Can Defencemen Affect Save % (in other words, does Toskala have an excuse?)
I have long been aggravated by references to Toronto's supposedly terrible defence post-lockout. People look at goals against, see a very large number, and automatically conclude the defence is terrible. Left out, of course, is that the Leafs have received historically bad goaltending, at least according to save percentages. Advanced hockey analytics have taught us that given the relatively narrow band of NHL shooting talent, for the most part shots for and against are the best predictor of future success. The Leafs have been merely mediocre at preventing shots post-lockout (rank for the past five years: 22nd, 7th, 17th, 17th, 13th); they meanwhile they are perennial bottom dwellers in goals against.
But is there more to it? Is it possible that while the Leafs may not give up an unusual number of shots, we do give up an unusually high quality of shots? That's the question I'm going to tackle here. The bad news is, the evidence suggests that the answer is yes.
First of all, I have to acknowledge that others have ploughed this ground to some extent already. Way back in 2004, pioneering stat guru Alan Ryder published this paper which found that shot quality allowed could account for a +/- 19 goals allowed swing over an entire year (note the Leafs of '02-'03 were actually 5th best in the league in this metric). More recently, Gabe Desjardins at www.behindthenet.caand SBNation's www.behindthenethockey.ca has come up with a metric called "expected save percentage", and friend of the blog James Mirtle wrote about it while running From the Rink, here(not surprisingly, in '08-'09 the Leafs did give up better than average scoring chances, but so did teams like the Wings according to this metric). Basically, the lower the expSv%, the better quality chances you were giving up. This work suggests that yes, Vesa Toskala did have a bit of an excuse, but he was still horrendous.
I wanted to look at things a little differently though. Could the measures described above just be a function of luck? Is there a skill to allowing lower quality shots, not just preventing shots in general? One measure is to look at a stat called on-ice save percentage (sv%on), which measures the save percentage recorded by the team's goalies when a particular player is on the ice. Obviously there are a number of confounding variables here: quality of teammates, quality of competition, and quality of goaltending being the most obvious. But perhaps there is something to be learned.
I therefore decided to look at the difference between a player's sv%on and the team's overall save percentage, and do so over a three year period. If a player consistently outperforms his teammates, perhaps that tells us something. If results vary wildly year-to-year, perhaps it's more a function of luck.
I should note at the outset that I have not eliminated confounding variables. Even if sv%on is a repeatable skill, the data will be skewed by quality of teammates and competition. So consider this a starting point--a way to determine whether there's actually anything there to study. Perhaps someone with a more statistical bent can take things further.
Before the results, let me give a quick summary of my methodology. First, I decided to focus on defencemen because I thought they were much more likely to have an effect on shot quality than forward. Second, I don't have the computer programming skills to run data on all NHL defenders. I therefore looked at the Top 20 defenders in 5 on 5 ice time for '07-'08, and tracked them through to last year. Finally, I took sv%on figures from 5v5 figures available at www.behindthenethockey.ca. I then compared it to team save percentages from www.nhl.com. Note this means I am, to some extent, comparing apples to oranges. Individual players' sv%on is measured 5v5; team sv% are measured in all scenarios, and was calculated by simply dividing goals by shots, thus including things like empty netters and shootout goals. Since I am only looking at the comparative difference between individual and team sv%, and not absolute numbers, hopefully these factors do not have too much impact.
Here are the combined results for the three years starting in '07-'08 (higher numbers are better, and reflect a greater difference between the teams' 5v5 save percentage when the player is on the ice compared to the team's save percentage overall):
| RADEK MARTINEK | 72 |
| NICKLAS LIDSTROM | 60 |
| SHANE O'BRIEN | 57 |
| BRIAN RAFALSKI | 55 |
| ADAM FOOTE | 48 |
| MIKE GREEN | 45 |
| SCOTT HANNAN | 40 |
| WILLIE MITCHELL | 38 |
| KIM JOHNSSON | 32 |
| CHRIS PHILLIPS | 30 |
| DUNCAN KEITH | 26 |
| FRANCOIS BEAUCHEMIN | 24 |
| ROMAN HAMRLIK | 23 |
| TOMAS KABERLE | 21 |
| ZDENO CHARA | 20 |
| RUSLAN SALEI | 18 |
| DENNIS WIDEMAN | 18 |
| JONI PITKANEN | 16 |
| JAY BOUWMEESTER | 14 |
| DION PHANEUF* | 14 |
| ZBYNEK MICHALEK | 13 |
| STEVE STAIOS | 12 |
| MICHAL ROZSIVAL | 8 |
| FILIP KUBA | 0 |
| JACK JOHNSON | -5 |
| PAUL RANGER | -26 |
| ERIC BREWER | -32 |
*Note for Phaneuf I had to manually calculate team sv%on for last year given the mid-year trade. I think this issue also affects one of Kuba's years but I'm too lazy to do another manual year.
