clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Joni Ortio - What to expect next year and onward

New, comment

Projections for the Flames prospect goalie next year and onward

Probably not good, but serviceable.
Probably not good, but serviceable.
Sergei Belski-USA TODAY Sports

Joni Ortio is coming off of a year where he was probably the Calgary Flames best goalie.  If he wasn't the best, he was neck and neck with Karri Ramo.  Unfortunately for the Flames, that still wasn't very good.  Of all goalies that played in ten games or more, Ortio finished 45th out of 69 goalies in adjusted even strength save percentage.

Performances like that scream NHL backup, though some feel as if there is still some untapped potential there.  Others site his performances both this year and in previous years and don't expect much from the young netminder.  What should the Flames expect?

Previous Studies

Looking at a previous study from Eric Tulsky, the method to look at a goalie's performance over the next season and next three seasons is relatively simple.  Merely weight the saves in year one at ten percent, the saves in year two at 50 percent, the saves in year three at 70 percent, and the saves in year four at 100 percent and it results in some decent, but not great confidence at what a goalie's save percentage might look like.  In the case of Ortio at even strength, this results in a.9115 save percentage at even strength for next year.  Considering that the average of the top 60 goalies in minutes played had a .9255 save percentage at even strength, that isn't very high.  Even goalies that ranked 31st to 60th in minutes played (backups) averaged .9204 at even strength.

This would leave Ortio with a relatively small sample size to go on, however.  In order to get a more accurate reading, the numbers from the AHL should be included.  This study by Stephan Cooper shows what to expect from the AHL to NHL level.  Unfortunately, the AHL level only includes save percentage and not even strength save percentage.  This opens the goalie up to bias as some teams might take 24 minutes in penalties a game while others might take 12.  Goalies stuck facing more power play shots will naturally see a lower save percentage.

Using AHL Statistics to Estimate EVSV%

Statistics for the AHL are generally pretty abhorrent.  The statistics that were most helpful on an individual basis came out to time on ice, saves, save percentages.  The save percentage can be used to come up with the shooting percentage against, which then can be used to calculate the shots against.

From there, team statistics were used.  The most pertinent statistics were power play goals against and time on ice.  The power play goals against divided by the team's time on ice multiplied by the player's time on ice gave an approximate representation of what to expect for an individual player.

From there, NHL data from Corsica was used to estimate what a player's penalty kill save percentage was given their total save percentage.  The formula came out to total save percentage multiplied by .961.  From there, the shooting percentage against was estimated and divided into the estimated number of goals against.

This gave an estimated number of goals against on the penalty kill and an estimated number of shots against on the penalty kill.  That subtracted from the total saves against and the total goals against gave the estimated even strength goals against and the estimated even strength saves.  That obviously gave the estimated even strength save percentage.

This was calculated on NHL goalies with over 1000 shots over the course of a season and compared to their actual EVSV%.  Three years of data was used coming out to a sample size of 98 players.  The linear estimation gave an R-squared value of .738, explaining roughly 50 percent of the standard deviation.

For Ortio, these calculations weren't the kindest.  After the adjustments, that came out to an expected save percentage of around .9112 at the NHL level.  With the AHL numbers weighted at 50 percent and compared to the NHL ones, that comes out to .9114.  With both weighted evenly, that came out to about .9113.

Shots Saves Save Percentage
Name 13 14 14 15 15 16 Proj 13 14 14 15 15 16 Proj 13 14 14 15 15 16 Proj
Joni Ortio - NHL 159 127 460 628.4 140 114 423 572.8 0.8805 0.8976 0.9196 0.9115
Joni Ortio - AHL 898 863.5 463.1 1516.5 834.4 788.8 412.5 1381.8 0.9292 0.9136 0.8907 0.9112
Joni Ortio - NHL + 50% AHL 608 558.7 691.5 1386.6 557.2 508.4 629.2 1263.7 0.9165 0.9099 0.9099 0.9114
Joni Ortio - NHL + 100% AHL 1057 990.5 923.1 2144.9 974.4 902.8 835.5 1954.6 0.9219 0.9115 0.9051 0.9113

Marcel Adjustments

This is just the raw data and doesn't project any regression or development.  Marcel projections by Garik give a good means of adjusting that, but they factor for save percentage rather than even strength save percentage.  Additional calculations need to be performed to adjust for even strength.

Year-to-year projections were performed.  Shots and saves from year to year were evenly weighted for each goalie dating back to 2004.  Individuals with less than 300 shots were excluded from the study.  The data from the now-defuct War-On-Ice looks something like this.

Goalie Regression

The actual formula is -6.31453E-05x^2+0.003456962x+0.878986242, where x=age

The averages then had to be adjusted for increasing save percentages throughout the years.  This gave the number which would be weighted into the the Marcel formula.  The adjustments look something like this.

