Oh I know that's his main point, I wasn't trying to discredit that. But the specific post seemed to suggest that the original difference would be negligible, and on top of that, we should adjust for his theory of shots affecting save percentage. Now, assuming the theory is true, it might elevate the .916 performance to the .921 performance, but it does need to be elevated for it to be similar, because the difference isn't negligible.
Is Jonathan Quick still a top 5 starter?
- Thread starter Kronwalled8*
- Start date
Oh I know that's his main point, I wasn't trying to discredit that. But the specific post seemed to suggest that the original difference would be negligible, and on top of that, we should adjust for his theory of shots affecting save percentage. Now, assuming the theory is true, it might elevate the .916 performance to the .921 performance, but it does need to be elevated for it to be similar, because the difference isn't negligible.
All of this correct, but only if goalies face the same number of shots per game. Also, the factor that a .005 difference in SV% is something that a goalie simply cannot adjust to. So yea what you're saying is true and everything, but that is still more of a team thing than a goalie thing. Asking a goalie to give up 10 to 15 fewer goals in a season is unreasonable. No goalie can fine tune his game THAT much. You're better off asking your team to score 10 to 15 MORE goals.
Every goalie in the league today has a higher cumulative SV% in their games where they face 30 or more shots than they do when they face 29 or fewer shots and play at least 55 minutes or more. This is a fact.
I made these tables last offseason. So they don't include this season's data. And most importantly, this data only comes from games where the goalie plays 55 or more minutes. So it's not including games where the goalie comes in for relief or if they if they get pulled for poor play. This data is for COMPLETE GAMES only.
Frederick Andersen|.922|.928
Craig Anderson|.899|.928
Ben Bishop|.912|.937
Sergei Bobrovsky|.910|.930
Marc Andre Fleury|.909|.924
Jaroslav Halak|.915|.931
Braden Holtby|.920|.931
Jimmy Howard|.911|.929
Robin Lehner|.899|.930
Henrik Lundqvist|.916|.933
Roberto Luongo|.913|.932
Steve Mason|.901|.929
Carey Price|.910|.931
Tuukka Rask|.916|.936
Cory Schneider|.920|.938
Cam Ward|.899|.927
Jake Allen|.919|.928
Corey Crawford|.915|.933
Devan Dubnyk|.903|.928
Brian Elliott|.917|.932
John Gibson|.917|.937
Connor Hellebuyck|.902|.955
Martin Jones|.913|.940
Kari Lehtonen|.909|.923
Ryan Miller|.905|.928
Jonathan Quick|.912|.933
Pekka Rinne|.907|.938
Mike Smith|.902|.929
Cam Talbot|.915|.934
Semyon Varlamov|.906|.931
Also, check out these threads.
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=2152845&highlight=team+effects
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1632645
For the goalie it absolutely is negligible. Read the post above. I explained it there.
Your argument about shots doesn't make it negligible. Again, assuming everything is equal, there's a very real difference. What your argument might do is suggest a .916 goalie in one situation is equal to a .921 goalie in a different situation based on the team around them. Fair enough. But you can't first call the difference negligible, and then try to suggest the .916 goalie is also better than his numbers suggest.
I understand your point. I think to a certain degree it's difficult to keep goals against average under 2, and the closer a goalie gets to that point, or even under it, the harder it is to maintain a high save percentage, because both bad games affect you more, and even in good games, one mistake has a greater impact on your numbers. I do think there needs to be more work on figuring out exactly how much this might affect a goalie. Simply using cutoffs like 30 shots gives an idea of trends, but doesn't give anything concrete because a single shot difference is treated the same as a 10+ shot difference. There is almost no difference between a 29 shot game and a 30 shot game, and yet they're being placed in separate categories.
Regardless, I'm not trying to argue against your point, just clarifying the difference between the percentages before we account for any affect shots against might have.
Last edited:
All I'm showing you is that that .005 difference can be because of a factor completely out of the goalie's control.
One BIG problem here is that you CAN'T assume everything is equal. The fact of the matter is, a goalie can play more games, have a lower SV%, and still allow fewer goals than a goalie with a higher SV% with fewer games played.
This is from last year.
John Doe #1
GP: 68
SA: 1820
GA: 149
SV%: .918
John Doe #2
GP: 65
SA: 1944
GA: 156
SV%: .920
That's fair then. The original post I quoted made it sound as if you were calling the difference negligible before accounting for reasons why, which I just wanted to clear up, but it sounds like that wasn't the case. My mistake.
