Post-Game Talk: New goalie, new year, same suckiness
- Thread starter NJDevs26
- Start date
- Status
Wedgewood is 29 years old and has played in 5 organizations, including here twice and Arizona twice. Sometimes goalies just get better late in their careers.
Blackwood has had serious injuries that he has tried to play through.
Bernier had serious injuries he was trying to play through.
This is one game.
This was one game, and Comrie's .909 save percentage in that one game is better than his career SV%.
Gillies played 12 games in the NHL 4 years before he got here.
They do when you fail to consider context. Frankly the better ones are Daws and Schmid.
I'm not saying it is all the goalies. We've all watched enough hockey to know what shots goalies usually stop and which ones they don't.
Eggtimer
Registered User
Cassidy was just on Jeff Marek show. He was asked how much he relies on analytics to make decisions and gameplan.
He said he uses both analytics plus viewing the game himself.
He said too often some stats don’t really tell the story. Examples he used - slot chances. He said a lot of times it’s not a good indicator stat. Lots of times , shots can be muffins or curling rocks into the goalie. It can be misleading. Same with shots on net. Doesnt matter how many shots you get . If they are all from the outside , it’s not a true indicator of how much you controlled the game.
I just think when we give up chances , they are epic high high danger chances. When we have break downs l they are massive mistakes that leave guys wide open or give up back door tap ins or left alone in the slot or let the shooter skate in to high scoring areas of the ice way too easily.
He said he uses both analytics plus viewing the game himself.
He said too often some stats don’t really tell the story. Examples he used - slot chances. He said a lot of times it’s not a good indicator stat. Lots of times , shots can be muffins or curling rocks into the goalie. It can be misleading. Same with shots on net. Doesnt matter how many shots you get . If they are all from the outside , it’s not a true indicator of how much you controlled the game.
I just think when we give up chances , they are epic high high danger chances. When we have break downs l they are massive mistakes that leave guys wide open or give up back door tap ins or left alone in the slot or let the shooter skate in to high scoring areas of the ice way too easily.
- May 1, 2011
- 130,295
- 57,737
Wedgewood never showed ANY capabilities of being an NHL caliber goalie until last year in Arizona (not the first time he was there).
And to even say that he's now an NHL caliber goalie might be a bit short-sighted, as he's 30 years old and it was only one year and he's been a pro goalie for a decade? Yeah, not buying it. Maybe he's having his Keith Kinkaid-like or Aaron Dell-like (there's plenty of these types of goalies) just at an older age and in reverse. Just like Curtis McElhinney or Carter Hutton or even Scott Clemmensen, but that's also not guaranteed. And with Oettinger there and the way DeBoer likes to ride his starters, I don't think we're gonna get to see a whole ton of Wedgewood this year. I think the chances of him playing as many games as he did last year are basically 0%, unless Oettinger gets injured at some point. I can't see him playing 37 games in the NHL this year, 27 might even be in question, unless Oettinger misses time with injury.
The only time Wedgewood ever showed any bright spots in the NHL before going to Arizona last year (where he was just average), was the 4 games he played in the NHL for us in March of 2016. He also had a really bad start to his AHL career before that and even spent time in the ECHL. Scott Clemmensen had an amazing 4 or 5 games of .955% or something back in 03-04 in his first 5 NHL starts. That was never replicated by him again in the NHL.
Wedgewood performed better in Arizona than he did here, where he should have looked worse than he did here.
Wedgewood's expected save percentage here last year was actually I think in the .890's%. He had the lowest expected save percentage of any goalie that played here last year, everybody else had an expected save percentage of over .900% and all but Hammond and his 7 games had an expected save percentage of above the league average.
Wedgewood played 3 games and 2 of them were against Calgary and Washington, who were among the higher scoring teams in the league last year, so that would help explain why he had such a low expected save percentage in the 3 games he played here last year.
