tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post1325863520434160738..comments2024-03-27T06:03:35.695-04:00Comments on Brodeur is a Fraud: Why Pittsburgh is Better This TimeThe Contrarian Goaltenderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03433370306939690205noreply@blogger.comBlogger107125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-33007002741914743512015-12-13T20:39:52.035-05:002015-12-13T20:39:52.035-05:00Interesting comments ! Incidentally , if your comp...Interesting comments ! Incidentally , if your company was looking for a a form , I encountered a blank version here http://goo.gl/3yjFsCAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01820126382575007602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-38075831010855360202009-06-17T21:04:40.116-04:002009-06-17T21:04:40.116-04:00"Sure, and I agree he was pretty good from 19..."Sure, and I agree he was pretty good from 1994-1998. I believe I've described his career path as being "upside-down" - good early, good late, average in the middle."<br /><br />I think that's entirely fair to say. I am a fan of the current Brodeur (esp. considering these are the worst teams [decent, but not great] he has played on of his career), and would rate him ahead of another much-hyped goaltender (one of Italian heritage).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-53489351244806224352009-06-17T20:58:08.261-04:002009-06-17T20:58:08.261-04:00"That's my sense as well. Other than game..."That's my sense as well. Other than game 5, it was a tight, even series the whole way through, and it pretty much came down to bounces in the end. From the shot charts and the expected goal stats, I'd guess the scoring chances were probably more even than the shot totals. I thought Pittsburgh deserved it with the way they played in game 7, but it could have just as easily gone the other way."<br /><br />Agreed for the most part. Ozzy stole the first two games, Fleury the last game, games 3,4, and 6 featured fairly equal goalie play that came down to luck on individual scoring chances (though Fleury was at least as good as Ozzy), and game 5, despite being an outlier, was clearly shaped by Ozzy's stand-on-head performance in the first period.<br /><br />Osgood came to earth in the Finals, and Fleury was able to peak enough at the right time. I probably would no longer consider Ozzy Conn Smythe-worthy like I did after the first two games, but he still had a very successful run and more than held his own against a juggernaut of a team, and showed far greater consistency and toughness than Luongo the whole way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-55812297637307279022009-06-17T20:51:24.616-04:002009-06-17T20:51:24.616-04:00"Three trips to the Finals in four years, but..."Three trips to the Finals in four years, but let's crucify the guy for that year where he only posted a .600 Win% and a crappy 2.07 GAA. But hey! .897! Look at that. What more evidence do we need that the guy was erratic, tended to fold under the slightest pressure all through those "ordinary" years? He got beat by Patrick Roy? Flog him! The team could have won several more Cups with a proper stopper like Hasek!"<br /><br />Bruce, is it just coincidental that the year of MB's greatest postseason save percentage (2003), he faced a popgun offensive team that only had its goaltender going for it (Anaheim)--just like the year that Belfour won his cup, he faced likewise in Buffalo? Is it just coincidental that when NJ faced a true offensive juggernaut (Colorado), even though it was missing its best player, Brodeur was awful?<br /><br />You put Hasek or Giguere in their prime (late '90s and early '00s, respectively) on a team like New Jersey in the early part of this decade, or Detroit through most of this decade and the latter part of the last, and I promise you you see .950 or greater reg-season SPs from both, and .965 or greater playoff SPs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-29152205702528628462009-06-17T20:42:26.099-04:002009-06-17T20:42:26.099-04:00Anonymous:
