Devils rumoured to be interested in Jonathan Bernier

[Chuck the Duck]

Being on a bad team does not affect a goalie's save percentage.

 

There is only 1 logical response to this statement ...

 

[Marshall]

What Triumph is saying isn't as outlandish as it may sound. 

[Vic Rattlehead18]

Being on a bad team does not affect a goalie's save percentage.

 

 

Come on Triumph...you're better than that.

[ATLL765]

What Triumph is saying isn't as outlandish as it may sound. 

Look at Miikka Kiprusoff's stats and tell me that he couldn't have done better had Calgary not been atrocious most of that time. In the last 5 years, he has 2 seasons at .920+ and 3 at sub .910. The three season preceding that, not including the 04-05 lockout year, were .917, .923, .933. This shows me Calgary got worse as a team since they made the Finals in 04 because Kipper is still a great goalie.

[DH26]

What Triumph is saying isn't as outlandish as it may sound. 

 

Save percentage overall is probably the best measure of a goalie that we have but there are variables like bad defenses giving up better shot quality that I think are too easily dismissed by some state people. I don't see how you can say a team like Chicago's giving up the same quality of opportunities as Edmonton. It's the best measure but there are flaws in it. 

 

Stats in hockey because it's actually a team sport aren't as concrete as they are in baseball where it's always 1v1 with minor variables. 

 

And there's also the problem of shots not being counted as well in some buildings, dropping Sv % which I read somewhere happened in NJ and we saw a few nights ago w/ them only having 2 shots in the 2nd period and even TG saying it was way higher

[sundstrom]

I can appreciate how the notion that "save percentage isn't reliant on the team in front of you" is ludicrous. we watch enough hockey where we say things like "nobody could've stopped that because the d-man fell down or was out of position."

 

the point is, this happens on an equal enough basis both ways - (the opposite side is a breakaway where the guy just puts it in the crest) where it should even out. the same goes for high shot counting arenas and low ones. Over the course of a season, the truth usually bears fruit in the save percentage number.

 

if anything, bad teams giving up a lot of shots should HELP a good goaltender's save percentage because while his team may be giving up more shots, the opposition is going to have average shooting percentage of the league. So the goaltender is making more saves of the same type - his save % should be higher.

 

many of us like to use the "eye test" instead of stats and our eyes tell us that there are many occasions every game where a great chance doesn't result in a goal - many more than where a goal is scored.

[mouse]

many of us like to use the "eye test" instead of stats and our eyes tell us that there are many occasions every game where a great chance doesn't result in a goal - many more than where a goal is scored.

 

 

if anything, bad teams giving up a lot of shots should HELP a good goaltender's save percentage because while his team may be giving up more shots, the opposition is going to have average shooting percentage of the league. So the goaltender is making more saves of the same type - his save % should be higher.

If you've played on a bad team, you know that isn't true. I played with a great goalie on a crappy team for 2 years, and his save percentage ALWAYS went down in the 3rd period because he got tired from all the shots he was facing. Add in a long season and the accumulated wear and tear, and an NHL goalie on a bad team is going to get worse. I don't have the stats, but based on personal experience, I'd guess that a good goalie on a bad team (hot Moose necessarily, but a guy like Kiprusoff maybe) would have progressively worse stats as the season wore on. The other thing about Moose is he should have been a backup. He's even keeled, well prepared, and works well with his defense. Should he be starting every game? No. But if he's used less frequently, and the d tightens up to help him out, he's going to look very good (like he did last year). If he's playing all the time, showing off his weaknesses, and the d takes chances (like they should), he's going to get exposed (like when he played for Atlanta). The stats show that Moose is an inadequate starter. An understanding of the teams he played on and the role he was asked to play, coupled with the eye test, should be enough to predict that he would be a good backup, which he has been.

[ATLL765]

If you've played on a bad team, you know that isn't true. I played with a great goalie on a crappy team for 2 years, and his save percentage ALWAYS went down in the 3rd period because he got tired from all the shots he was facing. Add in a long season and the accumulated wear and tear, and an NHL goalie on a bad team is going to get worse. I don't have the stats, but based on personal experience, I'd guess that a good goalie on a bad team (hot Moose necessarily, but a guy like Kiprusoff maybe) would have progressively worse stats as the season wore on. The other thing about Moose is he should have been a backup. He's even keeled, well prepared, and works well with his defense. Should he be starting every game? No. But if he's used less frequently, and the d tightens up to help him out, he's going to look very good (like he did last year). If he's playing all the time, showing off his weaknesses, and the d takes chances (like they should), he's going to get exposed (like when he played for Atlanta). The stats show that Moose is an inadequate starter. An understanding of the teams he played on and the role he was asked to play, coupled with the eye test, should be enough to predict that he would be a good backup, which he has been.

What he said.

