Kipper and the silver lining
by LawrenceS on Aug 6, 2009 3:49 PM PDT
Email
PrintSo, I have been working on some detailed calculations regarding goaltending, and a goalie's metric,which I hope to complete before the seasons beginning but I thought I would start with this: Why I still have slight hope for Miikka Kiprusoff.
Now, before I get into the numbers, I would like to state that I believe and have always believed that the goaltenders position is subject to many team and coaching factors which cannot be captured when looking at sv%, even strength sv%, or even sv%n. I also do agree that when looking for a quick metric to rate goaltenders by sv% is the most fitting. However, as you will see in the example below, there is often misleading information hidden in the years end sv%. I think that although Miikka's performance has dropped off the last couple of years, the "what have you done for me lately?" mentality, and the idea that Kiprusoff is a below average goalie is not considering the whole picture.
I am here to say that Miikka Kiprusoff's ceiling is not his record last season, which was this:
GP - 76, W - 45, L - 24, OTL - 5, SO - 4, GA - 209, SA - 2155, SV% - .903, GAA - 2.84, MP - 4418
But instead, should look more like this, or slightly better:
GP - 76, W - 45, L - 24, OTL - 5, SO - 4, GA - 189, SA - 2155, SV% - .912, GAA - 2.57, MP - 4418
Here is why I assert this claim: The stinky 7 games from last season which sunk Kipper's season:
Oct.9 Loss - 6-0 Van (Kipper 6GA) 23 shots – 0 ppga - 60min
Oct.11 Loss - 5-4 Van (Kipper 5GA) 34 shots – 0 ppga - 60min
Nov.6 Win - 7-6 NSH (Kipper 6GA) 29 shots – 2ppga 2shga - 60min
Nov. 9 Loss - 6-1 Chi (Kipper 6GA) 27 shots – 2 ppg - 60min
Nov. 13 Loss - 6-1 SJ (Kipper 4GA) 46shots – 4 ppg - 20min
Mar 1st Loss - 8-6 TB (Kipper 6 GA) 32 shots – 3ppga - 40min
Mar14th Loss - 8-6 Tor (Kipper 6 GA )30shots – 2 ppga - 42min
In these 7 games Miikka was slaughtered, as was the entire Flames team, giving up an average of 31.58 SA, 45 goals (of which Kipper surrendered 39) 15 special teams goals against and both goalies had a save percentage of a stomach turning .796!
The one thing that you will notice is Mike Keenan's tendency to stick with Kiprusoff regardless of how he was playing. In the seven games he was pulled only 3 times. On four occasions he played the entire game even though he allowed 23 goals in those four games. Was their no faith in the backup? Was there a grudge being exercised? Who knows? The point is this, Kipper and the team were being sent a message early in season. Only once did Keenan pull Kiprusoff prior to 5 goals against, and in most cases 6 was his magic number, which I doubt will be the case under Brent Sutter. I would point this out as a serious mis-handling of the goaltender on Keenans part at the very least, and very likely a team implosion - of which Kiprusoff should not be singled out for.
Two scenarios interest me from this:
Had Kipper kept his season's statistical performances in those 7 games (which was not steller) his season's record would look like this: (this has recalculated his stats @ .903 sv% in those 7 games vs an ~ .796)
GP - 76, W - 45+?, L - 19+?, OTL - 5, SO - 4, GA - 189, SA - 2155, SV% - .912, GAA - 2.57, MP - 4418
And had he not played those 7 games at all, his season's stats appear like this:
GP - 69, W - 44, L - 19, OTL - 5, SO - 4, GA - 170, SA - 1979, SV% - .914, GAA - 2.21, MP - 4076
I believe this raises an interesting question: How well could have Miikka Kiprusoff played had he been managed better by Mike Keenan? Now, I fully understand that if you went through the league and took the worst games any goalie played off the books, it would be very favourable for that goalie. I do think though, this is an extreme example where the Flames played 6 or 7 games by my memory where they were terrible and goaltending was not to be forgiven, but hardly to be blamed.
Side note - Keenan is also a coach who has a long standing reputation for destroying goaltenders. Roberto Luongo, who many believe is the best in the league, had some of his worst years under Keenan in 01-02 and 02-03 with a huge turn around in 03-04 after Keenan resigned. He has publicly stated that he hated playing for Keenan.
What this means, is that outside of these seven games and including all other high scoring affairs against the Flames, Kiprusoff faired quite well. A .914 sv% is just one-one thousandth less than Steve Mason's vezina finalist .915% or good for about 20th in the league, where .918 is good for 8th. A 2.21 GAA would be good for second in the league behind only Thomas @ 2.10 and ahead of Mason @ 2.29. He also would have continued to easily lead the league in wins if these seven games were stricken from the record, (which makes sense because they were mostly horrific blow-outs.)
In conclusion, a more appropraitely managed Miikka Kiprusoff shows the potential to perhaps return to Vezina candidate form given the right circumstances. Will he? I don't know, likely not. Is it fair to do this analysis? I don't know, perhaps not. One thing I do know, is that Kipper shouldn't be given the shaft due to seven lousy games by the entire team and coach.
64 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I don’t think you can exclude these seven games. They happened, if we are going to cherry-pick then I could exclude the entire month of February where Kipper was way above average – at that point the PKSV% was something ungodly (and unsustainable, and likely lucky) like 0.897. He played these games, they are part of the performance we are judging, because in future if/when he shits the bed we won’t be able to ignore it in this manner.
Moreover you picked a couple of games (Oct 9, Nov 9) in which we let a below-average number of shots through. Defence appears fine there.
I sort of see what you are saying (Kipper’s stats will improve if we handle him properly) but that’s not the aim of the game. He needs to help us win, not ad his stats. We are paying him to be a positive difference maker, and all balanced appraisals of the situation point to him being a negative difference maker. The rest of the team is doing its job (second highest team Corsi in the league implies territorially dominance) but Kipper’s end of the bargain (keeping the SV% at the elite level) was not held up.
I for one quite enjoyed the analysis. Im sure hes not as good as he was a couple years ago but I dont think hes as bad as everyone likes to make him out to be last year. Kipper was put into many undesireable situations and Keenan didnt manage him well. THe defensive system was almost non existant. Where you state, “He needs to help us win, not ad his stats.” Not to be that guy or anything but he did lead the league in wins. Im sure a lot of that was based on team performance but he obviously did enough to not cost them a hard earned win.
Call me the optimist but I fully expect Kippers stats next season to be league average at worst. Look at what Sutter did with a bunch of nobodies on his defense and those no talent ass-clowns in Weekes and Clemensen. He made Clemensen look like a good goalie and gave Weekes something stupid like a 0.920 Sv %; again with nobody on his defensive line up. Im frothing at the mouth to think of what Kippers stats should be playing behind a top 4 of Regher Phaneuf Buowmester and Sarich; he very well might be a vezina trophy finalist again. They dont have any player in the lineup I would consider to be defensively unresponsible either. Jokinen can be better but hes just one man.
I know if I were the opposition I wouldnt want to get down by a goal or two because im sure their suffocate them out, be it with 2 minutes remaining or 58.
Where you state, "He needs to help us win, not ad his stats." Not to be that guy or anything but he did lead the league in wins. Im sure a lot of that was based on team performance but he obviously did enough to not cost them a hard earned win.
He also led the league in games played. When you are playing 70 games on a team that is as dominant territorially as the Flames were last year, you are going to put up gaudy win numbers. If anything he should have won MORE games. I am a stats guy so all I see is the forest. But if you want to look back at individual games and ask yourself, honestly, the number of games Kipper cost us minus the number of games he saved us, the answer will be greater than zero.
Kipper was put into many undesireable situations and Keenan didnt manage him well. THe defensive system was almost non existant.
The non-existent system was good enough to put us 12th in SA/60 at evens. And I know I am beating this horse but the puck was moving the right way for the Flames all last year, outdoing our opponents in scoring chances was not a problem. Despite my frustrations with him I ended up thinking Keenan was a good coach – can you honestly fault him for playing Kipper like he did? The backup was (and still is) unproven and the window for us to run away with the division – and thus play said backup more to see what we had in him – closed when Kipper tanked in March.
Kipper being league average next season would be horrendous. He’s getting paid to be top 5 in the league. I’ve been reading stats blogs that are showing that defense from team to team doesn’t have an effect on shot % that can be separated from luck – it’s all about reducing shot quantity. So Kipper playing behind our improved top 4 means (hopefully) a reduction in GAA. But he can contribute to that more by just stopping more pucks.
When you are playing 70 games on a team that is as dominant territorially as the Flames were last year, you are going to put up gaudy win numbers. If anything he should have won MORE games.But if you want to look back at individual games and ask yourself, honestly, the number of games Kipper cost us minus the number of games he saved us, the answer will be greater than zero.