The only game of the WCFs against NYR ...Anonymous:<br /><br />The only game of the WCFs against NYR where Brodeur truly stood on his head was G7. In the other games he ranged from good to mediocre. I give him a little slack for the 4-0 blowout considering being outshot 40-16, but other goalies considered less skilled (including some really obscure ones) than that have been able to hold such one-sided games much closer on a routine basis (i.e. Bryzgalov, Yann Danis, Vokoun, Hiller, etc.) Just like Luongo, a true elite goalie should be able to stand on his head and steal some when the chips are really down.<br /><br />Bruce:<br /><br />The reason the Devils weren't the President's Trophy winners in '01 was the lackluster play of MB, and the reason why the '02 Wings were was the superior play of Hasek. The whole point of the exercise was to rate each team BESIDES goaltenders, and in every imaginable category besides goals allowed and save percentage (such as goals scored and shots faced), the '01 Devils owned.<br /><br />Don't forget that Patrick Roy (universally considered to be "#2" in greatest-goalies-ever) really stood on his head against the Devils, and that the Avs were playing without their best player, the always-injured basketcase Foppa.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-17825070804633254502009-06-17T15:38:13.126-04:002009-06-17T15:38:13.126-04:00Bruce: Of course, the problem I see with giving *a...Bruce: Of course, the problem I see with giving *any* weight to a low GAA (relative to league avg), high SO's, 70 GP, 40 wins etc... when the guy's SV% is avg or below avg (relative to league avg)… is that the shots faced is largely what determines the low GAA & the high SO's... & contributes largely to the wins (in combination to his team's ability to score). Yes SA can be influenced by the goalie but so far the effect doesn't seem to be that dramatic.<br /><br />[GP may be mainly based on the fact that the backup is worse, that the starter's reputation is inflated, that the team's offense & low SA enables it to win most games so there is no need to 'upgrade' the starter with another goalie (if the team even recognizes that the starter could/should be upgraded is another matter)...]<br /><br />Quick example… the first goalie faces 25 SA/60:<br /><br />GP 70<br />Min/GP 60<br />MIN 4200<br />SA/60 25<br />SA 1500<br />SVPCT 0.905<br />OppSHPCT 0.095<br />GA 142.5<br />GAA 2.04<br /><br />(GA = 142.5 ... very quick example!)<br /><br />The second goalie faces 30 SA/60:<br /><br />GP 70<br />Min/GP 60<br />MIN 4200<br />SA/60 30<br />SA 1800<br />SVPCT 0.905<br />OppSHPCT 0.095<br />GA 171<br />GAA 2.44<br /><br />Same SVPCT, but quite different GAA. Wins & shutouts are likely to be smaller for the second goalie too.<br /><br />Do I think Brodeur is a bad or even just ‘average’ goalie? No, not at all. But for the years where his SV% was worse than the league avg, the calculations above show that GAA & subsequently SO’s & wins can look misleadingly good. As you’ve shown with MK, a goalie can have a below-average (below league avg) year & yet still play 70+ games & have a lot of wins & (especially if his team allows few SA) a relatively good GAA -- & that’s why those counting numbers mean little to me. So why even be slightly impressed by 70GP, low GAA, decent SO's etc. when the goalie simply isn't showing at least an avg ability to stop the puck? (And those 'avg'/below 'avg' years of 70GP, 38-42 wins etc. all add up to the high career counting numbers.)<br /><br />Think I'm done with this for awhile.Statmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11729540810567722429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-65034691875401734212009-06-17T13:56:42.032-04:002009-06-17T13:56:42.032-04:00As you know, I think Hasek was absolutely terrific...<i>As you know, I think Hasek was absolutely terrific, and I see quite a bit of daylight between him and Brodeur</i>. <br /><br />CG: I too am a huge Hasek fan. Best stopper I've ever seen -- give or take the odd Darius Kasparaitis 30-foot wrister -- and the most exciting goalie as well. You may well be right that even after accounting for style differences etc. that the Dominator rules the roost. I don't, however, think there's quite as much daylight as you do. <br /><br /><i>I'm sure some misinterpret my comments about that gap to be equating Brodeur to an average goalie, some kind of Osgood type, when I'm really trying to place Marty on the Joseph/Belfour/Vanbiesbrouck level, with Hasek simply a cut above. That's no insult, as those guys were very good goalies</i>.<br /><br />I'd put Brodeur and Belfour a cut above the other two myself, but that's just opinion obviously. <br /><br /><i>I also don't think it is improper or insulting to call an average season an average season, whether the goalie in question happens to be Marty, Dom, Patrick or whoever, but there is of course lots to like about Brodeur's career and it all should get factored in</i>.<br /><br />Yes there is, and yes it should. When an "average" season is 90 standings points and a guaranteed playoff berth, that's a hell of a start. When an "average" season is a GAA in the low 2's, that's pretty alright too. When an "average" season is ~.005 above the league mean Sv% (as was the case in 4 of the 6 "down" years) well I can live with that. If you want to argue that '98-99 and '01-02 were below average years, fine, I will agree they were below <i>his</i> standards. But please don't talk as if he was in the tank for 6 years ... didn't happen.Brucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01190620732067746768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-16024370148623411252009-06-17T13:29:31.993-04:002009-06-17T13:29:31.993-04:00Oops, that post got truncated. Carrying on ...
