Locker Clean Out Day

[SensibleGuy]

Yoiu follow the thread Whilee. The initial point was Pav sucks. Somebody responded with the sad old "but but playoffs last year!" which drew Garret's response (mostly sarcasm I bet) that the playoffs happened not because of Pav but in spite of him - which you then responded to as if it were really a serious point.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

What a coincidence that Chevy signs Connor on the same day as his end-of-a-disastrous-season presser!

Better than signing Stu at the deadline, though, so I'm not complaining too much...

Don't remind me of that. I haven't gotten over the trauma. And I hadn't even fully realized yet just how bad Stu was! It was just the term and $$$ that got me.

 

[Whileee]

Yoiu follow the thread Whilee. The initial point was Pav sucks. Somebody responded with the sad old "but but playoffs last year!" which drew Garret's response (mostly sarcasm I bet) that the playoffs happened not because of Pav but in spite of him - which you then responded to as if it were really a serious point.

Point is that they didn't make the playoffs "despite" Pavs last season.

They have perhaps missed the playoffs other seasons due to him, though.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Don't even joke

TBH, even if Pavs gets better on a different team I'll be glad we got rid of him finally

Yup. He brings up to many bad memories. Or is it just that he makes me bring up?
I have had the same thought many times. I don't care what happens to him after he is gone as long as he is gone.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Hahah I hear ya, it was tough listening to that answer but I wanted to see if there was an actual nugget of information contained within. He basically said that they evaluate all spending situations internally and see how it affects their future projections. They would then make a decision based on this evaluation, but there are no hard spending restrictions in place.

they evaluate all spending situations internally and see how it affects their future projections. They would then make a decision based on this evaluation, but there are no hard spending restrictions in place. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Blue Shakehead]

Point is that they didn't make the playoffs "despite" Pavs last season.

They have perhaps missed the playoffs other seasons due to him, though.

You sure about that? I haven't ran the numbers in awhile but if I recall correctly, Pavelec was .907 at the all star break (when Hutch was tops in the league). During that time, they were doing the ridiculous rotation. Ergo, Pavelec was getting all kinds of starts he had no business getting.

His miracle 12 game run boosted his season numbers significantly, but its not the full story. I am too lazy to go through the game logs to prove it however.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Maurice said they would break camp next season with the best players regardless of age. I certainly hope that he follows through on that. That to me means that Thor, Stuart and Pavs should be on notice. I will be watching pretty closely to see how it plays out.

Which goes against everything Maurice said the first two seasons he was here when he kept saying development was what the AHL was for!

Uuhhhhh ...... nooo.

The best players regardless of age is not the same as the best players regardless of readiness.

We have better players than Thor, Pav, Stu and maybe even Stafford too who are all younger than those. They are also less established, less proven ..... but better.

 

[garret9]

Here's food for thought:

A win is a win.

Okay stick with me here:

A win in the beginning of the season means one less "must win" at the end of the season.

Still with me?

Prior to his shutout streak, Pavelec had an abysmal sv%, quality start%, above average appearance%, and win threshold%.

Jets were in a situation needing Pavelec to have that shutout streak in order to make the POs.

The team was above the line without Pavelec (2nd in Corsi, 5th in Fenwick, 5th in Shots, etc)

Pavelec took them 10 steps back, and then 6 steps forward... luckily the net still ended up with them above the line.

Does this help you Whilleee how it can still be despite?

 

[irunthepeg]

Here's food for thought:

A win is a win.

Okay stick with me here:

A win in the beginning of the season means one less "must win" at the end of the season.

Still with me?

Prior to his shutout streak, Pavelec had an abysmal sv%, quality start%, above average appearance%, and win threshold%.

Jets were in a situation needing Pavelec to have that shutout streak in order to make the POs.

The team was above the line without Pavelec (2nd in Corsi, 5th in Fenwick, 5th in Shots, etc)

Pavelec took them 10 steps back, and then 6 steps forward... luckily the net still ended up with them above the line.

Does this help you Whilleee how it can still be despite?

Agreed here. While he did start playing on fire towards the end of the season, everyone quickly forgave his mediocre start.