[Devils731]

Which NHL team did Mouse play for? Since we are only talking about the NHL level where the talent levels are fairly close for most teams.

It's pretty convincing that good teams get more shots, not better quality shots, and vice versa. It's also why skaters almost all end up with a similar shooting percentage in the long run.

[ATLL765]

Which NHL team did Mouse play for? Since we are only talking about the NHL level where the talent levels are fairly close for most teams.

It's pretty convincing that good teams get more shots, not better quality shots, and vice versa. It's also why skaters almost all end up with a similar shooting percentage in the long run.

Right, because nothing can be learned about the NHL from hockey at any other level. Get out of here. This thread is getting completely ridiculous.

[Devils731]

Right, because nothing can be learned about the NHL from hockey at any other level. Get out of here. This thread is getting completely ridiculous.

The KHL and NHL are different enough, even though both have high quality players from around the world, so the NHL is the best example of the NHL.

You don't have to agree, but you're the one being ridiculous to want to argue about it while also refusing to read about it. Be more open minded and then discuss why you disagree with what is said, not just state it's obvious only you, or those who agree with you, who could possibly be correct.

[NJDevs4978]

If Moose's save percentage was appreciably lower from other goalies on the teams he played on then yes that's a pretty good indicator he wasn't an above-average goalie.  If it wasn't, then I don't get why this is a debate.  

 

Give me all the numbers you want about bad teams having goalies with better save percentages or whatever, but if five different guys have a sub-.900 save percentage on the same team, sooner or later it ain't a goalie issue, unless it's Philly 

 

EDIT: Just looked up the numbers, yeah other than the last year before Moose came here he was 'far' below Lehtonen in save percentage.every other year in Atlanta.

Edited March 15, 2013 by NJDevs4978

[NJDevs4978]

I can appreciate how the notion that "save percentage isn't reliant on the team in front of you" is ludicrous. we watch enough hockey where we say things like "nobody could've stopped that because the d-man fell down or was out of position."

 

the point is, this happens on an equal enough basis both ways - (the opposite side is a breakaway where the guy just puts it in the crest) where it should even out. the same goes for high shot counting arenas and low ones. Over the course of a season, the truth usually bears fruit in the save percentage number.

 

if anything, bad teams giving up a lot of shots should HELP a good goaltender's save percentage because while his team may be giving up more shots, the opposition is going to have average shooting percentage of the league. So the goaltender is making more saves of the same type - his save % should be higher.

 

many of us like to use the "eye test" instead of stats and our eyes tell us that there are many occasions every game where a great chance doesn't result in a goal - many more than where a goal is scored.

 

See now I can't go along with this rationale.  For every Luongo on Florida there are ten goalies on bad teams that just have bad save percentages.  Goalies that played 30+ games and were top twelve in save percentage last year:

 

Elliott, Schnieder, Lundqvist, Mike Smith, Quick, Halak, Rinne, Lehtonen, Kiprusoff, Howard, Thomas, Luongo

 

Only two of them didn't make the playoffs (Kiprusoff and Lehtonen) and three of the top five were on final four teams with the other two being guys that played 38 and 33 games.

Edited March 15, 2013 by NJDevs4978

[Triumph]

See now I can't go along with this rationale.  For every Luongo on Florida there are ten goalies on bad teams that just have bad save percentages.  Goalies that played 30+ games and were top twelve in save percentage last year:

 

Elliott, Schnieder, Lundqvist, Mike Smith, Quick, Halak, Rinne, Lehtonen, Kiprusoff, Howard, Thomas, Luongo

 

Only two of them didn't make the playoffs (Kiprusoff and Lehtonen) and three of the top five were on final four teams with the other two being guys that played 38 and 33 games.

 

The problem is that we're trying to measure goalie efficacy and team efficacy via save percentage, but a goalie's save percentage is probably the single largest determinant of how good his team is.  It's really hard to overcome a bad save percentage, and it's also very hard to have your team sh!t the bed on a great save percentage.  I bet if you looked at seasons where a goalie played at least half his team's games and had a .930 or better SV% his team made the playoffs a lot.  Likewise if you looked at seasons below .900 (past, say, 1997).

[Devils731]

See now I can't go along with this rationale.  For every Luongo on Florida there are ten goalies on bad teams that just have bad save percentages.  Goalies that played 30+ games and were top twelve in save percentage last year:

 

Elliott, Schnieder, Lundqvist, Mike Smith, Quick, Halak, Rinne, Lehtonen, Kiprusoff, Howard, Thomas, Luongo

 

Only two of them didn't make the playoffs (Kiprusoff and Lehtonen) and three of the top five were on final four teams with the other two being guys that played 38 and 33 games.

 

That's a bit of a chicken or the egg type situation.  Teams who post high save percentages tend to win more, but is that a function of being good or skill combined with randomness leaning towards you?

 

http://espn.go.com/nhl/statistics/team/_/stat/scoring/sort/avgShotsAgainst/year/2011/order/false

 

That's last year, sorted by shots allowed.  I think it's reasonable to say that good defensive teams allow less shots overall.  If we're going to say good defensive teams help your save percentage and bad ones hurt your save percentage, then the save percentage on this list should be the best at the top and the worst at the bottom.

 

Instead that list looks pretty random.  3 of the 4 worst teams in save percentage are near the top and the 4 bottom teams all are good or very good for save percentage.  This, to me, suggests that the deeper analysis has at least some value to it, that goalie save percentage has more to do with the goalie than the team in front of him.

[NJDevs4978]

I'm shocked the Devils are first on that list by a wide margin...no wonder the stupid media keeps perpetuating the trap myth

 

(actually you linked '10-11, the Lemaire season...11/12 we were 2nd in shots allowed by a hair - the top nine teams in shots allowed all made the playoffs).

Edited March 15, 2013 by NJDevs4978

[Devils731]

I'm shocked the Devils are first on that list by a wide margin...no wonder the stupid media keeps perpetuating the trap myth

 

(actually you linked '10-11, the Lemaire season...11/12 we were 2nd in shots allowed by a hair - the top nine teams in shots allowed all made the playoffs).

 

Oops, luckily the point should hold true regardless of the year I picked.

[mouse]

Which NHL team did Mouse play for? Since we are only talking about the NHL level where the talent levels are fairly close for most teams.

It's pretty convincing that good teams get more shots, not better quality shots, and vice versa. It's also why skaters almost all end up with a similar shooting percentage in the long run.

 

 

 

Which NHL team was everyone on this board a gm or scout for? If we go by that rationale, no one here has the right to post. As it is, we each bring in our experience with hockey. I am a fan. I have played. I do not consider myself an expert by a long shot, but I think my point remains somewhat valid.

[Devils731]

Which NHL team was everyone on this board a gm or scout for? If we go by that rationale, no one here has the right to post. As it is, we each bring in our experience with hockey. I am a fan. I have played. I do not consider myself an expert by a long shot, but I think my point remains somewhat valid.

Sorry, didn't mean for my post to read like it probably did. I really more was trying to point out its hard to compare elite leagues with each other, let alone non-elite to elite.

[mouse]

Sorry, didn't mean for my post to read like it probably did. I really more was trying to point out its hard to compare elite leagues with each other, let alone non-elite to elite.

No worries

[devilsrule33]

How about we look at specific goalies that may prove or not prove your point? Roberto Luongo's save percentage has not improved at all since he left Florida to go to the Canucks and he faced more shots than any goalie during those years in Florida. JS Giguere played in front of Niedermayer and Pronger in Anaheim and his save percentage numbers are no worse since leaving and playing for the Leafs and Avs (not playoff teams). Hasek's numbers didn't get better when he left Buffalo for Detroit or Ottawa. Neither did Curtis Joseph when he left Toronto to go to a Stanley Cup team in Detroit. Ed Belfour was a Stanley Cup winning goalie under one of the most defensive coaches in Ken Hitchcock with the Stars, but his numbers didn't take a hit when he left for the Leafs. Take away Kiprusoff's insane performance in 2004 with the Flames, his save percentage numbers are no real better or worse since the Flames have not been able to make the playoffs. Kevin Weekes sucked on good teams and bad teams throughout his career with fairly similar numbers. Look at Osgood's numbers from his time in Detroit and his time with the Isles and St Louis. Not much difference either. Vokoun's save percentage rose when he left a better situation in Nashville to go to Florida. Khabibulin's posted save percentage numbers with the terrible Oilers that are on par with any other team in his career. Craig Anderson was at his best save percentage wise on the crummy Panthers. Mike Dunham left Jacques Lemaire's Devils and his Jennings award post to the expansion Predators, and his numbers stayed the same and improved in some cases. Marc Denis' save percentage dropped after 5-years with the expansion Columbus Blue Jackets when he went to the Lightning's playoff team. Ron Tugnutt was also on that first Blue Jackets team and his save percentage improved from the previous year with the very defensive Ottawa Senators team (.917 to .903). Manny Fernandez left the Hitchcock Stars and the previous years Western Conference Champs for the expansion Wild and his save percentage stayed at .920. How about our favourite team and Martin Brodeur. Some of his worst save percentage years were from 97-2001 when the Devils gave up the fewest shots in the league and had the best defense. As the defense got worse, his numbers didn't decrease and only actually increased from that point. 

 

Not saying it is always perfect. Damien Rhodes left the 3rd best defensive team in Ottawa to the simply awful expansion Thrashers (last in GAA), and his numbers dropped that year significantly. But that might be the worst NHL team in the last 25 years. You won't find a team so poor. 
 

Edited March 16, 2013 by devilsrule33