So some predictable results, and some surprises. Falling in the predictable category: Nik Lidstrom is really, really good. Also predictably impressive are the likes of Rafalski, Foote, Hannan and Mitchell. I don't think it should surprise anyone to see Brewer, Ranger, Johnson and Kuba at the bottom (keeping in mind we're only looking at guys who, at least as of '07-'08, were big minute players).
There are also some surprises, but I think most of them are explainable. For Leafs fans, it's noteworthy that Kaberle almost matches Beauchemin, and easily outpaces Phaneuf. Remember, however, that it's a relative stat. Phaneuf and Beauchemin played on defensively strong teams in Anaheim and Calgary, making it harder to exceed the team average (which makes Lidstrom that much more impressive). That also explains why a guy like Martinek does so well playing for the putrid Islanders.
Bouwmeester surprised me--he played mostly for weak Florida teams, so perhaps Michael Peca is really on to something about the "easy to play against" angle. Shane O'Brien also surprised me--Karina may have some insights here.
I wouldn't read too much into these figures, but they do suggest that individuals can have a material effect on shot quality, not just quantity. And that means if the Leafs have another year of putrid goaltending maybe we really do need to reconsider whether our "great on paper" defence is really so great.
PensionPlanPuppets.com is a fan community that allows members to post their own thoughts and opinions on the Toronto Maple Leafs and hockey in general. These views and thoughts may not be shared by the editor of PensionPlanPuppets.com.
74 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
My guess on SOB is that his numbers may be skewed by his year in Tampa, maybe?
Anyways, really great work here…
"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky
by Karina on Oct 5, 2010 12:55 PM EDT reply actions
He’s hard to read. He went +30 (with Tampa), +3 and +23. So a predictably good showing in Tampa, and then two wildly divergent years in Vancouver.
And now off to Nashville!
"That’s why stats are so important – anecdotal evidence just doesn’t cut it when you’re talking about history." - Bower Power
by The '67 Sound on Oct 5, 2010 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions
not sure what went on in Tampa, but his +23 this past season probably had a lot to do with playing with Ehrhoff.
"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky
by Karina on Oct 5, 2010 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Jesus Christ
More Port Hope people? Ewwww
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.
by PPP on Oct 5, 2010 8:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Neat stuff.
Are you comparing the player’s 5-on-5 sv% vs the team’s overall sv%, or the team’s 5-on-5 sv%, because that could have a huge effect (i.e., a player like Kaberle comes out smelling like roses, because of a horrible PK sv% dragging down the average).
Loving the Leafs is like being in love with a drug-addled, gambling addicted prostitute with a heart of gold and a bunch of humanitarian awards from her youth. It’s hard. It hurts. But dammit! I just love them!
by Van Ryn's Neurologist on Oct 5, 2010 1:01 PM EDT reply actions
Note this means I am, to some extent, comparing apples to oranges. Individual players’ sv%on is measured 5v5; team sv% are measured in all scenarios, and was calculated by simply dividing goals by shots, thus including things like empty netters and shootout goals. Since I am only looking at the comparative difference between individual and team sv%, and not absolute numbers, hopefully these factors do not have too much impact.