That's my bad. I do believe it's negligible when comparing one goalie to another. It's definitely not negligible when we take into account the effect it could potentially have on the team.
I know GAA gets labeled as a team stat, but I truly believe a goalie has more control over his GAA than he does his SV%. You hear how goal based analytic metrics get discredited for teams for a reason.
yeah, because the goalies play can screw you. it's the same the other way around though.
Point is, goalies have a bigger effect on pucks going into the net than the team does.
Legionnaire
Help On The Way
WeThreeKings
Habs cup - its in the BAG
What Quick did in his Conn Smythe run literally altered the way every goalie approaches the game.
Once Waite came to Montreal and taught Price the concepts that Quick popularized during that run, he became the dominant goalie he is today.
Quick is a top 5 goalie in the league and its not up for debate. Every goalie who watches Quick will tell you the same thing. Some other goalies since that run (Schneider and Horny) have narrowed the gap but generally you're looking at the elite tier of Price, Lundquist, Quick, Holtby, Rinne, Rask and Schneider.
Once Waite came to Montreal and taught Price the concepts that Quick popularized during that run, he became the dominant goalie he is today.
Quick is a top 5 goalie in the league and its not up for debate. Every goalie who watches Quick will tell you the same thing. Some other goalies since that run (Schneider and Horny) have narrowed the gap but generally you're looking at the elite tier of Price, Lundquist, Quick, Holtby, Rinne, Rask and Schneider.
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
I'm on the Quick is overrated camp, great team he has though. He'd be Cam Ward if the Kings were a bad team.
Choralone
Registered User
No one seems to remember the Jonathan Quick that played for the Kings before they won their first Stanley Cup. He was flat-out awesome and the only reason the Kings were hanging around in many games with zero goal support. I don't care what the stats say from that time period, Kings fans know what they saw - fans of other Pacific teams might remember, though.
he has been labeled top 5 because of a performance from how long ago? you only get to ride that so long before you lose the label IMO.
Raccoon Jesus
Todd McLellan is an inside agent
Well, how about that.
https://www.nhl.com/news/unmasked-scorers-can-reverse-popular-technique/c-735777
"The irony on opening night was Quick was the trendsetter who made the Reverse style so popular. Though it was already being taught in Sweden, Quick's use of it in 2012 when the Kings won the Stanley Cup and he won the Conn Smythe Trophy was the catalyst for widespread adoption of the technique at all levels of hockey in North America."
i meant the assertion in the last paragraph. every goalie in the league will tell you quick is a top 5 goalie.
He was different. now that he's not different the playing field is more even and he's more average. average goalie behind a great defensive team is what he's been for a while. he is not a current top 5 goalie in any sense. do you think his stats would be boosted behind someone else's D? Do you have any reason to believe that? obviously it can greatly affect things but when you're talking about the kings you're talking about a very stable and steady responsible game from forwards and d. edit: Quick isn't alone. Rinne was top 5. not anymore.
Last edited:
KingPuckChoo
Go kinGs Go !
- Jun 24, 2007
- 9,957
- 3,699
yes because:
Dwight King
Devin Setoguchi
Kevin Gravel
Trevor Lewis
Jordan Nolan
Kyle Clifford
Tanner Pearson
Dustin Brown
Marian Gaborik
Teddy Purcell
Nick Shore
Andy Andreoff
Nic Dowd
Brayden McNabb
Derek Forbort
Matt Greene
Tom Gilbert
are all players that makes a team GRRRRREAAAT!
The kings seem to pull off the same sort of thing Lemaire did for the Wild though...no matter how unimpressive the personnel they were hard to score on (usually). Only the Kings have had a way better record (than the Lemaire Wild) because their unimpressive roster is still way better than the Wild's was. We had Gaborik in his prime and that's about it.
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
Hey, did you bother to check the Vezina Trophy voting from last season by any chance?
voting on rep. gotta have some Western goalies in there.
Yeah okay, he's great, the kings d is great, you're top five at everything. I don't get it. that's my unpopular opinion i guess.
Ad
Latest posts
-
Post-Series Talk: Boston Bruins Defeat Toronto Maple Leafs (win 4-3)- Latest: Praetorian Caps
-
-
-
-
GDT: ECSF: Game 1 - New York Rangers vs Carolina Hurricanes, 4pm ET, ESPN- Latest: Procrastinator
