Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: NFL Players Ready To Welcome Gay Teammate

What Does Save Percentage Really Tell Us?

Editor's Note: Here's an excellent post by Van Ryn's Neurologist on save percentage.

As I'm sure we all remember, the Leafs played St. Louis on Thursday night. They had a 3-goal cushion early in the third, and then everything fell to pieces. Jonas Gustavsson looked, well, Toskala-esque. He had trouble seeing the puck. He had trouble finding the puck. Hell, he even had trouble touching the puck when it was sitting right in front of him. Clearly, he looked rattled. By the end of the night, he had posted a .886 SV%, slightly below his season average of .896, and well below what most would consider "good" goaltending. 

Then on Friday, James Reimer, during a 9-3 routing of the Atlanta Thrashers, looked poised (yeah, I said it). He looked calm. He looked sturdy. He looked like a quality NHL goaltender. And he had the.932 SV% to prove it, as well as 2 wins in his last 3 starts, and a very respectable 1.87 GAA to go with it. 

The large discrepancy in SV% had many painting Gustavsson (and Giguere) as a major problem in our first half struggles. Most of this argument hinges on his low SV%. If he would only stop more pucks, the theory goes, we would win more games.

Now, I'm not trying to advocate that Gustavsson should be given the start over Reimer in the next few weeks. I think Reimer has done an outstanding job so far and should continue to carry the workload until he proves he can't handle it. And Gustavsson likey is a little shaken lately, and probably needs some rest, coaching, or both. 

But, as I described in my last FanPost, save percentage has very little impact on number of wins. Other factors, such as 5-on-5 goals for/against and PK%, seem to play a much larger role in determining whether a team wins or not. (Scoring 5 PP goals sure doesn't hurt, either).

So why all the fuss about SV%? And surely SV% does mean something. But what? 

Star-divide

In doing a bit of research, I came across this great post by David Johnson over at HockeyAnalysis.com. Interestingly, this was posted just 2 days ago, so maybe he was also thinking about Gustavsson's save percentage.

I strongly encourage you to go over and read the entire thing. But there are a few things that I want to emphasize. 

First, take a look at this image:

What this image shows is SV% by score for each team over the last 3 seasons. The values are arranged from lowest to highest to make it easier to see the patterns. 

What patterns? Well what you should notice is that SV% is almost always highest when the score is tied (green dots). The obvious interpretation of this is that when the game is tied, teams play conservatively, which enables the goalie to make more saves.

More interestingly, I think, is that the SV% is much worse when teams are behind than when they are ahead. Again, as David points out, this suggests that when teams are behind they take more risks. These risks result in high-percentage chances on your own net (breakaways, etc.), which leads to a lower SV%.

Ultimately, what does this mean. Well, as David put it:

 It means we need to be careful when evaluating goalies (and probably shooters to some extent) based on save percentage (special team effects) or even 5v5 even strength save percentage because the game situations a goalie has been exposed to will influence the goalies save percentage.  A goalie on a weak team will have his save percentage lowered simply because his team is going to be trailing more often and be forced to take chances to create offense and thus he will be exposed to tougher shots where as a goalie on a good team who leads the game more than they trail a lot will not face as many tough shots. 

This is a really important fact. If the Leafs are trailing a lot, they will take more risks, resulting in high-percentage scoring chances against, and a bad SV%. Being ahead, too, can lead to taking the foot of the gas pedal (as we saw Wednesday with team Canada and Thursday with the Leafs). But being behind is probably far worse. 

But I think there's another more important fact to take away from this: SV% is not a purely individual statistic. If it were, SV% would be relatively constant regardless of the score. The fact that it varies so widely indicates that what the team is doing in front of a goalie affects his ability to stop the puck. In other words, some of the blame for a bad SV% needs to fall on the other 5 guys on the ice, and potentially, the guys behind the bench.

Case in point:

One interesting thing I noticed while doing all this was the Toronto Maple Leafs up by a single goal performance over the last 3 seasons.  While they were middle of the pack 5v5 game tied (16th in 3 year 5v5 game tied save percentage), they were downright horrific when they got up a goal.  They just couldn’t hold a lead.  The three worst single season save percentages when up a goal were the 2009-10 Leafs, 2008-09 Leafs, and the 2007-08 Leafs so they were three for three there.  Over the course of the past 3 seasons the Leafs posted an 88.4 save percentage when up a goal which was 3.44 standard deviations from the mean.  

So, for the last 3 years in a row, we have pretty average 5v5 save percentage. But when we got ahead, our save percentage was terrible. How terrible? Almost 3.5 standard deviations terrible! If a bad SV% were a mental illness, the Leafs would be certifiably crazy. But only while they were up a goal, not during 5 on 5. 

Why? What could cause such a dramatic drop in SV% when the Leafs are winning a game? I honestly have no answer to this question, but I have two wilde guesses. 

One possibility is that the entire team (including the goalie) chokes under the pressure of trying to secure a win. Between 2007 - 2010, Leafs fans were so desperate to get back into the playoffs, and I think the players must have known it. And lets face it, the ACC is a less than friendly place, even when up a goal. So, when faced with a lead, it's possible the team collectively craps the bed, with breakdowns in all 3 ends of the ice ending up with a final breakdown in net. 

