's still Brodeur - 3 Luongo - 0.

Then you go through wins. Where Brodeur has more wins, and the contention is Goalies only win by making saves. This is also contended by Goalies control flow, yes can score (it's another + not matter how small), stickhandle and pass, have a lower cost...allowing for the creation of a better team etc.etc. Again, Brodeur has more wins. Brodeur - 4, Luongo - 0

Then you get to save%. Where Luongo finally is ahead, and the Contention is: Team bias, Shot Quality Bias, Scorekeeper Bias, Statisical Average being misleading, etc.etc. B - 4, L - 1

Then it's individual accolades, anecdotal data etc etc.

B - 5, L - 1

CG: I appreciate the effort you put into 'calculating out' team effects. You seem to think I disagree with you on those single points, which I don't. My contention is you aren't accounting for the SD and CI for each of the previous contentions enough and are putting to much stock in an unsound, assumption riddled argument.

So, I have suggested two ways around the 'goalie-team effect contention' which you seem to not like because they favor Brodeur. That's not my fault, it's just the stats.

Statman said...

Lawrence, it's ridiculously absurd to place so much importance on two very short tournaments (Brodeur - 8 GP, Luongo - 3 GP) and shootouts (Brodeur - 37, Luongo - 42).

Brodeur's 8 GP amounts to about 2-2.5 weeks of work, while Luongo's is a 1/2 week of work. The shootouts amount to 1-1.5 games.

Total sample:
Brodeur - approx 9-9.5 games. Luongo - approx 4-4.5 games.

Much much too small a sample. Similarly, Paul Henderson was golden in 8 hugely important games for Team Canada in '72 (8-7-3-10)... but over a larger sample (his career) he was "just" a fast-skating, 2nd-liner who topped 30 goals twice in his NHL career.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/h/hendepa01.html

The Contrarian Goaltender said...

I haven't considered sample size and confidence intervals? I am the one who hasn't done that? Lawrence, I'm trying to be kind here, but you are the one who is making an argument on 11 international games and 79 shootout contests, while my argument is based on the results from 1,168 hockey games.

When the sample size is too small, then it means nothing. It can and should and must be discounted, because it has no significance. It doesn't matter if it is our most pure comparison or not, it is meaningless in the big picture. If Roberto Luongo had 3 shutouts and Martin Brodeur had a 4.00 GAA in those international games, it would still tell us essentially nothing at all about those two goalies.

The only thing shootouts tell you is how good a goalie is at stopping breakaways. There is no correlation between shootout success and overall goalie ability. The three best shootout goalies since the lockout with at least 50 shootouts against are Johan Hedberg, Mathieu Garon and Jose Theodore. Care to make the argument that those guys are better than Roberto Luongo?

"Have either of these goalies been one of the six players on a team that has won the cup?"

This might explain why you are so obsessively focused on team success. Hockey teams actually have 20 players on them. All of them contribute to the team's success. You also misunderstand my contention with goalie wins. It is not that "Goalies only win by making saves". It is that, once again, there are 20 players on a hockey team. Goalie is the most important position, but when you give credit to a goalie for a win you are giving him credit for something that is 80-85% because of what his teammates did. That would seriously offend anybody's sense of equity in any other circumstance, but for some absurd reason it's just the way things are for baseball pitchers, football quarterbacks and hockey goalies.

Look at the stats above. If Brodeur played the entire decade on teams as good as the post-lockout Devils, he would almost certainly have never won the Stanley Cup. And he would have been every bit as good of a goalie as he is now with 3 rings on his fingers.

Just curious, which two "playoff-bound" teams did Luongo miss the postseason on, in your estimation? I'm sure you're counting the 2007-08 Canucks, but I don't see any others who are candidates for that argument.

Small sample size arguments simply are not going to fly here, so don't even bother. The argument is over the goalie of the decade. Focus on the big picture. Your awards argument was not bad, at least that would have to make your opponents prove some bias or ignorance in the awards voters or team selectors. That's a lot better than the ones that are easily dismissed by pointing out the sample size issues.

Lawrence said...

Lawrence, it's ridiculously absurd to place so much importance on two very short tournaments (Brodeur - 8 GP, Luongo - 3 GP) and shootouts (Brodeur - 37, Luongo - 42).

I knew someone was going to say this, and it doesn't surprise me it's the Statman.

