Toggle sidebar

HOH Top Goaltenders of All Time Preliminary Discussion Thread

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
Canadiens1958 said:
An old math enigma:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_color_theorem

Are four colours sufficient to colour a map? The sufficiency question of 3 and 5 is rather easy to prove. Is the sufficiency of 4 easy to prove?

Your claim of obvious falls into the four colour dilemma because the various combinations of big to small relative to opposition size and goalie size quicky grows the number of considerations beyond the ability to process the information and reach a proof.
Click to expand...

What a silly argument. First, seventies didn't claim that the point is "obvious"; Killion did (though not in so many words). Second, no one claimed that the four-color theory was intuitively obvious. The difficulty in mathematical proof in this case does not somehow exalt our "common sense", because there was never a claim from common sense made in regard to this problem. Yeah, it's a difficult mathematical proof. So what?

If this claim is like the four-color problem and cannot be resolved without going to great lengths, then that precludes our conclusions in this case coming from any kind of direct experience. This is nothing but classic scorched-earth anti-rationalism. But if our common sense here isn't a distillation of experience (unless you think our brains are secretly supercomputers), then we are left with nothing but the crudest form of synthetic a priori "knowledge": the claim is true because it makes sense to us intuitively.

MOD
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chris Pronger / Michael Leighton

Sturminator said:
Traditionalists used to claim that common sense tells us the earth is flat. I mean, just look at it. It's obviously not a big sphere.

Hockey is difficult to analyse scientifically because it is an extremely dynamic team sport, and there is a large degree of chaos and luck involved at the point where the rubber meets the net. We have good reason to be skeptical of "player raters" and other such metrics which try to account for all variables of player performance, because we can see with our own eyes that they are missing or oversimplifying large parts of the game. Nevertheless, simple assertions like "big defensemen help starting goalies play more games" should be at least roughly demonstrable if they are, in fact, true.

The problem here is not Killion's skepticism, in general, but rather his jargon-filled overstatement of the difficulties in isolating variables in regards to this specific problem.
Click to expand...

2010 Stanley Cup playoffs - big physical Chris Pronger allows the Flyers to go to the SC finals with a very weak goalie - Michael Leighton. Pronger's size and physical style anchored similar play by the Flyers defense, compensating for Leighton's lack of talent.

Without Pronger - concussed, Leighton quickly disappeared from the NHL scene.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/l/leighmi01.html

Traditionalist analysis and/or stats enhanced. QED
 
Canadiens1958 said:
2010 Stanley Cup playoffs - big physical Chris Pronger allows the Flyers to go to the SC finals with a very weak goalie - Michael Leighton. Pronger's size and physical style anchored similar play by the Flyers defense, compensating for Leighton's lack of talent.

Without Pronger - concussed, Leighton quickly disappeared from the NHL scene.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/l/leighmi01.html

Traditionalist analysis and/or stats enhanced. QED
Click to expand...

or Pronger is just a really good defenseman.
 
Canadiens1958 said:
Consider the NHL performance of Tim Thomas before the 2006-2007 season and since when protected by Zdeno Chara. Very striking difference whether viewed traditionally or numerically.
Click to expand...

Chara is also a very good defenseman too, is he not?

and regardless, it's not like Thomas is the poster child for "70 game workhorse goalie".
 
seventieslord said:
Chara is also a very good defenseman too, is he not?

and regardless, it's not like Thomas is the poster child for "70 game workhorse goalie".
Click to expand...

Yeah, would be nice to see an example or two of this happening with big Dmen that were not considered elite/Norris caliber. I don't think anyone is going to argue against the statement that playing behind an elite/Norris caliber Dmen allows a goaltender to play more games
 
Hawkey Town 18 said:
Yeah, would be nice to see an example or two of this happening with big Dmen that were not considered elite/Norris caliber. I don't think anyone is going to argue against the statement that playing behind an elite/Norris caliber Dmen allows a goaltender to play more games
Click to expand...


What about elite D who aren't big/physical?

Lidstrom.



