Damien Cox says Wins are Everything for Goaltenders

[arrbez]

Without having read anything in this post yet, let me just say that Damien Cox says a lot of things

In an article in the Star today he wrote that McCabe has been miles ahead of Kaberle this season. He's clearly Pejorative Slured.

 

[trentmccleary]

Game, set, match.

(Likely that at least a couple folks here would prefer the former!)

Of course I would. Why the hell would I want some crappy goalie sabotaging all the hard work that my perfectly built team was doing?
With that kind of goal support, the .930 goalie would win 50 games.

 

[Quiet Robert]

Game, set, match.

(Likely that at least a couple folks here would prefer the former!)

Obviously wins are the most preferable, but they don't paint the whole picture when comparing goalies. It seems to me that Cox was arguing that in analyzing goalies, wins should be the only important stat.

it may well be the only number that truly matters is the number of wins a goaltender records while in goal

In 03/04 Luongo had a .931 SV%, 2.43 GAA but only 25 wins.

The same year Dan Cloutier had a .914 SV%, 2.27 GAA but had 33 wins.

Should we say Cloutier is a better goalie than Luongo? Of course not, but it seems to that this is what Cox was trying to push, in which case I think he is wrong.

 

[Resolute]

Game, set, match.

(Likely that at least a couple folks here would prefer the former!)

More likely, a couple folks realize the complete worthlessness of the comparison due to it's ridiculous simplicity.

 

[Goallum]

Sounds to me like a homer who is setting the table for arguing his Vezina case later in the season for someone not entirely deserving.

 

[Brad*]

Goalies have to be judged on a case to case basis, and the only real way to evaluate them is by watching them. It would erroneous to simply state that the goaltender win the highest save percentage is the best, or that the goaltender with the most wins is the best, because neither statistic is specific enough to the goaltender itself, and are both prone to being influenced by outside factors. Unfortunately, it's just not that simple.

Perhaps in other sports like baseball, statistics can tell most if not all of the story about a player. Using wins, ERA, WHIP, opponents batting average, etc., one can make a fairly accurate statement about how good the pitcher is, as those statistics are very specific are for the most part only influenced by the pitcher itself.

With hockey, and specifically goaltenders, you can only take the numbers game so far. The main flaw with GAA is that a goaltender can only do so much. It would be unfair to suggest that even the best goaltenders in the game could have a great save percentage on the worst defensive team. Most would consider Roberto Luongo to be one of the top-5 goaltenders in the game, but his GAA was 2.43 in '03-'04; a far cry from the league leaders. Goaltenders are only human, they cannot do it all alone; playing behind a bad defense will hurt these statistics. Save percentage is better than GAA, but still flawed, because it's nothing more than a math problem masquerading as a hockey stat. A goaltender on a great team could stop 9 out of 10 shots and have a save percentage of .900, while another goaltender on a bad team could stop 36 of out of 40 shots and have the exact same save percentage; .900. If you chose to look purely at the save % number, you may be inclined to believe the goaltenders are on the same level, which in fact could be very misleading. If the goaltender on the good team is only facing 10 weak shots, yet the goaltender on the poor team is facing 40 strong shots and has the same save percentage, it would logically make sense than goalie B (on the poor team) is doing much, much better. On top of that, what if a goaltender only stops 25 of 30 shots (.833 save %) but all 30 shots are excellent scoring chances from great shooters. At face value, .833 is unimpressive, but it hardly tells the whole story. In the end, Wins is the only statistic that matters, but it isn't the better stat to judge goaltenders. I'll go back to Luongo for a second: He had 25 wins in '03-'04 while Dan Cloutier had 33. Kudos to Dan for winning on a good team, but I don't know of anyone, even the biggest Canuck homers, who would take Cloutier over Luongo. Thus, even wins is a flawed stat when it is used to evaluate goaltenders. In the regular season.*

However, this is not to say we should punish goaltenders who happen to be on great teams. There is something to be said for playing well on a good team during the regular season, because after all, there have been many who've failed at just that. To me, putting up great stats (save %, GAA) on a losing team doesn't mean any more to me than putting up bad stats (save %, GAA) on a good team while getting a lot of wins. They're both equally ambiguous. These statistics are here to give us a way to get a feel for how a goaltender is playing, but not to be the ultimate determining factor. Regular season win totals must be taken with a grain of salt as well, as winning a lot of games may not be enough. It must be accompanied by strong play. All of the major goalie stats have flaws, and the only real way of finding out who is playing better is to use your own two eyes.