For the love of god mate, I'm not putting 'so much' importance or more importance on this than other factors. I agree that the primary importance of a goalie is to stop pucks and that the sv% stat shows at first glance that Luongo does it better. I am using these 'same team' or 'no team' (shootout) stats to show that the argument that the difference between teams is over-flowing with assumptions and bias. I think I have stated that list about 5 times, please don't make me repeat it again, I'm sure you know it.

When you start factoring in error or confidence interval in all of these contentions the difference in sv% of .005 or even .008 is easily covered. So then when it comes to stopping the puck - the primary and most important duty of a goalie - it is not unreasonable to say they are equally great, based on our best calculations vs our assumptions, with perhaps a very very slight edge to Luongo.

Ok, do we all agree?

Now, what else does Luongo bring?

Superior stickhandling - Nope
Value contract - Nope
Consistency, Longevity - Maybe in the future.
Shot Prevention - Maybe, doubt it
Awards, accolades - Nope
Stanley Cups - Nope
Preference over Brodeur internationally - Nope

How long of a list do you want me to make? 'Cause we can keep going Statman

The Contrarian Goaltender said...

"It's funny too how you number nerds continuously point out Brodeur giving up 2 goals in 90 seconds in game 7."

You know what I think about Brodeur's Game 7 against Carolina? It means nothing. Nothing at all. We're talking about the goalie of the decade here, so who cares about a fraction of one percent of the total sample? Same thing with Luongo's game 6 against Chicago. Or J.S. Giguere letting in 6 goals in a Stanley Cup Finals game, or Giguere putting up a 3.88 GAA in the first 4 games of 2006 playoffs and getting replaced by his backup, or Giguere letting in 9 goals in two straight home losses to open the 2008 playoffs. All meaningless relative to each goaltender's entire body of work.

Lawrence said...

Ok, The isn't even a serious debate now.

"Hockey teams actually have 20 players on them."

Are you kidding me? This is all you have. I'm sure it's quite obvious that the 6 is reference to the 6 on the ice and that it isn't 5 players and a robot. I'm sorry for assuming you could figure that out.

overpass said...

When you start factoring in error or confidence interval in all of these contentions the difference in sv% of .005 or even .008 is easily covered.

Lawrence, a difference of 0.08 in EV SV% over 12000 shots is over 3 standard deviations. No honest statistical argument will suggest that's "easily covered".

The Contrarian Goaltender said...

"When you start factoring in error or confidence interval in all of these contentions the difference in sv% of .005 or even .008 is easily covered. So then when it comes to stopping the puck - the primary and most important duty of a goalie - it is not unreasonable to say they are equally great, based on our best calculations vs our assumptions, with perhaps a very very slight edge to Luongo."

Are you seriously arguing that an .008 save percentage edge means nothing? It is completely unreasonable to say that Brodeur and Luongo are equally great at stopping the puck.

If .008 is nothing because of "error or confidence interval" (if you did know what those two things meant you would not be making the argument you are making, but let's proceed anyway), then how do we know that the gap between Brodeur and the guys who are .008 behind him isn't meaningless as well? After all, there could be some error involved there.

Let's look at the all the goalies who are .007-.009 Brodeur in EV SV% over the last 10 seasons.

Andrew Raycroft
Jocelyn Thibault
Roman Turek
Jussi Markkanen
Arturs Irbe
Cam Ward
Peter Budaj
Mike Richter
Patrick Lalime
Chris Osgood
Byron Dafoe
Jason LaBarbera
Felix Potvin

I think you'd have to agree that there is a big gap between any one of those guys and Martin Brodeur. There's not a single guy who you'd look at and think he is even close to Brodeur's level. And that is the significance of an .008 EV SV% gap over a large sample. Luongo is as far ahead of Brodeur in stopping the puck as Brodeur is ahead of Raycroft and Lalime. To suggest they are equal is utter nonsense.

Bruce's argument is that the rest of Brodeur's game makes up for his puckstopping deficit. With a lot of unknowns, that is a possible argument. I'd suggest you try that tack as well, rather than trying to equate Luongo and Brodeur's puckstopping.

Statman said...

Awards & accolades - when you consider who is voting for these (usually journalists, sometimes GM's) & that (1) these voters might see a specific goalie - besides the GM's "own" goalie - play approx 4-15 times per yr, & (2) mainstream journalists & GM's have shown ample ability to be idiots with regards to math & general hockey decision-making... who really cares about awards & accolades?

