redruM Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 So I fouind this article where is ranks goalies by WAR ( wins above replacement) WTF is WAR and how is it calculated? http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/martin-brodeurs-legacy-by-the-numbers/ Also when comparing goalies why is the NHL avg save % different, I donot understand this at all.. can someone please explain?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevsMan84 Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 (edited) WAR? Huh? Good god! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing. Edited February 3, 2015 by DevsMan84 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucifer91 Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 WAR? Huh? Good god! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SterioDesign Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 Make love not war Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrthemike Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 WAR? Huh? Good god! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing. Oh good,l I'm not the only one that immediately thought this when I saw the title. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunninWithTheDevil Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 WAR? Huh? Good god! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing. literally had this stuck in my head the second i read the thread title but staying on topic: ...yeah i have no idea, wait for Triumph to see this maybe he can answer it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshall Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 Also when comparing goalies why is the NHL avg save % different, I donot understand this at all.. He's adjusting for era. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Rockies 1976 Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 So I fouind this article where is ranks goalies by WAR ( wins above replacement) WTF is WAR and how is it calculated? http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/martin-brodeurs-legacy-by-the-numbers/ Also when comparing goalies why is the NHL avg save % different, I donot understand this at all.. can someone please explain?? The NHL average save%s are different because the years when each goalie played are being used as the comparison point. The league save% average has been going up over the last couple of decades. For much of the 80s, .900+ was considered outstanding, .890 was good, and .880 was OK. Now it's more .925+ is outstanding, .916 or so is pretty good, and anything under .910 is kind of meh. And .900 is not good these days. The game has obviously changed at lot (much more scoring in the 80s), to say the least. People who compare Patrick Roy's lifetime .910 save% directly to Marty's .912 are missing a lot. Roy was putting up .900+ save%s in the 80s when almost no one else was doing it. Hasek had that six-year period where he was around .930 for that entire period when no one was really doing that yet. There's a reason why Roy is +.015 over league average for career and Hasek is +.019. They were superior puck-stoppers compared to most of their peers. Marty is only +.005, but Marty was never an awesome pure puck-stopper, and most of his best regular-season work came after the lost season lockout anyway, as an older player. I don't knock him for not being a huge save% guy, for two reasons: 1) His puck-handling (if it wasn't such a big deal, why did the NHL change its rules to curtail his abilities in that department) 2) His ability to raise his game multiple times in the clutch and in the playoffs. His save%s went way up in four out of five Cup runs over what they were in the regular season. He had a knack for making that big save...not always of course, but often enough. As we've seen, there's guys who put up pretty regular season numbers but don't get it done come playoff time. Marty had three as-good-as-it-gets playoff runs that contributed to Cup wins. He was a beast when he needed to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thefiestygoat Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 Quant Hockey has a cool graph showing how NHL SV% has gone up since 1982. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadDog2020 Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 So is hockey gonna become baseball with all these stupid advanced stats now? I mean, enough already... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsrule33 Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 So is hockey gonna become baseball with all these stupid advanced stats now? I mean, enough already... What makes them dumb? If you are going to use stats, lets actually make them worthwile, no? Why not find ways to properly rate players and judge talents... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadDog2020 Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 What makes them dumb? If you are going to use stats, lets actually make them worthwile, no? Why not find ways to properly rate players and judge talents...There seemed to be no problems rating players or judging talent before all these stats came along. I just find most of them useless. I have two eyes. That's enough for me. But I guess I'm in the minority on that these days... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 There seemed to be no problems rating players or judging talent before all these stats came along. I just find most of them useless. I have two eyes. That's enough for me. But I guess I'm in the minority on that these days... Because everyone wants to put as exact a value as possible on everything and every player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 What makes them dumb? If you are going to use stats, lets actually make them worthwile, no? Why not find ways to properly rate players and judge talents... Perhaps it's semantics, but I object to the concept that you can come up with a number that says this is how many wins a particular player is worth and make it sound sciency. If you just want to say that his save percentage doesn't compare well to specific goaltenders or the league average, and say that save percentage is what's most important, that's fine. And at least in baseball, they quantify WAR based on a variety of statistics. You would think that when we're talking about a goalie whose puckhandling -- which is something that absolutely effects whether a team is more likely to win or lose -- is considered the best of all time, that should come into account when coming up with a number that purports to say how many wins he's worth. (Not to mention the fairly persuasive anecdotal evidence that shots on goal at home were significantly undercounted for his career). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsrule33 Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 There seemed to be no problems rating players or judging talent before all these stats came along. I just find most of them useless. I have two eyes. That's enough for me. But I guess I'm in the minority on that these days... You are pretty set on your ways, that's fine, but no one in the world is possibly saying this is a substitute to watching the games, but you can't watch all the games, your scouts can't, a GM can't, you can't hire enough people to watch as much as you need to know. Even if you watched all the games that year, you want more about that player, is he trending upward or downward, finding out why his numbers may have went up or not, how the player is deployed. it's all important when making decisions. A lot of people have built in biases, that clouds judgement. Stats help to give a different picture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Rockies 1976 Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 (edited) There seemed to be no problems rating players or judging talent before all these stats came along. I just find most of them useless. I have two eyes. That's enough for me. But I guess I'm in the minority on that these days... Sometimes I find the advanced numbers annoying too (partly because if the metrics don't match up with the performance, it then becomes all about luck), but they definitely have a place. They really do help flesh out the traditional numbers and can help predict where a player is headed. The one thing I did like is that the chart provided in the article did its best to compare apples-to-apples, which is often lost when it comes to comparisons across eras...the Roy-vs-Brodeur argument using save% is a good example. One thing I don't like about advanced numbers is that they treat players like they're all the same above the neck. We know some regular-season monsters have a way of wilting on the bigger stages more often than not. Edited February 3, 2015 by Colorado Rockies 1976 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Brown Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 GSAA is a good stat for goalies because it tells you many goals you're goalie saved above (or below) what a league average goalie would have saved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshall Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 There seemed to be no problems rating players or judging talent before all these stats came along. I just find most of them useless. I have two eyes. That's enough for me. But I guess I'm in the minority on that these days... If there are no problems rating players or judging talent, then there are no bad contracts or miscast players in the league, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 (edited) Sometimes I find the advanced numbers annoying too (partly because if the metrics don't match up with the performance, it then becomes all about luck), but they definitely have a place. They really do help flesh out the traditional numbers and can help predict where a player is headed. The one thing I did like is that the chart provided in the article did its best to compare apples-to-apples, which is often lost when it comes to comparisons across eras...the Roy-vs-Brodeur argument using save% is a good example. One thing I don't like about advanced numbers is that they treat players like they're all the same above the neck. We know some regular-season monsters have a way of wilting on the bigger stages more often than not. By the same token, the clutchness or "winner" factor, which I assume you're referring to, would be something a bad GM would tend to overvalue. It's perhaps a good way to split the difference between the all timers, but obviously silly if it were between Lunqvist/Luongo and Osgood/Fuhr/Giguerre. At the same time, you're a little too stat obsessed if you look at the link and say that Luongo is conclusively a better goalie than Marty, or that Hasek and Roy are to Marty what Einstein is to your average very smart person. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Edited February 3, 2015 by Daniel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadDog2020 Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 If there are no problems rating players or judging talent, then there are no bad contracts or miscast players in the league, right?Of course not, I understand teams are always looking for any edge they can get, and this is the way most sports seem to be headed... I mean, I can see why these stats have a place in the game now I guess, with the cap and the higher than ever salaries... But when new stats like this seemingly pop out of thin air, I just wonder how long it will be before hockey becomes like baseball, where every stat has a stat now lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 Of course not, I understand teams are always looking for any edge they can get, and this is the way most sports seem to be headed... I mean, I can see why these stats have a place in the game now I guess, with the cap and the higher than ever salaries... But when new stats like this seemingly pop out of thin air, I just wonder how long it will be before hockey becomes like baseball, where every stat has a stat now lol. My problem with it is these stats are far from perfect themselves (and they're still relatively new so I wouldn't expect them to be perfect or people to be able to use them correctly) yet they get treated like gospel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Rockies 1976 Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 By the same token, the clutchness or "winner" factor, which I assume you're referring to, would be something a bad GM would tend to overvalue. It's perhaps a good way to split the difference between the all timers, but obviously silly if it were between Lunqvist/Luongo and Osgood/Fuhr/Giguerre. At the same time, you're a little too stat obsessed if you look at the link and say that Luongo is conclusively a better goalie than Marty, or that Hasek and Roy are to Marty what Einstein is to your average very smart person. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk I'm not saying the chart in itself is the be-all end-all. I'm definitely not taking Luongo over Marty. To me, Marty/Roy/Hasek were the best of their time periods. I don't think you could go wrong with any of them. They're all among the all-time greats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATLL765 Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 (edited) Advanced stats can be confusing, but when it comes to goaltenders, you don't really need many advanced stats to know whether a guy is good or not. Save% is a perfect stat for valuing goalies since all a goalie does is stop shots. Stats like QS and RBS are great, but are essentially just a measure of save% in individual games and whether it was high enough to give your team a chance to win. I think the only big thing that advanced stats will do for valuing goalies in the future is with shot location so that you can isolate deficiencies in a goalie's game(glove hand, 5-hole, high or low shots, etc.). As for WAR, I don't think it's a stat that many see as reliable. There's to many factors, such as the role being played, to boil down a player's value to a single number. Despite this, advanced stats clearly are important and give us a better picture of the game for valuing individual players. Edited February 4, 2015 by ATLL765 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshall Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Of course not, I understand teams are always looking for any edge they can get, and this is the way most sports seem to be headed... I mean, I can see why these stats have a place in the game now I guess, with the cap and the higher than ever salaries... But when new stats like this seemingly pop out of thin air, I just wonder how long it will be before hockey becomes like baseball, where every stat has a stat now lol. New stats pop up every day, but very few last or become accepted (like Corsi and various mods of it). I've never seen Tango's WAR before, yet this is somewhat important work because predicting goaltending performance is sort of the great unknown. And in order to get closer to the 'truth' you need people who put in the work and publish imperfect stats. Then more people work on it and tweak it and it develops. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.