Ondrej Pavelec V: The Netminder Strikes Back

[Puckatron 3000]

Thanks for posting Garret. I was hoping you'd chime in on this.

1) Significance of effect. Just because a team can decrease quality shots, doesn't mean the difference between teams is large enough to impact goals. Goals are rare, even for high quality shots. It takes a large amount of high quality shots to make a significant difference in goals.

There's that word - "significant".
This argument does not dispute the thought experiment. It only questions how much better goalie 1's sv% would be than goalie 2. What's the threshold? 1% sv? 2% sv? 5% sv? With all the confounding factors in attempting to analyze this, is it hard to say? If so, perhaps it is significant, depending on whatever threshold we might agree on.

2) The likelihood of whether or not that same team would be more talented in other areas. Teams who are skilled and have good coaching to be able to decrease low-quality shots against which would then lessen the effect on the ratio.

That's a fair point to consider. But then, what you are claiming is that a goalie with a strong D faces the same proportion of "good" vs "bad" quality shots as a goalie with a weak D (within the usual statistical variance). This seems possible, but improbable to me. And, improbable things should only be believed if proven.

I question whether some of the statistical studies on this which claim proof have rather come to incorrect conclusions due to the noise-to-signal ratio of other confounding factors. The analysis is only as good as the data, and this is a pretty tough data set to eek out. For starters, it requires we quantify good vs. bad defense (a hard thing to do), and if that isn't done properly, any conclusions are built on a shaky foundation.

 

[garret9]

Similar =/= same...

I've always noted that team effects on Sv% is real, just that long term they seem to be limited to about +/- 0.002 saves per non-blocked shot attempt.

(I'm using Fenwick sv% over regular sv% as non-blocked shot attempts tend to be less effected by variance and seem to have a more clear picture on true-team impact)

 

[Puckatron 3000]

Similar =/= same...

Sure.

I've always noted that team effects on Sv% is real, just that long term they seem to be limited to about +/- 0.002 saves per non-blocked shot attempt.

Ok, now we have a number to talk about! It seems low. Where did you get that number from? Did the analysis quantify good vs. bad defense? If so, how? If not, how can we trust that number has any meaning?

 

[Hank Chinaski]

There's no question Pavelec has been stellar these last 6 games. But let's face it, he has played well in stretches before. Just because this stretch is probably the best of his career, I certainly wouldn't take it as proof that he's turned a corner.

What I can say for sure is that Pavs has been playing:

-deeper in his net
-more centered in his crease
-with much more economy of motion and much less flopping
-using different techniques with the puck down low or behind the net

In short, he looks more like a modern NHL goalie. I've heard lots of buzz that Pavs is very stubborn and resistant to coaching, so maybe he has smartened up? Hard to know, but he definitely looks more technically sound.

I still believe that his game reading abilities and anticipation are poor. It's still an adventure every time the puck goes cross-ice, and he still overcommits to the shooter. Also believe his rebound control hasn't improved nearly to the degree that some are saying, and he still spills harmless shots into high quality areas.

 

[truck]

There's no question Pavelec has been stellar these last 6 games. But let's face it, he has played well in stretches before. Just because this stretch is probably the best of his career, I certainly wouldn't take it as proof that he's turned a corner.

What I can say for sure is that Pavs has been playing:

-deeper in his net
-more centered in his crease
-with much more economy of motion and much less flopping
-using different techniques with the puck down low or behind the net

In short, he looks more like a modern NHL goalie. I've heard lots of buzz that Pavs is very stubborn and resistant to coaching, so maybe he has smartened up? Hard to know, but he definitely looks more technically sound.

I still believe that his game reading abilities and anticipation are poor. It's still an adventure every time the puck goes cross-ice, and he still overcommits to the shooter. Also believe his rebound control hasn't improved nearly to the degree that some are saying, and he still spills harmless shots into high quality areas.

I agree with all of this. I do also think he nade a notable improvement in his puck handling abilities. It is way way way better. Would be nice if he decided to try a few years back, but there are obvious changes now, and there are still obvious weaknesses. It will be a while before we see the net results.

 

[Puckatron 3000]

It will be a while before we see the net results.

heh.

 

[KingBogo]

I am sure the debate will be there, but I am not selling or buying on 30 or 40. In the lockout year, Varlamov posted a .903 and Quick posted a .902. Both were behind Pav,but I never bought that Pav had passed them.

Take a look at Pav's numbers from the last Atlanta year. He posted a .927 in his first 38 games. He had Atl in a playoff spot, but posted a .883 in his final 20 to land at .914.

Truck, you might might not be buying or selling in another 30-40 starts but since we are 13 games in and Hutch will likely get 25% of the starts that puts us pretty much at the trade deadline. The Jets will likely have to make a decision on buying or selling assuming we don't see a crash and burn. They are going to have to believe Pavs #'s are real or not.