 

[mcpw]

Here's food for thought:

A win is a win.

Okay stick with me here:

A win in the beginning of the season means one less "must win" at the end of the season.

Still with me?

Prior to his shutout streak, Pavelec had an abysmal sv%, quality start%, above average appearance%, and win threshold%.

Jets were in a situation needing Pavelec to have that shutout streak in order to make the POs.

The team was above the line without Pavelec (2nd in Corsi, 5th in Fenwick, 5th in Shots, etc)

Pavelec took them 10 steps back, and then 6 steps forward... luckily the net still ended up with them above the line.

Does this help you Whilleee how it can still be despite?

My take:

"Made the playoffs despite the goalie saving 0.920" is a ridiculous statement, as 0.920 is above league average, and over 50% of the teams make the playoffs.

"Made the playoffs despite the goalie being Ondrej Pavelec" is a reasonable statement, as Pavelec is career way below league average and therefore expected to have a negative impact.

Whileee is arguing against the first statement, you are arguing for the second statement. You are both correct.

If we make the playoffs next year with Chris Thorburn playing on the first line scoring 35-40-75, the statement "we made the playoffs despite Thorburn playing on our first line" is both correct and incorrect.

 

[garret9]

Nope. Still 100% arguing despite.

It's not ridiculous when you point out Ondrej Pavelec still ended the season with low QS%, AAA%, and WT%.

He was at 50% Quality Starts despite being 920. For half his games he posted a below league average Sv%. League average is 53%, andgood starters post >60% QS.

IE: Pavelec earned a larger share of his saves in "low pressure situations" where allowing a goal wasn't as detrimental to the team. We usually only talk about sv% alone (or variants of sv%) because we're being more predictive than descriptive while trying to measure true talent. But here we are talking descriptive.

It's extremely rare that a 920 goalie post a poor QS, but 2014-2015 Pavelec is one of those situations due to a hot streak.

 

[boanst]

Pav was really good for the first month of the year (maybe only a few weeks?) and the last month. He was probably even more awful than usual the other 4 months, as if that was even possible.

No, if Pavs were to get his usual 65 starts last year that means he would have played more during the bad stretch, and we would probably have missed the playoffs by 5+ points.

 

[mcpw]

Nope. Still 100% arguing despite.

It's not ridiculous when you point out Ondrej Pavelec still ended the season with low QS%, AAA%, and WT%.

He was at 50% Quality Starts despite being 920. For half his games he posted a below league average Sv%. League average is 53%, andgood starters post >60% QS.

IE: Pavelec earned a larger share of his saves in "low pressure situations" where allowing a goal wasn't as detrimental to the team. We usually only talk about sv% alone (or variants of sv%) because we're being more predictive than descriptive while trying to measure true talent. But here we are talking descriptive.

It's extremely rare that a 920 goalie post a poor QS, but 2014-2015 Pavelec is one of those situations due to a hot streak.

I see your point.

Over typical one-season samples, what has the larger correlation?
a) sv% and win%
b) qs% and win%

If b) doesn't show a significantly larger correlation I really would be very careful about calling it 100% despite. 100% means you can prove that he has had a negative impact. I think, as a guy who knows math, you know what that means.

edit: oh I see, you edited your post or I misread it. 100% arguing despite, nothing wrong with that.

 

[CaptainKirk316]

Its interesting that in his .920 year that only 2 other goalie in the league had such a high save% with such a low QS%. (with at least 35gp)

So while a Win is a Win and a loss is a loss. A high win ratio with a low QS% says that the team bailed him out of some terrible games more often than the other way around.

The only other goalies with real winning records with such bad QS% are Kari Lehtonan and Cam talbot.

One is a very well known commodity
The other is having an amazing start to his career and can get benefit of the doubt for having some terrible stinkers of games.

 

[garret9]

I see your point.

Over typical one-season samples, what has the larger correlation?
a) sv% and win%
b) qs% and win%

If b) doesn't show a significantly larger correlation I really would be very careful about calling it 100% despite. 100% means you can prove that he has had a negative impact. I think, as a guy who knows math, you know what that means.

edit: oh I see, you edited your post or I misread it. 100% arguing despite, nothing wrong with that.