This is where my point comes in exactly. Since you are a stats guy, you will know that one of two things happened last year:
First, the Flames were an incredibly gifted offensive juggernaut in which they produced the second best corsi behind only the wings, were 12th in sa/60 and they had a brutal goaltender that prevented them from winning 60-65 games thus etching them forever in the books as one of the most dominant teams of all time. Kipper did after all have 17 one goal or less performances last season. So by your logic he would have had to cost the flames 18 games last year correct? So with a better goalie, they could have won 63 games and finished with a record of around 63-13-6 for 132 pts(!). Ok, this is scenario 1.
Second, the Flames were an incredibly streaky but gifted team, with a high payroll, great on paper, and had a shattered, problem-filled system, lead by an out-to-lunch coach. Said coach, who after getting a ton of grief about how he handled his goaltender the year before, left him out to dry on many disastrous occasions, and refused not to play him into the ground. Only because of the sheer offensive talent of the team, and the miracle fact that the sieve Kipper could pull it together for 17 games they managed to win 46 games. The coach was then subsequently fired for his lack of ability to get this team to 132pts, thus equaling the greatest team in history.
I mean this with all due respect, but anyone who thinks scenario 1 was even close to reality is clinically delusional. The most points by a team is 132, wins by a team 62, and wins by a goalie 48 – in history! Last year’s Flames team was lucky to make the playoffs with the way they played some nights, I can think of 7 – and you could genetically breed Hasek’s babies with Drydens and put that mutant in goal and you would not get the 08-09 Flames team to 55 wins.
Sure, accuse me of cherry picking by ‘taking away’ Kipper’s brutal performances, but if you want to take away his 13 one goal games and 4 shutouts, be my guest. My point is Keenan never should have let it get to that on those bad occassions. Remember Patrick Roy – you don’t hang your number 1 guy out like that.
First, the Flames were an incredibly gifted offensive juggernaut in which they produced the second best corsi behind only the wings, were 12th in sa/60 and they had a brutal goaltender that prevented them from winning 60-65 games thus etching them forever in the books as one of the most dominant teams of all time. Kipper did after all have 17 one goal or less performances last season. So by your logic he would have had to cost the flames 18 games last year correct? So with a better goalie, they could have won 63 games and finished with a record of around 63-13-6 for 132 pts(!). Ok, this is scenario 1.
That’s misrepresenting my argument. The Flames ended the season with 46 wins. Is it a stretch to say that they could have gotten to 50? Or even 47, which would have won the division? Kipper had plenty of goal support last year. GA/60 at evens was bottom 5 even though SA/60 at evens was top half. Shot volume against was decent, offense was spectacular but goals against was awful. That points to goaltending as a problem.
Sure, accuse me of cherry picking by ‘taking away’ Kipper’s brutal performances, but if you want to take away his 13 one goal games and 4 shutouts, be my guest. My point is Keenan never should have let it get to that on those bad occassions. Remember Patrick Roy – you don’t hang your number 1 guy out like that.
I don’t understand why Keenan or coaching comes into this. Kipper is being paid to stop pucks at an elite level, and his backup was unproven. We were never in a position to sacrifice wins to see what we had in McElhinney. We can’t just point to blowouts and say “Kipper stunk, Keenan did not pull him so Keenan do his job”, because Keenan’s job is to win games. Pulling Kipper means a goalie has to replace him and when that goalie is an unproven rookie and when the team is in a tight division race, the choice is pretty clear: play the starter.
by R O on Aug 7, 2009 8:09 AM PDT up reply actions
Kipper had plenty of goal support last year. GA/60 at evens was bottom 5 even though SA/60 at evens was top half. Shot volume against was decent, offense was spectacular but goals against was awful. That points to goaltending as a problem.
This may point to a goaltending problem, yes, but not a Kipper problem. More like a depth problem, a mismanagement of the goalie problem, an ostracize the goalie problem. Or better yet a stats problem. I have demonstrated the flaw in basing your argument of one single stat – sv%. Kipper had 17 one goal or less games (equal to Luongo), another 17 – 2 goals or less games (which I’m not calculating sv% on all of but only three were under 24 shots). This is plainly at least 35 solid performances – and 7 poor ones, where he shouldn’t have played, can destroy the sv%. Then suddenly – he is looked at as one of the worst in the league, comparable to Raycroft. Bollocks.
Keenan’s job is to win games. Pulling Kipper means a goalie has to replace him and when that goalie is an unproven rookie and when the team is in a tight division race, the choice is pretty clear: play the starter.
And now, when it’s convenient you are going back to wins. Kipper’s job is to play games and win games by stopping pucks. The perfect goalie would play 82 games, win 82 and stop 100% correct? It would be in that order as well. Kipper played more, won more than anyone else. He also ‘stole’ as many games as Luongo, and two short of Thomas. He also had 17 additional very good performances (2GA). YET when looking at sv% he is a Raycroft? Even when 7 awful team games can make that statistical difference? Maybe your a stats guy, by I’m a logic guy, an informed guy.
This may point to a goaltending problem, yes, but not a Kipper problem. More like a depth problem, a mismanagement of the goalie problem, an ostracize the goalie problem.
The simplest explanation, is that it’s a Kipper problem. He didn’t stop enough pucks.
And now, when it’s convenient you are going back to wins. Kipper’s job is to play games and win games by stopping pucks. The perfect goalie would play 82 games, win 82 and stop 100% correct? It would be in that order as well. Kipper played more, won more than anyone else. He also ‘stole’ as many games as Luongo, and two short of Thomas. He also had 17 additional very good performances (2GA). YET when looking at sv% he is a Raycroft? Even when 7 awful team games can make that statistical difference? Maybe your a stats guy, by I’m a logic guy, an informed guy.
Keenan’s job, as coach, is to manage the team to outplay the other team, and by extension (hoepfully) win games. Kipper’s job, as goaltender, is to try and stop pucks at a high rate and by extension (hopefully) win games.
The idea of isolating “good” and “bad” games may have some merit but the idea of focusing on one (the good games) while throwing out the other (the bad games) is dubious. And the context you are trying to apply to those bad games (that Kipper was let down by defence or that the replacement level goaltending available to Keenan was sufficient to win even one of those lost games) is not supported by the facts (i.e. Flames shots against rate, McElhinney’s lack of track record, etc.).
Side note – Keenan is also a coach who has a long standing reputation for destroying goaltenders
No argument there. But speaking of Keenan, did anyone see Jeremy Roenick’s retirement presser today? I just saw some highlights on the Score, and he said that Mike Keenan was the greatest coach he ever had, and that he owed the style of game that he played to Iron Mike due to some infamous moment when he “gripped me by the throat and told me if I didn’t hit the next guy I saw I’d never play another game in the NHL.” Good to see somebody benefit from the wrath of Iron Mike, because I doubt any Flamers did during his tenure.
I actually just went fishing in the Queen Charlotte Islands, and Brian Burke and Dave Nonis were there having a few beers before their trip ended and my trip began (the lodge we went to had four day shifts in which one large group fished until the next group came in). Robyn and Richie Regehr were on our trip, and Burke was there to have a chat with Robyn and company before he left. Burke started talking to Robyn, and he had some hilarious stories about Keenan, despite the fact that the GM of the Maple Leafs called Keenan, and I quote, a “f*cking d*ckhead.” Apparently, when Keenan coached the Canucks under Burke, he was called in to deal with Matt Cooke, who had been partying a bit too hard after signing a rookie deal. Cooke was called into Keenan’s office after missing a workout, and Keenan began the conversation by saying congratulations on his wife’s recent pregnancy. He continued by asking "what will you name your daughter?’ to which Cooke replied that he didn’t know. Keenan asked “well, if you don’t mind me suggesting, you should name her Roxy, because when you are shoveling shit for a living, you will always remember the nightclub that you went to that lost you your NHL career when you see your daughter,” and apparently Cooke never overstepped his bounds again. Keenan was a ruthless guy back in the day, he just didn’t know how to deal with the established stars on the Flames.
by Dustin Timberlake on Aug 7, 2009 12:11 AM PDT reply actions
drop the outliers...
If you’re going to dismiss the worst seven performances of the season, why not throw out the best 7 as well… that would be interesting to see.
"It's a great day for hockey" - BBJ
by jealous broadcaster on Aug 7, 2009 12:50 AM PDT reply actions
I did that already out of sheer curiosity, but the results are pointless (.896 or 898sv%, if I remember correctly if he didn’t have those games played at all – 4 shutouts/-3, 1GA games). The reason they are pointless is because if Kipper was playing well you can’t mis-manage him, unless you pulled him when he was getting a shutout…but….come on.
