NCAA Free agents (O'Connor Signs With Ottawa)

[Jimmi McJenkins]

Lehner can't even ride a stationary bike his concussion symptoms are so bad right now, so take him right off your list.

I didn't realize that it was that bad. Tough, I hope the kid recovers just for his well being.

Neuvirth has a career save percentage of 0.912 which is a match for the best year Ramo has ever had, so if Neuvirth's only good games were with Buffalo and he's only played 29 games of his 168 career NHL games played there, I ask how did he manage that feat?

Neuvirth was bad and inconsistent in Washington...as proof, he's not there anymore. If he was good they would have kept him.

Ramo, though developing more slowly, has shown more to show he can be consistent as an NHL goaltender.

Neuvirth's solid play with the Sabres, especially the sv%, 'is likely'* due to a higher volume of shots from teams that already had the game in hand as the Sabres, as you'll recall, were atrocious. If the Sabres lose 3-1 or 3-0, but gave up 40 or even 50 shots, despite the fact they were never at risk of winning a game, the sv% goes up.

Also I don't get how putting up good numbers with a horrible team is a bad thing, were a bad team we could use some good goaltending. BTW his career save percentage if you completely extract the Buffalo years is 0.909.

See the above statement, you get a good sv% because you face many more shots then a regular good team would. And being on a garbage team, if you're losing 3-0 early, you're not at risk to "win" the game, so the other team can "call off the dogs" so to speak.

We've seen it with the Oilers.

 

[Fourier]

Niemi, Ramo, Lehner, Anderson, Miller.

To name a few. Lindback is awful and will likely be in either the SEL or KHL next year and Neuvirth hasn't done much when not on the Sabres.

There are options out there, they have to upgrade on Scrivens, not try to "replace" him.

I am surprised that you question BBO's knowledge and then list Lehner. BBO was actually correct when he said that Lindback was very good in his stint in Buffalo. Lehner on the other hand struggled a lot this year in Ottawa, and was nothing special at all last year. Lindback was fine in Nashville but had his issues in Tampa and in Dallas. Neither of those teams had much in the way of defense while he was there. So really Lindback has had more success at the NHL level than Lehner. Of course Lehner is younger but his trajectory is not in the right direction right now.

Honestly, I don't think either would be the answer.

 

[Jimmi McJenkins]

I am surprised that you question BBO's knowledge and then list Lehner. BBO was actually correct when he said that Lindback was very good in his stint in Buffalo. Lehner on the other hand struggled a lot this year in Ottawa, and was nothing special at all last year. Lindback was fine in Nashville but had his issues in Tampa and in Dallas. Neither of those teams had much in the way of defense while he was there. So really Lindback has had more success at the NHL level than Lehner. Of course Lehner is younger but his trajectory is not in the right direction right now.

Honestly, I don't think either would be the answer.

Lindback is not an NHL goalie on and NHL team, Lehner could be, Lindback simply is not. Or he wouldn't have been given away by everyone who could.

For the record, Buffalo, Especially at the end of the year, was not an NHL team.

 

[Fourier]

Neuvirth was bad and inconsistent in Washington...as proof, he's not there anymore. If he was good they would have kept him.

Ramo, though developing more slowly, has shown more to show he can be consistent as an NHL goaltender.

Ramo was bad/incosistent in Tampa. The proof is he is not there anymore. If he was they would have kept him. Or maybe your logic is not 100% accurate. In fact, Neuvirth was inconsistent as are almost all goalies, but he was generally fairly solid in Washington, and early in his career was considered very promising.

Neuvirth's solid play with the Sabres, especially the sv%, 'is likely'* due to a higher volume of shots from teams that already had the game in hand as the Sabres, as you'll recall, were atrocious. If the Sabres lose 3-1 or 3-0, but gave up 40 or even 50 shots, despite the fact they were never at risk of winning a game, the sv% goes up.



See the above statement, you get a good sv% because you face many more shots then a regular good team would. And being on a garbage team, if you're losing 3-0 early, you're not at risk to "win" the game, so the other team can "call off the dogs" so to speak.

We've seen it with the Oilers.

If this was true then it would also be reflected in his goals against. He gave up 2 or less goals in 6 of 17 games he played for the Sabres including a ten game streak where he gave up 14 ES goals in total. He had games where he gave up 2 goals in 47 shots, 1 in 38, 2 in 38, 1 in 35, 2 in 47, 2 in 33, 2 in 34, 1 in 32, 2 in 38 and 1 in 30.