*Note: Things are a bit different if we're talking about the playoffs, in regards to wins. Wins are by far more important than any other stat for post-season play. In the playoffs, any one team can beat another, it's a completely different ball-game. There are no nights off, nor are there easy opponents. When you win in the playoffs, all it means is that you did exactly what was required and got the job done. No more, no less. Perhaps you won 6-4, or perhaps you won 1-0, but if you got the W, you did your job. You might ask, why is this different than the regular season? Well, the playoffs are vastly different; every game is a battle, wins are much harder to come by, and the game are vastly more important. Once the playoffs roll around, what you did during the regular season doesn't even matter. Are wins the "be all and end all" in the playoffs? No, not at all, but there are much more important than any other stat.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

Most would consider Roberto Luongo to be one of the top-5 goaltenders in the game, but his GAA was 2.43 in '03-'04; a far cry from the league leaders.

Luongo also faced more shots than any goalie in history. GAA is an absolutly horrible stat. If you face 20 shots a game, you are extremely likely to give up fewer goals than if you were to face 40 shots. GAA isn't a reflection of the goalie, but a reflection of the team defence.

 

[Pycalusus]

What would you rather have.
A 20 Win .930 2.00 goalie?
Or a 40 win .900 3.00 goalie

Luongo or Lalime?

 

[Evilo]

Wins is the most important goalie stat, no doubt (Roy, Barrasso for instance).
That said, Cox is an idiot. Remember his tirade about how Mario was an ******* when he came back?

 

[Legionnaire]

Game, set, match.

(Likely that at least a couple folks here would prefer the former!)

Haha. I saw this thread and thought of you. I was going to say...


"Damien Cox? Hell, our very own Trottier has been saying it for years!"

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Just win baby.

 

[Pepper]

Game, set, match.

(Likely that at least a couple folks here would prefer the former!)

If I had to choose a goalie for my team for next year I'd sure as hell take the .930 goalie!

Damien Cox is just another clown in the black hole of stupidity known as Toronto hockey journalism, the guy is too dumb to figure out the variables affecting stats like GAA and save-% so it's much easier for him to disregard those stats and concentrate on wins.

Here's a question for all you people, which goalie would you rather have based on these stats(from 03-04):

GOALIE A) 73GP 7SO 2.43GAA 25W 33L 14T 0.931S%
GOALIE B) 57GP 2SO 2.42GAA 33W 16L 7T 0.908S%

Based on that idiotic logic people would take goalie B right?

Well, let's give these goalies names, let's see if people would still take him.

(highlight the following to reveal the goalies in question)

Goalie A=Roberto Luongo
Goalie B=Dan Cloutier

Now you see why Cox's logic sucks as usual.

 

[Dr Love]

Here's a question for all you people, which goalie would you rather have based on these stats(from 03-04):

GOALIE A) 73GP 7SO 2.43GAA 25W 33L 14T 0.931S%
GOALIE B) 57GP 2SO 2.42GAA 33W 16L 7T 0.908S%

Let's try another one, from years ago so we have an better picture of the goalie's career.

A: 39-6-5 2.17 .911 in 50 games.
B: 22-30-6 2.83 .920 in 59 games.

 

[Big#D]

In another board (about 2 weeks ago), I commented that for goalies, the only thing that mattered was wins. It seems that Cox has the same opinion. While it may not be the truest measure of a goalie's performance, it is for most goalie the most important stat. Goalies are generally the ultimate team player. They generally don't care whether they let in 10 goals on 1 - they just want the win.

I also argued that for me, GAA is a more accurate reflection of a goalies abilities than SV%. I won't get into the argument here. It is really a matter of personal opinion.

Based on that, I had another thought for a new statistic. I just wanted to ask people's opinion of the following:

If the job of a goalie is to allow the team to win by letting in less goals that his opponent goalie, Would a better statistic for a goalie be a +/- average (GFAA - Goals For and Against Average)? It would be calculated similar to the GAA as follows:

GFAA = (Team Goals For - Goals Against) / Number of Minutes Played x 60

Note ... GAA is calculated Goals Against / Number of Minutes Played x 60

 

[Big#D]

Let's try another one, from years ago so we have an better picture of the goalie's career.

A: 39-6-5 2.17 .911 in 50 games.
B: 22-30-6 2.83 .920 in 59 games.

Goalie A is better than Goalie B in all statistics except SV%. The difference of .009 in SV% is negligible. For me it means that Goalie A had a better regular season than Goalie B.

The problem is, you can't say who is a better goalie based on one game or one year's statistics. You have to consider playoff performance and what they do over their entire career. Goalie A could have rocked in the regular season and then chocked in the playoffs while Goalie B took his team to the Cup. I would rather have a goalie that can win 16 games after the regular season ends.

Just because Goalie A (Chris Osgood) has a better year than goalie B (Dom Hasek), doesn't mean that over his career Osgood was the better goalie. Just during that period of time (1995-96).

 

[Dr Love]

The problem is, you can't say who is a better goalie based on one game or one year's statistics.

That's my whole point. One year's worth of stats isn't enough. And one stat alone (wins) isn't either.

You have to consider playoff performance and what they do over their entire career. Goalie A could have rocked in the regular season and then chocked in the playoffs while Goalie B took his team to the Cup. I would rather have a goalie that can win 16 games after the regular season ends.

Couldn't agree more. And regular season wins don't tell you that better than other stats.

Just because Goalie A (Chris Osgood) has a better year than goalie B (Dom Hasek), doesn't mean that over his career Osgood was the better goalie. Just during that period of time (1995-96).

Bah! You gave it away!

 

[Big#D]

Bah! You gave it away![/QUOTE]

Tee Hee

 

[Resolute]

If the job of a goalie is to allow the team to win by letting in less goals that his opponent goalie, Would a better statistic for a goalie be a +/- average (GFAA - Goals For and Against Average)? It would be calculated similar to the GAA as follows:

No, that would be ridiculous. A goalie virtually never has any impact on the offensive abilities of a team, so crediting him with goals for does not give you an accurate picture of the goalie's ability or performance.

Also, exactly as when you judge a goalie on wins, you are punishing a goalie for playing on a bad team. A team that can't score wont win, and wont help your GFAA or whatever.

Wins are not the most important stat for a goalie, and quite honestly, should not be credited to the goalie at all. Wins are a team stat, and the entire team should be credited with the wins and losses. Assigning them to goalies is simply a matter of convienence, but really is not dependant on a goalie's individual performance.

 

[trentmccleary]

Assigning them to goalies is simply a matter of convienence, but really is not dependant on a goalie's individual performance.

Assigning wins to a goalie is what Grandpa used to do. There has been an evolution of statistics in every sport. A progression to specifically measure the individual performance, separated from the teams accomplishments.
Trottier et al, seem to situate their arguments in terms of yesterday. From that perspective, they're right. The 33 wins awarded to Dan Cloutier in 03-04 mattered to the Canucks. However, those wins have no predictive usefulness. So if a team like Pittsburgh is looking for a goalie in 05-06, Cloutier's 33 wins means jack-all to them.
SV% is a much better indicator of individual performance. It is infinitely more useful in predicting future performances than wins.

1 Game < 1 Season < 10 seasons
I read a few posts on here that basically prove that more data = more accuracy, or vice versa (less = less). That's a very basic concept and I don't think anybody will disagree. Make sure that your evidence and your conclusions are related.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

Game, set, match.

(Likely that at least a couple folks here would prefer the former!)

Trot's, what happens when a goalie plays for a bad team? Under this evaluation method, they are automatically a bad goaltender. Doesn't that seem a little bid strange to you?

Wins are the ultimate goal. I think we all understand that (even here at HF where prospect ratings rule). I just don't think that we should rename the Vezina Trophy the Osgood trophy because Chris was lucky enough to play behind one of the most dominating teams (offensively & defensively) in recent memory. I also don't think it would be fair to evaluate a guy like Jeff Hackett based on his W/L record when he had the misfortune of playing for some absolutely brutal hockey teams (expansion Sharks, brutal Hawks & brutal Habs).

Is GAA & SP% perfect? Hell no! Is it better than anything else out there? I sure think so. I think that you have to use your judgement, which is where a lot of people get in trouble!

 

[PecaFan]

This is a really simple concept guys.

Wins come from goals for. That's it. Without any goals for, a win is impossible. Goalies don't affect goals for. Ergo, wins are irrelevant in assessing goalie performance.

A goalie can win a game literally without ever stoppping a single shot. A goalie can come in after the starter has been pulled, give up one goal over the remaining 50 minutes and get the loss, when the starter gave up six goals on the first six shots, if he should be unlucky enough that his team attempted a comeback. A goalie can stop 75 out of 76 shots and get a loss. A goalie can allow 10 goals on 20 shots and get a win.

Any GM who makes a decision to acquire a goalie based on wins is making a wrong decision.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Yes, you've said that. And I've said that, for some stats, it's more true than for others.

Take a great goaltender and put him on a terrible team. He'll still have a pretty good save percentage (even if it's less than before). His goals-against average might be decent, but he's not going to win very many games.

Agreed. It's a matter of degree, not an absolute. Save percentage is a team stat, but less so than GAA. GAA is a team stat, but less so than wins.

What would you rather have.
A 20 Win .930 2.00 goalie?
Or a 40 win .900 3.00 goalie

The first TEAM was better than the second team.
The second GOALIE was better than the first goalie.

Wins are not the most important stat for a goalie, and quite honestly, should not be credited to the goalie at all. Wins are a team stat, and the entire team should be credited with the wins and losses. Assigning them to goalies is simply a matter of convienence, but really is not dependant on a goalie's individual performance.

Agreed. Wins are the most important stat (the ONLY stat) for TEAMS. But it doesn't follow that this is true for individuals.

