OK-- where the hell is Glassrattler?lol

Some very valid points being made in both directions, but my favorite hockey adage is that it don't matter how many shots he stops, it only matters how many he doesn't.

Old Hippy wrote:

OK-- where the hell is Glassrattler?lol Some very valid points being made in both directions, but my favorite hockey adage is that it don't matter how many shots he stops, it only matters how many he doesn't.

Hip, you are on the money in terms of what it takes for a team to win a game, but once again, my comments were around who is the better goalie.

Old Hippy wrote:

OK-- where the hell is Glassrattler?lol

Sorry for being such a buzz kill and starting an actual hockey discussion.

Honest Abe wrote:

Old Hippy wrote: OK-- where the hell is Glassrattler?lol Some very valid points being made in both directions, but my favorite hockey adage is that it don't matter how many shots he stops, it only matters how many he doesn't. Hip, you are on the money in terms of what it takes for a team to win a game, but once again, my comments were around who is the better goalie.

So, the GAA stat should be assigned to the team, not the goalie?

bp

Honest Abe wrote:

BorderPatrol wrote: tnado wrote: Save % is the best way to judge a goalie's performance, Not gaa. If you think about it you'll get it. So, you would rather have a goaltender that is saving 94% of his shots, but allowing 3 goals a game over a goalie that is saving 90% of his shots and allowing only two goals a game? bp Let me make this simple, if a college scout is looking at the above two hypothetical goalies you are referencing, and he has one scholarship to give, which one will get it?

Hopefully th scout is actually earning his money and doing a little more research then just looking at stats. I have seen poor goalies benefit and good goalies suffer due to the defense in front of them.

Jtornado wrote:

Honest Abe wrote: BorderPatrol wrote: tnado wrote: Save % is the best way to judge a goalie's performance, Not gaa. If you think about it you'll get it. So, you would rather have a goaltender that is saving 94% of his shots, but allowing 3 goals a game over a goalie that is saving 90% of his shots and allowing only two goals a game? bp Let me make this simple, if a college scout is looking at the above two hypothetical goalies you are referencing, and he has one scholarship to give, which one will get it? Hopefully th scout is actually earning his money and doing a little more research then just looking at stats. I have seen poor goalies benefit and good goalies suffer due to the defense in front of them.

Amen to that JT!!

BigRed80 wrote:

Old Hippy wrote: OK-- where the hell is Glassrattler?lol Sorry for being such a buzz kill and starting an actual hockey discussion.

Yeah, how dare you start a hockey discussion. I haven't been around here for awhile, and this isn't what I was expecting to get into. But I like it . . .

tnado wrote:

One more time. Save % is the true indicator of how good a goalie is. If you'd like i will explain in detail, but i think if you thought about it you'd get it.

No, it's not. Save% does not account for shot quality. Can you adjust for shot quality? Yes, in the NHL, where data is detailed enough for teams take into account the distance and type of shot (a 5-foot tip-in having a higher scoring rate than a 50 foot slapper). It is being done, but this level of analysis is just starting to come to the forefront, and is a good 20-25 years behind Sabermetrics.

Now, if you know your goalie allows a greater-than average percentage of a specific shot type, location on ice, which hole, etc..., then you are now equipped with something useful for training/practice. Alternatively, knowing this against the opposing goalie affords the opportunity to exploit it. Pitchers and hitters have kept books on each other for generations, so why not in hockey?

BTW, Vancouver's new GM is self-professed disciple of Moneyball, so look for the analysis trend to continue.

Marc

Marc Foster wrote:

Alternatively, knowing this against the opposing goalie affords the opportunity to exploit it.

I think that happened in the current Philadelphia-Montreal series...

Marc Foster wrote:

tnado wrote: One more time. Save % is the true indicator of how good a goalie is. If you'd like i will explain in detail, but i think if you thought about it you'd get it. No, it's not. Save% does not account for shot quality.

That is evident by Merriam's stats in the playoffs this year. In the Texas series, Merriam had a save percentage of .944. However, he was facing a lot of shots from the outside and without a lot of traffic in front of him.

Merriam's numbers dropped considerably against Fairbanks, because in the last 4 games, they were not settling for outside shots, but were more patient in working the puck in and getting high percentage shots. Merriam faced way more pressure in those last four games, including odd man rushes, breakaways and 5 on3 situations.

Merriam had a .946 save percentage through the first four games of the playoffs (three of which were against Texas). He had a .844 save percentage the next four games (all of which were against Fairbanks).

I think anyone watching those 8 games will tell you that Merriam played every bit as well during the last 4 games as he did during the first 4 games.

It just kind of proves the point - "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." Especially if people are not willing to look deeper into stats to see what might be behind them.

Marc Foster wrote:

tnado wrote: One more time. Save % is the true indicator of how good a goalie is. If you'd like i will explain in detail, but i think if you thought about it you'd get it. No, it's not. Save% does not account for shot quality. Can you adjust for shot quality? Yes, in the NHL, where data is detailed enough for teams take into account the distance and type of shot (a 5-foot tip-in having a higher scoring rate than a 50 foot slapper). It is being done, but this level of analysis is just starting to come to the forefront, and is a good 20-25 years behind Sabermetrics. Now, if you know your goalie allows a greater-than average percentage of a specific shot type, location on ice, which hole, etc..., then you are now equipped with something useful for training/practice. Alternatively, knowing this against the opposing goalie affords the opportunity to exploit it. Pitchers and hitters have kept books on each other for generations, so why not in hockey? BTW, Vancouver's new GM is self-professed disciple of Moneyball, so look for the analysis trend to continue. Marc

What I'm saying is that save % is a betteer indicator of how well a goalie is playing than gaa. That's all. As far as exploiting goalies weaknesses, I would say that in the na all teams are coached as to where to shoot on a particular goalie. So that's a wash. Save % alone is not going to get a kid into the nhl or a d1 scholarship, but it is a stat looked at very closely by scouts.

Re: Cup Prediction..............

Honest Abe wrote:

Out on a limb............. I have seen all of the teams play, with the exception of MV. My prediction.......St Louis beats MV for the Robertson Cup. Topeka finishes third and Alex fourth. St Lou and MV have better goaltending, and in St. Lou's case more firepower puts them over the top. Alex takes way too many penalties and in this series it will hurt them.

.....the proverbial nail on the head.

St. Lou wrote:

Bandits stumble once in round-robin but win the big one. They play MV in the Championship repeat and win in triple OT. Now thats a prediction!

I had it all right except for the triple OT.