I also think you may be mixing up statistical anomalies. What is true that team with big leads tend to play more defensive. As such their shot totals tend to fall relative to the opposition. This is why you will often see stats like Corsi quoted for when the score is close. However, because the losing team tends to be pressing, they also tend to give up higher quality shots.

 

[Fourier]

Lindback is not an NHL goalie on and NHL team, Lehner could be, Lindback simply is not. Or he wouldn't have been given away by everyone who could.

For the record, Buffalo, Especially at the end of the year, was not an NHL team.

So if you play very well on a bad team that is worse than playing very well on a good one?

You have given no evidence for how well Linback played other than him being given away. The Oilers and Coyotes both gave away Dubnyk. Can we conclude that Dubnyk is not an NHL goalie?

 

[Burnt Biscuits]

I didn't realize that it was that bad. Tough, I hope the kid recovers just for his well being.


Neuvirth was bad and inconsistent in Washington...as proof, he's not there anymore. If he was good they would have kept him.

Ramo, though developing more slowly, has shown more to show he can be consistent as an NHL goaltender.

Neuvirth's solid play with the Sabres, especially the sv%, 'is likely'* due to a higher volume of shots from teams that already had the game in hand as the Sabres, as you'll recall, were atrocious. If the Sabres lose 3-1 or 3-0, but gave up 40 or even 50 shots, despite the fact they were never at risk of winning a game, the sv% goes up.



See the above statement, you get a good sv% because you face many more shots then a regular good team would. And being on a garbage team, if you're losing 3-0 early, you're not at risk to "win" the game, so the other team can "call off the dogs" so to speak.

We've seen it with the Oilers.

More shots doesn't make your save percentage go up, more saves makes it go up, to be able to make more saves you want to be limiting the quality of shots you allow and from my limited viewings of Buffalo it didn't seem like they were very good at doing that. While there is some truth to pulling back on a team instead of running up the score, I don't believe that would be statistically significant across the course of his career, also there is the complete drubbing you take until they decide to pull back.

Washington let him go, cause they correctly assumed Holtby was better and there is no shame in that, that's a very good goalie. The argument of if goalie "X" is so good why did team "Y" give up on him, really holds no value when discussing goalies, they are voodoo and it's very hard to predict when or who will turn out, all you can do is look at their numbers and skill set and make an educated guess. Hasek got bounced from Chicago, Giguere from Calgary, Kiprusoff from San Jose, Bishop from St. Louis and Ottawa, Anderson from Florida and Colorado, heck we even had Tim Thomas and just let him slip on by; the number of goalies who were overlooked till the day when they arrived as a star is an extremely long one.

 

[Jimmi McJenkins]

More shots doesn't make your save percentage go up

Simple way it works.

3 goals against in 20 shots, that's 17 saves, Save% of .850

3 goals against in 40 shots, that's 37 saves, Save% of .925

Both gave up 3 goals.

 

[nexttothemoon]

The goalie the Oilers get should be a proven starter... enough with the backups that might/could/maybe take a step up and become a starter.

Any goalie that comes in should have played 50-60 games in a season before and looked good while doing so.

I was on board with the Scrivens/Fasth experiment as well because I naively thought one of them should be able to take a step up into a starter role... but it didn't happen. Experiment failed. Time to move onto someone more proven and less of a gamble.

We all knew (well we should have all known anyway) that last season was another wasted season anyway with the D-core the Oilers were running so the experiment with Scrivens/Fasth was not a killer... in fact it helped gain McDavid so all's well that ends well.

Going forward though... this team needs a solid, proven starter. Someone who has experience being the go-to guy in net for a team playing 50+ games a year at the NHL level... preferably for several seasons and they should have shown that they could cope with that level of playing time and put up at least average numbers while doing so.

Every goalie has detractors but at least guys like Niemi, Miller, Howard etc have been in that starter role for multiple seasons and have shown they can take the pressure and cope with what it takes to be a starter at this level.

 

[Burnt Biscuits]

Simple way it works.

3 goals against in 20 shots, that's 17 saves, Save% of .850

3 goals against in 40 shots, that's 37 saves, Save% of .925

Both gave up 3 goals.

Good grief

Your opinion has officially become irrelevant to me, save percentage as you can seemingly tell based on your math is saves made divided by shots on net. Example B he clearly made more saves relative to the number of shots allowed ofcourse the save percentage went up. Do you think when you hit 3 goals allowed an invisible forcefield comes up behind the goalie prevent any further goals? No, ofcourse not he had to make an additional 20 saves to keep it to just 3 goals allowed. It could just as easily of been 6 goals on 40 shots to give you the exact same save percentage as your first example.