Problem is I think you can find exceptions to any statement. Was it really defensemen getting bigger, as all players were getting bigger, while the game was evolving on several levels (inclusive of goaltender style of play, equipment, and training level). My point that simply observing something doesn't mean a cause and its effect has been found. The traditionalists are bogged down with claims of causation, while the other side insists that any claim of effect must have a correlation.

Consider also that introducing coaching systems whose aim was to shut down offense (Dead Puck Era and neutral zone traps) probably had something to do with the amount of time a goalie could play. In recent times, I remember Dom Hasek roaming all over the Wings end of the ice to keep from falling asleep. They were so good at puck possession and keeping the play in the opposite side end, their goalies didn't have to work very hard at all.
 
Hal Gill

Hawkey Town 18 said:
Yeah, would be nice to see an example or two of this happening with big Dmen that were not considered elite/Norris caliber. I don't think anyone is going to argue against the statement that playing behind an elite/Norris caliber Dmen allows a goaltender to play more games
Click to expand...

Hal Gill - Byron Defoe, Andrew Raycroft as ordinary as it gets at both ends of the example.
 
One of the most underated goalies was Vachon his 1.33 average in 76 canada cup showed how good he was he should be in hall of fame
 
Hawkey Town 18 said:
Yeah, would be nice to see an example or two of this happening with big Dmen that were not considered elite/Norris caliber. I don't think anyone is going to argue against the statement that playing behind an elite/Norris caliber Dmen allows a goaltender to play more games
Click to expand...

No, I'm not even sure of that, to be honest. I think it would make their stats better, but does that lead to more games at all? And if so, is it because they're less fatigued, or is it because they're perceived to be performing better thanks to better stats as a result of an elite defenseman?
 
seventieslord said:
No, I'm not even sure of that, to be honest. I think it would make their stats better, but does that lead to more games at all? And if so, is it because they're less fatigued, or is it because they're perceived to be performing better thanks to better stats as a result of an elite defenseman?
Click to expand...

Likely it would be a combination of both...I was thinking about the perception part myself.
 
Three Dimensional Aspects

Hockey is played in three dimensional space. The horizontal and vertical planes.

The size and physicality of a defensemen before skill is considered still impacts on the goalie since reach and physicality impact horizontal angles and distance that dictate where shots or attack angles come from. This impacts on the goalie by giving him easier vertical angles to contend with, less horizontal options to contend with, less contact, easier to avoid screens. These factors make the goalies job easier, less fatigue.
 
Canadiens1958 said:
Hal Gill - Byron Defoe, Andrew Raycroft as ordinary as it gets at both ends of the example.
Click to expand...

Doesn't the fact that your previous example Chara was a (Significantly more skilled.) replacement for Gill in Boston, and Rycroft's subsequent inability to succeed in Toronto with Hal Gill on the team as well, demonstrate that the quality of the defenseman and defensive system is the defining force?
 
I am far from convinced that defenceman size is relevant at all, but I do think there is good evidence that team shot prevention affects the number of games that goalies play. If you look at all the individual goalie seasons with 70 or more games played since 1983-84 (n=71), 50 of them were by goalies facing fewer shots against per 60 minutes than league average. The average for the entire group of 71 goalies was about 1 SA/60 below league average. Thirty faced a SA/60 rate that was 5% or more below league average, while just 10 faced 5% higher than average.

Looking at save percentages compared to league average gets very similar numbers (51 above average, 20 below average), which suggests that the impact of talent was roughly equivalent to the impact of shot prevention, although shot quality may be a significant factor, particularly in the earlier years in the sample ('80s and '90s).

I also looked at every goalie season with at least 40 games played, and sorted them into four groups based on whether they were above or below league average for save percentage and shots against per 60 minutes. Using the frequencies in each bin from the 70+ GP sample, we can calculate the percentage chance of a starting-calibre goalie playing over 70 games based on those two variables alone:

Save % > LgAvg, SA/60 < LgAvg: 35 / 244, 14.3%
Save % > LgAvg, SA/60 > LgAvg: 16 / 198, 8.1%
Save % < LgAvg, SA/60 < LgAvg: 15 / 165, 9.1%
Save % < LgAvg, SA/60 > LgAvg: 5 / 132, 3.8%

This evidence suggests that team shot prevention is slightly more important than goaltender performance in determining how many games they play. That is, of course, if you accept save percentage as a reasonable proxy for goaltender performance. The shot quality effects in the '80s and '90s were significant for many teams, although typically the correlation suggests that low shots against is correlated with higher save percentages when parity is low. If the goalies on strong defences tended to get a save percentage boost, that would actually strengthen the argument that shot prevention may have a slightly stronger impact on games played than individual goalie performance.

