Jump to content

Photo

Devils rumoured to be interested in Jonathan Bernier


  • Please log in to reply
96 replies to this topic

#61 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,889 posts

Posted 15 March 2013 - 09:01 AM

I assume that source is 'the voices in your head' or 'HockeyInsiderr'

 

With the way Quick is playing, I don't think LA's too keen on dealing Bernier.


  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#62 ATLL765

ATLL765

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,049 posts

Posted 15 March 2013 - 10:13 AM

I assume that source is 'the voices in your head' or 'HockeyInsiderr'

 

With the way Quick is playing, I don't think LA's too keen on dealing Bernier.

You're being awful snippy for a guy who just completely ignored the fact that Hedberg has been on some really bad teams.


  • 0

#63 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,889 posts

Posted 15 March 2013 - 10:25 AM

You're being awful snippy for a guy who just completely ignored the fact that Hedberg has been on some really bad teams.

 

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


Edited by Triumph, 15 March 2013 - 10:27 AM.

  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#64 ATLL765

ATLL765

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,049 posts

Posted 15 March 2013 - 10:35 AM

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

Ok. Whatever you say.

You know. I agree with you on the luck stuff, how it doesn't exist. I'm a logic person, so I get the stats, but lately, you've had this holier than thou attitude and it's unbecoming.

It's also beyond silly to say that being on a bad team doesn't affect save percentage. A bad team gives up higher quality chances, more regularly.


Edited by ATLL765, 15 March 2013 - 10:39 AM.

  • 0

#65 ZeroGravityFat

ZeroGravityFat

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,759 posts

Posted 15 March 2013 - 10:39 AM

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

 

Wait so you're telling me that 15-20 shots on goal with no real chance of going in is the same as 10-15 shots with traffic, deflection etc. if the save percentage is the same? this is new territory of bullsh!t stats clouding the reality.


  • 0

martyb.jpg
Proud Winner of the 2012 Sergei Brylin Award and 2011 Andy Greene Award, Official keeper of Doc and Chico's random ramblings during play in blowout games


#66 ATLL765

ATLL765

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,049 posts

Posted 15 March 2013 - 10:41 AM

Wait so you're telling me that 15-20 shots on goal with no real chance of going in is the same as 10-15 shots with traffic, deflection etc. if the save percentage is the same? this is new territory of bullsh!t stats clouding the reality.

I recall us getting a decent amount of shots in the 1st half of 10-11. I don't remember scoring a lot though.


  • 0

#67 ZeroGravityFat

ZeroGravityFat

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,759 posts

Posted 15 March 2013 - 10:44 AM

shots on goal and save percentage are useless indicators on their own. you can throw the kitchen sink but if it's hitting the logo even the worst goalie will stop it.


  • 0

martyb.jpg
Proud Winner of the 2012 Sergei Brylin Award and 2011 Andy Greene Award, Official keeper of Doc and Chico's random ramblings during play in blowout games


#68 ATLL765

ATLL765

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,049 posts

Posted 15 March 2013 - 10:45 AM

shots on goal and save percentage are useless indicators on their own. you can throw the kitchen sink but if it's hitting the logo even the worst goalie will stop it.

That's my point. All our shots that first half were from the outside and seemingly all hit the goalie, dead center on the logo. My point is, worse teams get worse chances and give up better chances than better teams. This is indisputable fact. Therefore, a goalie's stats are somewhat dependent on the team he plays on.


  • 0

#69 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,889 posts

Posted 15 March 2013 - 10:53 AM

Ok. Whatever you say.

You know. I agree with you on the luck stuff, how it doesn't exist. I'm a logic person, so I get the stats, but lately, you've had this holier than thou attitude and it's unbecoming.

It's also beyond silly to say that being on a bad team doesn't affect save percentage. A bad team gives up higher quality chances, more regularly.

 

That isn't true.  Bad teams simply give up more shots.  They usually have worse goaltenders too, which doesn't help - if you're Atlanta and you have Roberto Luongo, maybe you get into the playoffs, but if you have Johan Hedberg, you're probably going to be bringing up the rear.

 

http://nhlnumbers.co...rs-but-how-much

 

The only thing being on a bad team really affects can be how many power plays and power play shots a goalie faces - that can affect save percentage, but even if Atlanta was undisciplined and a bad penalty killing team, Hedberg's stats are still bad.  Now if you want to argue that playing in front of a rotten team affected Hedberg's confidence and caused him to play worse, go ahead, but that can't be proven.

 

Wait so you're telling me that 15-20 shots on goal with no real chance of going in is the same as 10-15 shots with traffic, deflection etc. if the save percentage is the same? this is new territory of bullsh!t stats clouding the reality.

 

No, I'm not telling you that.  I'm saying that NHL games and teams don't really work like that.  You don't get to choose what type of chances you give up, and there's a lot of puck luck in giving up things like breakaways, odd-man rushes, etc.


Edited by Triumph, 15 March 2013 - 10:53 AM.

  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#70 ATLL765

ATLL765

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,049 posts

Posted 15 March 2013 - 11:00 AM

That isn't true.  Bad teams simply give up more shots.  They usually have worse goaltenders too, which doesn't help - if you're Atlanta and you have Roberto Luongo, maybe you get into the playoffs, but if you have Johan Hedberg, you're probably going to be bringing up the rear.

 

http://nhlnumbers.co...rs-but-how-much

 

The only thing being on a bad team really affects can be how many power plays and power play shots a goalie faces - that can affect save percentage, but even if Atlanta was undisciplined and a bad penalty killing team, Hedberg's stats are still bad.  Now if you want to argue that playing in front of a rotten team affected Hedberg's confidence and caused him to play worse, go ahead, but that can't be proven.

 

 

No, I'm not telling you that.  I'm saying that NHL games and teams don't really work like that.  You don't get to choose what type of chances you give up, and there's a lot of puck luck in giving up things like breakaways, odd-man rushes, etc.

I can no longer take you seriously. I didn't even read your post beyond "Bad teams simply give up more shots".

And yes, you don't choose the chances you give up. You give up the one's you can't stop and bad teams stop less chances. PERIOD. Therefore, bad teams give up more quality chances than good teams. You cannot argue that is not true.


  • 0

#71 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,889 posts

Posted 15 March 2013 - 11:06 AM

I can no longer take you seriously. I didn't even read your post beyond "Bad teams simply give up more shots".

And yes, you don't choose the chances you give up. You give up the one's you can't stop and bad teams stop less chances. PERIOD. Therefore, bad teams give up more quality chances than good teams. You cannot argue that is not true.

 

You're the one who is refusing to challenge what you believe, not me.  I wouldn't've believed this either but the numbers bear it out - lots of people have looked for 'shot quality' and no one's found it yet.  It might exist, but it seems less and less likely.  Some players might have an ability to affect save percentage by their goalie one way or another, but not significantly enough to cause what happened to Hedberg in Atlanta.

 

Bad teams give up more quality chances than good ones, but they do it at the same rate as they give up shots on goal.  If you want to sift through the data to try to find evidence of more than that, feel free.  If you want to believe Johan Hedberg was a good goalie trapped on a bad team - again, feel free, but it just isn't the case, he was bad, and it's a minor miracle the Devils have gotten out of him what they have.


  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#72 ATLL765

ATLL765

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,049 posts

Posted 15 March 2013 - 11:11 AM

You're the one who is refusing to challenge what you believe, not me.  I wouldn't've believed this either but the numbers bear it out - lots of people have looked for 'shot quality' and no one's found it yet.  It might exist, but it seems less and less likely.  Some players might have an ability to affect save percentage by their goalie one way or another, but not significantly enough to cause what happened to Hedberg in Atlanta.

 

Bad teams give up more quality chances than good ones, but they do it at the same rate as they give up shots on goal.  If you want to sift through the data to try to find evidence of more than that, feel free.  If you want to believe Johan Hedberg was a good goalie trapped on a bad team - again, feel free, but it just isn't the case, he was bad, and it's a minor miracle the Devils have gotten out of him what they have.

So you're telling me that it's just as easy to stop 1 high quality chance as it is to stop 10? This is what you're saying, right? That a goalie will be able to stop all types of chances with the same frequency in which he has done before, despite whether there were more high quality chances than low quality, is this correct?

Let me ask you one thing: Have you played sports before? In particular, hockey?


Edited by ATLL765, 15 March 2013 - 11:12 AM.

  • 0

#73 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,889 posts

Posted 15 March 2013 - 11:18 AM

So you're telling me that it's just as easy to stop 1 high quality chance as it is to stop 10? This is what you're saying, right? That a goalie will be able to stop all types of chances with the same frequency in which he has done before, despite whether there were more high quality chances than low quality, is this correct?

Let me ask you one thing: Have you played sports before? In particular, hockey?

 

That's not at all what I am saying.  I will not post again about this subject until you tell me you've read the link I pasted, otherwise I am just talking to a wall.


  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#74 SterioDesign

SterioDesign

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,435 posts

Posted 15 March 2013 - 11:22 AM

Ok. Whatever you say.

You know. I agree with you on the luck stuff, how it doesn't exist. I'm a logic person, so I get the stats, but lately, you've had this holier than thou attitude and it's unbecoming.

It's also beyond silly to say that being on a bad team doesn't affect save percentage. A bad team gives up higher quality chances, more regularly.

 

Gotta have to agree 100% with you there on everything you said, Tri is becoming cockier by the minutes it seems lol

 

and obviously being on a bad team DOES affect your save percentage, bad coverage on the left side when you're covering the left post is on the dmen. We shouldnt even have to explain ourselves on this actually... it's so obvious.

 

But let's just keep that in mind that he said that. One day when he'll decide to bash a player for not covering an open guy in the slot, we'll remind him that it doesnt not affect the goaltending.


  • 0

www.SterioDesign.com

 


#75 ATLL765

ATLL765

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,049 posts

Posted 15 March 2013 - 11:25 AM

That's not at all what I am saying.  I will not post again about this subject until you tell me you've read the link I pasted, otherwise I am just talking to a wall.

Now you know how we feel.


  • 0

#76 Chuck the Duck

Chuck the Duck

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,456 posts

Posted 15 March 2013 - 12:02 PM

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

 

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

 


  • 0
Posted Image

#77 Marshall

Marshall

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,204 posts

Posted 15 March 2013 - 12:54 PM

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


  • 0

Winner of the 2009-10 Slava Fetisov Award For Best International Poster
Winner of the 2011-2012 RD Avatar Award
believe2.jpg

www.numerartovertag.wordpress.com - An NHL Blog (in Swedish)


#78 Vic Rattlehead18

Vic Rattlehead18

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,486 posts

Posted 15 March 2013 - 01:09 PM

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

 

 

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


  • 0
Devils.

#79 ATLL765

ATLL765

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,049 posts

Posted 15 March 2013 - 01:13 PM

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.


  • 0

#80 DH26

DH26

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,671 posts

Posted 15 March 2013 - 01:22 PM

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


  • 0
Follow Me on Twitter @mtorino75 I Need Followers!

Visit My Devils Blog! www.theTrapezoidConspiracy.com
Rutgers-New Brunswick '11, Rutgers School of Law-Newark '14




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users