Post-Game Talk: New goalie, new year, same suckiness

[Guadana]

Having had a night to sleep on it I came to thr inescapable conclusion this is all your fault. If you moderated better maybe @Guadana has a better command of English grammar. If he can write more concrete sentences then maybe @Bleedred doesn’t have to use so much profanity in his angry goalie posts. If He can use fewer symbols instead of letter then maybe @Guttersniped can write some shorter posts. If she writes shorter posts then maybe she has more time to boo Ruff at the game. If she can boo Ruff more maybe that’s the straw that breaks the camel’s back and he gets relieved of his coaching duties. With Ruff gone amd Burnette taking over maybe the defensive system gets streamlined and they can play better in their own zone and win a few games. So based on that obvious and correct logic you are thr reason the team sucks. I don’t know how you can sleep at night. Why would you sabotage your own favorite team? What is wrong with you?

Nice. Every Devils problems base on my poor English grammar.

 

[Nubmer6]

Nice. Every Devils problems base on my poor English grammar.

Not just the Devils. The whole world

 

[My3Sons]

Nice. Every Devils problems base on my poor English grammar.

No it’s based on poor moderating. The chain of events leads back to that. You are a victim of circumstance.

 

[Guadana]

No it’s based on poor moderating. The chain of events leads back to that. You are a victim of circumstance.

If it wasn't for me, bad moderation wouldn't even be needed. You can agree - the culture of mutual respect and attitude to the team is at a sufficient level.

Not just the Devils. The whole world

We should probably dig deeper and ask my teacher at school.
I cann`t handle such a responsibility alone.
Although no, I can. After all, sometimes from conversations it seems to me that the team is playing badly because someone thinks well about the team, wants and expects success. And I'm one of those.

And I've always had a better opinion about the world.

 

[bossram]

i’m not an atheist in analytics but they’re not gospel. all hdc are not the same. all shooters aren’t the same and there are plenty of variables that don’t show up on the score sheet.

we are expected to believe that it’s a just a coincidence that all of our goalies are among the worst in the league even as we watch a team that struggles with positioning, coverage, puck battles, turnovers and chemistry

I could be pretty easily convinced that a decrepit, injured Blackwood and a cast of literal AHL goaltenders were indeed the worst goaltending group on talent in the league last year.

Now Vanecek's played one game, so it's not much of a sample to go off to argue that the Devils' defensive play literally causes league-worst goaltending.

For most teams, xGA or HDCA seem to track pretty well with which teams are good or bad defensively. The two "outliers" of the past season were Seattle and NJ. Now they could be doing some uniquely bad things which aren't captured in the stats (which I think is partly true), but it's also no secret watching these teams that their goalies have just been dogs***

 

[bossram]

These little weasel words make discussion impossible sometimes...

Nobody is claiming we got quality goaltending....the claim is: it is impossible for an average goaltender to be average here. At least that's my claim.

Yeah, that is likely true. But I don't think the Devils had an actual league-average goaltender in net at all last season, a few games of Bernier aside.

A league-average goalie, even in a bad defensive environment, has still gotta put up a .900 or something. Otherwise they weren't league-average to begin with.

 

[Bleedred]

i’m not an atheist in analytics but they’re not gospel. all hdc are not the same. all shooters aren’t the same and there are plenty of variables that don’t show up on the score sheet.

we are expected to believe that it’s a just a coincidence that all of our goalies are among the worst in the league even as we watch a team that struggles with positioning, coverage, puck battles, turnovers and chemistry

Most of these goalies have not shown prior NHL ability or it's been a while since they have before they played here.

Blackwood and Bernier were the only ones who showed NHL success fairly recently and Bernier got injured after 10 games. He was fine the first 9 games, but got destroyed in his 10th game and that was the last we saw of him until a hip surgery later in a practice scrimmage.

Vanecek has shown NHL ability, but he's only played one regular season game here.

If anything, I think it's time to start asking about the goalie coach.

I really hope Marty isn't a candidate to be the GM if things blow up and they make a change there. His signature move to this point (the Rogalski hiring) is looking like a real BUST two years in.

 

[RSeen]

Jack is the most skilled player on the ice and is a bit snake-bitten right now but he needs to start shooting like he was last year instead of making cute passes and trying to walk in and deke every time.

Nico wasn’t good but he gets a pass, Bratt wasn’t at his best, Mercer and Tatar were just bad. Need more from Palat. Sharangovich and Holtz weren’t good but they didn’t get put in the best spot coming in. Haula, Zetterlund and Wood were fine.

D group doesn’t look mobile enough and needs to start making plays in all 3 zones instead of just throwing it places. Severson had a bad game. Smith and Graves are terrible.


RUFF NEEDS TO GO!

Jack has 8 shots on net...not like he is not getting the puck on net. And that's his game, he utilizes his skating and edge work to beat defenders to open up space. He hasn't been at his peak but he has been fine.

I don't have an issue with Mercer either. He is getting the puck on net and trying to create chances. Tatar I agree with you.

 

[JimEIV]

Yeah, that is likely true. But I don't think the Devils had an actual league-average goaltender in net at all last season, a few games of Bernier aside.

A league-average goalie, even in a bad defensive environment, has still gotta put up a .900 or something. Otherwise they weren't league-average to begin with.

League average SV% last year was .907

NHL League Averages | Hockey-Reference.com

Check out the latest NHL League Averages including shots, saves, goal averages and more on Hockey-Reference.com

www.hockey-reference.com

I don't think the .900 minimum you suggest holds up when the league average is that low ...in previous years when league average was .912 or .915 sure but not last year. Not when there was a generational high 3.14 Goals For average.

And if we stick with that idea ..a league average of .915 and an average goalie on very bad team with a .900 is sufficient/reasonable .015 off.

Our goalies fell into that range.

Dawes .893 .014 off league average .907
Blackwood .892 .015 off league average
Bernier .902 .005 off league average
Gilles. .885 .022 off league average

That's 23, 24, 8 and 14 starts respectively. 69 starts in total.

Gilles is slightly out of the ranges and accounted for 14 starts. But 55 starts from the others are right in that reasonable range for an average goalie on a bad team.

 

[Guadana]

League average SV% last year was .907

NHL League Averages | Hockey-Reference.com

Check out the latest NHL League Averages including shots, saves, goal averages and more on Hockey-Reference.com

www.hockey-reference.com

I don't think the .900 minimum you suggest holds up when the league average is that low ...in previous years when league average was .912 or .915 sure but not last year. Not when there was a generational high 3.14 Goals For average.

And if we stick with that idea ..a league average of .915 and an average goalie on very bad team with a .900 is sufficient/reasonable .015 off.

Our goalies fell into that range.

Dawes .893 .014 off league average .907
Blackwood .892 .015 off league average
Bernier .902 .005 off league average
Gilles. .885 .022 off league average

That's 23, 24, 8 and 14 starts respectively. 69 starts in total.

Gilles is slightly out of the ranges and accounted for 14 starts. But 55 starts from the others are right in that reasonable range for an average goalie on a bad team.

Nope. Its not the average. Its the worst. Team wasn't really bad on any metrics except goalies metrics. And they were the worst.

Its not a goalie problem only, turnovers are bad, scoring isn't on the asking level, coaching decision are bad - send two trigger men to play 7 minutes with worst offensive player of the team, when your top lines can't find the way to score. But goalies is still big issue.

And collective psychology. I believe they just can't handle the pressure of big expectations. It's not for the first time. Amd it's on the coaching stuff too.

 

[Bcap88]

I'm almost certain Vanecek was injured at some point in the second half of the season. I think he was on pace to play more games than Samsonov early on, but Samsonov wound up playing more. Between the team preferring him to Vanecek later in the season and the time that Vanecek sat out injured.

They both got exactly 39 starts, but Vanecek appeared in 42 games and Samsonov appeared in 44.

Vanecek was hurt last year from December 19 to January 10 so he missed about a month

 

[bossram]

League average SV% last year was .907

NHL League Averages | Hockey-Reference.com

Check out the latest NHL League Averages including shots, saves, goal averages and more on Hockey-Reference.com

www.hockey-reference.com

I don't think the .900 minimum you suggest holds up when the league average is that low ...in previous years when league average was .912 or .915 sure but not last year. Not when there was a generational high 3.14 Goals For average.

And if we stick with that idea ..a league average of .915 and an average goalie on very bad team with a .900 is sufficient/reasonable .015 off.

Our goalies fell into that range.

Dawes .893 .014 off league average .907
Blackwood .892 .015 off league average
Bernier .902 .005 off league average
Gilles. .885 .022 off league average

That's 23, 24, 8 and 14 starts respectively. 69 starts in total.
Gilles is slightly out of the ranges and accounted for 14 starts. But 55 starts from the others are right in that reasonable range for an average goalie on a bad team.