And to even say that he's now an NHL caliber goalie might be a bit short-sighted, as he's 30 years old and it was only one year and he's been a pro goalie for a decade? Yeah, not buying it. Maybe he's having his Keith Kinkaid-like or Aaron Dell-like (there's plenty of these types of goalies) just at an older age and in reverse. Just like Curtis McElhinney or Carter Hutton or even Scott Clemmensen, but that's also not guaranteed. And with Oettinger there and the way DeBoer likes to ride his starters, I don't think we're gonna get to see a whole ton of Wedgewood this year. I think the chances of him playing as many games as he did last year are basically 0%, unless Oettinger gets injured at some point. I can't see him playing 37 games in the NHL this year, 27 might even be in question, unless Oettinger misses time with injury.
The only time Wedgewood ever showed any bright spots in the NHL before going to Arizona last year (where he was just average), was the 4 games he played in the NHL for us in March of 2016. He also had a really bad start to his AHL career before that and even spent time in the ECHL. Scott Clemmensen had an amazing 4 or 5 games of .955% or something back in 03-04 in his first 5 NHL starts. That was never replicated by him again in the NHL.
Wedgewood performed better in Arizona than he did here, where he should have looked worse than he did here.
Wedgewood's expected save percentage here last year was actually I think in the .890's%. He had the lowest expected save percentage of any goalie that played here last year, everybody else had an expected save percentage of over .900% and all but Hammond and his 7 games had an expected save percentage of above the league average.
Wedgewood played 3 games and 2 of them were against Calgary and Washington, who were among the higher scoring teams in the league last year, so that would help explain why he had such a low expected save percentage in the 3 games he played here last year.
Guadana
Registered User
Will see. I easily can believe in .5-.7% but 1.5 is too much, Especially when goalie face 20-25 shots. I know, some of them are very hard when turnover brings situation with 2 players against one defenseman in zone when goalie isn`t protected, but Vanecek missed some bad goals too.Your last sentence is the classic twist in this argument...no one is saying we got got average goaltending....I am saying average goaltending is not possible behind our team for an average goaltender.
But you've been willing to entertain that at least some portion of the SV% is team dependent... which very few posters have been willing to acknowledge. What amount are willing to grant the average goalie on a bad team?
We saw Grubauer go from .920 in 187 starts to a .888 last year with the Kraken. A 3.2% drop ... And your not willing to entertain a 1.5% drop for our team?
61 goalies played at least 20 games last year. 32 were above .907
9 were between .906 and .900
16 of them were below .900 26% of the 61. Of that bottom 16 only 4 were on playoff teams...The teams that had the first 5 picks were well represented in the bottom 16.
I think our team easily takes a .907 goaltender on a decent team and drops them to below .900...in fact we are beginning to see exactly that with Vanecek. He was was a .908 last year, .908 for his career in 75 starts and I find it difficult to imagine he'll be anywhere near that this season.
NHL Stats
The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.www.nhl.com
Wedgewood is 28th on this list. Which I find interesting.
Blackwood... I think he is just bad. May be physologically. And I`m not saying everythink is on goalies. More over, I think even if goalies will stop, Devils easily could start to lose 2-3, if they can`t drive the net and play on rebounds, and Ruff will use his best shooters with Mighty Mickey McLeod.
On the other hand, if Vanecek will start to be average, it could help mentally for our team.
I don`t think that goalies could magically help, but I think it is a problem Devils should solve. May be we are overreacting and Devils will find the groove.
But Ruff should change his strange decisions. Or another coach.
Omar Little
Omar comin yo
There is no sleight of hand. You are either willfully misunderstanding, or don't have a workable grasp of the metrics I'm talking about.