Li...Oops, that post got truncated. Carrying on ...<br /><br /><i>Listing career basic stats, or SV% without adjustment for league avg, really means very little to me</i>. <br /><br />Statman: It's your loss if you don't pay attention to "basic stats", but I agree context is critical. Like your adjustment for league average, which shows Kiprusoff's Sv% was .022 above league average in the first two seasons, .012 higher in '06-07, and has dropped to -.003 and -.005 below the standard the last two years. Expressed as a percentage of Opp Sh% the drop is somewhat more linear:<br /><b><br />MK / NHL = Ratio <br />-------------------<br />6.7 / 8.9 = .75 <br />7.7 / 9.9 = .78<br />8.3 / 9.5 = .87<br />9.4 / 9.1 = 1.03<br />9.7 / 9.2 = 1.05<br /></b><br />No wonder Flame fans are alarmed. And no wonder Mike Keenan got fired. Whether it was his handling of Kipper that led to those results, or whether he is just an innocent victim of below-average goaltending, is in a sense immaterial. Ironman Miikka didn't get it done, so neither did Iron Mike.<br /><br /><i>(Too bad we don't have historical official SV% stats... it's misleading to list Brodeur as being third in Shots Against, third in Saves, etc.... 3rd in the last 25 yrs, yes. Anyway.)</i><br /><br />I agree it is too bad, but all I can list is what we got, which shows Brodeur comfortably ensconced in the Top 10 of every (positive) category. Leaving Saves/Sv% aside, we still have this, which is complete across all eras:<br /><b><br />1st in Wins, 12th in Losses<br />2nd in GP, 19th in GA<br /></b><br />There are era effects, especially on the first in the Bettman Point era, but the good outweighs the bad by such an extraordinary margin to make me sit up and take notice. <br /><br /><i>My thoughts align with CG for the most part, & he has addressed & re-addressed this arguments over & over; I don't know what more there is to add</i>. <br /><br />Probably not much at this point, but the debate will continue in due course I'm sure. I'm about argued out for now, you'll be relieved to hear. <br /><br /><i>It would be interesting if 'shot prevention effects' & 'fitting into the team/affecting team play' etc etc could ever be accurately analyzed & quantified... but until then, I think the evidence indicates that efficiently stopping the puck is the best way to assess goalie skill</i>.<br /><br />I agree it is the best way, but not that it is the only way. Just because we can't accurately measure things like shots that don't happen (and why) doesn't mean we should discount the effect entirely. Especially when we have an admittedly extreme case like Lehtonen & Hedberg that suggests an impact on Sv% of about .010, a very large amount in a stat that is measured in thousandths of a point. Put another way, the difference between 2nd and 16th among career Sv% leaders, is .0099. You want to judge goalies entirely on their Sv%, be my guest, but I think there's a little more to it. <br /><br /><i>Did I cite his 2001 playoffs? I don't think so. I don't think I mentioned anything other than his reg season play</i>.<br /><br />Sorry, Statman, I must have mistaken you with another of the Brodeur-bashers. My mistake.Brucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01190620732067746768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-69961480601178161142009-06-17T12:56:57.705-04:002009-06-17T12:56:57.705-04:00Bruce, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
...<i>Bruce, we'll just have to agree to disagree</i>. <br /><br />Yeah, I been there before, will be again, no doubt. <br /><br /><i>You're obviously much more impressed by basic stats (wins, GAA, team success) that I am</i>... <br /><br />I suspect that wouldn't be too hard, as you don't seem one bit impressed by any of that stuff.<br /><br /><i>seems that if a goalie (any goalie) plays 70+ games & has 40+ wins, he has automatically had a good if not elite season, in your view</i>. <br /><br />Pretty much, but not always. Few coaches are going to trust a bad goalie with 70 GP, and few bad goalies will win 40 of them. <br /><br /><i>I don't know if you could ever think that a goalie who plays 70+ games & has 40+ wins in a season is a below average or even poor goalie</i>.