Another possibility is coaching.  Hear me out. During the previous 3 seasons, the Leafs tried to play an aggressive fore-check style game, and refused to play a trap, or anything resembling it, when up by a goal. (I'm including Paul Maurice in this for the record, since this covers the 2007-2008 season as well.) Now I'm not advocating for a trap, but there has seemed to be a complete inability to adjust the style of play based on the score of the hockey game. So, while we continue to press and fore-check and send guys deep, the other team, coming from behind, are also taking a few extra risks. By failing to adjust for the offensive onslaught that comes with being up by a goal, the coaches may have inadvertently been facilitating scoring chances from the other team, resulting in a lowered SV% from our goalies. 

This is a huge assumption, I admit, and an unlikely one. One has to think that even the worst NHL coach would play for a win, and make a small adjustment to the style of play when up by a goal. In any case, for the previous three seasons, we have been horrendously bad when up by a goal. Again, some of this must be due to factors other than who's in net, since the 5-on-5 SV% was average.

But there's a silver lining.

The good news for Leaf fans is their 5v5 up a goal save percentage is much better this year: 95.6% (better than any team in any of the last 3 seasons), 97.2 for Gustavsson and 93.9% for Giguere so they are much better at maintaining the lead.  Unfortunately this season they can’t score well enough to get them a lead to protect.

Granted, this was before Thrusday's phenomenal collapse. But prior to Thrusday, Gustavsson had a 97.2  SV% when the Leafs were playing with a lead (5-on-5)! Some of this may be attributed to the fact that the Leafs so rarely had a lead that the sample size was so small. But, as David points out, one of the bigger problems was that the Leafs couldn't score prior to about a week ago. 

So what does this all mean. I think there are a few takeaway points:

  1. SV% is affected by things other than who's in the net. When the Leafs are behind (which we have been a lot) the SV% is going to drop. The Leafs have fortunately played a few really good games in front of Reimer. It's going to be interesting to see how his SV% is affected when they play their first stinker in front of him. 
  2. The Leafs need to learn how to get a lead AND play with it. The first trick is scoring early and often. It's been mentioned by others that we already need much more of that. But they need to continue to protect those leads and minimize the scoring chances against. So far this season, the Leafs are 13 - 0 - 2 when leading after the second period. So maybe some adjustments were made after last season. 
  3. Gustavsson may be doing better than his SV% suggests. His .98 SV% when playing with a lead 5-on-5 suggests he has both the skill and the mental toughness to win games for us. He also has a very respectable .914 SV% at even-strength, even after Thursday's game. His biggest concern is the .802 SV% ok the PK. Clearly, he needs to make more of those key saves. But as I mentioned before, since SV% is affected by other factors, even that .804 SV% may be an unfair assessment of how he's played. Which brings me to:
  4. In the words of David Johnson: We need to be careful when evaluating goalies based on save percentage. Keep that in mind.  

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.

Comment 82 comments  |  13 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

More from Pension Plan Puppets

Marlies miss huge opportunity

May 2012 by birky - 30 comments

Seen & Heard

Apr 2012 by JP Nikota - 824 comments

That's All Folks

Apr 2012 by birky - 359 comments

Comments

Display:

I don't know how long you spent on this

but thanks for taking the time…I’m going to go read it now :D

I'm thinking that when the Leafs win the Cup, I'll lose my drinking problem.

by leafsfan4life94 on Jan 8, 2011 11:45 PM EST reply actions  

After reading it....

Your second point should probably be “The Leafs need to learn to get a lead and how to play with it.” The fact that that Leafs aren’t getting many leads seems to be a slightly significant point you made, however inadvertently.

Great post though, it was an enjoyable read. I have to go through Dave’s post yet though.

I'm thinking that when the Leafs win the Cup, I'll lose my drinking problem.

by leafsfan4life94 on Jan 8, 2011 11:51 PM EST up reply actions  

I like it. I’m going to modify that second point…thanks for the suggestion.

Move along. Nothing to see here...

by Van Ryn's Neurologist on Jan 8, 2011 11:54 PM EST up reply actions  

No prob bud, it was the least I could do :D

I'm thinking that when the Leafs win the Cup, I'll lose my drinking problem.

by leafsfan4life94 on Jan 9, 2011 12:00 AM EST up reply actions  

Rec’d. Great fanshot! Interesting read.

by Theodles on Jan 9, 2011 12:04 AM EST reply actions  

thanks

but most of the credit should go to David Johnson, since all the stats are his.

Move along. Nothing to see here...

by Van Ryn's Neurologist on Jan 9, 2011 12:24 AM EST up reply actions  

Well done!

Oh, you better believe that's a paddling.

by JP Nikota on Jan 9, 2011 5:50 AM EST reply actions  

Great post

But I might have to go ahead and flag it, as it seems to be implying that maybe Toskala’s Toskala-esque numbers weren’t really his fault. I can’t get behind that.

There will be an answer. Let it be.

by daoust on Jan 9, 2011 10:07 AM EST reply actions  

well, I think if there’s one lesson we should take away from the Toskala error, it’s this: no matter how bad the goaltending appears to be, chances are there are other issues contributing to those bad numbers. Toskala needed to go, no doubt about it. Just like Gus needs to sit for a little while. But scapegoating the goaltender obscures the other issues.

Move along. Nothing to see here...

by Van Ryn's Neurologist on Jan 9, 2011 10:22 AM EST up reply actions  

Of course there are other issues contributing, though. Hockey is a team game. I don’t think anyone claims otherwise. I would be very surprised, though, if goaltender wasn’t by far, the biggest contributor to save percentage. The easiest way to improve spct is… get a better goalie.