Yes, I know that goalies on a very bad team would have bad numbers. Which is why I never ranked them using raw Sv%. I've been using dFSv%. This tries to assign an "expected" Sv% a league-average goalie would be expected to stop, based on the quality of shots against. You subtract that from their actual Sv%, to get the "d" or difference between actual and expected. All the Devils goalies come in significantly below expected. Yes, the defensive environment was not good, but they performed even worse. As I said, again, an average goalie in a bad environment would still put up a "0" in dFSv%. Bad environment, bad numbers, bad performance. The Devils goalies had a bad environment, and even worse numbers than expected.
It's pretty much time to ignore whatever arguments you're using. You don't know what you're talking about. And as I said before, using these 1 and 3-game samples from Vanecek, Comrie and Wedgewood are ridiculous. It's even more ridiculous when you don't even have the numbers right. Eric Comrie put up a .909 in his one game with the Devils in 19-20. What are you even talking about? In your previous posts, you were talking about reasonable "ranges" for goaltending performance, which makes sense given the inherent volatility and variance in the position. But now you've suddenly decided that any deviation in goaltending performance is just purely the team's problem, and individual variance is impossible. You make no sense whatsoever.
Last edited:
He just doesn't know what he's talking about. 1.5% is a massive range. I showed in my previous post that a 0.5 to 0.75% range would capture about two-thirds of the goalies in the NHL we could consider "average".
And yeah, I think the Devils' defensive results are worse than the metrics show. But who is looking at a group consisting of an injured, Covid-riddled Blackwood, career journeyman Gillies, and rookie pros Daws/Schmid and thinking, "yeah, this is definitely a group of capable goaltenders!"
Edmonton East
BUT the ADvaNCEd STatS...
- Nov 25, 2007
- 6,491
- 2,447
People do understand expected GF & GA purely focuses on shot location without factoring in location of the damn players on the ice, right? Or how puck got into that shooting position in the first place? Or time of possession before release? You also should only be looking at neutral script performance: if a team is trailing by multiple goals every game for much of the time, the leading team is less likely to be pressing to score.
Just food for thought when the sample size actually becomes something useful.
JimEIV
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2003
- 66,192
- 28,543
You keep reiterating what average is. Which is completely not the point.
Please correct me if I am wrong (seriously)...
You are saying .5 to .75% +/- from .907 is average ...So if we split the difference and use .625% --You are saying a .913 to .900 is an average goalie...Am I wrong here? If not we can move on...
________________________
We know our goalies were not "average". Our goalies were below average.
Blackwood 24 starts .894 - .006 to your low end of average range... Yes? No?
You seem to be claiming that because Blackwood is out of that 90 to 91.3% range he is a bad goalie? By a half of a percent.
I am claiming this shit ass team is much more detrimental to a goalies SV% than just a half of a percent.
Not who is or is not average.
Last edited:
No, you're still misunderstanding. I have not been using raw Sv%s. I'm saying an "average" goalie should have a dFSv% +/- ~0.625 around 0. This metric takes into account shot quality. If an average goalie in a very bad defensive environment has an "expected" Sv% of .900, and ends up with an actual .900, then their dFSv% is 0. They performed as expected. Perfectly average. If they performed much worse than that, they were worse than average or worse than expected.
None of the Devils' goalies were even close to 0 by dFSv%. They were much worse than expected, even considering the defensive environment. They were just bad, straight up. Now, I do think the Devils' defensive play is worse than the metrics indicate. But there's no argument that the Devils' goalie performance is all on the team. The goalies simply played badly.
And again, I'm not talking about rating goalies by raw Sv%, because it's a very flawed stat. But if you are, then yes, 0.5% outside of my +/-0.675% "average" range is quite bad.
- May 8, 2010
- 20,258
- 35,172
This is all very interesting. Where could I find dFSv% statistics and more info on the stat? I'd be very interested in reading more on it!
JimEIV
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2003
- 66,192
- 28,543
Obviously I did not understand and am not familiar with the metric you were using.
I don't trust Expected Goals For/Against at all and honestly didn't know that there was SV% version.
Is it built upon XGF/GA?
Evolving Hockey, but you'll need a paid subscription.
