Ondrej Pavelec

[trebendan]

Considering how much Pavelec has struggled this season, should Flaherty also have been given the heave-ho on Sunday?

 

[truck]

Considering how much Pavelec has struggled this season, should Flaherty also have been given the heave-ho on Sunday?

I suspect there will be a few more changes if PoMo gets extended.

No need to uproot Barrasso until he can give him term.

 

[YetAnotherGM]

Dubnyk to Nashville and Scrivens to Edmonton

Well there goes Scrivens' awesome save percentage and Dubnyk will now end up having and above .900 save percentage.

 

[garret9]

Well there goes Scrivens' awesome save percentage and Dubnyk will now end up having and above .900 save percentage.

Dubnyk was going to come back up above .9 anyways... his career has been in an equally ****** EDM and was avging far better. Just like Pavelec right now in WPG will likely come up a bit.

Scrivens likewise was doomed to come down even staying in LA.

Sv% is mix of luck/chance and goalie talent... not much team... the weighting between luck/chance vs goalie talent depends on your sample size.

 

[truck]

Well there goes Scrivens' awesome save percentage and Dubnyk will now end up having and above .900 save percentage.

Scrivens had good numbers in Toronto too as did Dubs in Edm last year.

Dubs was always going to bounce back. Not sure where Scrivens actual talent is.

 

[Hunter368]

Sv% is mix of luck/chance and goalie talent... not much team.

You stated this in another thread few days ago, I don't 100% agree with you, but we'll see what happens in WPG.

Don't bother quoting me stats, I've seen your stats on the subject and I'm very used to stats.....and how wrong they can be.

Let's wait till the end of the season and see how much effect our new def system effects our team sv% (more so Pav's save %, personally I believe Monty's sv% is better than he really is, so it can only go down)

If our team sv% does not improve, assuming we keep the same goalies, I'll gladly state publicly you were right.

AT the moment Pav's is 0.899% and Monty is .921%.

 

[truck]

You stated this in another thread few days ago, I don't 100% agree with you, but we'll see what happens in WPG.

Don't bother quoting me stats, I've seen your stats on the subject and I'm very used to stats.....and how wrong they can be.

Let's wait till the end of the season and see how much effect our new def system effects our team sv%.

If our team sv% does not improve, assuming we keep the same goalies, I'll gladly state publicly you were right.

The point is that a sample that small doesn't tell us anything.

 

[Hunter368]

The point is that a sample that small doesn't tell us anything.

Are you saying 34 games (balance of the season) is not a big enough sample size or long enough to put in a system and see some results?

 

[YWGinYYZ]

Are you saying 34 games (balance of the season) is not a big enough sample size or long enough to put in a system and see some results?

I'd expect Pavs SV% to bounce back a bit, regardless of systems. He's historically a .905'ish goalie. If Maurice's systems affect anything it might be SA, which will help lower our GA even if Pavs SV% doesn't rise.

 

[garret9]

Are you saying 34 games (balance of the season) is not a big enough sample size or long enough to put in a system and see some results?

Researching historical outcomes, systems generally has only seen a change of about +/- 0.002 on save percentage, and it wasn't even statistically significant to say it wasn't out of chance.

I'd talk more here but it be waste of room as I'd go on forever...

Basically, I've been mining data on Sv% and how it relates to different things. Starting tomorrow I have about 4-5 articles (all couple k words) discussing how, when and why save percentage is and isn't significant.

 

[truck]

Are you saying 34 games (balance of the season) is not a big enough sample size or long enough to put in a system and see some results?

I am not saying anything about the time it takes to implement a system. I am saying goalie numbers over a 34 game sample are next to meaningless.

 

[wpgsilver]

i am not saying anything about the time it takes to implement a system. I am saying goalie numbers over a 34 game sample are next to meaningless.

QFT.


/caps

 

[Hunter368]

I am not saying anything about the time it takes to implement a system. I am saying goalie numbers over a 34 game sample are next to meaningless.