At issue with the current team, among goaltending since midway through November, is our offense is completely driven by five forwards + Kaberle. I do admit, though, some frustration, with many around here to immediately list some guy’s spct, seemingly as an argument ender.

Scapegoating is something fans do, though, and is often unfair. But, Toskala was awful and his numbers bear that out.

Don’t have time to hang around, but to your point #2, about the Leafs needing to learn how to get a lead — that just means playing better. Get more chances than the other guy and get better chances than the other guy.

by Papa Squid on Jan 9, 2011 10:58 PM EST up reply actions  

The easiest way to improve spct is… get a better goalie.

The problem is that this statement is a tautology, if we evaluate goalies based entirely on their save percentages. Got a goalie with a low save percentage? He is a bad goalie! Solution: Get a goalie with a higher save percentage in order to have a higher save percentage!

Secondly, the point is that it’s “easier” (for most NHL teams, notably the Leafs excepted) to improve save percentage by just scoring first and having a lead. Eyeballing the curves, it looks like one can expect about a 2-4% improvement from not always playing from behind (assuming your team makes the proper tactical adjustments to minimize risks, etc.).

jrwendelman
The Artist Formerly Known as "Junior", who blogs at heroesinrehab.ca/blog

"But if someone so eager to engage into fist talk, we can always meet after season end in Minsk." (Mikhail Grabovski and a well-meaning but not particularly skillful translator) CERTIFIED GRABBO LOVER

by jrwendelman on Jan 12, 2011 7:52 AM EST up reply actions  

Hawerchuk at Behind the Net has pointed out more than once that the Leafs are outliers when it comes to score effects on Corsi. Almost every other team starts to get outshot while protecting a lead; the Leafs’ Corsi was unaffected, at least last season.

I've been looking at the sky

by Back In Black on Jan 9, 2011 1:08 PM EST reply actions  

so they don’t have more shots against, but their SV% dives?

Do you have a link? I’m curious to read this.

Move along. Nothing to see here...

by Van Ryn's Neurologist on Jan 9, 2011 1:41 PM EST up reply actions  

Not necessarily, since Corsi = SF – SA (both could be going up). And I haven’t found a link from this season…

Here’s a link that’s a little older than I thought. And a follow-up.

I've been looking at the sky

by Back In Black on Jan 9, 2011 2:51 PM EST up reply actions  

Great post, thanks for this.

Been wondering about this sort of thing recently myself. Not to defend Giguere and Gustavsson’s recent performances, though, which have clearly slipped.

If a goalie gives up, say, four goals on 18 shots, but every one of those goals is a cross-crease tip-in, that doesn’t mean he played badly, even though the stats for the night would be brutal.

It would be interesting if there was some kind of advanced goalie stat similar to ERA in baseball – that is, if the goal came as a result of someone else’s screw-up, the goalie doesn’t take the hit. Not sure how you would measure that with any degree of accuracy, but those numbers would probably tell a very interesting story.

Yet another Leaf fan in Ottawa.
www.zenbeerbass.com

by Adzbass on Jan 9, 2011 2:36 PM EST reply actions  

Interesting point about equivalence to ERA. I wonder if there’s a way to examine SV% relative to scoring chances against…I may take a look at this if I find the time.

Move along. Nothing to see here...

by Van Ryn's Neurologist on Jan 9, 2011 2:42 PM EST up reply actions  

That would be neat!

The tricky part would be that it’s difficult for everyone to agree, in many cases, what was and wasn’t the goalie’s fault. Whereas in baseball, it’s pretty cut and dry as to whether there was an error on the play or not.

I guess it could be done based on defensive zone giveaways, but that still couldn’t cover things like bad zone defensive coverage, broken sticks, Brett Lebda, and whatnot…

Yet another Leaf fan in Ottawa.
www.zenbeerbass.com

by Adzbass on Jan 9, 2011 2:51 PM EST up reply actions  

Next to impossible...

It is pretty much next to impossible to do something like this reliably. Sure you can look at scoring chances, but not all scoring chances are created equal either and not everyone will evaluate scoring chances the same either.

I have created a rating system that includes a defensive rating which can be used to evaluate goalies. My ratings attempt to factor out the quality of ones teammates and opponents. You can see the goalie ratings for the past three seasons combined (2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10) here: http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/ratings.php?disp=1&db=200710&sit=5v5tied&pos=goalies&minutes=1500&type=goal&sort=HARDp&sortdir=DESC Look at the HARD+ column for the goalies rating.

The top 5 goalies over the past 3 seasons are: Brodeur, Rinne, Hiller, Quick, Mason while Giguere rankes 8th boosted by a very very good 2007-08 season. Toskala ranks 23 of 35 but of course this is just 5v5 game tied stats when, as we have seen, the Leafs goalies save percentages are about average in the NHL.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HockeyAnalysis.com - Taking a Deeper Look at the World of Hockey

by HockeyAnalysis on Jan 9, 2011 3:06 PM EST up reply actions  

I figured as much, but your method seems like a decent proxy. I will have to spend some more time looking at it.

The more I’m thinking about these things, the more I’m starting to think that it’s almost impossible to create a reliable statistic to assess the strength of hockey players. some work better than others, but they’re are always gross exceptions.