"That’s why stats are so important – anecdotal evidence just doesn’t cut it when you’re talking about history." - Bower Power
by The '67 Sound on Oct 5, 2010 1:12 PM EDT up reply actions
ah
Loving the Leafs is like being in love with a drug-addled, gambling addicted prostitute with a heart of gold and a bunch of humanitarian awards from her youth. It’s hard. It hurts. But dammit! I just love them!
by Van Ryn's Neurologist on Oct 5, 2010 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Great job. I had been wondering about how to pull off something like this, and you did it much better than I could’ve even conceptualized. The only thing I would note is that you could’ve pulled goalies for the respective teams, and then used their 5 on 5 numbers so that you weren’t including PK. Also, always remember to note that Toskala was still terrible. In every paragraph. Ever. Definitely an interesting read.
The experiment failed: Get rid of the trapezoid.
Yeah, I just remembered Desjardins also does goalie stats so I could have extracted the 5v5 stuff from there.
The biggest effect would be that people who don’t play much on the PK (like Kabs in recent years) are going to be advantaged here. Fortunately I think most of the guys I looked at are big minute eaters in all situations.
"That’s why stats are so important – anecdotal evidence just doesn’t cut it when you’re talking about history." - Bower Power
by The '67 Sound on Oct 5, 2010 1:14 PM EDT up reply actions
Wow, Lidstrom and Rafalski have a really high differential even on a very good Detroit team.
As you note, your numbers can get inflated by having crappy teammates, so that a mediocre defenceman playing on a really really bad team can hit better numbers than an above-average defenceman playing on a good team. I wonder if there’s some way to normalize this (maybe by the actual sv%?) to account for that.
There’s probably work to be done here by people who understand regression analyses and distribution curves.
"That’s why stats are so important – anecdotal evidence just doesn’t cut it when you’re talking about history." - Bower Power
by The '67 Sound on Oct 5, 2010 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Looking at Lidstrom and Rafalski from the past 2 years
using the method Ferrari went with,
Rafalski’s SV% effect in 08-09: +0.028
Lidstrom’s SV% effect in 08-09: +0.008
Rafalski’s SV% effect in 09-10: +0.009
Lidstrom’s SV% effect in 09-10: +0.001
I dunno if that’s a result of them being 1 year older… I think it’s more likely from all the injuries the Wings suffered last year. Team effects on this stuff are huge… don’t forget that Lidstrom and Rafalski play a lot of minutes with Datsyuk and Zetterberg, who are pretty freaking awesome defensively.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
What probably also affects this is: aren’t Rafalski and Lidstrom defense partners? Having both working together on the ice at the same time could generate a ‘greater than the sum’ argument.
If they had worse defensive partners, I would figure that both of their differentials would decrease and you would see an increase with whomever they are partnered with.
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
by Say *plan the parade one more time*... on Oct 5, 2010 7:30 PM EDT up reply actions
They have been in the past
They’re being split up this season apparently… although who knows how long that experiment will last.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
I think if we muddy the waters with things like QCOMP this is going to change a lot.
Interesting work but I’m not sold yet.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
good point
I can’t imagine O’Brien would be this high if you added QCOMP into the mix.
"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky
by Karina on Oct 5, 2010 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, I’m not even completely sold yet—I put it in the “worth more investigation” category. Like I said, someone who can do regressions could have a lot of fun here.
"That’s why stats are so important – anecdotal evidence just doesn’t cut it when you’re talking about history." - Bower Power
by The '67 Sound on Oct 5, 2010 1:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Thanks for putting it together though. The thing about stats is that if we set up a clear method and work through it consistently we might be on to something or we might not be but at least it’s all out there for people to pick apart and critique intelligently.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
Yup. I don’t have the math skills (or the time commitment frankly) to be an effective statistician but I’m hoping maybe someone else is, and can come up with something better.
I’m just an ideas guy.
"That’s why stats are so important – anecdotal evidence just doesn’t cut it when you’re talking about history." - Bower Power
by The '67 Sound on Oct 5, 2010 1:44 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m not that good with stats either.
(Don’t tell my boss, I’m balls deep in statistics to try and make sense of data at work today.)
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
Goddamn Oilers, hogging all the Canadian hockey stats whizzes.
"That’s why stats are so important – anecdotal evidence just doesn’t cut it when you’re talking about history." - Bower Power
by The '67 Sound on Oct 5, 2010 4:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Interesting!
As Chemmy says, QCOMP and QTEAM are going to be a factor. I’m also thinking that a player for a team with particularly bad PK stats (hello, Mr. Kaberle) would get an artificial bump compared to players on other teams, given the fact that the comparison is team spct vs 5v5 for the player.