So you're saying the goalie numbers over 34 games is meaningless, but the goalie numbers over 48 games is.....truthful? Accurate? 14 games (difference between 34 & 48) makes that much difference in your mind? Sorry but I respectful disagree. Hockey like business is a results based, a new coach with a new system should have a impact on the goalie numbers in 34 games.....anything else is just excuses.

34 games is 42% of the season left to have a impact. Let me explain another way using business as my example (not saying TN is losing money, just using business as a example more people can understand). If your business was failing and you hired a new VP to run it and get it back on track (after losing money month after month).....so you would expect nothing from him in the last 5 months (42% of a 12 month business year) of your fiscal year? If you say you have no expectations or that the last 5 months is meaningless (aka ok with losing money) you are the nicest boss in the world (and likely bankrupt).

 

[truck]

So you're saying the goalie numbers over 34 games is meaningless, but the goalie numbers over 48 games is.....truthful? Accurate? 14 games (difference between 34 & 48) makes that much difference in your mind? Sorry but I respectful disagree. Hockey like business is a results based, a new coach with a new system should have a impact on the goalie numbers in 34 games.....anything else is just excuses.

34 games is 42% of the season left to have a impact. Let me explain another way using business as my example (not saying TN is losing money, just using business as a example more people can understand). If your business was failing and you hired a new VP to run it and get it back on track (after losing money month after month).....so you would expect nothing from him in the last 5 months (42% of a 12 month business year) of your fiscal year? If you say you have no expectations or that the last 5 months is meaningless (aka ok with losing money) you are the nicest boss in the world (and likely bankrupt).

Bolded: I said nothing of the sort.

At this point Pavelec would have to stack something like 100 games of changed play before I'd buy it. This was true before last season, before this season and will be true at the start of next season.

Plenty of goalies have had very nice 30 some game stretches only to tank again.

 

[Hunter368]

Bolded: I said nothing of the sort.

At this point Pavelec would have to stack something like 100 games of changed play before I'd buy it. This was true before last season, before this season and will be true at the start of next season.

Plenty of goalies have had very nice 30 some game stretches only to tank again.

Truck here is your quote: "I am saying goalie numbers over a 34 game sample are next to meaningless."

I read that pretty clearly. You are saying that nothing Pav's or Paul does over the last 34 games is meaningful. Not sure how else you expect someone to read this.

 

[Rook37]

Truck here is your quote: "I am saying goalie numbers over a 34 game sample are next to meaningless."

I read that pretty clearly. You are saying that nothing Pav's or Paul does over the last 34 games is meaningful. Not sure how else you expect someone to read this.

I'm not sure how that is the same as saying a 48 game sample is meaningful though. It seems like he was denying the hypocrisy you're accusing him of, which makes sense since he didn't say anything of the sort.

Basically, prior to today, Pavelec has put up 100+ games at around .905 SV%, including all his good and bad streaks. You say it's 42% of the season and I would counter that he has put up somewhere around 150-200% of a season of substandard play since getting to Winnipeg. So yes, it would take more than 34 games of legitimately good play to be convince me we're seeing longterm change.

Even putting that aside, that argument is ignoring the fact that Pavelec clearly won't play all 34 games and the research done that shows how little a factor the quality of team defence has on SV%.

[The reason I say that is that it just seems pretty straightforward that shot quantity and quality (aka team defence) affect GAA, not SV%. A goalie can't control how many shots he faces, just how many of those he saves and those numbers have been shown to be fairly consistent regardless of the amounts of shots faced. Here's an example: Miller's putting up a .929 on one of the worst teams in the history of the league right now but his GAA is nothing special thanks to shot quantity. He's an amazing goalie, but think how amazing he would have to be to put up that SV% if his team's defence (again, the 2013-14 Buffalo Sabres) actually had an impact on it.]

ANYWAYS:
I think we'll see an improvement in Pavelec's GAA but I don't have too much hope for his SV% at this stage in his career. I'm more than okay with him proving me wrong, but at this point he needs to carry that level of play through next season to convince me it's here to stay. I really don't think that's a controversial notion.

 

[Hunter368]

I'm not sure how that is the same as saying a 48 game sample is meaningful though. It seems like he was denying the hypocrisy you're accusing him of, which makes sense since he didn't say anything of the sort.