Move along. Nothing to see here...

by Van Ryn's Neurologist on Jan 9, 2011 3:11 PM EST up reply actions  

Yes, it is very very difficult and especially so for goalies IMO. There are just too many factors that come into account. The best we can do is use a ‘good’ methodology and then use it for as large a sample size as we can, a full season at minimum but the more the better (I like using 3 seasons of data).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HockeyAnalysis.com - Taking a Deeper Look at the World of Hockey

by HockeyAnalysis on Jan 9, 2011 3:24 PM EST up reply actions  

And even ERA has major flaws in baseball, which was the driving force behind FIP and xFIP. I just don’t think hockey can be broken down in such fundamental manners to truly get an individual source statistic. Hockey is just too team-based.

Supporter of the Sergei Berezin "Give and Go" - You give me puck, then you go to hell

by bkblades on Jan 9, 2011 5:28 PM EST up reply actions  

The problem with this is

over the course of 3 years, a lot of things can happen to a goalie such as injury or changes in personnel around them…

Nothing is perfect, and I get why “more” information is better… but 3 seasons seems a bit excessive to me.

"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 Jan 9, 2011 10:35 PM EST up reply actions  

I agree. Using 3 years of data will fail under the improving youngster, aging veteran and injury scenarios so we need to keep that under consideration. I guess what I generally do is start with the 3-year rating and then look at the individual year ratings to get an idea of the players consistency or whether age or injuries were a factor in their individual year ratings. But, if I were a GM of an NHL team, I’d be looking to add players who performed well for multiple seasons, not just the latest season.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HockeyAnalysis.com - Taking a Deeper Look at the World of Hockey

by HockeyAnalysis on Jan 9, 2011 10:48 PM EST up reply actions  

considering

the average NHL goalie is really only in his “prime” for what… 5-10 years? 3 years seems like a huge chunk of that to me. I know if we’re talking about regular starters on NHL teams who are in that spot for a long time it’s a longer term thing, but then they would skew the average.

For Toskala for instance, he went from being part of a platoon (with fewer starts) to being the primary guy in Toronto, and after 1 year needed to have his 2nd hip surgery… for all intents and purposes you could throw out his prior performance on that basis alone – and what you’d get afterwards was a complete mystery.

I just think it makes the whole thing a bit of a mine field no matter how you look at 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.

by Steve Burtch on Jan 9, 2011 11:03 PM EST up reply actions  

Well that’s true, Toskala WAS a mystery.

Essentially the problem in hockey stats is that our numbers are so “noisy” that it’s very hard to detect the faint “signals” that are there in the numbers. The only way to cut through the noise is to average a LOT of numbers together, but by the time you’ve done that, the underlying factors (skill, injuries, coaching, team-mates, aging, etc) have often changed somewhat. To the extent that those changes can be put into the model (maybe team-mates can, possibly aging a little), then you can work around that a bit, but they’re all cludges. And that just means you can’t get a lot of fast and precise measurements that would let you take quick and decisive judgments.

One of the bottom lines is that it really did take a couple of seasons to be sure that Toskala definitively stinks. Which… now… we know for sure.

Glory glory Man United, AND the other MU, AAAAnd the Leafs. I think I need a drink now.

by Wan Ihite on Jan 10, 2011 12:36 PM EST up reply actions  

Especially for goalies, since the margins we’re looking at are ~10 goals over the course of a season, if my mental math is right, then we need a ton of shot data. 3-4 years gives enough shots, but yeah, you have other chances that aren’t accounted for.

My blog and Twitter, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
If you don't know how to use Timeonice, read this.
Behindthenet quick link to QoC/QoT/Corsi/PDO/Zonestarts
"Numbers don't lie, they just don't agree with you"--George E. Ays

by red army line on Jan 17, 2011 11:59 AM EST up reply actions  

Make sure to look at scoring chances too. The point of a scoring chance is not only that the shot had good location, but it was from close enough that the goalie has minimal if any time to react (so it’s all based on positioning, technique, anticipation, and exceptional reflexes). We don’t know about the sustainability of scoring chance sv%, though. Not even close to enough data.

My blog and Twitter, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
If you don't know how to use Timeonice, read this.
Behindthenet quick link to QoC/QoT/Corsi/PDO/Zonestarts
"Numbers don't lie, they just don't agree with you"--George E. Ays

by red army line on Jan 17, 2011 11:58 AM EST up reply actions  

Overall it bothers me when people refer to the save proportion from an individual game and compare it to season-long standards like .912 or .916. A goalie can give up three goals on 21 shots without playing badly at all. You need a much larger sample size than one game before it becomes a relevant indicator of performance, to the extent that for a single game it’s useless.

I've been looking at the sky

by Back In Black on Jan 9, 2011 2:54 PM EST reply actions  

This has happened almost every game Gustavsson has started lately. It’s also driving me nuts.

Move along. Nothing to see here...

by Van Ryn's Neurologist on Jan 10, 2011 9:37 AM EST up reply actions  

Probably. I guess scoring chance sv% would be better in limited sample.

My blog and Twitter, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
If you don't know how to use Timeonice, read this.
Behindthenet quick link to QoC/QoT/Corsi/PDO/Zonestarts
"Numbers don't lie, they just don't agree with you"--George E. Ays

by red army line on Jan 17, 2011 12:00 PM EST up reply actions  

On a side note, anyone else notice that the slip in Gustavsson’s play seemed to start at around the same time that he stopped breaking his sticks after a goal against?