Looking at O’Brien a bit, it’s interesting that that year in the middle was also the year he played the least. Muddling through the implications, if there are any.
Leaf, the universe and everything.
Now in year 44 of the 42-year saga.
Ok just some suggestions
1. It’s easy to get the Even Strength SV% from the NHL.com website, so I’m confused why you didn’t use it in place of the overall team save percentage… just look up the individual goalie stats on special team situations and it’s broken down there. Your hope that the distinction between the two sets wouldn’t affect thing is a tad misguided, but you’re obviously aware there’s a flaw in that.
2. You really do need a larger data set than 50 players for this to mean anything.
3. QCOMP will have a HUGE impact on this, as will faceoff zone start positions.
I have a really hard time believing Mike Green, and Tomas Kaberle are more effective defenders than Eric Brewer… you need to consider quality of competition, and the location of the shift start otherwise this is sort of meaningless in vacuum.
I would direct you to some work that’s been done by Vic Ferrari on this subject, he was really exploring it before any of the writers you mentioned in your posting.
The set that Vic used was all NHL D men who played over 30 games, and he only compared 2 seasons, but if you look at his scatter plot, the vast majority of NHL D men seem to have NO noticeable impact on shot quality. Here is his summation satement:
“The ability of defensemen to affect shot quality against does exist in the population, but it is so small that we will never be able to sensibly apply it to any player in particular. And a paradox is created, the type of defensemen who are helping the goalie save percentage a bit (presumably because they make fewer mistakes of the spectacularly bad variety) are, as a group, seeing slightly worse save percentages behind them, because they are the guys the coaches are leaning on to play tougher opposition.”
- Vic Ferrari, Irreverent Oiler Fans, May 13th, 2010
Which seems to me to make perfect sense, which makes all of this a bit fruitless in the end…
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
Basically in the end
Ferrari’s conclusion is that coaches have this stuff figured out. The guys playing the tough minutes are those that are having the best defensive impact, but it’s not going to come out in the numbers through Sv% because they’re facing the best shooters… thus everyone looks sort of average when you explore it in depth.
This would be one of those situations where if Ron Wilson is consistently tossing a crappy group over the boards to face the best guys on the other team, he may switch things up mid-stream. Unfortunately if the Leafs D plays like crap on the whole, the problem may not be that the Leafs D is being mismanaged, so much as they’re all over-rated, and NOBODY is up to the task of playing the tough minutes.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
This is the conclusion I was hoping for. It suggests that since the Leafs are a decent corsi team, fixing the goalie should fix the goals against. But doesn’t this run up against Ryder’s conclusion of a +/- 19 goal swing?
"That’s why stats are so important – anecdotal evidence just doesn’t cut it when you’re talking about history." - Bower Power
by The '67 Sound on Oct 5, 2010 5:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Completely different
methodologies.
Ferrari went with a very simplistic look at save percentage differentials, while Ryder tends to look at shot location and quality when he analyzes this stuff regarding expected shooting percentage.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
Of coruse different methodologies, but aimed at the same question, right? With different results. Suggesting it’s still an open question.
"That’s why stats are so important – anecdotal evidence just doesn’t cut it when you’re talking about history." - Bower Power
by The '67 Sound on Oct 5, 2010 5:47 PM EDT up reply actions
An open question
that won’t be answered by comparing save percentage numbers.
Without access to shot location charts, and expected save percentage numbers, you aren’t likely to see much about the TYPE of shots D men are surrendering (although Delta does incorporate some of that info).
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Oct 6, 2010 10:46 PM EDT up reply actions
I have a really hard time believing Mike Green, and Tomas Kaberle are more effective defenders than Eric Brewer… you need to consider quality of competition, and the location of the shift start otherwise this is sort of meaningless in vacuum.
I don’t think that this necesserily means that Green and Kaberle are better defenders, but perhaps save % goes up because they’re offensive defensemen who play vs. more defensive minded forwards who have worse shots?
I dunno, but I don’t think them being “better defenders” is necesserily the conclusion you have to draw from this data.