Whereas, when he and the defense are getting throttled, then 1. maybe it’s time to give the kid McE a chance. 2. wake up the defense/change tactics 3. do anything a coach is supposed to do when it’s 6-1 and there is no sign of the others letting up. 4. learn from your mistakes so that two days later it doesn’t happen again (Oct 9&11) (Nov.6-9-13). Something more than 1 goalie is wrong when you let in 18 goals in 7 days.
Oh, btw… those numbers were only dropping the good games. I didn’t take away the 7 worst AND best because it’s a bit of a waste of time, as taking away 14 games is even more compromising than 7.
The basic idea is that with 17 one goal or less games and a number of 6-1 style blowouts, Kipper was not holding this team back any great deal. I’ll give you 3-6 games, but that idea of subtracting the games he cost the team from the ones he won and it being over zero is ridiculous. At that point your forest has burnt down, I’m sorry.
I’m wondering if Kipper performs better in strong systems all around.
It seems like Keenan left him to be a rogue cell last year, and only talked to him to see if he wanted to play that night.
He seems to have to do too much when he’s out there (although he doesn’t do enough post hugging when he gets scored on from the goal line) – but he’s on his belly, flopping around because the Defensemen in front of him were pedestrians on the side of the net.
In a couple games of the “Shitty 7” Lawrence outline, I don’t think that Kipper should have even PLAYED in, let alone have been shelled.
It would have cut down on the win count, but it would have also improved the revered goaltending statistics.
I see the silver lining for Kipper too, although any improvement in his statistics this year will have the credit due to him diluted and shared with
1. the new, stronger group of defensemen
2. the new, stronger defensive coach
I see the silver lining for Kipper too, although any improvement in his statistics this year will have the credit due to him diluted and shared with
1. the new, stronger group of defensemen
2. the new, stronger defensive coach
Agreed 100%. I have been saying in previous posts that his stats will improve (or he should be shipped back to Finland forever, if not) but that won’t necessarily mean he was playing better.
To give a comparison, Kipper had 17 one goal or less games last year (.950 sv% or higher with min. 20SA), Tim Thomas who now makes 6mil and who won the Vezina had 19! Now, Fernandez had 7, Rask had 1 (their third string). We got one more outta McElhinney in a mean nothing last game.
You can look at these games as stolen games or superior games with lights out sv%, and you could say, wow, Boston had 27 compared to our 18, look at how crappy Kipper is, but you could also say, wow! even their third string had as many as our backup, they are just a well managed team in goal with likely very strong defensive systems, strong across the board through three goalies, whereas we played totally desperate.
Kipper played a lot of very very good games last year and I haven’t even looked at 2GA games with high sv%. The fact is he played nearly the entirety of seven awful ones, with little help from the #2 guy. We all saw those blowouts 6-1SJ, 6-0 Vancouver, 6-1 Chicago, they weren’t even in those games…all 21 of the players.
Ok, so yes, I am trying to put a stake in the heart of this “Kipper isn’t even an average goalie” talk or the frequent comparisons to Raycroft – who had 5 one goal or less ‘stolen’ games last year. Budaj had 7 ‘stolen games’. Kipper’s 17 is much closer to 19 than 5.
As well, the best in the world in the 2000’s – Luongo. – 17.
Let’s look forward to next season.
You’re efforts are valiant, Lawrence and I can’t help but admire your tenacity on this issue – but I remain unconvinced. Ditching Kipper’s worst 7 performances and then laying them at Keenan’s feet is basically just a convenient method of propping up your point – it doesn’t really make much sense.
From memory, the games you list are instructive. The only one he got shelled in was the 6-1 SJ disaster. In the others, he was simply mediocre (VAN losses) or just plain bad (TBL and TOR). Not sure what Keenan could or couldn’t have done in most of these circumstances to change things. Heck, the 6-0 loss to Van was the first game of the season.
At this point, I dont think there’s any argument that will convince me that Kipper isn’t an average-to-below-average goalie right now. What will convince me is if he improves next year. Nothing else.
I wish I could use your method to assess my golf game, Lawrence.
“I played great for 14 holes. The two double bogeys and two triple bogeys on the other four holes? They’re outliers, so you can safely disregard them as not being a reflection of my performance.”
It doesn’t work that way, unfortunately. I hope Kiprusoff plays better. The fact remains that his SV% has dropped every year, and since he was at .906 in 07/08, it wasn’t like he had a mountain to climb last year. It isn’t simply last season’s performance that people are questioning, it’s the unbroken downward trend. I don’t think he needs to be top five for the team to be good, but finishing in the upper half of regular goalies in SV% seems like a reasonable expectation for the money the Flames are tying up.
Again, thanks for making my point. Using your golf analogy (which doesn’t work well because it’s not a team sport) You could say this.
I’ve played 5 rounds of golf in my life. The first four I shot -7, -2, +3 and then +8. This last round I would have shot par if I didn’t get a quadruple bogey on the third (in the water) a triple bogey on the 9th (four put) and and double bogeys on the 17th, 18th and 19th – for 13 over. Then your friend says "Man you suck at golf, your last three holes were double bogeys. No, you isolate those mistakes and improve on them, because they did happen, but you can’t disregard your talents as well.
Plus, if you want to add to the analogy (for team effects), you aren’t certain, but you think your putter may have cracked on the 16th hole.
I’ve never said disregard Kippers performances, or that they didn’t happen. I’m merely illustrating the fragility of the sv% stat. I could go as far as saying. Five years in a Flames jersey, a Vezina and huge win totals have been disregarded by these seven team fails. It’s just a concept, but the Kipper sucks idea, or he is below average, is based on equally flawed logic, or a drill-hole analysis.
I didn’t make up the numbers….they are all there. I’ve just demonstrated this concept for the season.
Add his entire career stats on the Flames and then take away those seven games. Who’s more elite than those numbers? One, two, three other goalies?
I’m not trying to convince anyone he is elite, he is the best, or even that he is our ideal/utopian option. I just don’t question Sutter’s feeling that Kipper is actually a very very good goalie somewhere under that declining save % stat, which can be effected so greatly by 7 poor team showings.
I could be wrong, and I would prefer a healthy Kari Lehtonen at 3mil over Kipper at 5.8 as well, but that’s not our reality and if Kipper can put in 35 (17/17) elite (=< 2GA) games again next year…that’s pretty damn good considering only 8 goalies last year even won more than 34 games with any stats beside those wins. Kipper had that many elite games(!) – 35 of which he lost 3, and two with lower save %, so say 30 if you want, but you gotta count them. Count them just the way you remember every birdie for your 20 pars or bogeys.
Suddenly realizing that I may go too far defending goaltenders.
My analogy works just fine, thanks. You can’t cherry-pick data. More to the point, this isn’t about disregarding talents or improving my mid-handicap golf game. It’s about a pro athlete who’s performance has been in decline over a period of years. Are you saying that he hasn’t been able to isolate his flaws with the assistance of professional coaches? He had a poor 07/08. I doubt he just smoked cigarettes and drank beer last summer, and yet he ended up playing worse, for a better team, IMO. The more likely answer is he’s lost something. He had about 110 games as an elite goalie (04-06), 75-ish as a good goalie (06/07) and 150 games, or two poor years subsequent. His SV% percentage has gone down 5 straight years. He’s got about as much time being a below average goalie as anything else.
I get that people want to believe, but honestly, do other goalies have perfect teams in front of them? Do they never have those occasional blowups? Of course not. The fact that almost every regular goalie had a better SV% at year end than Kiprusoff suggests that they were better. I’m sorry, but if you want to assess his body of work, the downward trend of his career has to be the first thing to be considered.
by Robert Cleave on Aug 7, 2009 1:11 PM PDT up reply actions
Lawrence, the context you are trying to apply is not there. You are trying to exclude these games because of, if I read correct:
1.) Keenan mismanagement
2.) Poor team
Well two of the games had low shot counts against which suggests the defence was working properly. And I’ve beaten the Keenan-unknown-backup thing to death. It’s just not there, there’s no reason to not include these games, they are valid data points to assess Kipper’s performance.
If you want to argue that they are somehow “outliers” then you are going to have to establish the distribution of one-game-SV%, pick a confidence interval and then identify and exclude those games outside the interval. This is a Herculean task and one that might not even be valid or worthwhile. What you’ve done here is taken Kipper’s worst showings and applied a nebulous context to them in order to remove them from your analysis and support your point that Kipper performed well last year.