Yet another Leaf fan in Ottawa.
www.zenbeerbass.com

by Adzbass on Jan 9, 2011 3:00 PM EST reply actions  

I thought it was closer to JSG having groin issues. It could be that being de facto number one has created some additional pressure to which he has yet to adjust.

by ATARI on Jan 9, 2011 3:54 PM EST up reply actions  

I think it’s probably closer to this. He seems really competitive and I think he wants to be “the guy”. Unfortunately, I don’t think he’s done very well under the pressure.

Move along. Nothing to see here...

by Van Ryn's Neurologist on Jan 9, 2011 5:27 PM EST up reply actions  

He’s still scrawny as heck. And as giggy said the other day, playing butterfly puts an enormous stress on your body. You would predict trouble from those things together if he tried to play too many in a row, right?

Glory glory Man United, AND the other MU, AAAAnd the Leafs. I think I need a drink now.

by Wan Ihite on Jan 10, 2011 12:41 PM EST up reply actions  

On the note of Gustavsson

and his play with a lead… he has only been in a game with a lead on 10 occasions… and the leafs have a 7-2-1 record in those games. That to some extent indicates he’s capable with the lead, but it’s still concerning that in those 10 games, he’s lost that 1 goal lead on 10 separate occasions, or an average of once a game.

"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 Jan 9, 2011 10:56 PM EST reply actions  

Interesting. So he’s good at holding a one goal lead the second (or third or fourth) time the team gets one :)

by ATARI on Jan 9, 2011 11:07 PM EST up reply actions  

Yeah

if you think about it, he’s surrendered leads the following way:

twice against Pitt on Oct 15th – we still won.
twice against Was on Nov 3rd – we still won.
twice against TB on Nov 30th – we lost in OT.
once against Calgary on Dec 16th – we lost pretty bad.
twice against Columbus on Dec 30th – we lost that one too.
twice against St. Louis on Jan 6th – but we held on to win.

That’s 11 times he’s surrendered the lead, but 10 of them we’ve held on to win still. That’d be DESPITE his play, not because of it as far as I can tell… because he’s obviously getting offensive support in those instances.

Sacrificing a 1 goal lead twice in the same game in 5 of the 10 games you are given a lead is a bit disturbing as trends go. 50% of the time and the team might start to doubt if you’re capable of making things stick.

He isn’t stealing games by standing on his head.

"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 Jan 9, 2011 11:18 PM EST up reply actions  

or to put it another way

there has been exactly 1 game where he has held a 1 goal lead from the point he got it to the end of the game.

in the crazy slump busting game against Nashville the Leafs stormed back and went up 5-4 at 16:44 of the 2nd, and he held on until the buzzer.

He hasn’t held a 1 goal lead for the rest of a game other than that all season long – even in the games the Leafs have won other than that, they’ve added to the lead to pad things and protect him.

"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 Jan 9, 2011 11:20 PM EST up reply actions  

.98%.

Move along. Nothing to see here...

by Van Ryn's Neurologist on Jan 9, 2011 11:28 PM EST up reply actions  

Well, if his ES spct is.98 and he’s still surrendering leads, that points to a suspect
PK….

Leaf, the universe and everything.
Now in year 44 of the 42-year saga.

by 1967ers on Jan 9, 2011 11:48 PM EST up reply actions  

clearly it’s Gustavsson’s fault that the PK sucks though….

Move along. Nothing to see here...

by Van Ryn's Neurologist on Jan 10, 2011 12:10 AM EST up reply actions  

Who has argued this?

by Papa Squid on Jan 10, 2011 2:43 AM EST up reply actions  

several people, explicitly or implicitly. but it was more of a rhetorical comment.

Move along. Nothing to see here...

by Van Ryn's Neurologist on Jan 10, 2011 10:08 AM EST up reply actions  

I think there’s a difference between saying that Gus’ play on the PK has been poor, and saying it’s clearly it’s his fault the PK sucks.

by Papa Squid on Jan 10, 2011 12:34 PM EST up reply actions  

I think you’re being a bit silly here. If the average goalie lets in 2 or 3 goals a game, then any of those goals that come AFTER his team has scored will be “giving up a lead”. Based on this, you’d expect goalies to be “giving up the lead” all the time.

So if you’re going to list every time Gus has done it, you need to show that other goalies are doing it less often, or that he lets in goals at a higher rate when he’s up a goal or something. Otherwise this is just pressing your eyeball very close up against an ordinary number until it looks enormous.

Glory glory Man United, AND the other MU, AAAAnd the Leafs. I think I need a drink now.

by Wan Ihite on Jan 10, 2011 12:47 PM EST up reply actions  

but

you’ve always complained about his SV% and yet he’s had a .98 SV% when playing with a lead (before Thursday). Is that really a case of the Leafs winning DESPITE his play? how many of those times when they gave up a lead were because of a PP? Or because of an odd-man rush?

you can’t take his bad SV% as evidence of bad play when you want, but ignore the .98 SV% when they’re up a goal simply because it doesn’t fit with your opinion.

Move along. Nothing to see here...

by Van Ryn's Neurologist on Jan 9, 2011 11:28 PM EST up reply actions  

Can’t he, though, when .980 is in a small sample size, as implied in the article? How many minutes are we talking about here? And I don’t quite get the argument — you expend a lot of energy to say that spct doesn’t matter as much as we think it does, there are score factors at play, etc. — but then when someone goes looks at it, the rebuttal is simply “.98”? So, does spct matter or not?

