Last post of that thread:
slappybrown wrote:Shot quality exists. No one denies that. Those links all say so. Its just as big of an influence as you believe it is. Over the long term, and over an entire season, and over an entire roster it largely evens out.
I knew you were going to cite roster turnover, but with 4 years worth of data and 30 teams, that argument is simply not plausible. You yourself cited to Boston or Phoenix as examplars of stability in terms of how they operate and what they do in the game; we could probably come up with a bunch of teams that played relatively the same way year to year in that time period (eg, the Pens). So to say, well, data points over 120 distinct 82 games seasons show no correlation, but I am going to discard them because a team changed 3 or 4 players per year (and often those with lesser ice time) or changed coaches in one of those years -- it just doesn't stand up. Either there is some carryover on a large scale basis from year to year, or there isn't -- you can't be logically inconsistent and pick and choose when it suits you. Moreover, the fact that the correlations are practically zero -- man. There's just nothing there. Trying to explain it away with a bunch of generalities isn't persuasive IMO.
See, this is what I mean...this is what turns me off from the movement. If there aren't numbers for it, if there isn't enough understanding to see how it would effect the game, it is just ignored. To think that changing a quarter or a fifth of all skaters has no impact just shows the disconnect between the game on the ice and the game on paper.
For instance, look at the impact of losing Willie Mitchell and Matt Greene in Los Angeles. Forced rookies into the lineup, forced Rob Scuderi to have to shoulder too much of the load and he struggled with it. Doughty had to focus more on playing defense and couldn't open it up as much as he normally would and had his worst production since his rookie year even though 23 years old is supposed to be in your statistical prime, right?
Jonathan Quick last year: 1.95 GAA, .929 save pct. 10 shutouts. Jon Quick this year: 2.45 GAA, .902 save pct., 1 shutout. Worst save percentage of his career.
Strong finish to Quick's season though, right after they acquired Robyn Regehr to shoulder some of the load defensively.
From the start of the year through March, Quick's save pct. was .895. Then Regehr was acquired and from April to present is .928.
And then dear Lord, to discount coaching changes too...this is worse than I thought...
slappybrown wrote:The very first thing I said to you re: Reimer is this:Perhaps your view is that this season is too small a sample size? But that's unlikely because you then write...
I said that because I'd have no issues with that. I personally like the guy from what I have seen, and believe that this season and his rookie season (which you keep ignoring for some odd reason in terms of information -- maybe because it doesn't help your conclusion that he "blows") and this year are more reflective of his abilities than his second year, when he got concussed early in the year, was out for a couple months, and came back to play below average. There's nothing at all wrong with you concluding that based on your own scouting report plus the small sample size, that you believe he'll revert to "normally blowing" or whatever it is exactly that you view his natural state. But, your initial position was SAVE% is useless.
Save pct. doesn't seem to have any great indication value today about the talent of the goalie in the net. That's why career journeymen have the three best save pct. marks in NHL history* - Tim Thomas, Brian Elliott, Craig Anderson. And all in the last three years. It just seems really unlikely that save pct. is a direct indication of talent, otherwise it would be used to predict NHL success, right? Like Nicola Riopel, who is on the brink of NHL stardom...or Mike Murphy...or a thousand others...it doesn't even have correlation in the NHL: Roman Cechmanek, Rollie Melanson in his Isles days, Wayne Stephenson in his Flyers days, etc.
Maybe Reimer becomes the best goalie of all time or whatever, but he doesn't look the part...and the rookie year is being largely ignored because it's not uncommon in today's game for rookie goalies with a different technical setup to have early success until there's a video review of his tendencies because there's no "book" on them...
slappybrown wrote:A 20 foot wrist shot on a 1-on-2 is not the same as a 20 foot wrist shot on a 2-on-1.
This is the problem. Of course shot quality exists on an individual level of shot x versus shot y taken in the same game. Again, the difference is that over the long term, the "quality" equalizes. That's why data from multiple seasons doesn't show any meaningful change in shooting percentage or in save% when goalies move from Team X to Team Y. You're focusing on small events to make larger points, when the mountain of data that exists shows the opposite.
I don't think there is much productive conversation to be had here frankly, and like you said, we don't need to jam this thread up any more with this stuff.
So, again, Grant Fuhr faced the same quality of shots as Billy Smith? Marc-Andre Fleury the same as Henrik Lundqvist?
Taking data from multiple seasons further introduces even MORE variables to it...every season is not created equally. Why would one assume that all the fluidity that surrounds the game, both on the ice and off, is effectively equal? It literally doesn't make sense.
It's the little things that are impactful though...Marc-Andre Fleury's even strength save pct. this year was .927 which is tied for 17th in the league (somewhere between 17th and 20th, I won't convert them to an additional decimal). If he makes five more saves on those shots this season, it jumps to .934 and he's now in the top-10 in the league. If he makes two more saves, two, on those shots, he jumps to 14th - tied with a Vezina finalist. These instances don't matter?
There is no mountain of data...well...there is, but it's relevance is really quite questionable. Like I said, just because you have a lot of something doesn't mean that it's quality data or that it's significant to the discussion at hand. It seems to gloss over things that matter and write them off as "doesn't matter" because they can't assign a number to it and/or they don't understand the item's significance on the game....