Two points for you to chew on:
1.) Team thing. IOF (vhockey.blogspot.com) and CG (brodeurisafraud.blogspot.com) are two great hockey stats blogs. IOF suggests that the effect of team defence on SV% is inseparable from luck – via analysis of actual vs. expected distributions. CG has long maintained that the effect that goalies have on shot prevention varies little from goalie to goalie (he uses starter vs. backup analysis for some goalies with “puck-handling” reputations like Brodeur and Turco). So if you can accept what these guys have to say (and their analysis is reasonable, context is applied with care) then the reasonable conclusion is that defence controls shots against and goaltending controls SV%. Thus Kipper, having an awful SV% last season, was entirely to blame for it.
2.) Special teams. The games you listed had a lot of special teams goals against. I count only 29 ES goals against (there were 15 special teams goals and 2 empty-netters). Putting aside Calgary’s special teams futility – we still rank 4th last in ES SV%. If you construct a narrative of “Keenan mismanagament” using ES goals against only, then it is less impressive.
This conversation is very tedious if we don’t read each others responses in detail, and is again growing tiresome. I’m accused of ‘cherry-picking’ data, which is absurd, because I’m utilizing said data to illustrates a concept – which is the flaw in reading in statistics in a drill-hole manner.
I get that people want to believe, but honestly, do other goalies have perfect teams in front of them? Do they never have those occasional blowups? Of course not. The fact that almost every regular goalie had a better SV% at year end than Kiprusoff suggests that they were better.
We cannot keep yelling past each other and failing to agree on the points of our arguments. This post is about illustrating that assessing a goalie due to one stat – a year’s end sv% has flaws. If you don’t accept my thesis on this…then fine, but please stop yelling back “look at his year-end sv%” “look at his year end sv%” because that is what I am taking objection to, so we will just go around in circles forever. I know Kiprusoff’s sv% – don’t worry about that.
You are trying to exclude these games because of, if I read correct:
1.) Keenan mismanagement
2.) Poor team
I’m not trying to exclude these games at all. I’ve said this a number of times. I have only taken this small sample to make the point of how fragile the year-end sv% stat is, and how reading it flat, with no context is misleading.
But if you want to look back at individual games and ask yourself, honestly, the number of games Kipper cost us minus the number of games he saved us, the answer will be greater than zero.
This is the result of looking solely at year’s end sv% stats, where you chose to cherry-pick the stat that best serves your point and disregard the others. For example wins. The minute someone talks about wins as a plus in Kipper’s favour… it’s dismissed. “It’s a team game is the response.” Then when the "team game response is used for sv%, it’s “Nope, that falls on the shoulders of the goalie.” That is ridiculous.
If you want to talk sv% give it some context if you are going to claim that Kipper can’t be applauded for wins. IE. If Miikka won 45 games and in those wins never had a sv% exceeding .910%, then fine….I’m in total agreement, the team won with him an he was a passenger.
BUT, the reality is he has over 30 games played, and 30 wins, in which his sv% was elite .920% or greater. He has 17 wins in which his sv% was .950 or greater. How can you disregard that? The appropriate answer is not “Look at his year end sv%, he sucks” because that is going in circles again.
Of the 89 goalies who played a single game last year Miikka Kiprusoff won more games (17) basically on his superior talents alone, call them ‘stolen games’ .950+sv% (because that seems to be how you guys measure goaltending prowess – sv%) than 56 of them won in any manner. Please read that carefully. – These are games they could have lost had the goalie not played exceptionally well. I would like to have the number of one goal games where Kipper’s sv% was this high, but I don’t have the time to do this.
Of the 89 goalies who played a single game last year Miikka won more games (33) with an elite sv% .920 or greater (this was the top five year-end sv% cut-off) than 78 goalies, who won with any statistical outcome and tying him with 3 (Mason, Luongo and Turco)
If you want to disregard his 45 wins, to say he sucks, and only look at sv%, then lets look at sv%. You calculate for me any goalie last year who won more elite performance games than Miikka Kiprusoff.
If you can claim that the poor performances are all on his head, and then accuse me of cherry-picking a response to that, then I can say the great performances are all on his head and challenge anyone to find 5 goalies who single handily won more games than Kipper last year. You cannot ignore that stat.
I’m not trying to ignore the blowouts, I have built a model that shows there drastic effects, both positive and negative, but you guys are trying to ignore the achievements. Build me a model that shows how many games the flames would have won if Goalie X came in and played the games Kipper did and never exceeded a .913 sv% (the league average or thereabouts)
This is my point, please read this clearly****
If you want to talk sv% as the measure of a good goalie and establish it at an agreed upon value, let’s say .920%. Kipper performed and won at that level more times than pretty much any other goalie last year simply based on wins numbers. How many goalies even won 33 games, let alone in an elite (.920 sv% ) fashion? He also had 17 wins at a .950% how many did that? Please, someone do those calculations, because I don’t have to convince myself.
If there is any claim against Kipper, it’s not that he sucks, it’s that for a well as he plays, he must play very very poorly in numerous games to end the year with a .903%. So consistency. So WHY? This is why I built the model and the concept…which you accuse as cherry-picking. I’m just wondering if there is a reason why he was so good, and then so bad. But he wasn’t only bad…he was very very good, many times.
Suddenly realizing that I may go too far defending goaltenders.
This is the result of looking solely at year’s end sv% stats, where you chose to cherry-pick the stat that best serves your point and disregard the others. For example wins. The minute someone talks about wins as a plus in Kipper’s favour… it’s dismissed. "It’s a team game is the response." Then when the "team game response is used for sv%, it’s "Nope, that falls on the shoulders of the goalie." That is ridiculous.
Yikes. Wins are a team thing. Observe:
You win the game if goal differential > 0, lose if GD < 0.
GD = ( Shot % ) * ( Shots For ) – ( Save % ) * ( Shots Against )
It’s quite reasonable to suggest that there is no significant difference from goalie to goalie in terms of influencing shot % or shots for – after all these factors are only relevant in events happening 200 feet away from the goalie. As far as shots against, CG has posted lengthy analysis after lengthy analysis on how the goaltender’s influence on shot prevention is marginal from individual goalie to individual goalie. It’s the defence’s job, in other words. So the only thing that the goalie influences is SV%.
Now, the concept that SV% is not team influenced is generally derided, and a lot of work has been done on trying to quantify shot quality. However Vic at IOF has recently done a study (http://vhockey.blogspot.com/2009/07/shot-quality-fantasy.html) that very strongly suggests that the effect of team on shot quality (and thus SV%) is nearly inseparable from random chance. It’s a very compelling post, once you get on board with it then the natural and inevitable conclusion is this: the goalie is the sole contributor to SV%.
So I will reiterate: wins are a team thing and SV% is goalie-only. Is it still ridiculous when supported by reasoned arguments?
If you want to talk sv% give it some context if you are going to claim that Kipper can’t be applauded for wins. IE. If Miikka won 45 games and in those wins never had a sv% exceeding .910%, then fine….I’m in total agreement, the team won with him an he was a passenger.
There is not a single goalie in the league who, having played a sufficient number of games, will have a game-to-game SV% anywhere near as consistent as you suggest. Fluctuations are inevitable due to sample size problems – on thirty shots, one extra goal saved or not saved is a swing of 0.033 which is HUGE. The resolution of single-game SV% is awful, which is why it’s done over the season. And trying to separate the season into good stretches and bad stretches without reasonable context (e.g. injuries) is like searching for meaing in the abyss.
I’m not trying to ignore the blowouts, I have built a model that shows there drastic effects, both positive and negative, but you guys are trying to ignore the achievements. Build me a model that shows how many games the flames would have won if Goalie X came in and played the games Kipper did and never exceeded a .913 sv% (the league average or thereabouts)
This hypothetical goalie X does not exist because, as I said earlier, every goalie’s SV% will vary by tens or even hundreds of points from game to game. But it is trivially easy to see what a league average goaltender would have contributed to our goal differential:
GA with Kipper = 209 GA, SV % of 0.903 on 2155 shots
GA with Goalie X = 188 GA, SV% of 0.913 on 2155 shots (remember, a goalie’s marginal influence on shot prevention is negligibile as per CG)
League average guy saves us 21 goals. That’s roughly 7 points if you use the rule of thumb of 3 goals = 1 point, or if you want to use Pythogran Win % it is:
Flames GF = 251
Flames GA with Kipper and McE = 246
Flames GA with Goalie X and McE = 225
PW% (Kipper and McE) = GF^2 / ( GF^2 + GA^2 ) = 0.510 →84 points
PW% (Goalie X and McE) = GF^2 / ( GF^2 + GA^2 ) = 0.554 →91 points
Look at that, an additional 7 expected points if Kipper was replaced by league average goaltending (or better yet, if he just provided it or better in the first place).
by R O on Aug 7, 2009 9:47 PM PDT up reply actions
RO, have you heard the expression “Knows more and more about less and less until they know all about nothing”? – this is about specialization and drill-hole analyzing. It’s a hugely costly flaw in problem solving and analysis…for example, where you identify metrics and continually beat your head against those metrics until you determine the only solution is to reset? Start again? lose… millions.