The whole point of QS is to look at how often a goalie was good enough to earn a win, provided the team only needs to play at a league average level.

That's the definition of a QS.

 

[garret9]

Interesting note:

2014-15 seemed to be the year for >=920 sv% and <=53 qs%

 

[garret9]

Interesting note:

2014-15 seemed to be the year for >=920 sv% and <=53 qs%

Interesting to see that Pavelec is the most used goalie ever to post those numbers.

But not despite, oh no...

 

[Whileee]

Here's food for thought:

A win is a win.

Okay stick with me here:

A win in the beginning of the season means one less "must win" at the end of the season.

Still with me?

Prior to his shutout streak, Pavelec had an abysmal sv%, quality start%, above average appearance%, and win threshold%.

Jets were in a situation needing Pavelec to have that shutout streak in order to make the POs.

The team was above the line without Pavelec (2nd in Corsi, 5th in Fenwick, 5th in Shots, etc)

Pavelec took them 10 steps back, and then 6 steps forward... luckily the net still ended up with them above the line.

Does this help you Whilleee how it can still be despite?

Interesting. You are starting to persuade me....

I've seen some analysis that puts Pavelec's adjusted save% last season well into the top 10 (adjusted for shot quality). Is it reliable data, or does that matter? Not sure.

Over 19.5% of Pavelec's shots against were while the Jets were short-handed. For a number of the other top goalies that figure was more like 11-12%. Is it harder to post a QS when a higher proportion of the shots are while short-handed? A while back I compared several goalies last year based on their save% "adjusted" for their ES vs. Short-handed shots against. Because Pavs faced a lot more of his shots while killing penalties (when most goalies post a lower save%), this enhanced his stats vs. others. I assume that you adjust your analyses for that, though.

Don't get me wrong, I still think he's a really crappy goalie, but I think it helps to try to look objectively at all of the data when assessing performance for a given season.

 

[Whileee]

I see your point.

Over typical one-season samples, what has the larger correlation?
a) sv% and win%
b) qs% and win%

If b) doesn't show a significantly larger correlation I really would be very careful about calling it 100% despite. 100% means you can prove that he has had a negative impact. I think, as a guy who knows math, you know what that means.

edit: oh I see, you edited your post or I misread it. 100% arguing despite, nothing wrong with that.

In 2014-15, Vezina and Hart winner Carey Price had a QS% less than 60%. There were about a dozen NHL goalies with >20 starts with a higher QS% than his that season. He did, however, lead the NHL in adjusted save% (other than the Hamburgler who only played 24 games).

 

[Whileee]

Its interesting that in his .920 year that only 2 other goalie in the league had such a high save% with such a low QS%. (with at least 35gp)

So while a Win is a Win and a loss is a loss. A high win ratio with a low QS% says that the team bailed him out of some terrible games more often than the other way around.

The only other goalies with real winning records with such bad QS% are Kari Lehtonan and Cam talbot.

One is a very well known commodity
The other is having an amazing start to his career and can get benefit of the doubt for having some terrible stinkers of games.

As noted above, Price had a qs% of 59% last season, which was lauded as a season for the ages. 3-4 more quality starts for Pavs and he would have matched Price.

It might help to look through the game sheets to see how many below average sv% games might have been associated with the excess pk time and shots faced by the Jets.

 

[garret9]

In 2014-15, Vezina and Hart winner Carey Price had a QS% less than 60%. There were about a dozen NHL goalies with >20 starts with a higher QS% than his that season. He did, however, lead the NHL in adjusted save% (other than the Hamburgler who only played 24 games).

Less than 60% isn't bad... Less than 52-53 is (which is league average).

In regards to Price and the Vezina/Hart, that shouldn't be too difficult to figure out...
1) He was around 60% which is still really, really good.
2) No one was making those awards based on QS.
3) Sv% is more descriptive of performance while QS% is more about the distribution of performance.

My point was that Pavelec did perform well in sv%, but despite his performance in how many pucks per shot Pavelec stopped, Pavelec still ended up hurting the Jets more than helping *on average*.