Have you ever disagreed, perhaps vehemently, with the decision made in voting? How about a GM's decision? All GM's exhibit superior decision-making skill? Pleeeaase.

Statman said...

Superior stickhandling - who cares? We should only care to the extent that it would prevent goals against.

Oh yeah, stick Preference internationally with the awards & accolades.

Value contract - I'm sure the NHLPA isn't too happy with that, but obviously Brodeur realizes the benefit to himself to playing on such a strong team.

Shot prevention IS an important factor, it's just almost impossible to measure with the stats gathered right now.

The Contrarian Goaltender said...

"Are you kidding me? This is all you have. I'm sure it's quite obvious that the 6 is reference to the 6 on the ice and that it isn't 5 players and a robot. I'm sorry for assuming you could figure that out."

Of course it was obvious what you meant. I just decided to highlight a somewhat awkward phrase as part of my overall comment about your predisposition towards Cup counting. Sorry if that caused offence to you.

I would like to keep this a serious debate, and I don't want it to get hostile. However, I think it is reasonable to expect that someone making statistical arguments should understand basic statistical principles, and I'm not sure you have demonstrated that understanding here.

You're a scout so you obviously understand hockey. I'm not criticizing your hockey knowledge, merely your stats knowledge. We all have to know our limitations. I'd be interested in hearing some of your subjective opinions, but just be aware that your numbers arguments so far have not been particularly strong.

The Contrarian Goaltender said...

Here's an open question to everyone here who has played goalie and still thinks wins are an important goalie stat. At the end of a game that your team lost, do you look across the rink every single time and go, "Well, the other goalie must have been better than me, because their team won?" Because I certainly don't.

Some times you have to tip your cap to the other guy, if he played well. Other times (probably most of the time, and certainly most of the time at the NHL level) there is little difference between the two of you, and the scoreboard just reflects that the other team was just better or happened to get the bounces that particular evening. And every now and then you stand on your head and still lose because the other team is much superior.

I can't imagine that anybody who has played goalie has not experienced these outcomes. And yet many, many goalies evaluate other goalies entirely based on winning. What is the problem? Is it subjective bias from watching games that makes the winning goalie look better? Is it an inability to generalize from one's own experiences? Is it that we easily make excuses for ourselves, but not for others? Is it that goalies are too confident and overrate their own impact on hockey games? I don't know. If anyone has any suggestions, please have at it.

Lawrence said...

No honest statistical argument will suggest that's "easily covered".

Ok, so 'easily covered' may be slight hyberbole, we're still talking 50 goals on 10,000 shots and at least five contention issues. Scorer bias, Shot Quality, Luck, Goalie-team effects, Human Error.

"should understand basic statistical principles, and I'm not sure you have demonstrated that understanding here." I'm not saying I am as well versed in the statistical department as you, and the logic argument stands based on you unsound assumptions.

Perhaps you should demonstrate how considering each of those basic 5 contentions cannot close a 50 goal on 10,000 shot gap to the point where it is unreasonable to say based on our best calculations vs our assumptions, there is a very very slight edge to Luongo.

That is what I said.

I trust you know how to do the calculations, my contention is, I think you are not considering them, or you're looking at one item in isolation vs the other contentions, or you're trying to disregard them in order to favor your argument.

You have even said previously "I agree with you that a few bad games can have a disproportionate impact on a goalie's stats." That alone can account for 10 goals on 10,000 shots.

When you say "look at the big picture" I assume you mean "all of the stats/achievements are considered" I hope you don't mean - look only at one stat and take the largest sample size to represent a 'big' (quantity) picture.

And yes, if we stop having to pick at each other's every word, this debate can be a little more serious and learningful. I'm assuming the best intentions here and am getting tired of defending 6 vs 20, only small sample size vs selection of, cups as the final word vs cups as one more quiver.

Lawrence said...

"Here's an open question to everyone here who has played goalie and still thinks wins are an important goalie stat."

I try to keep my personal experience out of this because its total hearsay, but I'll take a gander at this.

I have played goal over a 21 year span. 15 (actually about 10 because I was living in Sweden for some time) of those years I have played relief for my friend James when I have time away from my team. This team is a tier 1 35+ team where each and every played high quality hockey - (our d played for the Holland in the olympics and you can watch him get victimized by Team Canada and G. Anderson on you tube. It's a running joke in the room.)