Your formulas that you keep spouting off are fancy, and I’ve seen them before, but it keeps bringing me back to the same request. Please, for the love of god mate, stop going back to the same analysis just for a second. The open mindedness could be freeing.
For example, the DOHA debates, where you are forced to argue a perspective, ideally if you disagree with it, because it opens new ways of seeing problems and enables more avenues for decision making and future problem prevention.
Here, the problem is Kipper. We all know this, me included. Why is Kipper the problem? A year’s end statistical average of performance – a .903vs%. We all know this, me included. Why is this metric problematic – because it’s about .010 off of average and he is in the top 90% pay bracket for next year, thus given the expectation of being above average. We all……
So we can continually analyze the situation comparing it against the average goalie, average defense, average numbers, expecteds etc. or we can look more deeply into certain “cherry-picked” data and hypothesize conclusions. It’ll be fun. Now, I have done this and came up with the conclusion of inconsistency – this leads to the question of why?? I tried to write this fanpost, which means nothing to anyone, because we don’t work for the Flames (well, I guess we pay them…so this is a bit off) but anyway, this blog is a fun outlet for passionate fans. I tried to write this so that people may ask the next questions, so I don’t have to. Even IF they are wrong.
For example. Well, if seven games can change the statistical average of .903% so drastically, call them the cherry-picked outliers, what about the other side of the coin? He must have played really well? Oh, it’s true…. 27-1-1 elite performaces. Yes, we can discount this, or fail trying, but those are the numbers. So if he is inconsistent what could be causes of this? We have a much worse than statistical average defense… when comparing cost to performance….could shotty defense add to the bad games. We have a coach, who by your formulas has no role to play in anything, who has a long history of goalie-killing and was criticized openly in the media shortly after his being fired….could that contribute to the problem? We have a backup who is unproven, and hardly played, could fatigue be a contributor? We have the possibility of a goalie who doesn’t even enjoy playing for this team, under this coach, like so many before, who also suffered i.e. Luongo…could that be a problem, knowing there is no formula for desire, tiredness, etc.etc. and on and on.
As well, if you tailor your argument to just keep arguing the same contentious points with contentious data we won’t get anywhere. Your trivially easy goal differential analysis is a good one, I have argued the same point against Kipper with my friends, but it’s also very blunt, because Kipper didn’t perform at his average .903 for all 2155 shots. After all, we are breaking his performance down naturally, into seasons, games, minutes, situations etc. Why not do it for a better outlook on game-by-game performance? If you don’t want to see those numbers, maybe I only want to look at a career average sv% then. Then it’s even less applicable to our queries.
You also failed to calculate in detail the number of points less the Flames would have if they lost all of the 29 games Kipper had a excellent sv% in vs average. I bet you it’s around 7 points less, so does that mean…sv% actually is meaningless as well? You decide. I’m not going to argue in circles, but I’m not going to write a book with my wnsers to all these questions either.
Suddenly realizing that I may go too far defending goaltenders.
RO, have you heard the expression "Knows more and more about less and less until they know all about nothing"? – this is about specialization and drill-hole analyzing. It’s a hugely costly flaw in problem solving and analysis…for example, where you identify metrics and continually beat your head against those metrics until you determine the only solution is to reset? Start again? lose… millions.
I have not heard of the expression. It doesn’t sound very useful. I have heard of Occam’s razor – all things being equal, the simplest explanation is the best.Mine is the simplest, AND it has more reliable evidence supporting it.
Your formulas that you keep spouting off are fancy, and I’ve seen them before, but it keeps bringing me back to the same request. Please, for the love of god mate, stop going back to the same analysis just for a second. The open mindedness could be freeing.
The GD formula is actually fundamental to the game of hockey. I will keep to my analysis, because, I have told you many times before, I don’t think your analysis is valid. Discarding data points without context is not valid. Trying to draw conclusions from noise is not valid.
So we can continually analyze the situation comparing it against the average goalie, average defense, average numbers, expecteds etc. or we can look more deeply into certain "cherry-picked" data and hypothesize conclusions. It’ll be fun. Now, I have done this and came up with the conclusion of inconsistency – this leads to the question of why?? I tried to write this fanpost, which means nothing to anyone, because we don’t work for the Flames (well, I guess we pay them…so this is a bit off) but anyway, this blog is a fun outlet for passionate fans. I tried to write this so that people may ask the next questions, so I don’t have to. Even IF they are wrong.
I would stop right there at the way you segment your data for analysis. It’s meaningless because you’re just taking the highest scoring games and removing them. That is not reasonable context. Reasonable context might be: a.) injuries; b.) back-to-back games; c.) games with signficant roster changes; d.) meaningful and documented personnel problems (e.g. Giguere’s dad’s death); e.) first vs. second-half (this is more for determining regressions to mean over the season).
Picking high-scoring games without extenuating circumstances (other than some nebulous “Keenan mismanagement” mantra) is cherry-picking data. Picking all the one-goal games Kipper has played in is cherry-picking data! Of course his single-game SV% is going to look better in those games because he let in one goal! But the stat is meaningless and when you look at his puck-stopping rate over more pucks (e.g. the season) you get closer to Kipper’s true performance.
For example. Well, if seven games can change the statistical average of .903% so drastically, call them the cherry-picked outliers
How are they “outliers”? You have to establish the distribution of single-game save% (which I plan to do in a future post) and then define a confidence interval. Then if they fall outside, then you can say they are outliers with so-and-so significance level. You haven’t done that here, at all. You ought to.
Kipper didn’t perform at his average .903 for all 2155 shots
.
No goalie ever does. That’s not even how randomness works, Lawrence. Randomness is never even, otherwise it wouldn’t be random, and it takes a long time to settle out. Especially considering how tiny the sample sizes we are dealing with are and the resolution we are after and the tiny differences we are trying to discern – we are painting with fine brushstrokes.
We have a much worse than statistical average defense
Our defense ranks 12th in SA/60 at evens. That’s better than the median.
After all, we are breaking his performance down naturally, into seasons, games, minutes, situations etc.
Seasons are separated by months of training in the gym instead of playing hockey every 2-3 days. Also they are most affected by roster changes. However I still like multi-season data just because it is a greater sample size.
ES/PP/PK situations are important because they affect the balance of defense and offense, they are natural divisions.
Games are horrible divisions because they represent such small sample sizes relative to the resolution in percentages and differences in SF/SA that we are looking for.
We have a coach, who by your formulas has no role to play in anything
Well the coach might influence SF and SA by virtue of how high-event his systems are. My personal opinion is that coaching has become hugely exaggerated as a difference making factor, but without data I will not stand behind that too strongly.
You also failed to calculate in detail the number of points less the Flames would have if they lost all of the 29 games Kipper had a excellent sv% in vs average. I bet you it’s around 7 points less, so does that mean…sv% actually is meaningless as well? You decide. I’m not going to argue in circles, but I’m not going to write a book with my wnsers to all these questions either.
Why would I bother calculating this in detail? I told you I don’t believe in single-game SV% so I am pretty much going to disregard any and all arguments and points made about it (other than those that debunk its usefulness). Why don’t you tell me, however, what 21 less goals against during the season would mean? That is an unreal improvement in GA and would surely have catapulted us into the league’s top 6.
Wow, the new website has a game by game sorting feature…that makes this much easier and has exposed some potential counting imperfections on my part – but they aren’t huge mistakes.
Kipper won 17 ‘stolen games’ with 1GA or less
of these wins:
14 games he had a sv% of 950% or greater, with one at .947%, 2 @ .944, 1 @ .938
5 of these games were one goal games – undeniably Kipper’s doing, while 4 more 2 goal games.
he won 13 ‘elite games’ and OTL one with 2 GA
of these wins:
11 games he had a sv% of .920% or greater
9 of these games were one goal games – likely Kipper saved the game for the Flames.
he lost two 2GA or less, one with a .929sv%, and one with a .882%
he won 1 and tied two ’excellent games with 3 GA and a sv% of above .920%
1 W @ .921 (38SA), one OTL at .925 (40SA), and one SOW .930 ( 43SA)
So Kipper’s elite goalie record last year was 27W – 1L – 1OTL, where you could go as far to say he won the game, and not the scorers. Keep in mind 16 of those point games were one goal games.