At the very least, these numbers make it pretty obvious that a starting goalie's games played are strongly impacted by his team context. If durability was some separate skill that was unrelated to a goalie's talent or the team in front of them then we would expect to see much less variance based on the two variables being analyzed. This study does not even take into account what is probably the largest factor of all in determining games played, the talent of the backup goalie, or other relevant factors such as whether the team was in a close fight for the playoffs or the difficulty of their travel schedule.

I don't know why the same poster is apparently trying to argue in the same thread both that games played is a good stat for evaluating goalies and that games played are largely determined by the rest of the team, but he's probably closer to the truth on the latter. I personally do not consider games played to be an important factor in my goalie evaluation.
 
Nalyd Psycho said:
Doesn't the fact that your previous example Chara was a (Significantly more skilled.) replacement for Gill in Boston, and Rycroft's subsequent inability to succeed in Toronto with Hal Gill on the team as well, demonstrate that the quality of the defenseman and defensive system is the defining force?
Click to expand...

bingo
 
Here is a list of the 24 highest goalie GP in a season since expansion.

Name|GP|Season
Grant Fuhr|79|1995-96
Martin Brodeur|78|2006-07
Martin Brodeur|77|1995-96
Martin Brodeur|77|2007-08
Martin Brodeur|77|2009-10
Marc Denis|77|2002-03
Arturs Irbe|77|2000-01
Evgeni Nabokov|77|2007-08
Bill Ranford|77|1995-96
Miikka Kiprusoff|76|2007-08
Mikka Kiprusoff|76|2008-09
Roberto Luongo|76|2006-07
Ryan Miller|76|2007-08
Martin Brodeur|75|2003-04
Grant Fuhr|75|1987-88
Arturs Irbe|75|1999-00
Roberto Luongo|75|2005-06
Ed Belfour|74|1990-91
Arturs Irbe|74|1993-94
Miikka Kiprusoff|74|2006-07
Mikka Kiprusoff|74|2005-06
Felix Potvin|74|1996-97
Marty Turco|74|2008-09
Cam Ward|74|2010-11

Any correlations?
 
tarheelhockey said:
Here is a list of the 24 highest goalie GP in a season since expansion.

Name|GP|Season
Grant Fuhr|79|1995-96
Martin Brodeur|78|2006-07
Martin Brodeur|77|1995-96
Martin Brodeur|77|2007-08
Martin Brodeur|77|2009-10
Marc Denis|77|2002-03
Arturs Irbe|77|2000-01
Evgeni Nabokov|77|2007-08
Bill Ranford|77|1995-96
Miikka Kiprusoff|76|2007-08
Mikka Kiprusoff|76|2008-09
Roberto Luongo|76|2006-07
Ryan Miller|76|2007-08
Martin Brodeur|75|2003-04
Grant Fuhr|75|1987-88
Arturs Irbe|75|1999-00
Roberto Luongo|75|2005-06
Ed Belfour|74|1990-91
Arturs Irbe|74|1993-94
Miikka Kiprusoff|74|2006-07
Mikka Kiprusoff|74|2005-06
Felix Potvin|74|1996-97
Marty Turco|74|2008-09
Cam Ward|74|2010-11

Any correlations?
Click to expand...

I'd love to see the quality of the backup to all of them listed as well, that's my initial reaction and I don't think there's been much talk of that being a factor.
 
Size Factor

ContrarianGoaltender said:
I am far from convinced that defenceman size is relevant at all, but I do think there is good evidence that team shot prevention affects the number of games that goalies play. If you look at all the individual goalie seasons with 70 or more games played since 1983-84 (n=71), 50 of them were by goalies facing fewer shots against per 60 minutes than league average. The average for the entire group of 71 goalies was about 1 SA/60 below league average. Thirty faced a SA/60 rate that was 5% or more below league average, while just 10 faced 5% higher than average.

Looking at save percentages compared to league average gets very similar numbers (51 above average, 20 below average), which suggests that the impact of talent was roughly equivalent to the impact of shot prevention, although shot quality may be a significant factor, particularly in the earlier years in the sample ('80s and '90s).

I also looked at every goalie season with at least 40 games played, and sorted them into four groups based on whether they were above or below league average for save percentage and shots against per 60 minutes. Using the frequencies in each bin from the 70+ GP sample, we can calculate the percentage chance of a starting-calibre goalie playing over 70 games based on those two variables alone:

Save % > LgAvg, SA/60 < LgAvg: 35 / 244, 14.3%
Save % > LgAvg, SA/60 > LgAvg: 16 / 198, 8.1%
Save % < LgAvg, SA/60 < LgAvg: 15 / 165, 9.1%
Save % < LgAvg, SA/60 > LgAvg: 5 / 132, 3.8%

This evidence suggests that team shot prevention is slightly more important than goaltender performance in determining how many games they play. That is, of course, if you accept save percentage as a reasonable proxy for goaltender performance. The shot quality effects in the '80s and '90s were significant for many teams, although typically the correlation suggests that low shots against is correlated with higher save percentages when parity is low. If the goalies on strong defences tended to get a save percentage boost, that would actually strengthen the argument that shot prevention may have a slightly stronger impact on games played than individual goalie performance.

At the very least, these numbers make it pretty obvious that a starting goalie's games played are strongly impacted by his team context. If durability was some separate skill that was unrelated to a goalie's talent or the team in front of them then we would expect to see much less variance based on the two variables being analyzed. This study does not even take into account what is probably the largest factor of all in determining games played, the talent of the backup goalie, or other relevant factors such as whether the team was in a close fight for the playoffs or the difficulty of their travel schedule.

I don't know why the same poster is apparently trying to argue in the same thread both that games played is a good stat for evaluating goalies and that games played are largely determined by the rest of the team, but he's probably closer to the truth on the latter. I personally do not consider games played to be an important factor in my goalie evaluation.
Click to expand...

Let`s take team from the abstract to the actual on ice experience.

Players on a team vary in size and ability. With equal ability the size factor influences reach. A player who is 6'7" tall has a longer reach than a player who is 5'10" tall. Put each at the same spot on the ice in the defensive zone. Stationary, the taller player establishes a larger horizontal perimeter that the attacking team has to penetrate to shoot. Further away from the net the attacking player is, the weaker the shooting angle - horizontal or vertical, to the net. The resulting shots are from a greater distance, less accurate - more likely to miss the net and require less movement or effort from the goalie. Distribute this factor over five skaters with a size/reach advantage over smaller players and the goalie has an even more favourable situation and will be less fatigued playing the game.

A very blatant example of the size factor would be putting an average six year old in the slot in front of a goalie. Barely a change in the angles - horizontal or vertical to the 4' x 6' net that the goalie is defending or his ability to defend it or the effort he has to spend. Put an NHL defenseman the size of Hal Gill in the same spot as the six year old. How much net would be available to a shooter and how much effort would the goalie have to spend.

The statistical analysis that you present about shots and SV% is interesting but is it sufficient? Preventing a goal is the prime objective of defense. This may be achieved by one of the skaters blocking or deflecting a shot or pass. By creating a situation where the shooter has a weaker angle, longer shot, that causes him to shoot outside of the 4' x 6' target. All elements produce the desired result of not allowing a goal but only a few get considered.

Of course the team performance is slightly more important. To be expected. Issue remains what are the elements that impact team performance favourably. Size is one of the key factors that is overlooked.

Which is my fundamental point.
 
Master_Of_Districts said:
Luongo on bad team (1999-00 to 2007-08) - 0.919 SV %

Luongo on contender (2008-09 to present) - 0.920 SV %

The comparison says you're wrong.
Click to expand...

The thing with Luongo is that he struggled when he first came to Vancouver (as in the first few weeks), then publicly asked his defense to stop blocking so many shots, so he could get in the game.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom