Sarcastic wrote:mikey and whoever likes stats. What do you think of these numbers? I never know what to think of statistics and I don't think one should rely on them too much. But. Well, there's always a but. Look at this. Voukun. Fleury
.
http://www.habseyesontheprize.com/2012/4/18/2955041/fleury-of-goals
My stance on statistics in hockey goes without saying anymore - you might be able to use them to back up an argument, but not to start one...
Usually when someone puts a link like that and directs me to it (re: anything) I anticipate the worst...I scrolled through that supposed masterpiece and got to the end, shrugged, and said, "that's it? that wasn't bad at all" - so the biggest, most damning argument this stat-mongerer could come up with that Fleury was average? Oh no! Well, I'm sunk...
To be honest, one of the reasons why I hate stats because what I can do with them...I can make Fleury look like crap, sub-NHL crap if I want...I can make Thomas look like crap or a God...it's my choice...that's what bothers me, some two-bit schlub like me and manipulate numbers to say whatever he wants...can you imagine what someone good at statistics could do? Eek...
I don't know, maybe I'm the one that doesn't get it...I just don't know how save percentage became so detached from goals against average all of a sudden...? It's funny, ya know, 10 years ago, 15 years ago (hell, before that when save pct. didn't exist before 1982) people would look at GAA and go, "look here! He gives up goals! He blows..." ...then buzzwords crept into the lexicon of even the average fan (and you see it here constantly) "trap", "left wing lock", etc. and defensive teams start winning and making an imprint on the landscape (1995 Devils, 1996 Panthers, 1999 Stars, 1999 Sabres, 2003 Ducks, 2003 Wild, etc.) so fans want to get to the cutting edge of knowledge, you want to have more insight on the message board, at the bar having a beer, you want to be the guy that knows the score...so it went like this...
Idiot 1: Look at this guy's goals against average he rules!
Idiot 2: No, no, no, look at his save percentage, he only stops 9 out of 10 shots...he just wins because he plays behind a defensive system that doesn't allow goals
Idiot 1: Well, yeah, but still...
Idiot 2: Any other goalie could do the same job behind that team, they're coached by [insert defensive coach here] and he's always had success with goalies
Goals against average is thrown out...it's obsolete. When do we ever, ever, ever, see evaluation of goaltenders based on GAA any more? No one even looks at it..."it's a team stat"
Save percentage was the only other stat kept for goalies...wins: team; GAA: team; shutouts -> GAA: team (apparently); ...out of options, save percentage is the last gasp of the stat users for goalies. I've always wondered what would happen if save percentage and plus/minus never became official stats...would the world be a better place? Probably. But that's for another time...
I think save percentage probably used to be useful. Back when it was a player's game and player's played their game. I've seen the calculated save percentage numbers from the 1960's - early 80's before (I have them on a hard drive I think from a dead computer, but haven't been successful in getting the info off of it), the same names rise to the top every year. Their backups, generally are far below them (Dryden vs. Laroque, for instance). Save percentage is a depreciating asset...
Today, how often are we seeing stark contrasts between starter and backup? Rarely.
In Boston: Thomas: .920; Rask .929
In Buffalo: Miller: .916; Enroth: .917
In Montreal: Price: .916; Budaj: .913
In Anaheim: Hiller: .910; Ellis: .911
In Chicago: Crawford: .903; Emery: .900
Exceptions? Sure. Always is. But this isn't something that's terribly common before the 1990's it seems...
I hate to use the best of a position and go, "see, told you so!" because it's a stupid way to make a point, but I just want to make a short illustration...Why does Patrick Roy always finish near the top of the league in save pct. no matter where he played (80's-90's Montreal teams that weren't amazing, Avs teams that were) or whatever era he played (firewagon hockey 86-93; so-called dead-puck era 98-03). 9 times he finished top-5 in save pct. And back in the beginning of the career, if you compared Roy's save pct. to his backups (Brian Hayward, Andre Racicot) he probably smacks the crap out of them...as you get later in his career with David Aebischer behind him, the numbers are basically the same...
Now, I don't know about you guys, but I have Patrick Roy as my #2 all-time goalie and my #2 all-time best "money" player ever...I don't have David Aebischer in the league any more...doesn't that seem weird to anyone? Save pct. differential before coaching and the short shift game took over vs. save pct. differential after coaching, short shifts, speed-over-strength game took over.
It seems like save percentage is tied pretty closely to [team] as more and more goalies that can't hang are dismissed. For those that are older, think back to some of the goalies you used to see in the league...Allan Bester, Murray Bannerman, etc. they don't exist anymore. The difference between the top-5 goaltenders in the league, the middle-5 (whatever) and the lower-5 (talking starters here) isn't so much talent - like it used to be - it's the consistency in which they can bring that talent to the forefront. Doesn't it seem odd that Tim Thomas couldn't hack it in this league for years...comes into the league, sucks donkey nards and then gets Chara and Julien and becomes suddenly great? Isn't it odd that Mike Smith was on waivers, re-entry waivers, the whole bit the last couple years and now has like a .930 save pct. and helped his team to the Western Conference Finals...Ilya Bryzgalov is considered an elite goaltender and damn near a Hart candidate on the Phoenix Coyotes, but goes to Philadelphia and absolutes blows minus one month of the season...
No one else but me is finding this odd? Back in the day, bad goalies were bad; good goalies were good basically no matter where they played...Plante was good everywhere, Parent was good everywhere...Bryzgalov isn't good everywhere...Smith isn't good everywhere...Thomas isn't good everywhere...Giguere isn't good everywhere...Khabibulin isn't good everywhere...some are good behind Tippett, some are good behind Julien, some are good behind Babcock or Carlyle...
I'm not saying that Dryden did it all by himself on those 70's Canadiens teams...come on, Larry Robinson, Serge Savard, Guy Lapointe...I'm not trying to fool anyone...but Dryden was much better above his replacement (usually Bunny Laroque) and that's the expectation. You expect elite numbers from Dryden and you got them. You expected Laroque to be sizeably behind him - and he was. That's the exception today, not the rule.
I count the days in seconds and minutes before the consensus finally figures out that the square peg goes in the square hole...right now, the only piece people seem intent on fitting is their round skulls in their a......nevermind.
Soon, the "statistical revolution" will begin, the same one that overthrew goals against average, will rise up, swallow up and spit out save percentage as "just a team stat" and then all the people that are box score watchers and those who don't actually watch the games will wonder where they will go from here..."how will I judge goaltenders now? Because I don't know what I'm looking at on my TV screen...