Basically, prior to today, Pavelec has put up 100+ games at around .905 SV%, including all his good and bad streaks. You say it's 42% of the season and I would counter that he has put up somewhere around 150-200% of a season of substandard play since getting to Winnipeg. So yes, it would take more than 34 games of legitimately good play to be convince me we're seeing longterm change.

Even putting that aside, that argument is ignoring the fact that Pavelec clearly won't play all 34 games and the research done that shows how little a factor the quality of team defence has on SV%.

[The reason I say that is that it just seems pretty straightforward that shot quantity and quality (aka team defence) affect GAA, not SV%. A goalie can't control how many shots he faces, just how many of those he saves and those numbers have been shown to be fairly consistent regardless of the amounts of shots faced. Here's an example: Miller's putting up a .929 on one of the worst teams in the history of the league right now but his GAA is nothing special thanks to shot quantity. He's an amazing goalie, but think how amazing he would have to be to put up that SV% if his team's defence (again, the 2013-14 Buffalo Sabres) actually had an impact on it.]

ANYWAYS:
I think we'll see an improvement in Pavelec's GAA but I don't have too much hope for his SV% at this stage in his career. I'm more than okay with him proving me wrong, but at this point he needs to carry that level of play through next season to convince me it's here to stay. I really don't think that's a controversial notion.

To be clear on my stance, I was not accusing him of anything. Just trying to get him to explain his stance more clearing. I 100% believe with Paul in place, playing a new system it will have a positive effect on Pav's GAA and sv% (before the end of the season). That is my only point.

His point, from what I understood from reading his posts, was that the last 34 games will be meaningless or aka no good indication of any improvement by the team defense. That's how I read his posts and was trying to get him to explain it more clearly so I was not misunderstanding him.

 

[truck]

I'm not sure how that is the same as saying a 48 game sample is meaningful though. It seems like he was denying the hypocrisy you're accusing him of, which makes sense since he didn't say anything of the sort.

Basically, prior to today, Pavelec has put up 100+ games at around .905 SV%, including all his good and bad streaks. You say it's 42% of the season and I would counter that he has put up somewhere around 150-200% of a season of substandard play since getting to Winnipeg, so yes, it would take more than 34 games of legitimately good play to be convince me we're seeing longterm change.

And even that number is ignoring the fact that Pavelec clearly won't play all 34 games and the research done that shows how little a factor the quality of team defence has on SV%.

[The reason I say that is that it just seems pretty straightforward that shot quantity and quality (aka team defence) affect GAA, not SV%. A goalie can't control how many shots he faces, just how many of those he saves and those numbers have been shown to be fairly consistent regardless of the amounts of shots faced. Here's an example: Miller's putting up a .929 on one of the worst teams in the history of the league right now but his GAA is nothing special thanks to shot quantity. He's an amazing goalie, but think how amazing he would have to be to put up that SV% if his team's defence (again, the 2013-14 Buffalo Sabres) actually had an impact on it.]

ANYWAYS:
I think we'll see an improvement in Pavelec's GAA but I don't have too much hope for his SV% at this stage in his career. I'm more than okay with him proving me wrong, but at this point he needs to carry that level of play through next season to convince me it's here to stay. I really don't think that's a controversial notion.

Yes. You are bang on. Thanks.

the goalie numbers over 48 games is.....truthful? Accurate?

Those are words that I didn't say.

 

[Hunter368]

Those are words that I didn't say.

No you didn't but you insinuated them. I've tried to get you to explain your position/statement but you continue to refuse.

I guess I won't get anything more from you so I'll drop it. I've already made my point.

 

[truck]

No you didn't but you insinuated them. I've tried to get you to explain your position/statement but you continue to refuse.

I guess I won't get anything more from you so I'll drop it. I've already made my point.

I didn't insinuate that 48 games were a telling sample for goalie numbers.

As I stated in another post:

At this point Pavelec would have to stack something like 100 games of changed play before I'd buy it. This was true before last season, before this season and will be true at the start of next season.

Plenty of goalies have had very nice 30 some game stretches only to tank again.