"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky
by Karina on Oct 5, 2010 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions
It isn't at all
but that’s the whole point of the exercise. What you are saying is exactly the point I’m making.
The fact that an offensive D man looks good by this measure as a defensive player indicates that it’s a bit misguided to even bother trying to determine it.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
I suppose
what this is really showing you, is a player being used in the most appropriate situations.
If Kaberle’s on ice SV% at evens is consistently higher than his off ice SV% at evens, then maybe he should be playing tougher competition than he is… particularly if the rest of the Leafs D is suffering the opposite problem.
If you have players that are consistently showing an on ice SV% that is lower than their off ice SV%, then the coach should probably think about changing their assignments.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
Oh I see what you mean.
"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky
by Karina on Oct 5, 2010 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Eric Brewer is terrible.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.
by PPP on Oct 5, 2010 6:27 PM EDT up reply actions
His Corsi Rel QComp
has dropped for 3 consecutive years, and his Corsi Rel Qteam has risen for 3 consecutive years, I think St. Louis’ coaching staff has been sheltering him more and more as he ages… and the results are pretty mixed at best.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Oct 6, 2010 10:54 PM EDT up reply actions
If you compare those values with respect to Green
the differential between Qteam and Qcompetition for Brewer has gone from -2.202, -0.083, to +1.193.
For Green it’s been +0.732, +1.325, and +2.002.
Brewer’s been playing from a negative starting point for years up until last year, while Green has been skating around with a bunch of guys keeping him ahead of the game for years. Odds of Brewer’s bad numbers being solely a result of his crap play are reduced based on that analysis.
Last year is really the first one in the past 3 where you could say Brewer was sheltered, and he failed in that setting. Prior to that you could argue he was playing poorly with a bunch of other guys in front of tough competition.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Oct 6, 2010 11:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Thanks for the link to Vic’s stuff. NHL.com does give special teams sv%s, but only by goalie, not by team. I didn’t want to have to manually add it all up. Forgive me, this is only a diversion!
"That’s why stats are so important – anecdotal evidence just doesn’t cut it when you’re talking about history." - Bower Power
by The '67 Sound on Oct 5, 2010 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions
lol
you weren’t willing to add shot totals for 5 goalies? seriously? use excel to speed it up if you’re that lazy… jeez
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
It’s several goalies per team, for 20 players, for 3 years. Even using excel that’s a pain. And I have a day job. This is a lark.
Hey Steve:
You’re a dick
"That’s why stats are so important – anecdotal evidence just doesn’t cut it when you’re talking about history." - Bower Power
by The '67 Sound on Oct 5, 2010 5:48 PM EDT up reply actions
this made me giggle ;)
"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky
by Karina on Oct 5, 2010 6:08 PM EDT up reply actions
can be.
and it wouldn’t be 20 players, it would be the combined even strength save percentage for ONLY the goalies.
There aren’t that many goalies in the NHL… and you could cut and paste the entire NHL into one spreadsheet, then sort by team… it isn’t complicated.
Dick or not – I appreciate the efforts, I just don’t think it takes that much effort… and I have a day job too.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
Just so you understand what I did—I looked at 20 D-men. So it would be all their goalies over 3 years. That’s why I referred to 20 players.
Look, pointing out what more needs to be done is fine. I don’t think I could have been more blunt in pointing out the gaps in what I did. I just thought it was an interesting idea, and when I tweeted about whether anyone had done it no one responded (I missed Vic’s work when I Google’d the idea—only came up with Gabe, Mirtle and Alan). Just chill out about it. I’m not submitting a doctoral dissertation for peer review.
I think fixing the little flaws you’ve harped on actually isn’t enough to finish the job (which is why I didn’t stress about it). Someone needs to run regression analyses to isolate the effect of qualcomp and qualteam, among other things. Hopefully someone will some day. Until then, I think a measure that places Lidstrom, Rafalski, Foote and Hannan near the top, and Ranger, Kuba, Brewer and Johnson at the bottom (among big minute D-men) may nonetheless offer a smidge of insight.
"That’s why stats are so important – anecdotal evidence just doesn’t cut it when you’re talking about history." - Bower Power
by The '67 Sound on Oct 6, 2010 9:13 AM EDT up reply actions
Running the regressions is easy. The hard part would be getting all the data in one place, right? If someone had the data I’d be perfectly happy to crunch away for them :).
www.behindthenet.ca is the source for all my info.