Ok, I have played 40-50 some odd games with the team over about 10 years/seasons. I've lost twice (this I know for sure). I make more saves than James, and have a higher sv% than James and I win. I am not the starting goalie for one simple reason - James has the game 'won' (used loosely) before he steps on the ice. I have to fight to win those games. I'm younger, faster and more mobile (a classic butterfly goalie). James, is a winner and a much better goalie than I with this team (and perhaps on any team). He is calm, composed and doesn't make mistakes, handles the puck better. He is big in the net and doesn't give up rebounds and he always beats me when we play against one another in practice. It's actually very common that we compare our style to Brodeur and Luongo (only much worse) although James says Turco and Kidd (really Ward) because I wear 37(and I hate him for that)

But, why am I not a better goalie than he? All stats prove otherwise. My win% is better, my qual comp is less (I face easier teams, but have beat the best) and my sv% is significantly higher, (where human error is really likely) but to the tune of .15-.2

So why is he better? You tell me, because I know why, and the same reason Brodeur is better then Luongo.

Lawrence said...

At the end of a game that your team lost, do you look across the rink every single time and go, "Well, the other goalie must have been better than me, because their team won?" Because I certainly don't.

I forgot to answer this. No, I don't either. I say "I didn't do my job."

Bruce said...

He is calm, composed and doesn't make mistakes, handles the puck better. He is big in the net and doesn't give up rebounds and he always beats me when we play against one another in practice.

Lawrence: Very interesting. You certainly describe Brodeur to a T without mention of a single number.

our d played for the Holland in the olympics and you can watch him get victimized by Team Canada and G. Anderson on you tube

Link? I'm a huge Anderson fan, don't recall this particular goal. Presumably Lake Placid?

Lawrence said...

Just youtube Canada vs Holland Olympic Ice Hockey. I haven't watched it in a long time, but presumably it's there. (I really shouldn't have told you guys about that in this context) He's big, #5 or 6 goes behind the net. It's a pretty bad play, but that's why it's a laugh for us.

I guess, I just didn't want to have to defend the next comment coming which is "You guys suck, it's different at the NHL level." We're no good yeah, but we know what we're doing.

Lawrence said...

I haven't considered sample size and confidence intervals?

If .008 is nothing because of "error or confidence interval"

Allow me to clarify what I mean here. I admit, this isn't my strength and I have been following what others have done before me. Correct me if I am wrong, but Vic made a post disregarding shot quality, which I don't agree with, and even with that stance said this:

"so I'll give the benefit of the doubt and say that, on average, the difference in shot quality from any two teams selected at random ... the expected difference will be 2 goals on the season."

That shows that even when disregarding shot quality that there is a chance of a two goal swing, no? Sounds small but over 10,000 shots (or approximately 5-5.5 seasons) that's 12 goals - IF you buy into the idea that shot quality doesn't exist. Which I don't.

I agree that "When you average out the EVsave% variance over the 196 actual seasons you have eliminated the shot quality variable by essentially averaging it out.

So that margin of error is noted correct? So how can it be then that scorer bias, human error, goalie-team effects, and luck don't also have similar minute swing? Even if, conservatively you count 25 goals over 10,000 shots for these anomalies, (sounds reasonable) then suddenly you're at a .0025 sv% difference.

As Bruce has argued, I believe that Brodeur's other contributions do surpass the difference without factoring in these issues. If we do, I'm sure it's only less clear cut.

I could be wrong, but I think the induction doesn't strengthen your counter-argument anyway.

It's not Martin Brodeur eats Peanut Butter sandwiches, therefore every goalie does or can.

Assuming Martin Brodeur's previous successes could be replicated by another goalie, let alone himself, is dubious.

Anonymous said...

"Or J.S. Giguere letting in 6 goals in a Stanley Cup Finals game, or Giguere putting up a 3.88 GAA in the first 4 games of 2006 playoffs and getting replaced by his backup, or Giguere letting in 9 goals in two straight home losses to open the 2008 playoffs."

I know you were talking to me, CG, even though I agree with you on Luongo vs. Brodeur. But, for the record, those "six goals" he let in came in possibly the worst-reffed SCF game of the decade. AT LEAST one of those goals was a clear kick-in that never should have counted. If the calls had been anywhere near fair in that game (G5), the Ducks would have taken the cup in '03 in six. I also am quite sure Luongo would have allowed at least six goals in that game also.

