Toggle sidebar

A win is a Win: Not really, but we'll take it 3-2

damacles1156 said:
Sigh, you're looking at total shots aren't you ?

Quick has 24 games this season of facing 25+ shots. His average SV% in those games is above .925 (Well above league average) and if you push it to 30 shots(per game) out of those 24 games; Quick: 17 games .943 save % 30 Shots or more. If I go back all the way to Quick's rookie season, I can come up with a similar correlation.

I just proved what I said by taking Five minutes to look at numbers.

This is getting tiresome. I am going to stop.

We agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

Amen.

There's a poster on the stats board who does a lot of goalie work and this is true for Quick going back to his rookie year. Even a cursory glance at game logs shows it to be true, no math necessary. It's an easy work.

And a simple hypothesis works for Quick like it does goalies on bad teams, i.e. Ryan Miller in buffalo. A team has to be on its heels to certain degrees to give up 30, 40, 50 shots in a game. Lots of those shots are volume rather than dangerous, because when a team is hemmed in like that, they tend to just shell up and take away the middle, leaving a lot of those as outside shots. Like our first period last night--we were dangerous, racked up shot attempts, but how many of them were truly threatening? Most of those serve the purpose of stats padding. This is where GAA comes in and what both tsanuri and others pointed out earlier in the thread about what a few shots can do to a save percentage overall.

This matches the eye test, and remember the 2013 playoffs where we couldn't get out of our zone for stretches of the first two series vs. the blues and sharks? Quick had a .948 in the first two rounds. That's after posting a .946 in 2012. That is legendary levels of goaltending. Teams were racking up shots against us and he was up to it.

In other words, what the above said. We're great at shot suppression, not so much at quality suppression, since our breakdowns occur when we're spread all over the ice after having a ****ton of possession.

This is not to absolve Quick, again, because he obviously CAN be better, this blame is just misplaced and both the eye test and numbers support that. It's great to expect more of him and that speaks to the level of goaltender we have and what we have become accustomed to, but it's hard to be superman for 82 games when your 2nd pairing is gone, you sign a guy off the street, and an assortment of rookies and replacements shows up to build chemistry.
 
Sv%,

Since it has become the go to Goalie stat over the last few years on this board; is starting to show a lot of cracks.

It's a crap stat honestly to gauge goalie play, because their is no stat to accurately track Quality of said shot attempts.

I am losing faith in the stat as a whole.

If Dominik Hasek was playing today, he would be getting roasted for posting .913 .902 .915 .907 while being a Red Wing. It would have been "SEE how overrated HE IS" !!!!
 
Well, it is the best metric of literal performance, but it lacks context, and even current attempts to track shot quality are pretty light. I was having a go-round with some of the stat and main board folks about shot quality issues with quick and it got pointed out that the shot tracking only took into account origination, not a tip, which was a major issue for a stretch there. In other words, it looked like he was letting in a bunch of straight point shots. So there's still a lot of work to do to capture the whole picture, but in the meantime it's as good a proxy as we have, like corsi/shot attempts to measure possession. So I get it, and get why it's important, but just going "look at that sv%" in a vacuum is just fantasy hockey ********.
 
damacles1156 said:
Sv%,

Since it has become the go to Goalie stat over the last few years on this board; is starting to show a lot of cracks.

It's a crap stat honestly to gauge goalie play, because their is no stat to accurately track Quality of said shot attempts.

I am losing faith in the state as a whole.

If Dominik Hasek was playing today, he would be getting roasted for posting .913 .902 .915 .907 while being a Red Wing. It would have been "SEE how overrated HE IS" !!!!
Click to expand...

This is where we can hope the trackers will come into play once they go into use. That when they record the shot at X time in the game it will then note where they are on the ice. And that should start to be a big breakthrough in overall stats for the game.
But nothing in hockey happens in a vacuum.
 
Brad Doty said:
Well, it is the best metric of literal performance, but it lacks context, and even current attempts to track shot quality are pretty light. I was having a go-round with some of the stat and main board folks about shot quality issues with quick and it got pointed out that the shot tracking only took into account origination, not a tip, which was a major issue for a stretch there. In other words, it looked like he was letting in a bunch of straight point shots. So there's still a lot of work to do to capture the whole picture, but in the meantime it's as good a proxy as we have, like corsi/shot attempts to measure possession. So I get it, and get why it's important, but just going "look at that sv%" in a vacuum is just fantasy hockey ********.
Click to expand...

Correct.

Just like I pointed out about Hasek, look at those Red Wing years SV%.

How many people on this board (the whole board) would be pointing out Hasek is overrated ETC. If Hasek was playing today and posting Sv% like that.
 
damacles1156 said:
Correct.

Just like I pointed out about Hasek, look at those Red Wing years SV%.

How many people on this board (the whole board) would be pointing out Hasek is overrated ETC. If Hasek was playing today and posting Sv% like that.
Click to expand...

I did. I noticed you left out the Ottawa season.

Age Save% League Avg
37 .915 .908
39 .907 .911
40 .925 .901
41 .913 .905
42 .902 .909

Yeah, the old guy was brutal. Gee, I wonder what his prime years looked like.
 
What a whiner PJ Stock is. Watching the highlights from last night, he was complaining that the high sticking call MTL got was weak, that Doughty leaned into the blade and thats how he was clipped.:cry::shakehead
 
kingsfan28 said:
What a whiner PJ Stock is. Watching the highlights from last night, he was complaining that the high sticking call MTL got was weak, that Doughty leaned into the blade and thats how he was clipped.:cry::shakehead
Click to expand...

I'm sure he had nothing to say about Petry clubbing Clifford's wrist on a breakaway followed up by a soft call on Nolan. And that the argument about Doughty being low is consistent with the Muzzin roughing on Gallagher. But hey who doesn't love a good witch hunt, MTL totally deserved that game otherwise!

I don't like the trend that the Kings have been penalized for being big and strong while having a hard time drawing calls because they don't go down easy/snap their heads back (anymore). I almost wish Brown dove again but it's actually kinda kickass watching these guys just power through everything.
 
kingsfan28 said:
What a whiner PJ Stock is. Watching the highlights from last night, he was complaining that the high sticking call MTL got was weak, that Doughty leaned into the blade and thats how he was clipped.:cry::shakehead
Click to expand...

amazing! :laugh:

Watching it live I was kinda surprised it was called, but the replay showed a clear highsticking penalty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom