Kings Article: It's the End of Jonathan Quick's Save % and I Feel Fine

[Sheng Peng]

It's the End of Jonathan Quick's Save % and I Feel Fine

Click to read more...

 

[Ron*]

 

[Ron*]

"In computing, NaN, standing for not a number, is a numeric data type value representing an undefined or unrepresentable value, especially in floating-point calculations. Systematic use of NaNs was introduced by the IEEE 754 floating-point standard in 1985, along with the representation of other non-finite quantities like infinities."

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

 

[Sheng Peng]

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

I was referring to the 2.15 in the slot.

 

[PJ Kings Hockey]

From Sports Illustrated: Does Jonathan Quick Pass the Eye Test as an Elite Goalie?

By contrast, Quick seemingly needs to be engaged in a game. That’s implicit when Pierre McGuirre says something in the opening minutes of the Stanley Cup finals along the lines of, “Jonathan Quick looks engaged in this game early. Could be bad news for the New York Rangers.” Perhaps it’s also the reason Daryl Sutter can motivate Quick with a negative comment, while most coaches handle their goalie’s psyches as if they were Fabergé eggs.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

From Sports Illustrated: Does Jonathan Quick Pass the Eye Test as an Elite Goalie?

Wow. I actually really like this article.

And though he spends a lot of time slagging him, Chris Boyle's analysis is very good too (the referenced parts about routes across the crease)...though I hate that he bogs down a lot of good writing with twitch-analysis like (paraphrased) Quick sucks because lolsavepercentage.

But to me, it says something about him that the goalie coaches aren't trying to get some of those tendencies out of his game.

 

[KingsFan7824]

Yeah, when Quick gets that one extra save, the Kings do well. They have a chance. That much more so when they give up 18 shots in a game. In a 3-2 league, that one extra save is the difference between winning scoring 3, and winning having to score 4.

For almost 2 months now, almost 3 goals are going in on 20-some shots. Some, too many, have been bounces off a Kings player, but if Quick isn't getting that save on one of the other shots, that bad bounce kills the team.

There are times when Quick is more athlete than goalie, which sometimes gets him in trouble. Not 100%, but I've seemed to notice that you can tell on the first shot, or even the first time Quick touches the puck, which Quick you're going to see that night. The one that will get that one save, or the one that won't.

 

[Jason Lewis]

I liked the SI article as well. Thought it was a great take on Quick and his style.

Wasn't good enough for some, but I really thought it was a good crossover analysis and a nice read.

 

[yankeeking]

this is so incredibly true my son and I sit in 205 which is where we defend twice and him more than I can almost call when quick will have a good game and when, like nashville he is going to be pulled, he fights if off at times but like the last homestand if he is not on it makes for a long game

'two posts above ...screwed up quote lol'

 

[Jason Lewis]

Posted it on twitter before the Mike Richards stuff went down so it kind of got buried.

But Quick has very little middle ground this year.

Look at how many games he has under 20 shots and sub .900. Then look at how many games he has over 20 shots and +.940.

It's dumb. He has been either really good or really bad this year. Seems like he has to get engaged in a game. Pulled Lundqvist and Rinne for this year and it's far less on both ends of the spectrum. Need to do a couple of seasons worth of data to draw any real conclusions but I'd say that theory holds up...at least this year.

 

[Sheng Peng]

A couple choice quotes from the article that I enjoyed:

In hockey, opinions based on observation, specifically, are often treated by the fancystats crowd as the arguments of anti-intellectuals, not as the hard-won knowledge of keen observers of the game.

While I obviously think a lot about analytics, they are no end-all, be-all. In the same way that utterly dismissing analytics is a mistake so is completely ignoring "old school" thinking. They're all pieces to a better understanding of the game.

Sometimes “focus” seems like a too easy explanation for an athlete’s struggles or success, since it can’t be disproved.

Last year, some people were ready to declare Scrivens a viable NHL starter. But it's different excelling in 20 or so games as opposed to the mental and physical strain of carrying a team for 60+ games over a season.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Maybe I can work with some of you guys on this but I don't have the time at the moment--I know sdgulls has done a bit of it in the other thread as a 'big picture' thing--but I'd be interested to see how Quick's save percentage correlates with Kings team corsi specifically...i.e. I'm hypothesizing that when we're actually massively outplayed that Quick does better, and that's inverse with when we outplay the other team. With specific examples. I mean I can think of a few from this season alone--the Wild and Blues games at the beginning of the season vs. some of the recent games, for example.

 

[Jason Lewis]

Maybe I can work with some of you guys on this but I don't have the time at the moment--I know sdgulls has done a bit of it in the other thread as a 'big picture' thing--but I'd be interested to see how Quick's save percentage correlates with Kings team corsi specifically...i.e. I'm hypothesizing that when we're actually massively outplayed that Quick does better, and that's inverse with when we outplay the other team. With specific examples. I mean I can think of a few from this season alone--the Wild and Blues games at the beginning of the season vs. some of the recent games, for example.

Pretty much my evaluation of it. If you let Quick get into the game you are in for a hurting as an opponent.

If you can kind of keep him on the periph, maybe throwing up a few shots here and there, then it can be hard for him to zone in.

Think about how many times this year we have faced a almost zero chances against, but a powerplay for the opposing team creates a goal. That's when we are seeing things like 0-2 and 14-4 shots. Powerplays create high quality chances with a ton of traffic, and if Quick hasn't seen any work it tends to be a recipe for disaster.

That's just my take on it.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Pretty much my evaluation of it. If you let Quick get into the game you are in for a hurting as an opponent.

If you can kind of keep him on the periph, maybe throwing up a few shots here and there, then it can be hard for him to zone in.

Think about how many times this year we have faced a almost zero chances against, but a powerplay for the opposing team creates a goal. That's when we are seeing things like 0-2 and 14-4 shots. Powerplays create high quality chances with a ton of traffic, and if Quick hasn't seen any work it tends to be a recipe for disaster.

That's just my take on it.

Yeah, that's how I remember it too. Will go through game logs this weekend or something when I have a chance, since I got called out on this I have the anecdotal evidence off hand and some fantastic big-picture stuff from sdgulls to start with as well as the usual goodies by you and Sheng. I'd ask CNS too but I think Quick makes his eyes bleed.

 

[kingsholygrail]

I don't know how well stats back it, but I'm pretty sure the Kings stick with Quick because his ups are the tops even if he has some of the worst lows. They could have a steady homeplate goalie that plays the standard goalie butterfly style like a Lundqvist or Price. It's stable. It's very consistent, but I think Quick in his volatility and style can get above them when it matters.

Of course that just spawns lots of threads on the main board for how bad he appears to be whenever he's not doing well, then nothing when he is.

 

[Sheng Peng]

I'd be interested to see how Quick's save percentage correlates with Kings team corsi specifically...i.e. I'm hypothesizing that when we're actually massively outplayed that Quick does better, and that's inverse with when we outplay the other team.

Thanks to you, Jason, and PJ for bringing up this interesting point. If you guys don't mind, I think I'll go ahead and put it into an article.

Here's the first look at the data I've put together. As a definition for dominating or being dominated, I looked at Quick games where LA put up a (dominating) 60% or better Score Adjusted Corsi or (being dominated) 40% or less in a game from 2008-15 (including playoffs).

Here are the results, though not conclusive...small sample sizes and missing 5v5 data, to start with. Keep in mind that Quick's career Sv% is .914:

My favorite part about this is seeing how many more games the Kings have dominated than not!