If it weren't for his shutout streak, the Jets would not have made the playoffs.
If it weren't for his performance for about 75% of the season, his shutout streak wouldn't have been needed and an average goalie would have sufficed.

 

[garret9]

Interesting. You are starting to persuade me....

I've seen some analysis that puts Pavelec's adjusted save% last season well into the top 10 (adjusted for shot quality). Is it reliable data, or does that matter? Not sure.

Over 19.5% of Pavelec's shots against were while the Jets were short-handed. For a number of the other top goalies that figure was more like 11-12%. Is it harder to post a QS when a higher proportion of the shots are while short-handed? A while back I compared several goalies last year based on their save% "adjusted" for their ES vs. Short-handed shots against. Because Pavs faced a lot more of his shots while killing penalties (when most goalies post a lower save%), this enhanced his stats vs. others. I assume that you adjust your analyses for that, though.

Don't get me wrong, I still think he's a really crappy goalie, but I think it helps to try to look objectively at all of the data when assessing performance for a given season.

What we're discussing is Pavelec's performance on whether or not the Jets made the playoffs despite him. Not on whether or not Pavelec is a good goalie. I'm not trying to convince you on that, although we seemingly agree on that discussion point if we were to make it.

Descriptive vs predictive.

My point is that while Pavelec stopped 92% of shots rather than his norm 90.6%, it was grouped in a manner that was least productive towards helping the Jets win%... especially given the Jets were an above average outshooting team with average shooting percentage.

Pavelec did stop a higher percentage of shots than the average goalie did.
This fact does not change if you adjust for shot location.
If he were someone who maintained this for long periods of time (which he failed to do), I would also conclude he is likely to continue stopping pucks.
He did however perform below average for most of his season, and only performed well near the end.
This is why I say despite Pavelec, even though Pavelec did perform exceptionally well for a period.

This is pretty much the only reason/way I'd use QS%.

 

[Puckatron 3000]

What we're discussing is Pavelec's performance on whether or not the Jets made the playoffs despite him. .

Right.

He did however perform below average for most of his season, and only performed well near the end.
This is why I say despite Pavelec, even though Pavelec did perform exceptionally well for a period.

This is pretty much the only reason/way I'd use QS%.

I think glossing over the sv% is incorrect. During that shut out streak across 3 games, the Jets only scored 4 goals. So they didn't just need a quality start in those games. They needed an exceptional goaltending effort. Which is what they got. Had Pavs been "average" in those games, we might have received 0 points (or at least certainly far fewer) from them.

Was Pavs inconsistent between great and bad across the season? Yes. But so we're the Jets.

So, regarding Pavs' inconsistency, you could just as easily paint it the opposite way. Which is that Pavs was exceptional when he needed to be. There were of course other games the Jets won where Pavs was bad. But Pavs didn't need to be better in those games. We won anyway.

So things get pretty mushy when you argue QS over sv% for a specific set of games. Maybe if Pavs had been more consistent (but with the same sv%), we could have actuaĺly had a worse record last year. And missed the playoffs.

Whereas sv% gives us an inarguable fact. Pavs stopped more pucks than the average goaltender. Nothing mushy about that.

It is very difficult to argue that a different distribution of his sv% (which again, was good) across the season would have resulted in more or less points. For the specific season in question.

 

[mcpw]

The whole point of QS is to look at how often a goalie was good enough to earn a win, provided the team only needs to play at a league average level.

That's the definition of a QS.

I want numbers, not "common sense".

 

[heretik27]

You guys and your fancy numbers. I just saw a goalie last year who had trouble holding a 2 goal lead going into the 3rd period. If Hutch hadn't gotten hot there's little chance we make the playoffs that season. Pavs turning into a wall in the final stretch was something we had never gotten from him before, good consistent goaltending. Not surprisingly, it came after the center ice goal for which he should have been thoroughly embarrassed. I truly believe that he has a mental preparation issue for games, maybe a motivation issue i'm not really sure how to characterize it. After it seems like he's had a really rough game or two and loses the starting position he seemed to bounce back for a game before settling back into his comfortable groove of below average play.