<br /><br />Sure I can, and I do. Case in point: Miikka Kiprusoff. Kipper won 45 games this year and some people were touting him for the Vezina -- or assuming that the voters would, and dissing them in advance. But his game has been heading south for quite some time. I would suggest in his case he has responded poorly over time to being overworked. After his one unconscious half-season and incredible playoff run after coming to Calgary from San Jose pre-lockout, he has played 74-76 games per year, and, significantly, 6-7 playoff games. Moreover, his stats have been heading south:<br /><b><br />2003-04: 1.69, .933 <br />2005-06: 2.07, .923 <br />2006-07: 2.46, .917 <br />2007-08, 2.69, .906 <br />2008-09: 2.84, .903 <br /></b><br />So a Brodeur-like workload, but without Brodeur-like consistent results. <br /><br />The playoffs show a similar trend:<br /><b><br />2003-04: 1.85, .928<br />2005-06: 2.24, .921<br />2006-07: 2.81, .929<br />2007-08: 3.21, .908<br />2008-09: 3.52, .884<br /></b><br />Not looking to good for Miikka, 45 wins or no 45 wins.Brucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01190620732067746768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-11758205009232177242009-06-15T16:37:23.976-04:002009-06-15T16:37:23.976-04:00Bruce: I think we've been through this a few ...Bruce: I think we've been through this a few times before. No doubt at times I come down too hard on Brodeur in my eagerness to counter the "Brodeur is the GOAT" position that much less informed individuals than yourself have advanced recently, but I think I've made my overall views pretty clear and have backed them up with a lot of work over the last couple of years.<br /><br />As you know, I think Hasek was absolutely terrific, and I see quite a bit of daylight between him and Brodeur. I'm sure some misinterpret my comments about that gap to be equating Brodeur to an average goalie, some kind of Osgood type, when I'm really trying to place Marty on the Joseph/Belfour/Vanbiesbrouck level, with Hasek simply a cut above. That's no insult, as those guys were very good goalies.<br /><br />I also don't think it is improper or insulting to call an average season an average season, whether the goalie in question happens to be Marty, Dom, Patrick or whoever, but there is of course lots to like about Brodeur's career and it all should get factored in.<br /><br />It's still possible that further study will reveal that Brodeur contributes more in different ways and deserves to be ranked ahead of those guys as well, I don't know. But I don't see any way he climbs to the Dominator level, and that's why I'll continue to step in against anybody who equates the two of them.The Contrarian Goaltenderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03433370306939690205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-85589363946230370222009-06-15T15:22:18.785-04:002009-06-15T15:22:18.785-04:00Bruce, we'll just have to agree to disagree. ...Bruce, we'll just have to agree to disagree. You're obviously much more impressed by basic stats (wins, GAA, team success) that I am... seems that if a goalie (any goalie) plays 70+ games & has 40+ wins, he has automatically had a good if not elite season, in your view. I don't know if you could ever think that a goalie who plays 70+ games & has 40+ wins in a season is a below average or even poor goalie.<br /><br />Listing career basic stats, or SV% without adjustment for league avg, really means very little to me. (Too bad we don't have historical official SV% stats... it's misleading to list Brodeur as being third in Shots Against, third in Saves, etc.... 3rd in the last 25 yrs, yes. Anyway.)<br /><br />My thoughts align with CG for the most part, & he has addressed & re-addressed this arguments over & over; I don't know what more there is to add. It would be interesting if 'shot prevention effects' & 'fitting into the team/affecting team play' etc etc could ever be accurately analyzed & quantified... but until then, I think the evidence indicates that efficiently stopping the puck is the best way to assess goalie skill.<br /><br />Did I cite his 2001 playoffs? I don't think so. I don't think I mentioned anything other than his reg season play.<br /><br />Cheers.Statmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11729540810567722429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-65113948274300265352009-06-15T14:54:35.816-04:002009-06-15T14:54:35.816-04:00Re: Brodeur - "efficient"... how do you ...