As for '06, Giguere was still injured and should never have been started in the playoffs. Not much argument for 2008--he sucked in the first two games, especially G2 where he had a pretty much complete meltdown in the third period (I was there). Two games do not make a lousy goalie.

Anonymous said...

Gigeure certainly had a great bounce back season this year. Not to mention he did not give up a goal in this years playoffs haha.

Anonymous said...

Hey genius, he actually did play in a playoff game (G4 when Hiller got shelled) and he was absolutely great. He didn't let in any goals, indeed.

Thanks for making yourself look like even more of an idiot.

Anonymous said...

Uhm, when did I say he didn't play? I also said he did not give up any goals. Reading perception is key here buddy.

I'm also glad you are so proud of Giguere's performance in mop up duty. Speaks volumes about his career

Lawrence said...

Don't know if anyone will actually read this, but I thought it was relevant to the discussion re: wins and winning goalies vs losing goalies.

Luongo's playoff history has been brief yes, but when you take a look at the games he has played when facing elimination or a next-elimination deficit (ie. games to give the opposition a 3-x lead in a series) his save% is surprisingly low overall:

Game 7 - Dallas 19/20 - .950
Game 4 - Anaheim 27/30 - .900
Game 5 - Anaheim 56/58 - .966
Game 5 - Chicago 26/29 - .897
Game 6 - Chicago 23/30 - .767
Avg - Gm 3/4 opp.151/167 - .904

Now, Gm 6 Chicago and Gm 5 Anaheim could be seen as outliers (so good and so bad) so we could introduce the two previous games in the place of those: GM 3 Anaheim and GM 4 Chicago.

Game 3 Anaheim 21/24 - .875
Game 4 Chicago 26/28 - .929

The results are basically then even less favorable for Luongo with a avergae sv% of .882. So considering the 1 very,very good & 1 very,very bad games as outliers, perhaps due to luck, reflects even worse on the clutch performance of Luongo. His playoff stats don't look terrible because when the Canucks are dominating the likes of St.Louis he wins big. When they need him to win (facing elimination or facing a 3 games to x deficit) Luongo is a .904 sv% goalie at best thus far, and that will make a big difference to how many Stanley Cups one acquires.

Jonathan said...

I'm not sure about the .882 number. I replaced the two outliers and came up with:

Game 7 - Dallas 19/20
Game 4 - Anaheim 27/30
Game 5 - Anaheim 56/58 - replaced
Game 3 - Anaheim 21/24
Game 5 - Chicago 26/29
Game 6 - Chicago 23/30 - replaced
Game 4 - Chicago 26/28

Average 119/131 = .9084

JLikens said...

Lawrence:

If Luongo is an inherently 0.92 SV% goalie, and he faces 131 shots, then the probability of him stopping 119 shots or fewer by chance alone is about 36%.

In other words, 131 shots is far too small of a sample size upon which to base any conclusions about Luongo's ability as a goaltender.

Lawrence said...

131 shots is far too small of a sample size upon which to base any conclusions about Luongo's ability as a goaltender.

I know this is what maths may tell you, but unfortunately there have been a number of small sample size goalies who have had small sample size careers. Of course Luongo doesn't fit that bill, as he has the potential to be a hall of famer. However, maths hasn't kept numerous goalies in the league regardless of sample size. If you go to any canucks board talking about his new contract, no one talks sample size...they talk about his inability to win when it counts.

Lawrence said...

@Jonathan

You're absolutely correct, I definitely made a calculations error. The logic however stands pat as the difference is small enough between .908 and .904 that we need not discount those games as outliers. If the games were removed and the recalculation resulted in a sv% of .928 then I would say, "Ok, maybe he had one bad game and was sick or something." I doesn't look like it though.

As for the small sample size rebuttal, again, it doesn't fly. Simply put, for numerous reasons of the dynamics of building a successful franchise, right down to economics, the playoffs and regular season are from distinct enough populations that one cannot, I repeat, cannot infer a goaltenders ability in the playoffs from his regular season performance. Luongo's small sample size in playoff clutch games is the entire population, and all we have, and his sv% isn't even average. How much additional revenue do the Canucks lose (or did Giguere ensure through 3 rounds in '03) by these performances? Simply put, when Luongo chokes in the playoffs, the Canucks franchise loses millions.

The Contrarian Goaltender said...