So that’s a sv% + wins record that interests me when talking about how good someone has been. Considering only 16 goalies even won 27 games, I doubt Kipper wouldn’t be in the top 5 in the league in ‘stolen/elite game wins’ (920sv% or better)
How bad or inconsistent was he? Well, enough that he had to balance that impressive list of achievements. So why did it happen is my question? Could it have been prevented? How can we make sure the good Kipper shows up, like the one above and not the bad one?
Suddenly realizing that I may go too far defending goaltenders.
Good breakdown and argument by the way!
It’s controversial, but you’ve given me hope ;)
Kipper can still steal games, and he’s an elite post-season goaltender – but I think with a little more guidance from the staff and a concrete system, and a bigger emphasis on defense he’ll improve.
I wonder if there’s a metric or statistic to find out how many more games we would have won if Bertuzzi chose to A) play defense occasionally B) use his fore-hand shot.
Elite post-season tender? NEIN! He was mediocre to lousy in the last two play-off series. .908 SV% versus SJ and a ghastly .884 SV% against the Blackhawks. The last time he was impressive in the post-season was against Detroit.
He’s elite because not every goaltender is in the playoffs ;)
Even in the 04 run, Kipper would let in 5 then only let in 1 or get a shutout. He steals games in the playoffs, or plays soundly – but is prone to getting lit up….heck, even 7uongo lets in a few from time to time ;)
In my opinion, elite in the post season is measured differently than the regular season. But that’s just an opinion.
Thirded. I don’t really agree with all of Lawrence’s conclusions, but I hope like hell he’s right about a potential bounceback season.
by Robert Cleave on Aug 7, 2009 11:47 PM PDT up reply actions
Oh, have I mentioned that Marcoux would CONSTANTLY lobby in the pressbox to the stats keepers attempting to inflate Kipper’s stats?
True story.
He actually thought his job was safe!
Marcoux said in the same conversation about Phaneuf that his player was ’The highest rated player on the team last year" so that should protected him.
Then he got canned, and texted my buddy “No respect in Sutterland”
Good lord. If this stuff tells us anything, it’s that a coaching shakeup (beyond Keenan) wasn’t out of line at all.
by Robert Cleave on Aug 7, 2009 11:50 PM PDT up reply actions
I agree with lawrence and I’m not a numbers guy at all, the numbers i look at are the most wins, and that he had the most shots against and the most saves.
What about shots not saved and losses???
by R O on Aug 10, 2009 10:02 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
45-31-6
46-30-6
The second number was the Flames record. What’s the first?
by Robert Cleave on Aug 10, 2009 10:12 AM PDT up reply actions
As I’ve said before – a goalie’s primary (and probably only) contribution to wins is stopping pucks. Why don’t people apply the same backwards logic to skaters?
“Well, player X hasn’t scored all season and is -52. But the team is winning, so he must be pretty good!”
by Kent Wilson on Aug 10, 2009 10:48 AM PDT up reply actions
Kent, sorry to say this, and you definitely put forth some excellent arguments as to why we would be just as good off with Budaj as Kipper from the math side of things, but this is not one of your best examples. Cammelleri and Iginla were both -2 last year, yet they scored a collective 74 goals and 171 points and I think it would be tough, even with the likes of Bourque and Moss to say that they were not the Flames best two forwards…maybe not best value or performers vs expectations, but few argue Iginla is not one of top ten in the league, even last year.
However, this could just be again blamed on Kipper. “If Kipper didn’t let in so many damn pucks, and play so crappy at evens then we wouldn’t have any negative +/- players”
I do see that your example says “hasn’t scored all season” as opposed to Iggy and Cammy, but that would be more like saying:
“Kipper hasn’t had a sv% above .905 in any game this season, and finished with an average .903% yet the team won 46 times and he 45 wins…he must be pretty damn good” – False, and a terrible goaltender.
vs
“Kipper had Elite sv% numbers for 27wins – 1 loss and 1OTL in 29 games this season, where the Flames may not have won any of those 16 one goal games without such great goaltending (regardless of the name on the back of the jersey). It’s unfortunate, however, that consistency was not there and that we got blown out so many times, with Kipper having a terrible sv% which brought his seasons statistical average down to a poor number – .903%. He was very good, and he was very bad, but he wasn’t only bad. Can we open our minds to consider other reasons that may be plausible for these poor performances, without just spouting off formulas and numbers that we all know as if we are programming for an EA Sports game, so as to find a way to ensure it doesn’t repeat in 09-10?” – True, and a questionable goaltender going forward.
Suddenly realizing that I may go too far defending goaltenders.
Call me crazy, Lawrence, but I’m pretty sure the mark of the best in any field isn’t the occasional application of talent, but the consistent application thereof. I used to joke that Igor Ulanov was a great defenceman 40 games, dreadful the other 40, and his problem was that he never found a coach that knew when to sit him out ;). When a goalie is poor, that becomes a much more acute problem for a team, since it very often kills off the chances of a team winning, regardless of the efforts of the other 18 players.
Oh, and since no one answered my cryptic little question up top, 45-31-6 was the Flames’ out-shoot/out-shot by number for 08/09. Note the striking resemblance to the record in the standings. One other thing, there has been some talk of stealing games. I take a different approach. In the games where the Flames were out-shot, their record was 14-13-4. Sounds OK, right? Unfortunately, it was 14th best of the playoff teams and 17th best overall in terms of winning %. If you want to make an argument about a team stealing games with goaltending, take a look at Boston. They won 32 of 43 games when they were out-shot. That’s stealing.
by Robert Cleave on Aug 10, 2009 1:15 PM PDT up reply actions
Call me crazy, Lawrence, but I’m pretty sure the mark of the best in any field isn’t the occasional application of talent, but the consistent application thereof.
Robert, I agree entirely with what you have said, and would like to add that my problem with Kipper last season was consistency. I do not think Kipper was a great goalie last season, but I don’t think he was worse than average either. I’m not ready to base my argument entirely on one stat whether it be wins, which says he’s great of sv% which says he sucks. I think people have been confused thinking that I am trying to prove Kipper was great/elite last season. I’m not – he was not great/elite. But neither was Phanuef, Iggy, Cammy, or most of the team…but for some reason they get bailed out. Kipper just gets hung.
One other thing, there has been some talk of stealing games. I take a different approach. In the games where the Flames were out-shot, their record was 14-13-4. Sounds OK, right? Unfortunately, it was 14th best of the playoff teams and 17th best overall in terms of winning %. If you want to make an argument about a team stealing games with goaltending, take a look at Boston. They won 32 of 43 games when they were out-shot. That’s stealing.
Again, I totally and wholeheartedly agree for three reasons. 1. Boston had very good goalkeeping. 2. Boston was a very good team. 3. Boston was very well coached. All of these will contribute to that success.
The idea that shot quality makes no difference, that there is no difference in team aspects that support goalies is something I will never be on board with. Quite simply it’s voodoo math bunk. Otherwise the whole ‘dead-puck era’ has little to do with coaching/styles of play/teams and only to do with a sudden and very drastic evolution of the Goaltender. This is about as narrow minded as cycling, where suddenly ever cyclist just got waaaaaayyyy faster and for years people said, “they’re just better, look at the numbers, they don’t dope, they are just much better athletes.”
There is a very good reason why very defensive teams have very good goaltenders and that cannot only be represented by a shots against number, or the equation:
You win the game if goal differential > 0, lose if GD < 0.
GD = ( Shot % ) * ( Shots For ) – ( Save % ) * ( Shots Against )
If it could, it means that about 50 years ago, goalies started to evolve into super athletes, and then, they slowly started to un-evolve hitting a low in the 80’s and then they evolved to super elite again during the dead-puck era, because we certainly didn’t see that fluctuation fully represented in Shots Against. No, the style of the game changed….wait….isn’t that what Regher said about Keenan…he was out-of-date? I’m sure that somehow affected Kipper. Wait, nope, Goalie’s are not affected by team dynamics, they are all alone.
You’re bang on Robert. Thomas was so good because Boston was so good. He’s a good goalie elsewhere, but the team has something to do with that regardless of what other blogs may write discounting this. Otherwise, I really should have played goal in the 80’s, would have been easy to make the bigs, cause they all sucked.
Suddenly realizing that I may go too far defending goaltenders.
I guess my response to the team stuff is that Florida must have played a stellar team game to have their goalies end up with those SV%, right? The problem is that no evidence of that exists. I think we’re at the “agree to disagree” point here, Lawrence, so it’s best I move on, but thanks for posting this to spark the discussion. I’d suspect we both agree that playing Kiprusoff less can’t hurt, and if he’s not better(more consistent or however we want to measure it), the Flames will have a difficult decision to make next summer. Thanks again.
by Robert Cleave on Aug 10, 2009 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions
I would say it was all of these things…very excellent years by those goalies, who were likely supported excellently, but I haven’t looked closer at it. Although they didn’t make the playoffs, it doesn’t have to be expected that they couldn’t play a solid defensive game. I do know that they allowed many shots against/game, but I’ll leave that alone in honor of agreeing to disagree.