<i>Re: Brodeur - "efficient"... how do you define that, & really who cares? It's like you're giving him bonus points for supposedly fitting so well into his team's game play & his team's other personnel. Maybe I'm missing your point</i>. <br /><br />Chances are ... :) <br /><br />When I say New Jersey is (or used to be) "efficient" I am referring strictly to their excellent record in shot prevention over the years, which is a matter of record. Brodeur's contribution to that is not so easily defined -- it's certainly not 8-10 shots per game, but it just as certainly isn't zero either. <br /><br />As for fitting into his team's game plan, to some extent it may have been designed around him. The Devils of the Scott Stevens era were notable for standing up at the blueline and forcing the shoot-in, as they were confident in their goalie's ability to field the puck behind them and make a solid play to get it moving in the right direction. The Devils defenders didn't have to spend as much time with their faces up against the glass, rather than chase the puck they were more inclined to attack it at the point of entry. As I saw it, the goalie had a Huge part in that. <br /><br /><i>When I speak of Brodeur not having elite stats for a time during his career, I'm referring to his regular season stats. <br /></i><br />No, you are referring to his "regular season stat" (singular), cuz other than his only-slightly-above-league-average Sv%, Brodeur remained among the leaders in every other category throughout that "time during his career".<br /><br /><i>During the reg season goalies face many more shots & play many more minutes than during even the longest playoff runs</i>. <br /><br />OK, let's cast aside all those Stanley Cups and gold medals and just look at regular season performance. Looking at Hockey-reference.com I see Brodeur ranking first all-time in Wins, and 12th in Losses. He's second in Games Played, third in Shots Against, third in Saves, and 19th in Goals Against. He's second in ShutOuts, sixth in career Sv%, and eighth in career GAA (first among active goalies). He's fifth in Pts%. He's fifth in "Adjusted GAA", behind Ken Dryden, Bill Durnan, Dom Hasek, and Clint Benedict -- a pretty formidable group to say the least. <br /><br />Granted that not all of those stats have been maintained consistently through the history of the game -- Shots and Sv% have only been tracked for a quarter century -- but I don't see anything on that list which doesn't scream "Elite". <br /><br /><i>The playoffs are such a brief period, & teams don't face a very balanced schedule, & about 1/2 the players don't even make the playoffs... so I'm much more inclined to judge a player for his regular season work, unless he is particularly amazing (or bad) in the post-season</i>.<br /><br />So you'll cite Brodeur's performance in the 2001 playoffs, but 1995, 2000 or 2003 are small sample sizes?Brucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01190620732067746768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-39792086863138566112009-06-15T12:10:57.009-04:002009-06-15T12:10:57.009-04:00That's right, all of Brodeur's equipment i...That's right, all of Brodeur's equipment is larger than what goalies used to wear.... & I seriously doubt a 6'1", 210 lb goalie wears smaller equipment (however you want to define "equipment" - whether that's one particular piece or several pieces) than all of today's 5'9" - 5'10" 180 lb NHL goalies. Ahhh, but you're the expert...<br /><br />Sorry, I didn't think I had to individually list every piece of equipment he wears. I'm sure that you are well-acquainted with his cup size, so perhaps you can fill us in there.<br /><br />Later, dipshit.Statmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11729540810567722429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-49955343675726573022009-06-15T02:24:57.978-04:002009-06-15T02:24:57.978-04:00Statman please quit lying to try to cover yourself...Statman please quit lying to try to cover yourself. You obviously were not referring to pad width. In fact, I went and found a couple quotes, DIRECTLY FROM YOU:<br /><br />"By padding & equipt I'm referring to everything the goalies wear - leg pads, blockers, gloves, & abdominal & shoulder pads"<br /><br />or maybe this one<br /><br />"Brodeur's pads (leg pads, pants, midsection, glove, blocker, everything) are huge"<br /><br />But wait, Statman had more to say<br /><br />"Brodeur benefits from having larger equipment than most other goalies in the league" <br /><br />heck even CG jumped in and corrected you by saying this:<br /><br />"Statman: As you know, you and I agree on a lot of things. But you are on the wrong side on this one."<br /><br />So nice try to go MIA and hope everyone forgotAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-85095000770625550222009-06-15T01:30:13.814-04:002009-06-15T01:30:13.814-04:00Anonyshit - Brodeur's pads? Of course they ar...Anonyshit - Brodeur's pads? Of course they are much bigger than the pads goalies used to wear. He'd be an idiot to wear 10-inch wide leg pads (the old maximum) & the old tiny gloves & blockers goalies used to wear.