 

[Jordoe28]

Yeah this guy sure didn't think the wins thing out much. I'm a goalie and the best representation you have is GAA and SVP. Wins mean nothing. You could be on a good team and win games 7-5 or 5-4 all the time and still be winning goaltender.

GAA shows the average amount of goals you let in, per game. Sure the team affects that, but not as much as it does for wins. SVP is the next best thing to determine a goalie's performance. Finally, shutouts put a seal on how good your goalie is. Not one of the stats show the goalie's play the best, but all together you can get a pretty good idea of how good he is. One look at his backups #s and then you really have a comparison. Wins are a team stat.

 

[MS]

This is a really simple concept guys.

Wins come from goals for. That's it. Without any goals for, a win is impossible. Goalies don't affect goals for. Ergo, wins are irrelevant in assessing goalie performance.

A goalie can win a game literally without ever stoppping a single shot. A goalie can come in after the starter has been pulled, give up one goal over the remaining 50 minutes and get the loss, when the starter gave up six goals on the first six shots, if he should be unlucky enough that his team attempted a comeback. A goalie can stop 75 out of 76 shots and get a loss. A goalie can allow 10 goals on 20 shots and get a win.

Any GM who makes a decision to acquire a goalie based on wins is making a wrong decision.

Exactly.

All stats are flawed for evaluating goaltenders. But using wins is the most flawed by a country mile, and Cox is completely out to lunch.

Save % has by far the most value. There are very few cases of mediocre goaltenders putting up a .920-.930 save %, and guys have done it on good teams and bad. I don't care who you are or where you're playing, if you're stopping that many shots you're doing a great job. And if you're stopping less than .900-.910 you're doing a lousy job (at least prior to this season). With the guys in the middle it's harder to differentiate. Of course you have to watch the guys play, and you can't use one stat as a be-all and end-all, but for the most part it's pretty representative.

On the other hand, you could lose count of the number of sketch goaltenders who've won 30 games in a season (Osgood, Cechmanek, Turek, Johnson, Lalime, etc). Get 60 starts on a powerhouse team and the wins are automatic.

 

[reckoning]

Goalie A is better than Goalie B in all statistics except SV%. The difference of .009 in SV% is negligible. For me it means that Goalie A had a better regular season than Goalie B.

The problem is, you can't say who is a better goalie based on one game or one year's statistics. You have to consider playoff performance and what they do over their entire career. Goalie A could have rocked in the regular season and then chocked in the playoffs while Goalie B took his team to the Cup. I would rather have a goalie that can win 16 games after the regular season ends.

Just because Goalie A (Chris Osgood) has a better year than goalie B (Dom Hasek), doesn't mean that over his career Osgood was the better goalie. Just during that period of time (1995-96).

No Osgood was not better than Hasek that season, and a difference of .009 in sv% is actually quite significant. Over the course of a 82 game schedule, a team .009 lower in SV% than another team that`s completely equal defensively will give up 22 extra goals. Considering that 40% of the games that season were either ties or 1-goal games, that could have resulted in 9 or 10 extra wins, very significant.

Why did Osgood have more wins than Hasek? Two reasons:

a) Team defence: Detroit gave up the least amount of shots in the league that year (24.2 per game), Buffalo gave up the most (35.5 per game). You don`t have to be a rocket scientist to understand that Osgood had it easier. Compare the two teams blueliners that year:

Detroit:
Lidstrom
Konstantinov (+60)
Coffey
Fetisov
Ramsey
Rouse

Buffalo:
Galley
Zhitnik (-25)
Astley
Wilson
Houda
Boughner

I`ll go on a limb and say Detroits looks better.

b) Team Offence: Believe it or not, a team has to score a goal to win a game and if your team is a high-powered offence who spots a lead and gives you a margin of error to work with, then you`re going to have a better chance of winning than if your team can`t score and you`ll lose if you let in one goal.
In that season, Detroit scored 325 goals, Buffalo 247. The top five point-getters on each team:

Detroit:
Fedorov 107
Yzerman 95
Coffey 74
Kozlov 73
Larionov 73

Buffalo:
LaFontaine 91
Burridge 58
Plante 56
Galley 54
Dawe 50

It looks like Buffalo`s offense after LaFontaine was non-existent, but I suppose that was Hasek`s fault.

Yes, wins are the most important thing, but you have to look at the whole picture and which players contributed the most to their teams wins. It`s Pejorative Slured to just say Player A is better than Player B because he had more wins.

What would you rather have.
A 20 Win .930 2.00 goalie?
Or a 40 win .900 3.00 goalie

What would you rather have: a defenceman who won 4 Stanley Cups (Larry Murphy) or a defenceman who only won 2 (Bobby Orr)? Wins are the only measure of how good a player was, right?