Honestly, this is cherry-picking… Gustavsson has not played well overall, generally, since mid-November, so we’ll find a split where he’s done somewhat well and trumpet it.

by Papa Squid on Jan 10, 2011 2:40 AM EST up reply actions  

I didn’t ever say that SV% doesn’t matter, but that one has to be careful when using SV% to judge how a goaltender performs.

That said, it would be difficult to ignore a SV% of almost 100% in a critical situation, especially to argue, as Burtch does, that the Leafs win those games DESPITE the bad play by Gustavsson when he has the lead.

And yes, it is kind of cherry-picking, but again, I’m not advocating whether he’s a good or bad goalie based on this statistic alone. In fact, I’m arguing quite the opposite.

It’s really only been since December that he hasn’t played very well. He started 6 consecutive games to end November. During those games in November he only managed to win 2 games, even though he let in 3 or fewer goals in all but one of those games (GAA: 2.3, SV% .925). Scoring goals was definitely a bigger problem at that point.

He’s definitely struggled since then, but that’s not really the point.

Move along. Nothing to see here...

by Van Ryn's Neurologist on Jan 10, 2011 9:36 AM EST up reply actions  

Here’s the thing: I don’t think people are basing their opinion of Gus on the statistic alone. I know I’m not. I watch a lot of Leafs games. I know he’s sucked — granted since late-Nov, early-Dec. And I also know most of the team has sucked in front of him.

Without looking at the games, what about Gus’ role in creating these critical situations — who’s to say the one goal lead wouldn’t be two-goal leads and out of the analysis zone? Or a tie wouldn’t be a one-goal lead? His job is to save pucks, regardless of score. The team in front of him assumingly will deploy different strategies based on score, but that doesn’t change the way HE performs.

I watch a lot of baseball. I don’t really believe in clutch hitters, and in the same way, I’ll have to be convinced on the existence of clutch goaltending, as this line of argument seems to be implying.

I think you’re using scoring effects as an excuse to throw away a stat you don’t like because you don’t like how people have been beating up on Gus. I apologize if I’m wrong about that and this is an honest search for truth. You make a point about save percentage should be taken with the appropriate context, but honestly, I believe this is true for ALL stats to begin with, that it goes without saying.

I suspect people will stop grumbling about Gus’ play when he starts playing better. And for all our sakes, this is sooner rather than later!

by Papa Squid on Jan 10, 2011 12:24 PM EST up reply actions  

I like what you’re saying here, but you’re missing the context that there have been a bunch of stats gurus before who’ve analyzed spct and claimed that it seems remarkably independent of any measures of what the team does in front of the goalie. This is a much broader and more granular measure of “what the team is doing” (i.e., it’s not down to fine details like relcorsi of players, or faceoff zone percent, etc), and DOES appear to show some context effects. Perhaps not surprising from a totally neutral starting point, but it IS an interesting wrinkle on what we thought we knew about the game.

Glory glory Man United, AND the other MU, AAAAnd the Leafs. I think I need a drink now.

by Wan Ihite on Jan 10, 2011 12:51 PM EST up reply actions  

ESsv%, that is, and 5on5sv% would probably be even better (just ESsv% is convenient at NHL.com stats).

Clutch doesn’t exist except in small samples. In the regular season, that’s probably a negligible factor.

My blog and Twitter, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
If you don't know how to use Timeonice, read this.
Behindthenet quick link to QoC/QoT/Corsi/PDO/Zonestarts
"Numbers don't lie, they just don't agree with you"--George E. Ays

by red army line on Jan 17, 2011 12:02 PM EST up reply actions  

Let's look
twice against Pitt on Oct 15th – we still won.

Not exactly. He gave up a goal leading 1-0 (PIT PP) and one at ES leading 4-2. Only surrendered one lead.

twice against Was on Nov 3rd – we still won

We actually lost this in a shootout. Gave up a 1-0 goal (WAS PP) and a 4-3 goal (WAS PP)

twice against TB on Nov 30th – we lost in OT.

Gave up a goal 1-0 (TAMPA PP – see a trend?) and then 2 ES goals (one with goalie out, I’d guess based on the time) up 3-1. OT loss.

once against Calgary on Dec 16th – we lost pretty bad.

This was a Giguere start. Gus gave up a goal (Cal PP) down 4-1.

twice against Columbus on Dec 30th – we lost that one too.

2 ES goals – up 1-0 and 2-1 in 3-2 loss.

twice against St. Louis on Jan 6th – but we held on to win.

ES goal @ 1-0, 3 ES goals at 5-2. This one looks bad.

The TB and CLB games look iffy. Otherwise, I’d be looking at the PK.

Leaf, the universe and everything.
Now in year 44 of the 42-year saga.

by 1967ers on Jan 10, 2011 12:31 AM EST up reply actions  

he's also played 22 games

so they’ve only ever had a game in a lead in less than 50% of the games he’s played.

and as the stats point out, the SV% falls when a team is playing from behind….

Move along. Nothing to see here...

by Van Ryn's Neurologist on Jan 9, 2011 11:25 PM EST up reply actions  

or even by standing on his skates

by ATARI on Jan 9, 2011 11:19 PM EST reply actions  

woo. front page! goes to show that if I whine enough I get what I want.

Move along. Nothing to see here...

by Van Ryn's Neurologist on Jan 9, 2011 11:24 PM EST reply actions  

You can cut and paste this comment for re-use when Wilson gets canned.