I think even in a .907 league, .900 should be a decent bar for "are you a competent NHL goalie" regardless of team environment.

1.5% range off average is rather arbitrary, and honestly represents a massive chasm in goaltending quality. Adding 1.5% to a .907 goalie gets you a truly upper-echelon starter.

Using some of the advanced metrics, like EH's dFS% (difference between expected and actual unblocked shot Sv%, dependent on shot quality against), we can sort the regular goaltenders used in the NHL last season. An average goalie would have a dFSv% of 0, saving as much as expected. Of 68 qualifying goalies, Gillies ranked 68th, Blackwood ranked 63rd, and Daws ranked 60th. They all allowed more than 1% more shots than "expected" become goals.

Average (or median more accurately) performance would rate around 34th. All the Devils' goalies were bottom of the barrel. They weren't close to average.

Now, I don't think these metrics completely capture the defensive environment. So I think the goalies' numbers are being dragged down a bit by the Devils' defensive miscues. But I don't think there is any credible argument that the goaltending (other than Bernier) was even close to NHL average, or even semi-competent.

 

[Jersey Fresh]

These little weasel words make discussion impossible sometimes...

Nobody is claiming we got quality goaltending....the claim is: it is impossible for an average goaltender to be average here. At least that's my claim.

Can I just ask a more proactive question then? What’s your path forward? Tear it down again and start over?

I don’t think we know what we have until we get someone other than Ruff in here. Then these broader questions will answer themselves.

It’s obvious there’s a confluence of things happening here, but people would rather argue about what percentage to assign everything. No one is wrong and everyone is wrong.

 

[guitarguyvic]

Can I just ask a more proactive question then? What’s your path forward? Tear it down again and start over?

I don’t think we know what we have until we get someone other than Ruff in here. Then these broader questions will answer themselves.

It’s obvious there’s a confluence of things happening here, but people would rather argue about what percentage to assign everything. No one is wrong and everyone is wrong.

The bolded is what we all said and believed about the previous coach as well…That we’d be in a better position to answer questions about the players once he was gone.

The next guy is #3 for this core. I am interested in seeing how it shakes out with a new coach. If we continue to see the same old shit, then a drastic shakeup of the core has to happen. Not tearing it down, but a big trade that changes the character of the team and shows that leadership is not screwing around when it comes to making winning the top priority.

 

[Jersey Fresh]

The bolded is what we all said and believed about the previous coach as well…That we’d be in a better position to answer questions about the players once he was gone.

The next guy is #3 for this core. I am interested in seeing how it shakes out with a new coach. If we continue to see the same old shit, then a drastic shakeup of the core has to happen. Not tearing it down, but a big trade that changes the character of the team and shows that leadership is not screwing around when it comes to making winning the top priority.

The squad is not close to the same. You can’t call that the same core whatsoever.

Hughes, this version of Bratt, Hamilton, etc.

 

[JimEIV]

I think even in a .907 league, .900 should be a decent bar for "are you a competent NHL goalie" regardless of team environment.

1.5% range off average is rather arbitrary, and honestly represents a massive chasm in goaltending quality. Adding 1.5% to a .907 goalie gets you a truly upper-echelon starter.

Using some of the advanced metrics, like EH's dFS% (difference between expected and actual unblocked shot Sv%, dependent on shot quality against), we can sort the regular goaltenders used in the NHL last season. An average goalie would have a dFSv% of 0, saving as much as expected. Of 68 qualifying goalies, Gillies ranked 68th, Blackwood ranked 63rd, and Daws ranked 60th. They all allowed more than 1% more shots than "expected" become goals.

Average (or median more accurately) performance would rate around 34th. All the Devils' goalies were bottom of the barrel. They weren't close to average.

Now, I don't think these metrics completely capture the defensive environment. So I think the goalies' numbers are being dragged down a bit by the Devils' defensive miscues. But I don't think there is any credible argument that the goaltending (other than Bernier) was even close to NHL average, or even semi-competent.

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.

 

[guitarguyvic]

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 and I find it difficult to imagine he'll be anywhere near that this season.

When that invariably comes to fruition, there’s no doubt in my mind the same people are going to claim that Vanacek is now just another “worst in the league” goalie that the devils employed.

 

[Devils731]

When that invariably comes to fruition, there’s no doubt in my mind the same people are going to claim that Vanacek is now just another “worst in the league” goalie that the devils employed.

One item though, is that goalies get hot/cold or lucky/unlucky, which can last entire seasons.