I think the true stat experts have written code that can extract relevant data from NHL’s raw gamesheets. I don’t know how the hell guys like Desjardins do it otherwise.
"That’s why stats are so important – anecdotal evidence just doesn’t cut it when you’re talking about history." - Bower Power
by The '67 Sound on Oct 6, 2010 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions
If you are interested, you can e-mail Gabe and he could help you get set up.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.
by PPP on Oct 6, 2010 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions
That would be awesome.
"That’s why stats are so important – anecdotal evidence just doesn’t cut it when you’re talking about history." - Bower Power
by The '67 Sound on Oct 8, 2010 9:53 AM EDT up reply actions
Dick or not – I appreciate the efforts, I just don’t think it takes that much effort… and I have a day job too.
The beauty of the internet is that you can build on it if you want. No need to be so…enthusiastic…about pointing out any shortcomings. Figure out the gaps and post it. Easy as.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.
by PPP on Oct 6, 2010 9:18 AM EDT up reply actions
I'm not broaching
potential fixes out of anything other than constructive criticism. I wasn’t anything other than blunt, and I acknowledge that but I seriously didn’t think the suggestion I made required much more than an extra 30-45 minutes worth of effort.
Part of the reason I wouldn’t want to build out a response to cover over the gaps is that is what I personally would consider to be MORE of a dick move. If I put in the time to do a posting and someone else posted a “hey you forgot about this stuff so I did the work you didn’t” posting without giving me the chance to do a fix, I’d be annoyed about it.
Now obviously not everyone would feel that way, and apparently ‘67 sound would be fine with me doing so. I also didn’t think my original suggestion was that big a deal.
It’s 20 teams over 3 seasons – 60 sets of data – less considering a number of them played on the same team. That isn’t very many… especially if you’re using a spread sheet.
Either way, I’d suggest using on ice 5v5 sv% and off ice 5v5 sv% rather than getting into the whole “team” save percentage thing anyway. Largely because the team’s save percentage would INCLUDE the player’s on-ice 5v5 sv% and thus skew the data through their own presence. It’s thus self-referencing and sort of screwing things up.
Either way, you can run a much larger data set than 20 players, it’s been done before as indicated by the posting by Vic Ferrari, and I was trying to point out information in a helpful manner initially… didn’t really see the need for anyone to get pissed off over it.
Dick or not, the point of what I was saying here remains… the efforts to date in this area don’t really seem to indicate much beyond confirming what we already observe.
Yes D have an impact on SV%, but in the end the observable differences wash away as a result of competition and ice time usage by coaches. If the numbers indicate a blue liner is performing completely out of whack, the coaching system will adjust… if they don’t, they’re not doing their job.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Oct 6, 2010 10:42 PM EDT up reply actions
lol
you weren’t willing to add shot totals for 5 goalies? seriously? use excel to speed it up if you’re that lazy… jeez
yes, totally constructive criticism steve. i can think of probably 100 different ways you could have pointed out that there was additional work to be done that probably wouldn’t take much time, that would be less condescending than the quote above.
this place is great because people are able to contribute to intelligent hockey conversation as best they can in between jobs / kids / life. mocking someone’s work and calling them lazy is pretty much the antithesis of what this site’s supposed to be about.
Yesterday is dead, but not my memory.
agree.
It’s one thing to say “hey, here’s a trick you could have pulled, it woulda taken a little extra time, but not much and the result is probably worth it.” and another to say “wow, you were just too lazy to do this extra thing, it’s really easy.”
the logical content of the two may be the same, but one is constructive, and the other is being a huge dick about it.
In my defense (which I will continue to the death)
I was NOT mocking his work. I made a constructive set of suggestions, and the response I got wasn’t “I don’t know how” it was “I don’t have the time to do that”…. and my rejoinder was that it DOESN’T take much time… I wasn’t laughing at the situation in order to belittle the efforts that had been made this far, I was laughing at the idea that plugging 50 numbers into a spreadsheet would detract seriously from the amount of time one has in between sleeps, work, kids, etc.
