News Article: Score Adjusted Fenwick (3/12) Kings # 1

[deeshamrock]

Kings in the top spot on the updated Fenwick chart:


http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Travis-Yost/Score-Adjusted-Fenwick-Standings-3122013/134/49926

From that article /list is this:



-- The LA Kings have wrestled the top-spot from the Chicago Blackhawks. For a team that's posted just 14-8-2 out of the gate, the Kings are posting possession numbers like absolute world-beaters. Funny thing about this team, too: sportsbooks were offering 16/1 Stanley Cup odds on this club just a week ago, about eight best in the NHL. Watch how fast that number gets erased after the Kings rattle off an inevitable six or seven game winning streak.


Eric, the guy who compiles the stats and updates the list (list below

http://nhlnumbers.com/2013/3/11/pdo-numbers-by-nhl-team-mar-11

has this to say about the Kings and their numbers this year:


If this were an 82-game sked, I'd bet on them catching up to Anaheim.

Click to read more...

 

[Sydor25]

Kings aren't going to go on any winning streaks with their save percentage in the bottom third of the league. Possession doesn't mean anything if the goalies are getting beat cleanly on shots.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Kings aren't going to go on any winning streaks with their save percentage in the bottom third of the league. Possession doesn't mean anything if the goalies are getting beat cleanly on shots.

Well, it's weird, and I know anecdotal evidence might not belong in a stats thread, but...

any goalies out there? I think most would agree that it's better to see lots of shots pretty consistently throughout the game than not see any for stretches of 5 minutes then, out of nowhere, get a top-shelfer from the high slot from an NHL player. That seems to be our biggest problem this year--defensive lapses. We rope-a-dope ourselves!

I distinctly remember a stat from a few years ago where we had a positive record when outshot yet were around 500 when we were outshooting the opponent. That's Quickie for ya!

 

[Sydor25]

Well, it's weird, and I know anecdotal evidence might not belong in a stats thread, but...

any goalies out there? I think most would agree that it's better to see lots of shots pretty consistently throughout the game than not see any for stretches of 5 minutes then, out of nowhere, get a top-shelfer from the high slot from an NHL player. That seems to be our biggest problem this year--defensive lapses. We rope-a-dope ourselves!

I distinctly remember a stat from a few years ago where we had a positive record when outshot yet were around 500 when we were outshooting the opponent. That's Quickie for ya!

This is exactly why I think Bernier is putting up better numbers this season. Bernier relies on positioning to make saves and doesn't go down in the butterfly as much so he can prevent the high shots from going in. Quick relies on reflexes and has an average glove. Now the Kings aren't as good at pushing the opponents to the outside without Greene and Mitchell, Quick is getting exposed in the middle of the ice. Most of the goals Bernier is giving up are deflections along the ice. Right now the Kings defense is setup more for Bernier's style than Quick's style. Quick is just getting beat cleanly from the middle of the ice.

Does anyone know each of the goalies save percentage while shorthanded?

 

[Model62]

Love the nerd stats. Score-adjusted Fenwick is particularly nerdy (it's all shots directed at net, whether they are credited as actual shots or not, minus blocks, adjusted for "score-effects", or the tendency of leading teams to shoot less and trailing teams to shoot more, expressed as a percentage for each team (ie, if both teams get 100 shots, but the Kings get 57, the result is 57% (plus or minus the adjustment)). Awesome!)

Re: Quick. It looks to me that he's struggling to find the puck. Everything else -- the less than great positioning, the over committing -- follows from that. Did he have eye surgery in the off season, too? Or is there more traffic in front of him (as a result of weaker play by the D relative to last season)?

 

[RonSwanson*]

Love the nerd stats. Score-adjusted Fenwick is particularly nerdy (it's all shots directed at net, whether they are credited as actual shots or not, minus blocks, adjusted for "score-effects", or the tendency of leading teams to shoot less and trailing teams to shoot more, expressed as a percentage for each team (ie, if both teams get 100 shots, but the Kings get 57, the result is 57% (plus or minus the adjustment)). Awesome!)

Re: Quick. It looks to me that he's struggling to find the puck. Everything else -- the less than great positioning, the over committing -- follows from that. Did he have eye surgery in the off season, too? Or is there more traffic in front of him (as a result of weaker play by the D relative to last season)?

No Mitchell and Greene to clear the crease will result in more traffic.