So Vanacek could end up at a 915 save % and all the real problems in the system exist and he gets there because all the opponents shoot in his chest. Then next season under a Ruff system he goes and is a 895 save % guy.

Or he could end up at 895 save % while playing out of his head because even though he’s playing great the opponents are picking corners with every shot. Then next season under a Ruff system he gets hot or lucky and is a 915 save %.

——————-

I think one reason we consider goalies voodoo a bit is we lean on save % so heavily when evaluating them and that can fluctuate so wildly with small and even medium amounts of games.

For the Devils, I think it’s concerning that they can’t even get a goalie on a mini hot streak for save percentage. Even garbage goalies go on heaters for a month while the Devils struggle to have a goalie go on a heater for 3 periods.

 

[Triumph]

The bolded is what we all said and believed about the previous coach as well…That we’d be in a better position to answer questions about the players once he was gone.

The next guy is #3 for this core. I am interested in seeing how it shakes out with a new coach. If we continue to see the same old shit, then a drastic shakeup of the core has to happen. Not tearing it down, but a big trade that changes the character of the team and shows that leadership is not screwing around when it comes to making winning the top priority.

9 players on the current team played a game for John Hynes - we can throw 3 of them out immediately, Boqvist, McLeod, and Bastian all played tiny roles for Hynes and are playing tiny roles for Ruff. Jesper Bratt received 13:35 of ice time per game in the first half of 2019-20, Hughes was not Hughes at all, he could have no impact on a winning team in 2019-20, Wood is still a limited-use player. The only people playing similar roles then and now are Hischier, Blackwood, and Severson, and the latter two are free agents at season's end and I'd be surprised if either one was here next year. So I guess we're trading Hischier.

 

[guitarguyvic]

One item though, is that goalies get hot/cold or lucky/unlucky, which can last entire seasons.

So Vanacek could end up at a 915 save % and all the real problems in the system exist and he gets there because all the opponents shoot in his chest. Then next season under a Ruff system he goes and is a 895 save % guy.

Or he could end up at 895 save % while playing out of his head because even though he’s playing great the opponents are picking corners with every shot. Then next season under a Ruff system he gets hot or lucky and is a 915 save %.

——————-

I think one reason we consider goalies voodoo a bit is we lean on save % so heavily when evaluating them and that can fluctuate so wildly with small and even medium amounts of games.

For the Devils, I think it’s concerning that they can’t even get a goalie on a mini hot streak for save percentage. Even garbage goalies go on heaters for a month while the Devils struggle to have a goalie go on a heater for 3 periods.

Your last paragraph is just another piece of evidence that there’s more here going on than just bad goalies. Nearly double digit amount of goalies sporting league worst save percentages. None of them have had any streak of decent goaltending at all during their time with us, even though they did in stints with other teams before and after us. Other mediocre teams trot out average goalies constantly against us and those goalies can manage to put in above average performances. The eye test shows we have disturbingly careless puck management and a bad defensive scheme prone to wildly dangerous chances for the opposition.

It’s just too much damn smoke to ignore.

 

[guitarguyvic]

9 players on the current team played a game for John Hynes - we can throw 3 of them out immediately, Boqvist, McLeod, and Bastian all played tiny roles for Hynes and are playing tiny roles for Ruff. Jesper Bratt received 13:35 of ice time per game in the first half of 2019-20, Hughes was not Hughes at all, he could have no impact on a winning team in 2019-20, Wood is still a limited-use player. The only people playing similar roles then and now are Hischier, Blackwood, and Severson, and the latter two are free agents at season's end and I'd be surprised if either one was here next year. So I guess we're trading Hischier.

Fair enough. But it has been three years with these guys together in some degree and if a new coach can’t get it figured out at this point, then I still think some kind of shakeup with the players is the next step.

There’s clearly something rotten here. If it’s not just the coach, it’s probably the players too. If it’s not just the players, it’s probably the GM too. And if it’s not just the GM, well…

 

[Triumph]

Fair enough. But it has been three years with these guys together in some degree and if a new coach can’t get it figured out at this point, then I still think some kind of shakeup with the players is the next step.

I agree, but I think if you can't get it sorted with these skaters, it's going to be the goaltending again. The Devils have brought in too many players with a history of success elsewhere - Palat, Hamilton, Haula, and Marino have all been successful elsewhere, we know what Hughes, Bratt, and Nico are capable of, and that doesn't leave many guys to be 'the problem'.

All bets are off if they leave the same D system in place, which I didn't think they were going to do.