<br /><br />What's your point, jerk-off?Statmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11729540810567722429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-3198946894377398482009-06-14T23:44:08.025-04:002009-06-14T23:44:08.025-04:00"No doubt some will point to Fleury's &qu..."No doubt some will point to Fleury's "clutch" performance. Others will uncharitably say Osgood didn't get 'er done, .930 or no .930. Not sure I'm buying either one myself ... I'll just say "that's hockey"."<br /><br />That's my sense as well. Other than game 5, it was a tight, even series the whole way through, and it pretty much came down to bounces in the end. From the shot charts and the expected goal stats, I'd guess the scoring chances were probably more even than the shot totals. I thought Pittsburgh deserved it with the way they played in game 7, but it could have just as easily gone the other way.The Contrarian Goaltenderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03433370306939690205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-87031903439987540712009-06-14T22:30:12.555-04:002009-06-14T22:30:12.555-04:00Hey statman, should we start talking about how big...Hey statman, should we start talking about how big Brodeur's goalie pads are again? It was nice to see you went on a couple month hiatus after making a fool out of yourself on that subject.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-60821996485898779412009-06-14T01:44:23.541-04:002009-06-14T01:44:23.541-04:00Re: Hedberg & Lehtonen (H & L) - are there...Re: Hedberg & Lehtonen (H & L) - are there any stats available that indicate the shots/game of the teams they faced? Did one tend to play the teams that had more shots/game? Usually these are the higher-scoring teams... usually the 'starter' tends to face these teams while the backup faces the weaker offensive teams (which tend to have fewer shots/game against). Do we know anything about the situational stats H & L faced? E.g. did one tend to face more PP's than the other? For instance, SV% while facing PP's tends to be lower.<br /><br />H & L are an interesting case to study but I don't know if there is enough data available to generalize about other goalies.<br /><br />Re: Brodeur - "efficient"... how do you define that, & really who cares? It's like you're giving him bonus points for supposedly fitting so well into his team's game play & his team's other personnel. Maybe I'm missing your point. <br /><br />When I speak of Brodeur not having elite stats for a time during his career, I'm referring to his regular season stats. During the reg season goalies face many more shots & play many more minutes than during even the longest playoff runs. I guess I wasn't clear on that. The playoffs are such a brief period, & teams don't face a very balanced schedule, & about 1/2 the players don't even make the playoffs... so I'm much more inclined to judge a player for his regular season work, unless he is particularly amazing (or bad) in the post-season.<br /><br />It's like when Franzen racks up 20-something playoff goals over 30-something playoff games... I don't consider him (or Chris Kontos) to be an 'elite' goal scorer. And if Dany Heatley can set a record for Canada in international point-scoring, then I guess we better call him one of the best scorers of all time? Nah.<br /><br />MY "constant and rather tiresome derision"... haha... am I the one running this blog? :)Statmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11729540810567722429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-14626023709022726572009-06-14T01:06:56.161-04:002009-06-14T01:06:56.161-04:00CG: Returning to the subject of your original and ...CG: Returning to the subject of your original and very long-lived post, by my count the Red Wings outshot the Penguins 203-187 over the 7 games, <i>and</i> had a superior Sv%, .930 to .916. This combined (as it must) to Detroit outscoring Pittsburgh, 17-13* (*discounting the 1 Penguin empty-netter). <br /><br />More shots, better percentages, more goals ... everything you want, except it didn't help the Wings win the series. Obviously the key was distribution, where Pittsburgh won their four games by a combined 5* goals, whereas Detroit won Game 5 alone by that margin. <br /><br />No doubt some will point to Fleury's "clutch" performance. Others will uncharitably say Osgood didn't get 'er done, .930 or no .930. Not sure I'm buying either one myself ... I'll just say "that's hockey".Brucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01190620732067746768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-20015867624669282162009-06-14T00:26:51.297-04:002009-06-14T00:26:51.297-04:00If I had the choice of choosing goalies either on ...