 

[vh2k7]

the problem is that Quick isn't getting beat by shots with loads of traffic. he's getting beat clean on shots from somewhat outside (the first Boedker was a scoring chance but not a particularly high quality one, Quick needs to have that one, especially early in a game) where there was no traffic. Doan's shot leading to the awful rebound allowing Torres to score had no traffic. it's a two pronged problem. the kings are clearly fighting it a bit in their own zone without the puck (they're still systematic when they get the puck on their stick, thankfully), and they need the goalies to bail them out more often than they have.

of course, there's fatigue too. Quick probably shouldn't start 3 games in 4 nights. i know Sutter likes to ride his #1 but we don't have a clear cut #1 at this point in time. i wonder if Sutter viewed that as a test for Quick when he decided to start him.

what i find interesting is that it's the complete inverse of Quick's calling card when he entered the league. he wasn't elite in 09/10 but he had a knack (or at least the reputation) for making the big save at the big time. he hasn't done that much this year.

 

[KingKopitar11*]

Mitchell and Greene kept it all to the outside having the opponents rush the sides and shoot low cause they didn't have time to elevate. Quick is a pure reflex goalie and his glove isn't really good. With all these clean shots he gets beat easily. But with Greene and mitchell back he'd be the one to go with because the only threats he faces would be low shots particularly. They should try to play Bernier since he has a better glove because most shooters get more time and beat quick pretty easily.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Let's be real, guys; NHL shooters allowed to walk down the high slot into the low slot? It doesn't matter if they go glove or low blocker...ANY goalie is going to struggle if you give talented kids free reign of the slot.

Yes, it would have been nice if Quick would have saved any of those clean breaks in on him, but on most of them, the shooter was not only allowed to walk into the slot, they were moving laterally, as well.

 

[Muzzinga]

this one is better

http://www.broadstreethockey.com/2013/3/13/4099158/kangzzz

 

[KingKopitar11*]

Let's be real, guys; NHL shooters allowed to walk down the high slot into the low slot? It doesn't matter if they go glove or low blocker...ANY goalie is going to struggle if you give talented kids free reign of the slot.

Yes, it would have been nice if Quick would have saved any of those clean breaks in on him, but on most of them, the shooter was not only allowed to walk into the slot, they were moving laterally, as well.

Especially that amazingly talented player who scored with the name of Klinkhammer. Let's be real life guys mostly everyone is scoring from the slot on quick. Bernier's glove is better and with the shots that our D is allowing you put the goalie with the better glove more frequently.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Especially that amazingly talented player who scored with the name of Klinkhammer. Let's be real life guys mostly everyone is scoring from the slot on quick. Bernier's glove is better and with the shots that our D is allowing you put the goalie with the better glove more frequently.

You can downplay it if you want, but go ahead and watch the highlights--even klinkhammer got to streak down on a two-on-one and cut laterally back into the slot for a good shot.

Don't get me wrong, I want Quick to be a lot better, but it's putting a band-aid over the leak on a dam if you think 'playing the goalie with the better glove' is the fix for what's working out to be faulty defensive coverage.

To bring this back to the Fenwick discussion, it's great that we have so much possession and shots directed towards the net, but our lack of blocked shots and defensive lapses are hurting our save percentage more than good goalie play is and that also helps explain why even though we're blowing away the league in Fenwick we're still in the battle for a playoff bubble spot.

 

[KingKopitar11*]

No one said our Defense has been wonderful, they are allowing them to skate the slot easily and it's exposing Quicks weakness. Our defense is doing bad at the slot I'm just saying bernier would have a better chance to make the save

 

[Sydor25]

You can downplay it if you want, but go ahead and watch the highlights--even klinkhammer got to streak down on a two-on-one and cut laterally back into the slot for a good shot.

Quick is paid to make those saves. You can get any goalie to make the "normal" saves.

It's not like these are taps ins from a cross-ice pass. He is just getting beat cleanly too regularly. A 0.894 save percentage is not any where near what it needs to be for an NHL goalie.

Bernier has a 0.916 save percentage in front of the same defense.

Are you saying that the Kings magically play better in front of Bernier? If that is true, then why wouldn't you start the goalie that gets the better performance from the defense?

 

[SettlementRichie10]

If this were a full 82 game season SAF would correlate to points standings a lot closer. As it stands, we're going to see a few teams buck the possession trend this year.