 

[Jimmi McJenkins]

So if you play very well on a bad team that is worse than playing very well on a good one?

Really? Come on. If you're a marginal player (goalie included) you can look better over achieve on garbage team. Seems pretty simple.

You have given no evidence for how well Linback played other than him being given away. The Oilers and Coyotes both gave away Dubnyk. Can we conclude that Dubnyk is not an NHL goalie?

Picture this.

Tampa, in desperate need of goaltender, trades 2 2nds and a 3rd for Lindback.

They bring him in...and trust him with just 24 games, very average numbers year one, atrocious numbers year two (including a trip to the minors), which included multiple pulls in the playoffs. Let go by the team, signs with Dallas.

As the back up goalie Dallas "trusts" him for 10 games, where he's all manner of awful, sent him to the minors. Then traded him for a real back-up, because Buffalo was worried about their tanking.

I will say it again, if you sincerely think that Anders Lindback is an NHL option in net, you don't anything about goaltending.

 

[misfit]

I could care less about this guy to be honest. He has the one trait you need to be a goalie I suppose he's big. Didn't impress me in any of the games in the frozen four tourney I saw.

Beware of medium prospects on totally stacked teams.

I agree. He's no saviour, but he's a free agent that doesn't cost you anything and has to sign a 2-way contract. He'll be sharing duties in the AHL with Brossoit if he choses to sign with us. His competition will be Frans Tuohimaa, an equally vanilla goaltending prospect.

He's about as low risk a signing as you can get. He did have a pedestrian frozen four tourney, but his regular season was very strong and his numbers have improved from year to year. Nobody should expect him to be our answer in net, but he's found money and could work out.

 

[Fourier]

Really? Come on. If you're a marginal player (goalie included) you can look better over achieve on garbage team. Seems pretty simple.

I am actually having a hard time believing that your responses in this thread are serious. So you think Scrivens looks better with the Oilers than he did in LA?

Picture this.

Tampa, in desperate need of goaltender, trades 2 2nds and a 3rd for Lindback.

They bring him in...and trust him with just 24 games, very average numbers year one, atrocious numbers year two (including a trip to the minors), which included multiple pulls in the playoffs. Let go by the team, signs with Dallas.

As the back up goalie Dallas "trusts" him for 10 games, where he's all manner of awful, sent him to the minors. Then traded him for a real back-up, because Buffalo was worried about their tanking.

I will say it again, if you sincerely think that Anders Lindback is an NHL option in net, you don't anything about goaltending.

We agree he was not great on Tampa or Dallas. But what does this have to do with how he played in Buffalo or Nashville?

 

[Jimmi McJenkins]

Good grief

Your opinion has officially become irrelevant to me, save percentage as you can seemingly tell based on your math is saves made divided by shots on net. Example B he clearly made more saves relative to the number of shots allowed ofcourse the save percentage went up. Do you think when you hit 3 goals allowed an invisible forcefield comes up behind the goalie prevent any further goals? No, ofcourse not he had to make an additional 20 saves to keep it to just 3 goals allowed. It could just as easily of been 6 goals on 40 shots to give you the exact same save percentage as your first example.

I'm not really sure you're issue. You said more shot couldn't mean a higher save percent. I showed you that's not the case, obviously that means the goalie had to make more saves.

However, like all goals, all saves aren't equal. 15 saves in a 3rd period, when you're team's been massively outshot/played and has quit, isn't the same as 15 saves in the 3rd period of a playoff game.

Again, my whole point is the same, these 2 goalies are having their stats INFLATED, by the situation. This isn't a catch all for people all the time. It's in regards to these two players who's previous play showed them as "underwhelming" NHL goalies.

It's like Scrivens at the end of last season, stats inflated by the situation.

 

[Jimmi McJenkins]

We agree he was not great on Tampa or Dallas. But what does this have to do with how he played in Buffalo or Nashville?

Not great? He was atrocious, he was the reason for losses.

Nashville, I don't know, played well, doesn't mean he can play.

Buffalo because of being a terrible team helped inflate his stats. If you feel the last 15 games of the Sabres is an accurate representation of any player, that would surprise me greatly.

 

[Comic Book Guy*]

Good grief

Your opinion has officially become irrelevant to me, save percentage as you can seemingly tell based on your math is saves made divided by shots on net. Example B he clearly made more saves relative to the number of shots allowed ofcourse the save percentage went up. Do you think when you hit 3 goals allowed an invisible forcefield comes up behind the goalie prevent any further goals? No, ofcourse not he had to make an additional 20 saves to keep it to just 3 goals allowed. It could just as easily of been 6 goals on 40 shots to give you the exact same save percentage as your first example.