MoneyPuck has some advanced goalie statistics, and they are free. But not as much flexibility/searchability.
Yes.
If you assign every shot an xG value, you can build out an "xSv% model, which is what several public analytics websites have done. This is what the stats I'm referencing are based on. dSv% would just be the xSv% minus their actual Sv%. A dSv% of 0 would indicate the goalie performed as expected. My two-thirds range for "average-ish" goaltending, as you mentioned earlier, would be roughly +/- 0.675%, as that range captures about two-thirds of regular goalies used last season (more accurately the range is tilted more toward bad goalies, but assuming a normal distribution is easier for sake of explanation).
Now, as I have said extremely frequently, I do think the xG models overstate how good the Devils are. Yet still, the Devils' goalies are so far below expected, that it really cannot be all on the team's defensive play leading to their performance. They've just been bad.
Now if people want to discount xG or whatever, then fine. There's not much more of a discussion to be had. But xG has significantly improved the accuracy of hockey forecasting, and looking at most teams' xGA or SCA numbers last season, they do track pretty closely with which teams people would consider "good defensively". The two outliers were really NJ and Seattle. And I think they had a mix of just flatly bad goaltending, and the numbers not reflecting their defensive play accurately.
Guadana
Registered User
(sorry, but youtube doesn`t want to download video, I will not make it again)
I made the video of offensive work in game with Detroit. You can figure it out where and how Devils missed their opportunities.
I see a lot of missclicks. But it`s a matter of time and chemistry. They will play better when spend more time with each others. Of course if they will not hit mental wall.
JimEIV
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2003
- 66,192
- 28,543
Any graph/statistics that puts New Jersey at the top of the league in "Two way dominance" is just full of shit. Period. The metric is just garbage. No other explanation.
I've watched just about every one of the Devils games that make up that graph...And I have been watching almost game for a very long time.
On offense the Devil's were mostly incompetent with no finish and produced a ton usually well after the game had already been lost.
On defense they were just an embarrassment. Any stat that says otherwise should never be taken seriously.
The contrast in actual results...GF, GA, differential, Wins, Points...is so ridiculous to that graph words can't explain.
Guadana
Registered User
It is not an argument. It is closer to feeling.
Defensive lapses existed, our opponents made them too. Our goalies didn`t saved us. I don`t say if they would save, we would play off team right after that.
I made video specially for you and guys who love to "oh, they play shitty game".
Detroit isn`t worser team. Their offense is even little better on paper and more proven. But shots are shots, pressure is pressure.
If we would stop to talk about air, the small of we felt in the game, we could understand where they f*cked up. Sorry, but it isn`t sh1tty game. If they scored 1 more goal and detroit didn`t score where Vanecek should save us, you would like this game a lot. Pressure. Goals. Wins. Just everything you want. It`s ok. But if you trying to break down - break it down, and do not express your upset biased feeling. You're not the only one watching these games. Everyone is watching these games.
Devils missclick in different situations, and a lot of shots were made in chest of goalie. Ruff made bad decision to have his shooters Yegor and Alexander cold. Mercer and Jack fvcked their opportunities up. But pressure, team work, and driving is there.
If you just wait only wins - just say it. We lost, I`m tired. It svcks. I don`t care how good or bad one or another player played, who is guilty, who is not. It`s ok to be honest.
JK3
Go Easy-Step Lightly-Stay Free
Screw this game, we're done here. We'll have another one to eviscerate tomorrow.
- Status
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
THE 150th KENTUCKY DERBY ( GRADE 1 ) - NBC - YOU MAY BET ON TWO HORSESWagers: 18Staked: $9,647.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
Game 2 Lehigh Valley Phantoms @ Hershey Bears - Hershey Bears leads series 1-0.Wagers: 2Staked: $1,675.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Game 4 Rochester Americans @ Syracuse Crunch - Syracuse Crunch leads series 2-1Wagers: 2Staked: $1,025.00Event closes
- Updated: