How much does a goalie impact wins and losses.

[Derick*]

It's not about good or bad times to make a save. it's about when it is critical that the save is made. Leading 5-1 and giving up a "bad" goal is very different than trailing 1-0 after 1 shot.

Okay, so it's in blowouts. Studies have been done. Looking only at close games, the same goalies have a higher save percentage as do overall. This idea that "team" goalies only have a lower save percentage because theyre lazy during blowouts but care in close games, and "martyr" goalies are inflating their save percentage during blowouts or something is a myth. Whenever someone says a goalie made key saves or saves at the right time or something, they're basing that entirely on the fact that they know the goalie had team success.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Okay, so it's in blowouts. Studies have been done. Looking only at close games, the same goalies have a higher save percentage as do overall. This idea that "team" goalies only have a lower save percentage because theyre lazy during blowouts but care in close games, and "martyr" goalies are inflating their save percentage during blowouts or something is a myth. Whenever someone says a goalie made key saves or saves at the right time or something, they're basing that entirely on the fact that they know the goalie had team success.

What about a guy like Eddie Cheevers, who was famous for getting out of the way of hard slapshots if his team was winning in a blowout?

I have also seen studies on Grant Fuhr that reached mixed conclusions.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

What about a guy like Eddie Cheevers, who was famous for getting out of the way of hard slapshots if his team was winning in a blowout?

I've heard that as a legend about Gerry, but I've never seen any first-hand accounts of it actually happening. It could just be something that people reminisce about now.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I've heard that as a legend about Gerry, but I've never seen any first-hand accounts of it actually happening. It could just be something that people reminisce about now.

I'm pretty sure I've seen it on one of those legends of hockey videos, either Bobby Hull himself or one of Cheevers' teammates was laughing about it.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

I'm pretty sure I've seen it on one of those legends of hockey videos, either Bobby Hull himself or one of Cheevers' teammates was laughing about it.

Yeah, it was Hull. Here's the clip:

 

[Goalie Guru*]

Billy Smith my hero, was very, very over rated

Billy Smith played seventeen seasons. I took off his last two seasons because he was getting old. In fifteen seasons he had a record of...

635 games, 284 wins, 205 losses, and 99 ties for a 48% winning percentage with a 2.90 GAA

Smith had 4 different partners and they split the games on the Island.

The four partners combined were...

607 games, 313 wins, 203 losses, 88 ties for a 52% winning percentage and a 3.03 GAA.

It is interesting that stats are so close over 15 seasons. That tells me my hero didn't make much of impact, or all 5 goalies were almost identical in ability.

 

[reckoning]

I can't wait 'til Trottier sees this thread.

 

[Rhiessan71]

The other thread you started about almost the exact same thing wasn't going your way?

 

[Regal]

Billy Smith played seventeen seasons. I took off his last two seasons because he was getting old. In fifteen seasons he had a record of...

635 games, 284 wins, 205 losses, and 99 ties for a 48% winning percentage with a 2.90 GAA

Smith had 4 different partners and they split the games on the Island.

The four partners combined were...

607 games, 313 wins, 203 losses, 88 ties for a 52% winning percentage and a 3.03 GAA.

It is interesting that stats are so close over 15 seasons. That tells me my hero didn't make much of impact, or all 5 goalies were almost identical in ability.

Well, he had Resch backing him up for awhile, who was a good goalie, and Melanson, who was pretty decent. The 80's is interesting because of how much goalies tended to share the workload, but the starter still usually plays more games and against the better teams. I think comparing starters to backups is useless to be honest. There's just too many factors that go into it. Plus, this is only GAA, which is largely team dependent. SV% is to some degree as well, but is still more telling. And it's hard to look at someone over an entire 15 year career, when they clearly were not in their prime through the whole thing, against backups who most likely were (because a backup not in his prime is usually out of the league, unless it's a starter who has fallen off and become a backup)

Brian Hayward had similar stats to Roy in many of their years together. I don't see anyone saying Roy is overrated because of it.

 

[reckoning]

Playoff numbers for the years in question in this thread:

Islanders with Billy Smith: 88-36

Islanders without Billy Smith: 28-33

 

[Goalie Guru*]

The other thread you started about almost the exact same thing wasn't going your way?

This thread is about my hero. I use to copy everything this guy did. From taping his knob 6 inches below the top to wearing the cage on his helmut 2 and a 1/2 inches forward. I use to slash guys as they came around from behind the net.

It's sad to see the truth about a guy I thought was dominate at his position and far better than the all the other star goalies let alone his own playing partners who were never considered stars.

My years of research of have uncovered something that I wish I never found.

 

[Okposofan21]

he was good but was also a product of the team he was on.

 

[Okposofan21]

Playoff numbers for the years in question in this thread:

Islanders with Billy Smith: 88-36

Islanders without Billy Smith: 28-33

the teams that Smith played on were some of the best ever.

 

[seventieslord]

You would think you would have a better grasp of how to calculate winning percentage. it's not wins divided by total appearances.

Smith had 588 decisions, in which 1176 points were up for grabs. He had a .567 win%.

The others had 604 decisions, so 1208 points up for grabs. They had 714 points for a .591 win%.

Yes, this still appears to support your point but at least use some proper methodology.

Other things to consider:

- Smith was considered the top dog, as shown by playoff starts. He likely had tougher starts.
- How come these other goalies won a slightly higher percentage of games despite allowing slightly more goals? This was either a function of luck (not likely in 600+ decisions) or better goal support. Or, possibly, changing league GPG averages during this wide timeframe.
- I don't think anyone with a solid grasp on goaltender evaluation has a lofty impression of Smith's ranking nowadays. He'd be lucky to make the top-20 list of anyone here. So how overrated can he be for a four-time cup winner who also earned a vezina and a smythe along the way?

 

[Bear of Bad News]

the teams that Smith played on were some of the best ever.

Note the phrase "for the years in question". Smith's backups were on the same teams that Smith was on.

And, as seventieslord has said, I don't think that people (who know what they're doing) rate Smith that high anyhow. At least, those of us who have graduated from the belief that winning percentage tells you what you need to know about goaltenders.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

- I don't think anyone with a solid grasp on goaltender evaluation has a lofty impression of Smith's ranking nowadays. He'd be lucky to make the top-20 list of anyone here. So how overrated can he be for a four-time cup winner who also earned a vezina and a smythe along the way?

I disagree here. I think it's quite likely that Smith could be on the tail fringe of the Top 20.

These are the goalies definitely better than Smith (only in rough order). All were included on the finished Top 100 list.

1. Plante
2. Roy
3. Hasek
4. Brodeur
5. Sawchuk
6. Dryden
7. Hall
8. Tretiak
9. Benedict
10. Broda
11. Durnan
12. Parent
13. Brimsek
14. Bower
15. Gardiner

Belfour and Holecek were not included on the Top 100 list, but they should have been. Belfour was clearly better than Smith I think, and Holecek, while really difficult to compare, really wasn't much worse than Tretiak, if at all.

George Hainsworth is ranked in the last finished Top 100 list, but probably shouldn't be, and I see no reason why he was any better than Billy Smith.

Tony Esposito certainly was a better regular season goaltender than Billy Smith, but his playoff failings are well known. There is certainly a case to rank Smith over Esposito.

Other goalies in the mix - Georges Vezina, Tiny Thompson, Roy Worters (really hard to rank), Gump Worsley, Grant Fuhr. I have seen a lot of evidence that shows Smith was more important to the Islanders than Fuhr was to the Oilers, however.

I can see Smith being rated as high as 17 and as low as 25, unless I am forgetting someone.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

I can see Smith being rated as high as 17 and as low as 25, unless I am forgetting someone.

I have him in the low twenties (although I haven't checked in a few years).

 

[Marotte Marauder]

Playoff numbers for the years in question in this thread:

Islanders with Billy Smith: 88-36

Islanders without Billy Smith: 28-33

This, combined with the eye test is all I need to know. Great job!

 

[VanIslander]

Gainey missed 16 games, Lapointe missed 35, Risebrough missed 36, Savard missed 34. All were -2 on a team that was a combined +285.

This is proof that Gainey, Lapointe, Risebrough and Savard were costing their team wins that year by playing. Obviously, the team was better off without them.

How wry the wit! Well done.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Let's take a deep breath, and remember that we're all colleagues here.

Polite disagreement is fine, but remember to respect one another.

Thanks (and happy Thanksgiving to those south of the border).

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

Billy Smith played seventeen seasons. I took off his last two seasons because he was getting old. In fifteen seasons he had a record of...

635 games, 284 wins, 205 losses, and 99 ties for a 48% winning percentage with a 2.90 GAA

Smith had 4 different partners and they split the games on the Island.