This is embarrassing. He posted that because you know... that's how math works...

...and you found a way to continue arguing.

 

[Fourier]

Not great? He was atrocious, he was the reason for losses.

Nashville, I don't know, played well, doesn't mean he can play.

Buffalo because of being a terrible team helped inflate his stats. If you feel the last 15 games of the Sabres is an accurate representation of any player, that would surprise me greatly.

He played 54 games for the Preds and Sabres. He played 57 for the LIghtning and Stars.

 

[Jimmi McJenkins]

He played 54 games for the Preds and Sabres. He played 57 for the LIghtning and Stars.

Well then treat him how you like. He only play 57 games with the Bolts and Stars, because they both realized they couldn't trust him to play goal for them. He was the back up to Rinne in Nashville, so I don't know what to make of that, and playing for the Sabres, meh, again they didn't pick him up to "help" them win games.

 

[PaPaDee]

I fail to understand how a goalie playing for a terrible team will inflate his stats.

 

[Comic Book Guy*]

I fail to understand how a goalie playing for a terrible team will inflate his stats.

Math.

Jenks wrote about it in another thread.

 

[PaPaDee]

Math.

Jenks wrote about it in another thread.

Yes, thanks, I understand simple math. But I don't understand the rationale that a goalie will face less "good chances" and easier shots later in the game and inflate their save %.

 

[Fourier]

Math.

Jenks wrote about it in another thread.

Misuse of Math might tell you that but Math does not.

 

[Burnt Biscuits]

I'm not really sure you're issue. You said more shot couldn't mean a higher save percent. I showed you that's not the case, obviously that means the goalie had to make more saves.

This is embarrassing. He posted that because you know... that's how math works...

...and you found a way to continue arguing.

More shots doesn't make your save percentage go up, more saves makes it go up

This is the NCAA free agent thread so this is the last time I'll be responding to you. Clearly I said that very same thing in this thread as per my quote above Jimmi, I'm not sure what about that is so difficult for you to understand, but I'll try to teach you two as if you were in a remedial class.

The Save percentage formula goes as such:

Saves Made/ Shots on Net= Save Percentage
Saves Made is the numerator.
Shots on Net is the denominator.
Save Percentage is a result of solving the equation of saves made divided by shots on net.

This formula comes with a rule that the saves made can be equal to but never greater then the shots taken on net and since that is the case the save percentage can never be greater than 1.

I'll start with a simple example:

Saves made=4
Shots on net=5
Save Percentage= 4/5 or 0.800

You can increase the shot taken by any amount you want, but if the saves made does not increase the save percentage will only get lower and lower. You can try it now on your calculators class.
So as you can see increasing shots in isolation will never result in a higher save percentage.

You can increase the saves made and shots on net simultaneously and improve your save percentage for example we'll increase the numerator and denominator by 1 each:

Save made=5
Shots on net=6
Save percentage= 5/6 or 0.833

Which magically results in a higher save percentage. Feel free to play around with how adjusting the numerator and denominator results in different save percentages.

Hopefully after doing this, it will illustrate that to have a better save percentage you need to have a greater number of saves made relative to the number of shots taken on net. Class is dismissed.

 

[McGoMcD]

I fail to understand how a goalie playing for a terrible team will inflate his stats.

I had this argument years ago when Luongo was on the Panthers, many said his sv% was so good only because he faced so many shots. The argument was that his Defence was so bad he had so many opportunities to make saves of rebounds that the Defence bobbled. The argument was as simple to win as stating, ahhh rebounds are the hardest shots to stop. Any way, it is quality of shots that matter, usually bad teams give up lots of quality shots against. Bad teams hurt goalies stats

 

[McGoMcD]

Yes, thanks, I understand simple math. But I don't understand the rationale that a goalie will face less "good chances" and easier shots later in the game and inflate their save %.

Its bogus, any one who argues that and uses math to back that up....... brutal.

 

[alphahelix]

I don't see why we should go for a "proven starter". 90% of NHL goalies are flavour of the week or have very short prime. Guys like Lundqvist are rare exceptions. Best case scenario a goalie gets a few good years.


Right?! Lets just get a guy on the way up and pray. Lets do it twice. Just because the gamble failed last year doesn't mean we shouldn't do it this year. I know that sounds off but I believe it.

If a goalie is available, he probably sucks.