Another 90 starts makes sense to determine Pavs value, since that is likely close to 2 full seasons which brings him to his UFA year.

 

[Hank Chinaski]

I agree with all of this. I do also think he nade a notable improvement in his puck handling abilities. It is way way way better. Would be nice if he decided to try a few years back, but there are obvious changes now, and there are still obvious weaknesses. It will be a while before we see the net results.

Puckhandling has definitely improved, but man we were spoiled with Montoya last year. That guy was a phenomenal puckhandler (save for that one little adventure he went on vs. the Sharks )

I really, truly doubt that Pavelec has improved in a sustainable way. He's still a bad goalie, but bad goalies can often have solid years. A solid year from Pavelec would be swell.

 

[garret9]

Sure.



Ok, now we have a number to talk about! It seems low. Where did you get that number from? Did the analysis quantify good vs. bad defense? If so, how? If not, how can we trust that number has any meaning?

I just quoted that number from one of many articles... That may not be significantly non-zero. I havent checked.
That's from the maximum spread noted from coaching WOWYs with goaltenders. I believe the famous Jacque Lemaire was the guy with the maximum difference.

However, other methods haven't found anything particularly different. While each study may not be perfect, if multiple different studies that cover multiple different angles of the same thing come to similar or same conclusions, you may get a bit more confident.
* the R^2 between shot location adjusted sv% and regular sv% for multi-season starting goaltenders is well over 0.9... there isn't much information gained from it
* difference in a goaltender's sv% when switching teams is not significantly different than expected from general chance/variance (mid season switches or careers)

Plus all the multiple cases where we see no or low multi-season sustainability for:
* defensemen having a positive or negative impact in their goaltender's save percentage
* players having a positive impact in "scoring chance" per shot against (diff definitions of scoring chance has been used)
* teams having a positive impact in "scoring chance" per shot against (diff definitions of scoring chance has been used)
* teams do not sustain having a positive or negative impact in shot location

There are others... but it's not really the "one article" but that multiple have looked at different angles and keep finding the same thing.

 

[Puckatron 3000]

Thanks Garret, I'll hunt some of that down and see what I think.

 

[Hollywood3]

My thought: Pavelec gets these streaks and then fades to crap all the time. I have no confidence in him. Hutch has played well and deserves more starts. The Jet defence has done fairly well all year. Last time I checked they were 4th in shots allowed.

 

[Flair Hay]

Thanks garret I didn't realize I was confirmation biasing. I'm sure anyone dumb enough not to believe a goalie is his save percentage will know better now.

I really hope he doesn't go back to playing like **** like he has every year so far. Bit I don't need stats boys telling me what I'm seeing based on the last five games is wrong because of another one Of your ratios. Later.

 

[boanst]

Thanks garret I didn't realize I was confirmation biasing. I'm sure anyone dumb enough not to believe a goalie is his save percentage will know better now.

I really hope he doesn't go back to playing like **** like he has every year so far. Bit I don't need stats boys telling me what I'm seeing based on the last five games is wrong because of another one Of your ratios. Later.

Ok, Ill tell you that you are wrong based on what I have seen.

I think you are right about improved D, but you are deluding yourself if you dont see any difference in the goalie. Pav has been pretty good save for a 3 game stretch.

 

[jamiebez]

Plus, nobody has ever said Pav can't improve his numbers. Nobody knows the future. Nobody who understands numbers or life would put limits on these things. The argument has always been about likelihoods.

Historically, a team, system or coaching change does not impact goalie numbers.
Historically, few goalies start to figure things out at 27.

That doesn't mean it can't happen.

Pav has visibly changed some elements of his game. That was always possible.
Apparently he actually tried to get in shape this summer too. That was also possible, but it does say something about his past training habits.

Could this be enough to improve his numbers? Sure.

If there is a change in his game I'd look there before team play, because history shows that team play has little to no impact on save percentage (over a proper sample).

Regardless, I'd wait and see what happens before pretending to have a load of proof. Pav has had many hot streaks. The stories that surround them are always the same.

Wait and see. Get back to me in 90 games with proof.

The difference to me this time from his previous streaks is that the eye test tells us his play has improved, and that the team is playing better defense in front of him. We all seem to agree on that, and the (VERY small) sample size of the last few games backs that up: fewer shots against, higher save percentage. There's the reason for hope that a lot of us hadn't had until now.

Having said that, your last statement summarizes my beef with advanced stats in general: the sample size required to make any kind of meaningful conclusion is too large. 90 games is one and a half seasons of starting goalie games!

I understand the statistics, but the argument is always some form of "REGRESSION TO THE MEAN FTW!!!"

If a conclusion can't be reached for one and a half seasons, what's the point?

 

[truck]

The difference to me this time from his previous streaks is that the eye test tells us his play has improved, and that the team is playing better defense in front of him. We all seem to agree on that, and the (VERY small) sample size of the last few games backs that up: fewer shots against, higher save percentage. There's the reason for hope that a lot of us hadn't had until now.

Having said that, your last statement summarizes my beef with advanced stats in general: the sample size required to make any kind of meaningful conclusion is too large. 90 games is one and a half seasons of starting goalie games!

I understand the statistics, but the argument is always some form of "REGRESSION TO THE MEAN FTW!!!"

If a conclusion can't be reached for one and a half seasons, what's the point?

They eye test has told many people the same thing when the numbers jumped previously, and really the eye test we are talking about is only six days worth. Literally six days ago, the Jets were coming off a loss to Tampa and people were trashing the team defense. It was supposed to be their fault that Pav's numbers weren't great. Maybe this wasn't the case for you, but it was in some places.

The team D was bad versus New York too.

I do agree that the eye test shows change in Pav, but I am not sure it is sustainable change. I have personally seen many of Pav's issues persists, opponents miss open cages, pucks hit Pav despite him not having a clue where they are and lots of deflected pucks land safely out of range of opposition sticks.

I do see a different Pav. I see a goalie playing with different structure, but I don't think I've seen enough to call this a sustainable change in puck stopping ability.

If a conclusion can't be reached for one and a half seasons, what's the point?

Conclusions can always be reached, but accurate conclusions may elude.

What's the point in making six separate inaccurate conclusions over a season and a half?

 

[jamiebez]

Conclusions can always be reached, but accurate conclusions may elude.

What's the point in making six separate inaccurate conclusions over a season and a half?

Because it's a given there will be a lot of ups and downs over the course of a season. That's the point of watching sports - we don't know what's going to happen.

If all the statistical evidence tells us that the overwhelming likelihood is that Pavelec will again post a .906 sv% - regardless of the very visible changes in his and the team's style of play - then there is very literally no point in watching, because we'll be a losing team for as long as he's our #1.

I know that isn't your contention, so forgive the strawman. I just feel like the narrative of "we can't win with Pavelec" has become so pervasive around here that's its actually become depressing to visit these boards.

And for the record, going into the season I didn't think Pavelec was good enough to be an uncontested #1 for a playoff team either. But to my eyes, he's shown enough improvement that coupled with the team's improvement in front of him, I have hope we can be a playoff team with this line-up.

 

[Gm0ney]

So is Part VI of this thread going to be "The Return of the Goali"?

 

[truck]

Because it's a given there will be a lot of ups and downs over the course of a season. That's the point of watching sports - we don't know what's going to happen.

If all the statistical evidence tells us that the overwhelming likelihood is that Pavelec will again post a .906 sv% - regardless of the very visible changes in his and the team's style of play - then there is very literally no point in watching, because we'll be a losing team for as long as he's our #1.

I know that isn't your contention, so forgive the strawman. I just feel like the narrative of "we can't win with Pavelec" has become so pervasive around here that's its actually become depressing to visit these boards.

And for the record, going into the season I didn't think Pavelec was good enough to be an uncontested #1 for a playoff team either. But to my eyes, he's shown enough improvement that coupled with the team's improvement in front of him, I have hope we can be a playoff team with this line-up.

The numbers don't say the team can't win with Pav.

The numbers say:

• Few goalies figure things out at this stage of their careers
• Changes are likely to have way more do to with Pav than team play

Pav getting better has always been a possibility, but people have varied levels of confidence in his ability to do so.

 

[garret9]

Thanks garret I didn't realize I was confirmation biasing. I'm sure anyone dumb enough not to believe a goalie is his save percentage will know better now.

I really hope he doesn't go back to playing like **** like he has every year so far. Bit I don't need stats boys telling me what I'm seeing based on the last five games is wrong because of another one Of your ratios. Later.

I actually never said you were wrong. You *could* very well be right...

You've seen what you've seen, but don't assume you are right.

Investigate. Do not settle.

 

[JC Numminen]

So is Part VI of this thread going to be "The Return of the Goali"?

Ah! I like it. I have been trying to think of a clever one for a while now

 

[Sweech]

Sometimes I like to imagine the heights the team could reach if Pavelec wasn't this team's starter.

 

[Mathmew Purrrr Oh]

Sometimes I like to imagine the heights the team could reach if Pavelec wasn't this team's starter.

and a Klingberg/O'Dell/Galiardi 4th line

 

[StronGeer]

I think the real question here is: what are we going to call Pavelec Episode VI?

 

[JC Numminen]

I think the real question here is: what are we going to call Pavelec Episode VI?

Get your answer here:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?p=92133301#post92133301