The four partners combined were...

607 games, 313 wins, 203 losses, 88 ties for a 52% winning percentage and a 3.03 GAA.

It is interesting that stats are so close over 15 seasons. That tells me my hero didn't make much of impact, or all 5 goalies were almost identical in ability.

Smith was a money goalie, who really didn't take the game seriously until the spring. Once the playoffs would start he would turn it on, but it's true, his regular season numbers are hardly the stuff of a HOFer given the team he was on was such power house. Outside of his Vezina year, during his time with the Isles, Resch and Melanson would routinely have better regular seasons. But appologies to Roy, Brodeur and Fuhr, but Smith is the best playoff goalie I've ever seen, no matter how much I hated his guts. That's why he's in the HOF and Resch and Melanson are not.

 

[Trottier]

It's not about good or bad times to make a save. it's about when it is critical that the save is made. Leading 5-1 and giving up a "bad" goal is very different than trailing 1-0 after 1 shot.

If I had a dime for every NHL coach and player I've heard say the EXACT thing when asked about what makes a great goaltender, I'd be long retired.

For it's the truth.

Of course, such common-sense perspective often gets lost in a Nuu NHL Sabremetrics-focused world that adheres exclusively to rigid numeric evaluation of every player. Read: void of any context.

It's why Grant Fuhr and Billy Smith, for example, are rightly in the HHOF...while in some areas of HF, they are deemed "overrated". (Now, to be fair, if one was in a coma from the springs of 1980 through 1988, such analysis is understandable. )

Above is not directed to anyone specifically. But it is an accurate - and unfortunate - observation. And that should not be confused with the engaging insight provided early on in this thread.

 

[Derick*]

If I had a dime for every NHL coach and player I've heard say the EXACT thing when asked about what makes a great goaltender, I'd be long retired.

For it's the truth.

Of course, such common-sense perspective often gets lost in a Nuu NHL Sabremetrics-focused world that adheres exclusively to rigid numeric evaluation of every player. Read: void of any context.

It's why Grant Fuhr and Billy Smith, for example, are rightly in the HHOF...while in some areas of HF, they are deemed "overrated". (Now, to be fair, if one was in a coma from the springs of 1980 through 1988, such analysis is understandable. )

Above is not directed to anyone specifically. But it is an accurate - and unfortunate - observation.

Does being a professional automatically make you right? You can be better at something and have an inferior understanding of it. A baseball player, a fat person, and a dog catching a ball don't understand gravity as well as a physicist. Cognitive biases exist among the incredibly talented.

What difference is there between an important save and an unimportant save that lets goalies make saves at important times? I understand why one might be more important than another, but what's different about it that could make someone better at saving one or the other?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

What difference is there between an important save and an unimportant save that lets goalies make saves at important times? I understand why one might be more important than another, but what's different about it that could make someone better at saving one or the other?

The professionals say that playing goal at the highest level is more mental than physical.

This leads to two points, but to believe them, you have to believe that hockey players (including goalies) are human beings.

1) Concentration/effort is the most important thing. In a blowout, a goalie may very well be less focused. (Or in Eddie Cheevers' case, may care about avoiding brusises more than his stats once the game is out of hand).

2) The whole "handling the pressure" thing. The amount of mental pressure a goalie is facing is entirely different in a regular season game and in the 3rd period of a close playoff game. It's why Luongo is not anywhere close to a HOFer at this time, and why Tony Esposito is not a Top 100 player.

Does being a professional automatically make you right? You can be better at something and have an inferior understanding of it. A baseball player, a fat person, and a dog catching a ball don't understand gravity as well as a physicist. Cognitive biases exist among the incredibly talented.

I trust a goaltender to know what the position is like more than I trust a statistician. Just like if I want to know what mentally goes into walking a tight rope, fighting in the army, being an Olympic-level archer, or fixing a car, I would trust someone who made his/her living doing that thing. Gravity is a force of nature, not affected by the human mind.

I would definitely trust a fat person more than a skinny physicist if I wanted to know how one deals with life while being fat.

 

[Marotte Marauder]

What difference is there between an important save and an unimportant save that lets goalies make saves at important times? I understand why one might be more important than another, but what's different about it that could make someone better at saving one or the other?

Why are certain players in the HHOF? Because of their performance in CLUTCH times. For some the lights never get too bright while others sphincter puckers after the 2nd intermission of a pre season game. Why it happens? I haven't a clue.