I am happy that the post got a number of passionate responses and it definitely is a contentious subject, as is always the case with goalies. It’s easy to see how critical the position is and how desired continuously great performances are. It’s a tough racket.
Yes, I think we can all agree that playing Kipper less would be good for him and the team, that the additional stability we are hoping to see from the new additions and coaches shouldn’t hurt him, and although we expect to see an improvement he may not. Yes, if not, it’s going to be a tough off season next year for Flames fans and management.
I propose a toast to Leland Irving: If you arrive in Calgary to stay, you start well from the first day, and can keep it up, cause the days are long when we don’t have the cup.
Suddenly realizing that I may go too far defending goaltenders.
Lawrence said…
“Kipper had Elite sv% numbers for 27wins – 1 loss and 1OTL in 29 games this season”
Lawrence, why are you still using single-game SV% in your arguments? It is a statistic with horrible resolution, it is meant to be averaged!
Lawrence said…
“Can we open our minds to consider other reasons that may be plausible for these poor performances, without just spouting off formulas and numbers that we all know as if we are programming for an EA Sports game, so as to find a way to ensure it doesn’t repeat in 09-10?”
Yikes. The GD win formula is fundamental to hockey. Its components are fundamental to hockey analysis. You yourself are even using the SV% compnent (albeit in an incorrect manner). Why are you trying to demean it? It’s not helping you make your point at all.
by R O on Aug 10, 2009 4:14 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
RO, you may want to read more carefully, both responses and comments. We’ve let it go, agreed to disagree. You’ve maybe taken to it a bit personally, but it’s done.
Suddenly realizing that I may go too far defending goaltenders.
Two points Lawrence:
1.) When the expression “agree to disagree” is colloquially used, it usually refers to two persons, both of whom taking up reasonable positions, and perhaps even acknowledging that the other has taken up a reasonable position, and coming to the conclusion that they cannot come to an agreeable compromise.
In this case, I don’t think your position is reasonable at all. You are engaging in two no-no’s: a.) intentionally introducing a selection bias to improve your argument (the seven game removal), and b.) taking a quantity that is nine parts noise and one part signal (single-game SV%) and treating it as ten parts signal for the enhancement of your argument.
Moreover, you were the original poster of this idea, you presented it to us for consumption. You should know that it is therefore open to criticism and debate, and you are responsible for defending your idea.
2.) I’m not sure I’ve taken to this argument personally, unless you are referring to the thoroughness of the manner I am disagreeing with you. Regardless, you might want to review your own debating tactics: e.g. “that is ridiculous”, “voodoo math punk”, “spouting off formulas from EA”, etc. etc., not to mention the repeated hyperboles and strawmans. None of this offends me, but don’t be surprised at the extent at which I and others have gone to dissect and dispute this idea.
All of this is to say, I don’t “agree to disagree”. I just plain disagree.
I have agreed to disagree because that concept was put forth by Robert, and I thought that it was a timely suggestion, so I opted for that. I have little problem having a discussion, and welcome one that is very thorough, I do however prefer an open discussion as opposed to a yelling match where the points of the previous post are either not read, or entirely disregarded.
It has been pointed out to me that no amount of posting or debating in any form is going to change opinion, so perhaps, if the idea of this forum is to just yell a perspective (that Kipper sucks, over and over again with little desire to explore other ideas from that for sake of discussion), then perhaps I need not defend them my ideas at all, and then perhaps the colloquial use of agree to disagree is again timely and just a way of saying….ok guys, lets move on.
Also, telling me that I do or don’t know how to use a calculation is a direct attack at me, whereas me saying that a specific calculation and reasoning is voodoo math ’b’unk, I did not call you a voodoo math punk, is a way of discounting a methodology that I don’t agree with, yes in a perhaps extreme way, but I haven’t said that this person doesn’t know how to use maths.
And to address the fact that I don’t know how to utilize sv%, it’s interesting to me that you feel able to be the final word on what duration of games is the appropriate measure of time. I’m not sure I remember the last time someone said wow 4-1, one goalie had a great game 36saves on 37shots – .973% and the other a terrible game 14saves on 18 shots -.778 save percent and his friend said, well let’s wait until the end of the season to make any judgments on those guys. As well, RO, if you do recall, you introduced as part of your arguement the GD win formula as part of your argument, which takes into account game sv% doesn’t it? Or do I not know how to use that formula as well? The fact is that there is no period of time more appropriate than the one you want to examine. If I want to know Kipper’s sv% over the year, I look at the average, if I want to know it game by game, I figure it out. Over 4 years, the same.
Now, if you and one or two others who frequently post on the blog want to continue to use the work of CG and Vic as your points of departure that’s fine, we don’t all have to agree with it. If I would like to discuss, other ideas separate from those opinions here, then so be it. Please understand, that I do not agree with the dismissal of Shot Quality simply based on anectodal evidence alone which is compelling enough without getting into numbers. It’s hard to say Al MacInnis didn’t score his goals because he had the same quality of shot as any other defenseman, or that new sticks don’t change those dynamics, or any other myriad of contributors discounted in isolation don’t have an effect on a shot quality dynamic, which taken over time and with a quality could be measured, but it doesn’t exist. I don’t agree with the idea that there are no team effects for a number of reasons, but I’m not going to spend hours and hours of my life trying to prove these points. As well, it takes us on tangents away from my point anyway and then we argue all over the map, because you fail to address my points and I disregard yours because of this. Therefore we disagree, over and over again. We will continue to disagree. It seems pointless to me to continue the discussion if I am also told and see that you won’t eve listen, and no amount of discussion will change anything.
So I disagree as well. Yes, I put this post out there, and I will put many more out there likely, and out of respect to the respondents I should have to defend my idea, but only mine. It’s also out of respect to the poster that you should address his idea, with an open mind, because I don’t have time to argue every idea on goaltending in the blogosphere. So, let’s just plainly disagree, because we sure as heck don’t agree with one another.
Suddenly realizing that I may go too far defending goaltenders.
The, A, My conclusion
Having started this thread, and now looking back, I can see that I made a hugely fatal flaw. That flaw was to assume that I could debate Miikka Kiprusoff’s performance without first ensuring we are all on the same page re: goaltending.
There are two camps on the internet. Well, in reality there are probably millions of differing ideas about goaltending out there but I would like to focus on two:
Those who believe very fervently that goalies do not win games, they only lose games. This is best shown in the GD formula, isolating sv% and has a huge statistical body of knowledge to support it. It is a very very sound argument, that if I understand correctly and hopefully do not misrepresent goes like this:
Goalies have one function, to stop pucks, they don’t score, they don’t check, they only stop pucks. Therefor they cannot, outside of very limited easily disregarded tasks like puckhandling, assist the game in getting to a goal, they only prevent goals. Since, goals are required to win, and goalies do not assist with goals, they only prevent the team from losing, therefore wins are a team stat and losses are a goalie stat best measured by sv%. The best example of this is saying: If the Flames never score trying to protect Kipper, the game will end 0-0 which is a tie and will force the game into a shootout where there is greater likelihood of a loss. Therefore to win you must score. Let’s call this group the Goaltender critic.
Then, there are those who believe that goalies are more or as responsible for wins as losses. This view is often very challenging to the statistical critic because it seems to conflict against the goal differential formula and considers a series of outliers, variables and concepts that quite frankly are difficult if not impossible to measure, therefore they are often dismissed. This argument is potentially less sound, and comes across as fanatical, apologetic and liberal which goes something like this:
Own team goalies cannot do anything that puts their scoring teammates at a deficit to reaching success (i.e. scoring goals). The goalie can merely do there job, preventing goals which is measured from perfection down, as opposed to scoring. Whereas, defenders have the primary task, and scorers the support task, of preventing goals just as the goalie and can fail to do many tasks which put their goaltenders in a position of reduced likelihood of success. The basic idea is that a goal is a team failure or a systems failure. The best example of this is saying: If the Flames never allowed a shot by protecting Kipper, the game will end in a shutout for the Flames which ensures at least a 0-0 tie where the game will be forced to a shootout. In this case the team with the best scorers and goaltender will win. Therefore, every shot is a skater failure and every goal a goalie failure, every loss a team or systems failure. The difference is, the goalie, who can not interrupt the success trend of forwards and defenseman (in scoring) can interrupt the failure trend by preventing a goal and further ensuring success (or a win) Let’s call this group the goaltender apologists.