Bitter Leaf Fan: Skepticism, not cynicism.

by mf37 on Jan 10, 2011 12:01 AM EST up reply actions   1 recs

For whatever reason

I think Wilson will finish the season as a leaf and then retire.

by ATARI on Jan 10, 2011 12:06 AM EST up reply actions  

LOL. Rec’d.

Move along. Nothing to see here...

by Van Ryn's Neurologist on Jan 10, 2011 12:09 AM EST up reply actions  

Season/Team but they are different for each category (i.e. up1, down1, etc.) as I sorted each category from smallest to largest to emphasize the differences in save percentages. Read the article, it is explained.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HockeyAnalysis.com - Taking a Deeper Look at the World of Hockey

by HockeyAnalysis on Jan 10, 2011 8:32 AM EST up reply actions  

Yeah, it confused me at first, but once you look at it there really isn’t a label you could put on it other than “goalies, sorted lowest to highest”

Glory glory Man United, AND the other MU, AAAAnd the Leafs. I think I need a drink now.

by Wan Ihite on Jan 10, 2011 12:54 PM EST up reply actions  

Fascinating stuff. Has anyone tried to “normalize” sv% by taking into account score effects? I wonder how much this stuff can effect overall save percentages.

Also gives you an appreciation for how good a guy like Vokoun has been given that he’s played from behind a hell of a lot.

"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 Jan 10, 2011 9:00 AM EST reply actions  

The problem is, I suspect every team has slightly different scoring effects associated with it and game time affects scoring effects too.

Vokoun is an interesting case because his save percentage doesn’t change by score very much. Here are his 2007-08 to 2009-10 save percentages by game score:

5v5Tied 93.27
5v5Up1 93.38
5v5Up2 93.20
5v5Dn1 94.19
5v5Dn2 94.89

His trailing save percentages are actually his best save percentage where as his 5v5 save percentages are good, but nothing special. I’d have to look at his backups numbers to see if that means Florida doesn’t change their style much when down a goal or whether he just plays better (more focused?) after getting a goal or two scored on him. I’ll probably do a case study on him at some point.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HockeyAnalysis.com - Taking a Deeper Look at the World of Hockey

by HockeyAnalysis on Jan 10, 2011 9:19 AM EST up reply actions  

Save percentage is our best measurement for how a goaltender is playing, but it’s by no means perfect. The position doesn’t seem to lend itself well to detailed statistical analysis.

Over a large sample size, save percentage is indicative of how good a goalie is, but it also fluctuates season by season to a large degree. That’s one of the reasons I don’t think you can simply bury Giguere after 17 starts.

Blogging on hockey at The Globe and Mail

by James Mirtle on Jan 10, 2011 10:54 AM EST reply actions  

But more to the point, it’s also why you can’t write off a guy like Gustavsson for having a career SV% of less that .9. Not only because he’s still developing, but also because he’s played for two bad-to-terrible teams. The assumption is that no matter how bad the team is in front of a goalie the SV% should remain the same. While that might be true for a few rare cases (Vokoun), that’s the exception.

Now, I’m not really sure anyone has written off Gustavsson per se, but in my mind it’s equally absurd to want to run the guy out of town because of a few bad starts…

Move along. Nothing to see here...

by Van Ryn's Neurologist on Jan 10, 2011 11:21 AM EST up reply actions  

With that said, his 5v5 game tied save percentage last year and this year is 92.4% which is a little below average (92.7%). Last year it was 93.0% and this year it has dropped to 90.8%. Sample sizes for Gustavsson are still relatively small though. To put that in perspective, Giguere’s 5v5 game tied save percentage is 92.5% this year and 92.2% last year (ANA and TOR combined). I haven’t completely written him off but he hasn’t shown me he can be anything more than an average goalie yet.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HockeyAnalysis.com - Taking a Deeper Look at the World of Hockey

by HockeyAnalysis on Jan 10, 2011 11:54 AM EST up reply actions  

that’s kind of where I’m at as well. I’m happy for him to be an average goaltender who can make spectacular saves from time to time, but who will, occasionally, let in a softie. But, if we’re going to be a winning team, we need to be able to score consistently ~3 goals a game, and tighten up defensively.

Gus has been below-average-to-average this season, no matter which way you look at it. But the team as a whole has been below-average-to-average. Sure a few players are doing well, but in almost every category we’re under-performing relative to the league average. To blame goaltending for our problems is specious reasoning.

Move along. Nothing to see here...

by Van Ryn's Neurologist on Jan 10, 2011 12:16 PM EST up reply actions  

Yes, generally speaking offense has been the #1 issue but the goalies haven’t really stolen many games either. A while ago I calculated the Leafs record when scoring 3+ goals and it was near perfect and when they scored fewer than 3 goals I am not sure they had won a game.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HockeyAnalysis.com - Taking a Deeper Look at the World of Hockey

by HockeyAnalysis on Jan 10, 2011 12:27 PM EST up reply actions  

by my quick count they’ve won 15/20 games when scoring 3 or more goals. 11/12 when scoring 4 or more. Only 1/7 when scoring only 2 goals, and 0/7 when scoring just 1 goal.

Move along. Nothing to see here...

by Van Ryn's Neurologist on Jan 10, 2011 12:41 PM EST up reply actions  

also

I hope I’m not mis-representing your opinion or data at all. I tried to make it clear where I stole your thoughts, and where I was doing my own editorializing.