What about the my statements would you like clarified?

 

[Hunter368]

I didn't insinuate that 48 games were a telling sample for goalie numbers.

As I stated in another post:



What about the my statements would you like clarified?

So above you agree that 100 games gives a person an accurate picture of a goalies sv%. So basically this is a bit more than one complete season. So am I safe to assume you are saying 1 year is a good sample size to gauge a goalie's performance?

Then you say that 34 games is meaningless picture of a goalie's performance (sv%). Keeping in mind that 34 games is 42% of an entire season.

My point is, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that a full season is a good sample size and 42% is not. I disagree. With a organized coach he should be able to put into place a system and see results within 34 games (42% of an entire season). These results should include (but not limited to) Pav's GAA decreasing and his sv% increasing.

It looks like we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[YWGinYYZ]

GAA decreasing I could see - lower the SA (which can be done via a new "system"), and your GAA will decrease, even if your goalies SV% doesn't change.

SV% regressing back to Pavs norm probably won't be affected by a systems change - that's most likely on him. He's displayed a remarkable consistency for under average SV% throughout his career.

 

[truck]

So above you agree that 100 games gives a person an accurate picture of a goalies sv%. So basically this is a bit more than one complete season. So am I safe to assume you are saying 1 year is a good sample size to gauge a goalie's performance?

Then you say that 34 games is meaningless picture of a goalie's performance (sv%). Keeping in mind that 34 games is 42% of an entire season.

My point is, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that a full season is a good sample size and 42% is not. I disagree. With a organized coach he should be able to put into place a system and see results within 34 games (42% of an entire season). These results should include (but not limited to) Pav's GAA decreasing and his sv% increasing.

It looks like we will have to agree to disagree.

Goalies don't start 100 games in a single season.

Nowhere did I say 1 season was a telling sample.

It will take the better part of two season for Pavelec to play 100 games and he would have to consistently perform well above his career averages for me to buy that something has changed.

A 34 game sample means nothing. Nothing. Zip. Zero for a goalies numbers.

For example:

In the 2010-11 season Ondrej Pavelec posted a .927 save percentage over 38 games prior to the Olympics.

In the 20 games after the Olympics he posts a .883 save percentage.

Same team. Same system.

He opened the next year (first year in Winnipeg) with a .885 across 9 games in October and a .904 across 12 games in November

Pavelec posted a .927 across 38 games
He was sub .900 across his next 41

Same goalie. Same team.

Goalie numbers over a small sample really do mean very little when evaluating a goalie. They matter a lot on the score sheet, but don't tell you much a bout goalie talent.

 

[Hunter368]

GAA decreasing I could see - lower the SA (which can be done via a new "system"), and your GAA will decrease, even if your goalies SV% doesn't change.

SV% regressing back to Pavs norm probably won't be affected by a systems change - that's most likely on him. He's displayed a remarkable consistency for under average SV% throughout his career.

I never stated any level his sv% would improve to, just stated it would improve. Where it ends at by year end is anyone's guess, but it will improve.

 

[wpgsilver]

No you didn't but you insinuated them. I've tried to get you to explain your position/statement but you continue to refuse.

You inferred something that he didn't imply.

Goalies don't start 100 games in a single season.

Nowhere did I say 1 season was a telling sample.

It will take the better part of two season for Pavelec to play 100 games and he would have to consistently perform well above his career averages for me to buy that something has changed.

A 34 game sample means nothing. Nothing. Zip. Zero for a goalies numbers.

For example:

In the 2010-11 season Ondrej Pavelec posted a .927 save percentage over 38 games prior to the Olympics.

In the 20 games after the Olympics he posts a .883 save percentage.

Same team. Same system.

He opened the next year (first year in Winnipeg) with a .885 across 9 games in October and a .904 across 12 games in November

Pavelec posted a .927 across 38 games
He was sub .900 across his next 41

Same goalie. Same team.

Goalie numbers over a small sample really do mean very little when evaluating a goalie. They matter a lot on the score sheet, but don't tell you much a bout goalie talent.

Really, really solid post Truck.