Goaltender apologists argue from a systems perspective claiming that both wins and losses are team based, and will often use the idea of shot quality – that a flip in from outside the blueline is a more difficult save than a deflected shot or an Alexander Ovechkin breakaway, but there are debatable models on the internet that show shot quality is no more varied than luck even though shooout sv% is much lower than regular sv% across the board and that indicates toward a greater percent of scoring in a given situation. Or in other words a higher quality shot. The problem with shot quality in both instances is it is damn difficult to measure.
An analogy for the disagreement between the two camps is economics and poverty where an economist cannot measure the contribution to society that the poor make, whereas he can measure the deficit. Since the contribution is assumed at zero and the deficit a much larger number, the economist concludes that society as a whole would benefit if the poor were dead. Whereas, the apologist will quickly site countries in Latin America as an example, where the poverty is widespread and some of the most creative socio-political achievements and human stories are being created and lived daily. That out of this poverty comes massive creativity because they are not dead, they are very alive. However, the debate rages on because of the difficulty in measuring the positive effects of the poor and the conflicting drill-hole vs systems mental models.
Now the critics and apologists are opposed in their understanding of goaltending as opposed to poverty, but the result is the same the polarized metal model of the critic, who believes goalies only lose and the apologist who believes the goalie wins and loses with the team in front of him. If debating a goalie in question, whether it be Kipper, Thomas or Raycroft it’s best to be clear who are apologists and who are critics because no progress will be made if you are busy debating from different mental models about the fundamentals of goaltending itself. And the debate will rage on.
My mistake for not realizing this sooner.
Suddenly realizing that I may go too far defending goaltenders.
Nice post Lawrence. I assume that you would count yourself in the “apologist” camp?
I think you might be misrepresenting the “critic” camp though. It is true that there is a faction (of which I am a part) that believes goalies only contribute via the SV%. However this does not mean that goalies only lose games – our perspective is only colored by the fact that we follow a territorially dominant team like the Flames. Let’s say we were fans of different teams, for instance:
1.) Let’s say we were Vancouver fans instead. That team is very nearly even at shots +/- at ES. All things being equal (e.g. assuming average shooting % over the season), Luongo is indeed the primary difference maker as he holds the ability to tip the % scale in the favor of the Canucks. You might even be justified in giving him primary credit for BOTH wins and losses.
2.) Let’s say we were Florida fans instead. They get outshot by almost 6 shots per 60 minutes ES time. All things being equal (e.g. assuming average shooting % over the season), Vokoun and Anderson had the ability to singlehandedly win more games than the Panthers were entitled to, via their amazing SV%. However it is hard to put the blame on them entirely when the team loses, as the skaters are responsible for spending too much time in their end of the ice. Which is not to say that Vokoun and Anderson aren’t to blame! But they are not the only ones.
3.) Let’s go back to Calgary now. We outshoot by exactly 4 shots per 60 ES minutes – we spend a lot of time in the good end of the ice. All things being equal (e.g. assuming average shooting % over the season), Kipper has the ability to singlehandedly lose us games via his awful SV%. However it is hard to credit him entirely when the Flames win as the skaters are spending so much less time in the band end of the ice. Which is not to say that Kipper doesn’t deserve some credit! Or that we shouldn’t expect top 5 SV% from him (we should, because we’re paying him for that). It’s just that he is not the only one deserving of credit when the team wins.
To summarize this a bit:
- On teams whose skaters play the opposition to even, all other things being equal: goaltender becomes primary difference maker for both winning and losing seasons.
- On teams whose skaters get outchanced, all other things being equal: goaltending becomes primary difference maker for a winning season. A losing season can be attributed to skaters for sure, and depending on how goaltending performs (measured by SV%) they can get blamed as well.
- On teams whose skater outchance the opp, all other things being equal: goaltending becomes primary difference maker for a losing season. A winning season can e attributed to skaters for sure, and depending on how goaltending performs (measured by SV%) they can get credit as well.
And I say all that with the acknowledgment that I am painting with a rather large brush, and that it is very simple and a lot of details get wiped away by this type of thinking. But we are looking for the forest here, and a lot of analysis done by people smarter than myself is pointing to this as the right path.
Also, the bit about shot quality that you talk about. My position is not that the team doesn’t affect shot quality – clearly that is not the case as the job of team defence is to minimize scoring chances. My position is that, the difference in how different NHL teams affect shot quality is nearly inseparable from random chance. The conclusion that follows is that whatever positive difference is impacted by a team, if it even exists, is not worth worrying about because it is so small that it gets drowned out by noise. So instead of the metaphor that you present:
“we can’t measure the positive contributions to society of poor people, therefore ignore them”
it’s more like:
“the positive contributions to society that we attribute to poor people look very nearly like the positive contributions that would come from any random collection of people. Therefore, can we really attribute it to the fact that these people are poor?”
All this is to say, I agree there’s two camps regarding goaltending (and hockey analysis in general). But I probably characterize them as “replacement/relative value thinkers” vs. “absolute value thinkers” rather than “critics” and “apologists”. Neither camp views any component of hockey as unaffected by team on an absolute level. It’s just that the absolute thinkers look at this absolute level as the end-all be-all, while the relative thinkers look at the marginal differences between teams (or individuals at the same position, etc.) as the end-all be-all.
Sorry, I have re-read your post, noticing I mis-read it, and see that you are replacing my analogy for the critics/relative value with yours, which I being an apologist would and do disagree with. I would break things down into more absolute values trying to disprove your similarities within the random population argument (such as trying to prove free graffiti sells more high priced art to a greater number than more pedestrian art sells more high priced art, maybe not the greatest example) like I have done with Kipper’s game-by-game sv%, which you would see as dubious. Although, my elaboration below would still apply, and why we will disagree eternally because of the differing mental models regarding goalkeeping.
D for 3 and now goal for 21 years, of course I'm a goaltender apologist.
of course that should say “that a flip in from outside the blueline is a less difficult save than a deflected shot or an Alexander Ovechkin breakaway,”
I’m with you RO, except for the metaphor, because the “poor are dead, because they don’t contribute to the economy” is the critical/economic analysis, like “goalies don’t win games because they don’t contribute to scoring”
whereas
the apologist/leftist camp will say, that although the poor seem to make no direct effect on the economy, the immeasurable systems dynamics and creative energy introduced into ‘living’ economy from the ‘dead’ economy benefits the economy as a whole and does not burden it as conventionally thought and measured.
This is akin to "Goalies win games because they are a systems fail safe. When the forwards and defenseman fail, the goalie bails them out (or doesn’t at a given success rate sv%), and the severity in which the system fails will affect the success rate of the goalie at some level (Why we made a coaching change). This could be in part very adequately represented by a shot quality metric (which no agreed upon rigorous methodology exists) and attempts to gauge at what level systems have failed (team effects) because the apologist will argue that not all shots/defenses/systems are created equally, and not all opponents are created equally either (goalie quality comp).
D for 3 and now goal for 21 years, of course I'm a goaltender apologist.
Congrats on the most commented on Fanshot in this site’s existence Lawrence!
It’s going to be very interesting to see what happens with Kipper this year, one way or another.
Thanks Kent, Perhaps my viewpoints are not totally sound to some and I’ve got a lot to learn, but if nothing else, they get a lot of attention. I’m looking forward to the season, but, hell, I do every year, and I hope Kipper and McElhinney prove all of us wrong, and can do some goaltending that is over all of our expectations.
D for 3 and now goal for 21 years, of course I'm a goaltender apologist.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Matchsticks and Gasoline
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Flames Schedule
Last 5 Games
Anaheim
|
Sat 04/07 | W 5 - 2 |
|
Vancouver
|
Thu 04/05 | W 3 - 2 |
|
@
Vancouver
|
Sat 03/31 | OT - L 2 - 3 |
|
Colorado
|
Fri 03/30 | L 1 - 4 |
|
Los Angeles
|
Wed 03/28 | L 0 - 3 |
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Jersey Fouls: Penner Pancakes; Attack of the FrankenJerseys; Winnipeg’s beer tribute
- Marek Vs. Wyshynski Radio: LA Kings juggernaut; Oilers coaching scenario; Game Show Friday!
- Will Mike Green return to the Washington Capitals?
- Jamaica’s Winter Olympic ice hockey dream bolstered by IIHF acceptance
- Penalties in 2012 Stanley Cup Playoffs: Who’s drawing them, and who’s taking them?
Latest stories and headlines from NHL.com
- Hejduk staying with Avalanche
- King, Quick lead LA Kings to brink of Cup final with 2-1 win over Coyotes in Game 3
- King, Quick lead LA Kings to brink of Cup final with 2-1 win over Coyotes in Game 3
- King, Quick lead Kings to brink of Cup final with 2-1 win over Coyotes in Game 3
- Milano takes over NHL's Twitter feed for Game 3