Move along. Nothing to see here...

by Van Ryn's Neurologist on Jan 10, 2011 12:17 PM EST up reply actions  

At what point, though, do we start to conclude that Gus is not our saviour of the future, and start looking at Reimer and Rynnas to do some serious developing?

Glory glory Man United, AND the other MU, AAAAnd the Leafs. I think I need a drink now.

by Wan Ihite on Jan 10, 2011 12:58 PM EST up reply actions  

Should be able to make some real conclusions by the end of his current contract, I think.

Right now, Monster looks like a backup.

Blogging on hockey at The Globe and Mail

by James Mirtle on Jan 10, 2011 1:37 PM EST up reply actions  

i’d agree with this. in the next season and a half he needs to show that he can dominate better than those other guys you mentioned.

Move along. Nothing to see here...

by Van Ryn's Neurologist on Jan 10, 2011 1:54 PM EST up reply actions  

I guess that’s the “cup half full” view, right. We’ve got a couple of good prospects developing, and some time to play out which of them (if any) are actually going to pay off.

Glory glory Man United, AND the other MU, AAAAnd the Leafs. I think I need a drink now.

by Wan Ihite on Jan 10, 2011 5:38 PM EST up reply actions  

Thats what it seems to be…

BS

by MapleLeafMole on Jan 10, 2011 8:08 PM EST up reply actions  

And the vet who was supposed to shelter them through their development this season, cant stay healthy. The Leafs should probably sign another veteran goalie next year

BS

by MapleLeafMole on Jan 10, 2011 8:16 PM EST up reply actions  

not sure

maybe Gus is the “veteran” next year. give the other guys a shot. give him the #1

Move along. Nothing to see here...

by Van Ryn's Neurologist on Jan 10, 2011 10:21 PM EST up reply actions  

save %

Gotta disagree: I’m a goalie with a Master’s; rather than debate your approach to the stat, I’m gonna be qualitative: my experience tells me that there are 6 shots a game that are game breakers; whether I see 40 pucks or 20, there’s six that matter. All the other shots are routine. Good goalies make a higher percentage of the routine saves, as well as a higher percentage of the need to’s, and hence, the higher save percentages. Teams with better goalies win more games. In the NHL, if you have a good team, you don’t try to save a buck on your goalie, because its so important. And look at your graph, the better the team, the less variation between situations (because their goalies are better).
cheers,

by finnow on Jan 12, 2011 4:43 PM EST reply actions  

It seems to me that it is better to play a good goalie 3.5 million a year than pay an elite goalie 6+ a year.

The difference in games won between a good goalie and an elite goalie exist -but from my rather non scientific observations I think the 2.5-3.5 million dollar difference is better spent on forwards or D-men.

Seems like the general GM population is leaning towards this conclusion.

"Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm."

Winston Churchill

by Say *plan the parade one more time*... on Jan 13, 2011 5:11 PM EST up reply actions  

At which level? I think we can infer, based on the fact that dominant teams, like 99’s Oilers, in the past didn’t dominate shot counts, that shot quality relative to quantity mattered; with the parity in today’s NHL, shot quality has little effect. Fenwick% correlates highly with scoring chance%. (Sorry, by the way, if I’m completely off topic here—I read the six shots that matter as the quality of a shot).

There’s definitely an effect in poor scorekeeping—Florida and Nashville are terrible at overcounting shots, or else each team for some reason shoots a lot more in those arenas—but for the NHL I think it’s safe to say that if you see 20 shots and 6 good ones, then with 40 there will be around 10-12. At least, in large sample. Even in Caps vs Habs.

If you have a good team, because of the salary cap and parity, you probably want to bolster the skaters and get a goalie on a value deal or ELC that provides at worst league average goaltending—Niemi, Osgood, Fleury, Ward, Leighton, etc. Vancouver is an exception, and it’s because a) Luongo performs much better consistently than the average, and b) they have value elsewhere in the lineup, like Burrows and Malhotra.

My blog and Twitter, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
If you don't know how to use Timeonice, read this.
Behindthenet quick link to QoC/QoT/Corsi/PDO/Zonestarts
"Numbers don't lie, they just don't agree with you"--George E. Ays

by red army line on Jan 17, 2011 12:12 PM EST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Your best source for quality Toronto Maple Leafs news, rumours, analysis, stats and scores from the fan perspective.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

N907005365_1934770_7971_small
PPP Salary cap Challenge - Paper bag Leaf fan
Lifeasaleaffan_small
(Old) Marlies Game Photos
Newman_small
PPP Salary cap Challenge - samspade
Small
PPP Salary Cap Challenge - DaSim85
Globeatar_small
How Much Should You Spend On A Top 4 D?
Phaneufkessel_small
TOI-weighted NHL Team Ages
48839cd14228986f0ad0d2e405f1_small
Casting Call
Petering_small
PPP Salary Cap Challenge - Self Destructive Zones
Globeatar_small
The Fancystats Exchange, Part 1
Or-wallpaper-1680x1050__1__small
PPP Salary Cap Challenge-BCapp #2

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

StatCounter

wordpress visitor


Chief Blogging Officers

Calvin_small PPP

Aen1_small Chemmy

PPP's Girlfriends

Don_t_panic_small SkinnyFish

Picture_1_small JP Nikota

Fg_small birky

Christian-hanson-wrecks-brian-o_1__small Bower Power