 

[billingtons ghost]

I think one reason we consider goalies voodoo a bit is we lean on save % so heavily when evaluating them and that can fluctuate so wildly with small and even medium amounts of games.

For the Devils, I think it’s concerning that they can’t even get a goalie on a mini hot streak for save percentage. Even garbage goalies go on heaters for a month while the Devils struggle to have a goalie go on a heater for 3 periods.

Bingo.

 

[bossram]

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.

It's not a twist in the argument. It's a response to you. You claimed that the Devils' goalie performance was within the average range for an "average goalie on a very bad team". Direct quote from you. So the claim is that they were average-ish goalies sunk by a bad defensive environment.

I'm saying they were not decent goalies to begin with, regardless of defensive environment (which I agree, the Devils are worse than captured in the available stats). Using dFSv%, the Devils' most-used goalies were at the bottom-of-the-barrel league wide. If they were just sunk by a bad environment, you'd at least think they'd be somewhere closer to middle of the pack by dFSv%. So yeah, the raw Sv%s are bad. But they're expected to be bad. They performed even worse than expected.

In another post I already pondered about whether Seattle and NJ are "outliers", given most other teams' defensive play does seem to reflect their xGA and HDCA metrics. I think it's both. Seattle and NJ I do believe are worse than their metrics indicate, but anyone just watching these teams could see the goalies were letting in garbage goals. That's just plain as day.

And I mean, Wedgewood played 3 games for the Devils last season (and was .900 the year prior) and Vanecek has played 1. It's ridiculous to make any conclusions from them.

As for quantifying what "range" is successful, I'd say if you're outside 1 standard deviation of expected performance, we could call a goalie above or below average. So the middle 66% of goaltenders are average-ish. Of the qualifying goaltenders I mentioned in my last post, Blackwood, Daws, and Gillies are all outside that range. And FYI, that middle distribution ranges from 0.57% above expected, to 0.85% below expected. So capturing the middle tier of goalies is much less than a 1% swing.

 

[JimEIV]

It's not a twist in the argument. It's a response to you. You claimed that the Devils' goalie performance was within the average range for an "average goalie on a very bad team". Direct quote from you. So the claim is that they were average-ish goalies sunk by a bad defensive environment.

I'm saying they were not decent goalies to begin with, regardless of defensive environment (which I agree, the Devils are worse than captured in the available stats). Using dFSv%, the Devils' most-used goalies were at the bottom-of-the-barrel league wide. If they were just sunk by a bad environment, you'd at least think they'd be somewhere closer to middle of the pack by dFSv%. So yeah, the raw Sv%s are bad. But they're expected to be bad. They performed even worse than expected.

In another post I already pondered about whether Seattle and NJ are "outliers", given most other teams' defensive play does seem to reflect their xGA and HDCA metrics. I think it's both. Seattle and NJ I do believe are worse than their metrics indicate, but anyone just watching these teams could see the goalies were letting in garbage goals. That's just plain as day.

And I mean, Wedgewood played 3 games for the Devils last season (and was .900 the year prior) and Vanecek has played 1. It's ridiculous to make any conclusions from them.

As for quantifying what "range" is successful, I'd say if you're outside 1 standard deviation of expected performance, we could call a goalie above or below average. So the middle 66% of goaltenders are average-ish. Of the qualifying goaltenders I mentioned in my last post, Blackwood, Daws, and Gillies are all outside that range. And FYI, that middle distribution ranges from 0.57% above expected, to 0.85% below expected. So capturing the middle tier of goalies is much less than a 1% swing.

You're also playing slight of hand here....Of course they are going to be outside the middle distribution if they are an average goaltender on a very bad team...The question is how much of them being outside the middle distribution is the TEAM's fault.

Do these goaltenders come into the bottom 33% of the 1st standard deviation on better team? Wedgewood did. In fact, he is pushing the top 33%

And still others fell out after coming here albeit in small samples.


We literally have multiple examples that say the opposite of what you are saying... And you have no evidence to support your claim...other than "they suck"

Why did Wedgewood numbers blow up after leaving here?

Blackwood with a .916 in 64 starts on a better defensive team 3 and 4 years ago vs .892 now?

How did Bernier come from Detroit with a .914 go to a .902 in New Jersey?

Vanecek .908 to what we watched Saturday night?

Eric Comrie coming from a .920 in Winnipeg to a .892 here?

Gillies .903 in Calgary to .893 here?



They are tiny, tiny samples for sure...But they all go in one direction.