tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post836576302643109828..comments2024-03-27T06:03:35.695-04:00Comments on Brodeur is a Fraud: Washington's Goalie MistakeThe Contrarian Goaltenderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03433370306939690205noreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-46485326100072818802009-02-25T21:11:00.000-05:002009-02-25T21:11:00.000-05:00Now you want to meet me again? Talk about weird. I...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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-18798408689047611822009-02-25T20:50:00.000-05:002009-02-25T20:50:00.000-05:00"Your belief that you along with a handful of..."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."<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.Statmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11729540810567722429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-62710705645279507382009-02-25T20:38:00.000-05:002009-02-25T20:38:00.000-05:00Oh, you're back for more? Again... why post h...Oh, you're back for more? Again... why post here? I don't get it.<BR/><BR/>Anyway...<BR/><BR/>"You assume that because NHL personnel do not agree with you"<BR/><BR/>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?)<BR/><BR/>Did you read the link I gave you to the IJSF? No, I doubt it. Read & think first, THEN blog.<BR/><BR/>"You compound a terrible argument, proven over and over again to be completely false"<BR/><BR/>Huh? where was what proven over & over again to be completely false? Wow, do you live in a dream world or something?<BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>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)...<BR/><BR/>It would be nice to go for a beer sometime with you... to see if you had the guts to show up.<BR/><BR/>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.Statmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11729540810567722429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-48733499609334234912009-02-25T20:02:00.000-05:002009-02-25T20:02:00.000-05:00Statman"I explained why I don't appreciate your co...Statman<BR/>"I explained why I don't appreciate your comments"<BR/><BR/>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".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-54213473679673365532009-02-25T19:57:00.000-05:002009-02-25T19:57:00.000-05:00Really? Is that a sentence? Do I have to force fee...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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-67424125514644946762009-02-25T19:44:00.000-05:002009-02-25T19:44:00.000-05:00"So then Statman, you have admittedly deviate..."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?"<BR/><BR/>Is that a sentence? I'm not quite sure what you are saying in the first half of that sentence.<BR/><BR/>"accusing me of things others have done"<BR/><BR/>The juvenile writing style (insults) of previous "Anonymous"(es) is very similar to yours... same 'arguments', etc. <BR/><BR/>"try to discredit what I have said because of it"<BR/><BR/>No, I'm countering your arguments on their merits. The fact that you use juvenile tactics is another facet to all of this.<BR/><BR/>"I guess I am the only one in the world who does not agree with you then?"<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>"And I also suppose that your lack of an argument is the foundation of your hostility towards me."<BR/><BR/>I explained why I don't appreciate your comments. Do I have repeat it again... and again... and again?<BR/><BR/>Seriously, 'dude'.... get a life. I see you've posted again on the new article! You're hilarious.Statmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11729540810567722429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-74049896042200271642009-02-25T19:13:00.000-05:002009-02-25T19:13:00.000-05:00So then Statman, you have admittedly deviated to j...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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-46683024104436811042009-02-25T19:08:00.000-05:002009-02-25T19:08:00.000-05:00You might not be literally yelling - who knows? I...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?<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>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.Statmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11729540810567722429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-61792076123357656492009-02-25T18:11:00.000-05:002009-02-25T18:11:00.000-05:00CG"Neither of us are claiming that save percentage...CG<BR/>"Neither of us are claiming that save percentage describes every single thing a goalie does. "<BR/><BR/>So then how can you possibly use it, or some stat that is a derivative of it, to rank goalies?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-54501748238813963122009-02-25T17:41:00.000-05:002009-02-25T17:41:00.000-05:00Your persistence is incredible. You seem thoroughl...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. <BR/><BR/>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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-4893084668906012772009-02-25T17:13:00.000-05:002009-02-25T17:13:00.000-05:00Correction - "The whole point of this site is...Correction - "The whole point of this site is to analyze hockey stats..."<BR/><BR/>This is not my blog, but my presumption is that the point is to objectively & scientifically assess player/goalie skill.<BR/><BR/>What "everyone says!!" is not relevant, I suspect.Statmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11729540810567722429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-19165018868934600842009-02-25T17:07:00.000-05:002009-02-25T17:07:00.000-05:00No, I removed my comment to edit it.I have no doub...No, I removed my comment to edit it.<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>You should read Moneyball, & many other related articles/discussion. Hockey, & hockey teams & players, are behind other sports in using stats.<BR/><BR/>This is 2 yrs old, but it's one of the few publicly-accessible journal-published articles:<BR/><BR/>http://pirate.shu.edu/~rotthoku/papers/ice.pdf<BR/><BR/>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.)<BR/><BR/>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"<BR/><BR/>Thanks for finally conceding that.<BR/><BR/>"...however that narrow minded interpretation is hardly what I have said."<BR/><BR/>It's exactly what you said. In that specific instance you weren't referring to anything other than a goalie making a save.<BR/><BR/>"What I have been saying is that a goalies ALL AROUND SKILL... has an impact on the other team's game plan."<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>[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.]<BR/><BR/>"Usually a team changes its strategy from game to game, another example of the flaw involved in save percentage."<BR/><BR/>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? <BR/><BR/>"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."<BR/><BR/>The manner in which they shoot is also based on the opposition's fwds, their defence, the game situation... of course.<BR/><BR/>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’…. <BR/><BR/>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.)<BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>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 :)<BR/><BR/>Time for another article, CG! Check on those IP addresses, too :)Statmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11729540810567722429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-38540166601526325582009-02-25T17:05:00.000-05:002009-02-25T17:05:00.000-05:00Let's try to keep this debate civil, please.Anonym...Let's try to keep this debate civil, please.<BR/><BR/>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).<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Let me quote again what Statman wrote in a previous comment:<BR/><BR/><I><B>Obviously, no single stat measures everything</B>.... but a good point to start with is the best "official" stat, & that is SV%. Adding shot-quality to it makes it even better.</I><BR/><BR/>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.The Contrarian Goaltenderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03433370306939690205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-34338368167906492882009-02-25T17:01:00.000-05:002009-02-25T17:01:00.000-05:00"The things it does not account for are speed of t..."The things it does not account for are speed of the shot, and height in relation to the net..."<BR/><BR/>That's correct. Someday that will be incorporated (e.g. using a chip in the puck, like the old Fox hockey broadcasts).<BR/><BR/>Yes, that is my opinion. <BR/><BR/>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...?Statmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11729540810567722429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-83159687560143949272009-02-25T16:26:00.000-05:002009-02-25T16:26:00.000-05:00" a good point to start with is the best &quo..." a good point to start with is the best "official" stat, & that is SV%. Adding shot-quality to it makes it even better."<BR/><BR/>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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-17313090414630024282009-02-25T16:04:00.000-05:002009-02-25T16:04:00.000-05:00Wow Statman, talk about getting angry. Flipping ou...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.<BR/><BR/>Further, your continued belief that there can only be one statistic influence on certain areas of the game is absolutely baffling. Yet another example:<BR/><BR/>"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."<BR/><BR/>No, he is likely using observations he or his team has made. <BR/><BR/><BR/>"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."<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>Another false assumption:<BR/>"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.<BR/>That is quantifiable, actually. Sorry to burst your bubble."<BR/><BR/>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?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-91358034007310328622009-02-25T15:13:00.000-05:002009-02-25T15:13:00.000-05:00"Exactly, so if a shooter doesnt shoot as oft..."Exactly, so if a shooter doesnt shoot as often against a goalie that is an UNQUANTIFIABLE EFFECT."<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>That is quantifiable, actually. Sorry to burst your bubble.<BR/><BR/>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%). <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>Anything else you need cleared up? <BR/><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>You don't agree; so be it.Statmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11729540810567722429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-68420496441039908652009-02-25T15:09:00.000-05:002009-02-25T15:09:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Statmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11729540810567722429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-32861644187276824212009-02-25T15:00:00.000-05:002009-02-25T15:00:00.000-05:00" It has nothing to do with whether the guy shooti..." It has nothing to do with whether the guy shooting has personally memorized the goalies career save percentages or not,"<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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!!!"<BR/><BR/>Did you check out the International Journal of Sports Finance, or any other journals?<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>But CG can easily determine this by looking at the IP address(es).Statmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11729540810567722429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-55642891754999901282009-02-25T14:38:00.000-05:002009-02-25T14:38:00.000-05:00Statman"BECAUSE HE FEELS THE GOALIE WILL EASILY ST...Statman<BR/>"BECAUSE HE FEELS THE GOALIE WILL EASILY STOP IT -- exactly. How do you measure whether a goalie has stopped the puck or not? SV%.<BR/><BR/>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! "<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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? <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-61534846361619790832009-02-25T12:58:00.000-05:002009-02-25T12:58:00.000-05:00Correction - shots against/60 min's.Correction - shots against/60 min's.Statmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11729540810567722429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-56774158128579548612009-02-25T12:32:00.000-05:002009-02-25T12:32:00.000-05:00By the way, I (& others) have run regressions ...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).Statmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11729540810567722429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-57995274328584944852009-02-25T12:30:00.000-05:002009-02-25T12:30:00.000-05:00Anonymous - "If a shooter, which many admittedly d...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."<BR/><BR/>BECAUSE HE FEELS THE GOALIE WILL EASILY STOP IT -- exactly. How do you measure whether a goalie has stopped the puck or not? SV%.<BR/><BR/>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! <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.Statmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11729540810567722429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-49725032573299056122009-02-24T19:43:00.000-05:002009-02-24T19:43:00.000-05:00Statman"By the way, back to the original points......Statman<BR/>"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.<BR/><BR/>Yet you you say that "Any idiot could tell you Washington plays little defense"<BR/><BR/>Why do you say this? Please provide quotes."<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-61833765570330642232009-02-24T19:24:00.000-05:002009-02-24T19:24:00.000-05:00Statman"Sooo....? Do we give a goalie extra p...Statman<BR/>"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%"<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>"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."<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com