<i>If I had the choice of choosing goalies either on the basis of 'shot prevention'/'rebound control'/'stickhandling & passing' vs. SV% (& it's variants) I know what I would choose</i>.<br /><br />If I had the choice I would choose both. If I had just one, I'd take Sv%. But I would prefer to know a combination of the two.<br /><br />Let's take an example far removed from the subject of your constant and rather tiresome derision. We have previously looked at the pair of Lehtonen and Hedberg in Atlanta, who have shown a persistent shot differential of ~3 shots per game despite playing on the same team every year. In the current season they split the workload fairly evenly, 46 GP for the Finn, 33 for the Swede. Here's their key stats:<br /><b><br />Lehtonen: 34.3 SA/60; .911; 3.06<br />Hedberg : 30.6 SA/60; .886; 3.49<br /></b><br />Lehtonen's Sv% soars above Hedberg's by .025. Per unit shot volume, Hedberg allows a staggering 28% more GA. <br /><br />But the shot volume is not uniform. This year Lehtonen faced 3.7 more shots per 60, a difference of 12%. Not enough to make up the difference, but enough to close it substantially. This can be seen in GAA, in which Hedberg's is 14% worse. By this metric, which is the product of shot volume and save rates, the discrepancy between the two is cut in half of that suggested by Sv%.<br /><br />Let's assume that Hedberg played a few more games at exactly his established rates, so that his minutes exactly mirrored Lehtonen's 2624. How would their stats compare?<br /><br /><b>Lehtonen (actual): 1498 shots, 134 GA</b><br />Hedberg (projected): 1361 shots, 153 GA<br /><br />Lehtonen clearly has superior results, 19 fewer GA in roughly 44 games of work. But based on Sv% alone, we would expect this differential to be double that: .025 * ~1500 shots = ~38 GA. The discrepancy is the "extra" 137 shots that Lehtonen had to face. <br /><br />Now let's assume that Hedberg faced the same shot volumes as Lehtonen. His "shot adjusted Sv%" jumps from .886 to .898, still inferior to Lehtonen but halving the perceived difference derived from unadjusted Sv% alone. <br /><br />I'm not arguing who's better, just how to better measure the difference between them. I'll freely admit that we have no way to directly attribute all the difference in shots just to the play of the goalies; that said, they play on the same team and these differences have persisted for three seasons running.<br /><br />To open a fresh can o' worms, the other difference which has persisted is this one:<br /><b><br />Pts% : Hedberg / Lehtonen<br /><br />2006-07: .667 / .575<br />2007-08: .484 / .443<br />2008-09: .518 / .466<br />----------------------<br />2006-09: .533 / .506<br /></b><br />Hedberg is worse in GAA, much worse in Sv%, much better in shot prevention, and consistently better in winning percentage. Note: I'm not claiming cause and effect, I'm merely pointing out that it's interesting. Perhaps it explains why Hedberg gets more starts than his stats suggest that he "should". Whereas you put the emphasis on shot stopping and I might put it on goal prevention, the coach probably puts it on winning the damn game. <br /><br /><i>Yeah, yeah... Brodeur had lots of wins & awards even when his ability to stop the puck wasn't that "elite"... that of course has nothing to do with his team</i><br /><br />It has a whole lot to do with his team, of course. But he's a big part of that team, and the way he plays affects how his team plays. Bordeur is the most efficient goalie I've ever seen, playing on one of the most efficient teams ... what a coincidence.<br /><br />As for his numbers not being elite, it seems to me that numbers in your favourite column like .927, .934 and .961 cited above -- in four-series playoff runs or best-on-best international tournaments -- are not too shabby. Your apparent blind spot to such accomplishments reeks of anti-Brodeur bias rather than dispassionate analysis.Brucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01190620732067746768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-43464554518003507102009-06-13T15:56:12.543-04:002009-06-13T15:56:12.543-04:00My whole sentence reads: "I don't recall ...My whole sentence reads: "I don't recall much in the way of alternate analysis (e.g. rebound control, puckhandling) that has really indicated that there is anything remotely approaching SV% & it's variants."