Lawrence: The reason a small sample size doesn't matter is that you can't make accurate predictions from it. Whether Luongo was amazing or horrible in past important games has no impact on how he is going to perform in important games in 2009.

Let's look at Martin Brodeur, using the same criteria that you did (which I find to be somewhat arbitrary but let's go with it anyway), dividing his career into three season stretches (just like Luongo's results are all from one three year period):

1994-96: .938
1997-99: .893
2000-02: .919
2003-06: .911
2007-09: .917

Look at that terrific number from 1994-96! Brodeur is an incredible clutch goalie! Obviously the Devils are going to win a lot of Cups in the late 1990s!

Or forget that and just look at that awful number from 1997-1999. What a choker! Obviously Brodeur can't handle the pressure! His team is never going to win again with him in net!

If you were predicting Brodeur's performance in elimination games based on his past performances, you would have been wrong more often than you would have been right. And that is the peril of small sample sizes.

The latter periods show what happens when you increase the sample size - the results converge. Brodeur's overall numbers in this situation are similar to his overall numbers in any playoff situation, which is what we would expect.

That is also a virtual certainty to happen for Roberto Luongo once he plays in enough playoff games. More than likely, he happened to hit his "1997-99 stretch" first.

If you want to criticize Luongo for past performances, fine. If you think that means he is going to put up 23/30 performances for the rest of his playoff career, then let's just say I'd borrow heavily to be able to wager on the opposite side of that bet.

Lawrence said...

The reason a small sample size doesn't matter is that you can't make accurate predictions from it. Whether Luongo was amazing or horrible in past important games has no impact on how he is going to perform in important games in 2009.

I'm not interested in making predictions about Roberto Luongo's performance going forward, I'm interested in assessing his performance to-date. If he's great this year, perfect...I have no interest in that. What I see, from the numbers is that he hasn't been great in elimination games. No matter how you cut it, a 904sv % average in those games is not good. I could care less about the sample size and predictions, I'm only interested in what happened and that is that Luongo didn't stop enough pucks.

Let's look at Martin Brodeur, using the same criteria that you did (which I find to be somewhat arbitrary but let's go with it anyway), dividing his career into three season stretches (just like Luongo's results are all from one three year period)

I didn't do this at all, and I wouldn't make those conclusions, you are trying to put words in my mouth. I simply looked at the games when facing elimination or a 3-x deficit, and asked how did Luongo perform game by game? I'm not saying that he will perform at these levels going forward, but I am saying that he did perform at those levels, and Vancouver Canucks fans (I live in the city) will tell you those levels are not good enough, especially for someone slated to earn 7 million/year.

overpass said...

Lawrence, when you write this in your final sentence

especially for someone slated to earn 7 million/year.

aren't you looking ahead to future performance?

You can spend a lot of time chewing on a few games in the past, and I've got no doubt that Vancouver fans are doing so. That's what fans do. But it seems to me that the Vancouver hockey club and their fans should also be concerned about the future. When going on past record, Luongo's extensive record of strong regular season play is simply more indicative of what he's likely to do in the future in any NHL game than his slightly below-average record in a few elimination games.

You certainly can make the argument that his record in elimination games overshadows all the positives. I'd rather not do that, for the reason that JLikens posted above. If you evaluate a goalie based on 131 shots against, you may be assigning significant meaning to random chance or good performance by opposing shooters, rather than inherent skill level or character.

Jonathan said...

Lawrence

I'm not sure I understand the significance of a 3-x deficit. Is the assumption that he's facing more pressure when facing the prospect of elimination? What about when he has a chance to close another team out? How do you know he doesn't feel more pressure in that situation? How do you know he doesn't have early-series jitters above and beyond the nerves he has during the rest of the series.

Even if one were to assign more weight to different series scenarios, that should still work in Luongo's favor. If elimination games matter more than all other games, then it would follow that game 7 carries significantly more weight than any other kind of elimination game.

It seems the 3-x deficit criteria is arbitrary and baseless. I find it more objective and meaningful to look at his entire playoff record to date:

51 on 705 shots, .928 SV% 2.09 GAA. Almost exactly what one would expect from a .919 regular season goaltender, and significantly better than Brodeur's playoff splits (aside from GAA, which is a team stat)

So if you torture the numbers long enough, you can get them to confess anything. But I really see nothing to suggest that Luongo performs poorly in the playoffs. Both Luongo and Brodeur perform about as well in the playoffs as they do in the regular season.