THIS was the original constructive criticism to which I was referring:
Ok just some suggestions
1. It’s easy to get the Even Strength SV% from the NHL.com website, so I’m confused why you didn’t use it in place of the overall team save percentage… just look up the individual goalie stats on special team situations and it’s broken down there. Your hope that the distinction between the two sets wouldn’t affect thing is a tad misguided, but you’re obviously aware there’s a flaw in that.
I don’t think anything I said there was particularly rude, condescending, or harsh.
The response I got was:
Thanks for the link to Vic’s stuff. NHL.com does give special teams sv%s, but only by goalie, not by team. I didn’t want to have to manually add it all up. Forgive me, this is only a diversion!
And my response was that you wouldn’t have to MANUALLY add it all up… you could use a spreadsheet. In no way was I insulting the efforts that had been taken already. People get a tad too testy over things… cherry picking a response to a response is obfuscating the argument a tad.
Piling on is fun no?
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
Also, just fyi, the use of blockquotes was my attempt to signal that we’re all still friends. From the PPP Dictionary:
IMPORTANT NOTE: “You’re a dick” only works as a joke if it is in blockquote form. If it exists outside of that format, it can be an insult.
"That’s why stats are so important – anecdotal evidence just doesn’t cut it when you’re talking about history." - Bower Power
by The '67 Sound on Oct 8, 2010 9:59 AM EDT up reply actions
Gotcha
I wasn’t particularly offended, though the block quote thing makes it clearer. The piling on is what I found to be a bit over the top… people are capable of defending themselves if they need to.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
Well
but we know Steve. Steve is hardcore. Steve is the Doctor. Bedside manners and your so-called “feelings” are not his concern. Facts, delligence, strict diagnosis, and concrete results are what matter. This is what the Good Doctor orders. Maybe a little gruff but we can let it slide.
by general borschevsky on Oct 7, 2010 8:20 AM EDT up reply actions
Oh and in response to this
I actually do think it’s a bit silly how feelings need to be spared at random intervals on here, so I can’t help but agree to what you’re saying.
I took the dick thing in stride… I find everyone rushing to confirm what a big dick I am a bit over the top though.
I also find it odd that people are fixated on my tone… like some have said, the fun part about all of this is the hockey talk, and you have to look past some of the personality issues… I’m sure if I can do it that others are capable of it also.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
I was defending you
I sometimes straddle the line between sarcasm and sincerity. The point is:
You’re not a dick.
Your writing is highly respected.
by general borschevsky on Oct 7, 2010 6:52 PM EDT up reply actions
No worries
I got that you were defending me… I was just contributing my own 2 (or maybe 16) cents.
Nobody’s feelings are hurt as far as I can tell… everyone’s good… onward.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
Yes
typically with my nose… If you can’t smell that might be something to get looked at by a Dr.
As an aside, I also see, hear, touch, and taste.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
but mostly with the smelling
Rule #20
by JaredFromLondon on Oct 9, 2010 8:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Actually
all of this is giving me an idea regarding a method of checking Ron Wilson’s coaching and management of the Leafs blue line minutes.
I’ll post it momentarily.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
Ok so just as a check
I ran the numbers for Finger, Kaberle, and Schenn, the only 3 D to play a decent number of games for both seasons under Wilson, and I found something interesting.
At 5v5 the difference between on ice and off ice save percentage for all 3 D men was repeatable… which means Wilson is using them in similar situations.
Finger’s difference went from -0.010 to -0.020, Kaberle’s went from -0.019 to -0.018, and Schenn’s went from +0.018 to +0.005…
End verdict, Kaberle and Finger were doing more harm than good, and Schenn was doing more good than harm when on the ice… this lines up with what we expect… and Wilson is using them correctly.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
Again to make that more explicit
the Team’s SV% at even strength was higher with Schenn on the ice, and lower with Finger and Kaberle.
P.S. this data confirms to me that Kaberle is crappy defensively.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
fascinating read.
Brain: The irony of it all, Pinky. Years of trying to take over the world, and all I had to do was say "truculence".
Follow me I'm Boring!
by blindfolded tank driver on Oct 5, 2010 8:25 PM EDT reply actions

