Age Save Percentage
21 0.9237
22 0.9245
23 0.9251
24 0.9256
25 0.9259
26 0.9262
27 0.9263
28 0.9263
29 0.9261
30 0.9259
31 0.9255
32 0.9249
33 0.9243
34 0.9235
35 0.9226
36 0.9216
37 0.9204
38 0.9192
39 0.9178
40 0.9162
41 0.9146
42 0.9128
43 0.9109
44 0.9088
45 0.9067
46 0.9044
47 0.902
48 0.8994
49 0.8968
50 0.894

Given that Ortio will be 25 next year, that meant that roughly 1411 saves and 1525 shots had to be added in to Ortio's numbers.  With that added in, Ortio's projections look considerably better.  Based on the NHL sample alone, he likely stands to be an above average backup albeit with a great amount of regression.  With the AHL samples included, they're still a little lackluster.

Shots Saves Save Percentage
Name 13 14 14 15 15 16 Proj 13 14 14 15 15 16 Proj 13 14 14 15 15 16 Proj
Joni Ortio - NHL 159 127 460 2153.4 140 114 423 1984.9 0.8805 0.8976 0.9196 0.9217
Joni Ortio - AHL 898 863.5 463.1 3041.5 834.4 788.8 412.5 2793.9 0.9292 0.9136 0.8907 0.9186
Joni Ortio - NHL + 50% AHL 608 558.7 691.5 2911.6 557.2 508.4 629.2 2675.8 0.9165 0.9099 0.9099 0.919
Joni Ortio - NHL + 100% AHL 1057 990.5 923.1 3669.9 974.4 902.8 835.5 3366.7 0.9219 0.9115 0.9051 0.9174

League Comparisons

Using the sample size and the save percentage, the margin of error can be calculated.  The margin of error at a 95 percent confidence level comes out to 0.0113 for the NHL sample size, 0.0097 for the AHL Sample size, 0.0099 for the NHL sample size plus 50 percent of the AHL sample size, and 0.0089 given the NHL sample size plus the AHL sample size.  From there, bell curves can be developed to compare Ortio's chances to the rest of the league this year which looks something like this.

Ortio1YrCorrect

The yellow curve is likely the most accurate. In table form it looks something like this. The middle column is bold as it should be the most accurate of the three statistics.

That's still okay for a backup, but only if they can keep the cost on him down.

Chances Above...
Joni Ortio: NHL Only Joni Ortio: NHL +50% AHL Joni Ortio NHL: +100% AHL
Average 31-60 TOI (Backup)
54.51% 44.17% 36.56%
Average Top 60 (NHL Goalie)
36.83% 25.42% 17.98%
Average Top 30 (Starter)
28.89% 18.05% 11.57%
Worst Backup (Jonas Hiller) 98.98% 99.12% 99.31%
Worst Starter (Kari Lehtonen) 86.83% 84.22% 82.54%
Best Backup (Andrew Hammond) 4.86% 1.48% .47%
Best Starter (James Reimer) 5.72% 1.86% .62%

From that data, Ortio doesn't stand to be an average backup goalie in the NHL next year, though he certainly doesn't project to be the worst either.  If he finishes where he projects to come out, then he might be worth the short term investment.  It all depends on how much extra a proven backup goalie costs.  Ortio at 35 games facing 25 even strength shots per game would only yield an additional 1.125 goals against at even strength.  If he costs the Flames 650 thousand and a more proven backup comes out to a million, then it isn't worth it to spend the extra 350 thousand for that minuscule of a difference even if Ortio does slightly sub-par in the backup role.

Beyond Next Year

Evaluating the numbers beyond next year are easy enough - Just go back to Tulsky's methodology and switch to 100-60-50-30 and switch the Marcel regression to a third in the plus one year, a third in the plus two year, and a third in the plus three year.  With that said, it doesn't change the projections much and Ortio still still stands to be below average even for a backup.

OrtioThreeYear

He still could potentially be a somewhat serviceable backup, but they would have to keep the cost down or they would be better off going in a different direction.  The chances of developing into a starter are somewhat thin, but with the sample size there is certainly a chance to develop into more.  Again though, it's incredibly unlikely.

Joni Ortio: NHL Only Joni Ortio: NHL +50% AHL Joni Ortio NHL: +100% AHL
Average 31-60 TOI 55.49% 45.33% 37.75%
Average Top 60 37.79% 26.51% 19.00%
Average Top 30 29.77% 19.00% 12.41%
Worst Backup (Jonas Hiller) 99.03% 99.15% 99.31%
Worst Starter (Kari Lehtonen) 87.32% 84.70% 82.95%
Best Backup (Andrew Hammond) 5.14% 1.66% .55%
Best Starter (James Reimer) 6.03% 2.07% .73%

In Summation

Fans shouldn't expect too much from Ortio going forward, but goalies are open to random positive or negative swings.  This doesn't make him more or less worth holding onto as this is true with every goalie.  Committing to him short term is probably for the best particularly given the Flames cap situation.  Beyond that, there are probably better options in the pipeline.