<br /><br />In other words, if a goalie reduces shots against by a big ONE per game his basic SV% is still by FAR the most appropriate metric to apply. If I had the choice of choosing goalies either on the basis of 'shot prevention'/'rebound control'/'stickhandling & passing' vs. SV% (& it's variants) I know what I would choose. (Personally I don't think comparing a goalie to his backups is enough to very accurately determine shot prevention - but I realize the limitations of data.) <br /><br />If a goalie could reduce shots against by 8-10 per game (above the league avg goalie), as Marty professes, then sure, his abilities other than simply stopping the puck would be very important.<br /><br />Yeah, yeah... Brodeur had lots of wins & awards even when his ability to stop the puck wasn't that "elite"... that of course has nothing to do with his team... just like Fleury must be much better than all the goalies above him on the playoff SV% list... or goalies that didn't even make the playoffs... he clearly had an excellent season:<br /><br />http://www.hockey-reference.com/playoffs/NHL_2009_leaders.html<br /><br />I think you're still too mesmerized by the basic 'counting numbers'. As career minor leaguer Scott Clemmenson proved...Statmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11729540810567722429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-75018699326186502432009-06-13T04:07:05.308-04:002009-06-13T04:07:05.308-04:00I don't recall much in the way of alternate an...<i>I don't recall much in the way of alternate analysis (e.g. rebound control, puckhandling</i><br /><br />Well I guess you haven't been reading in the blog too carefully yourself then, Statman. There's been lots of discussion, such as <a href="http://brodeurisafraud.blogspot.com/2009/03/belfours-shot-prevention.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://brodeurisafraud.blogspot.com/2009/03/brodeur-roy-and-hasek-debate-rages-on.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Oh wait a minute, you're all over the comments sections, you must have read them. Even CG was admitting possible effects on your precious Sv% of +/- a number of basis points, and there was no argument that Brodeur and Belfour to name two had a positive effect in this respect, while other big Sv% stoppers generally had a negative effect. <br /><br />CG shows above that Brodeur's EV Sv% was consistently above the league average even during his "down" years, and his shot prevention effect was always going to be a positive one, probably even greater before the Brodeur Rule than it is today. Multiply the two positive outcomes together and the results become even more positive. Roll that together with a 70+ game ironman and hey presto! 40 wins a year and points in 10 more, not to mention Stanley Cups, gold medals, Vezina trophies, Jennings Trophies (2 of each during that 6-year "down" period). I just don't get how you guys can look at those rows of numbers -- no, not just that one little column, Statman, ALL of those numbers -- and all those accomplishments and somehow conclude he wasn't playing well. It's nonsensical, and it damages your credibility.Brucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01190620732067746768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-67497374567211998442009-06-13T01:19:17.569-04:002009-06-13T01:19:17.569-04:00Yeah I know that you've been on here lots, of ...Yeah I know that you've been on here lots, of course I was being facetious. I don't recall much in the way of alternate analysis (e.g. rebound control, puckhandling) that has really indicated that there is anything remotely approaching SV% & it's variants. Despite Brodeur's claims of reducing shots against by 8-10 per game due to his rebound control.Statmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11729540810567722429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-66836879411513136802009-06-12T23:51:16.258-04:002009-06-12T23:51:16.258-04:00Statman: I've been reading this blog lots, com...Statman: I've been reading this blog lots, commenting lots too. And providing lots of stats, Statman, more than the one metric you guys have been beating to death -- Sv%, EV Sv%, SQN Sv%, etc., as if the goalie is a two-dimensional cardboard cutout that has nothing to do but stop the puck. The statistical record cited above is nothing short of spectacular, but there is no satisfying some people.Brucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01190620732067746768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-54327123148919473012009-06-12T20:02:04.206-04:002009-06-12T20:02:04.206-04:00Well, I guess someone hasn't read this blog fo...Well, I guess someone hasn't read this blog for the past couple of years.Statmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11729540810567722429noreply@blogger.com