The save percentage discussion has a few things going on. First, we're second in the league in shots allowed, which partially correlates to our possession time as well as quality of D. For everyone actually watching the games, we've seen clear cut breakdowns by the D leading to quality scoring chances, so a low shots against average doesn't automatically = great D. However, this is also why our save percentage is so terrible. Low shots against due mostly to possession time plus defensive breakdowns leading directly to high quality scoring chances equals a bad save percentage.

Could our save percentage be a hell of a lot better? Yes. But the entirety of that stat does not rest entirely on our goaltending. Most of it does, but not all of it. Sometimes your D breaks down and you need your goaltender to make a big save. We haven't seen a lot of that this year from either goalie. I've said for years that I would like teams to start tracking save percentage on high quality scoring chances rather than just shots, because it cuts through a lot of variables that can influence good or bad save percentage as the statistic stands now.

Regardless of all of this, I hope Bernier starts against the Sharks. The Sharks have had good and bad Quick figured out for years.

 

[KingKopitar11*]

If this were a full 82 game season SAF would correlate to points standings a lot closer. As it stands, we're going to see a few teams buck the possession trend this year.

The save percentage discussion has a few things going on. First, we're second in the league in shots allowed, which partially correlates to our possession time as well as quality of D. For everyone actually watching the games, we've seen clear cut breakdowns by the D leading to quality scoring chances, so a low shots against average doesn't automatically = great D. However, this is also why our save percentage is so terrible. Low shots against due mostly to possession time plus defensive breakdowns leading directly to high quality scoring chances equals a bad save percentage.

Could our save percentage be a hell of a lot better? Yes. But the entirety of that stat does not rest entirely on our goaltending. Most of it does, but not all of it. Sometimes your D breaks down and you need your goaltender to make a big save. We haven't seen a lot of that this year from either goalie. I've said for years that I would like teams to start tracking save percentage on high quality scoring chances rather than just shots, because it cuts through a lot of variables that can influence good or bad save percentage as the statistic stands now.

Regardless of all of this, I hope Bernier starts against the Sharks. The Sharks have had good and bad Quick figured out for years.

Agreed, stats are ********. We can make bone headed plays at a time that completely hangs the goalie to dry so I don't care about stats. I justcare about how often qquick gets beaten from the slot which is why I just want bernier to start. It's nothing on quick I just want a technical goalie with a glove to play cause our D completely leaves the slot open at times.

Hopefully bernier does start against the Sharks because they have good shooters and they aren't the team that would require a goalie to make athletic saves.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

No one said our Defense has been wonderful, they are allowing them to skate the slot easily and it's exposing Quicks weakness. Our defense is doing bad at the slot I'm just saying bernier would have a better chance to make the save

Quick is paid to make those saves. You can get any goalie to make the "normal" saves.

It's not like these are taps ins from a cross-ice pass. He is just getting beat cleanly too regularly. A 0.894 save percentage is not any where near what it needs to be for an NHL goalie.

Bernier has a 0.916 save percentage in front of the same defense.

Are you saying that the Kings magically play better in front of Bernier? If that is true, then why wouldn't you start the goalie that gets the better performance from the defense?

Whoa, that's not what I'm saying at all; but Richie10 answered better it than I could --basically, that the defense has been breaking down and also, both of your points, Bernier has been handling that (at least statistically) better so far. Why else would a team have such great stats and lose games?

Then, on the other side of the coin, you have teams like the Ducks last night; get thoroughly dominated, but get timely scoring. These things tend to even out over an 82-game season, but not so much in the truncated version...but I digress

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Agreed, stats are ********. We can make bone headed plays at a time that completely hangs the goalie to dry so I don't care about stats. I justcare about how often qquick gets beaten from the slot which is why I just want bernier to start. It's nothing on quick I just want a technical goalie with a glove to play cause our D completely leaves the slot open at times.

Hopefully bernier does start against the Sharks because they have good shooters and they aren't the team that would require a goalie to make athletic saves.

This gives me bad 'nam flashbacks of a couple of years back when we had the inability to defend the Coyotes and Sharks shooters when they would fade away from the net to the high slot and get COMPLETELY OPEN

 

[vh2k7]

If this were a full 82 game season SAF would correlate to points standings a lot closer. As it stands, we're going to see a few teams buck the possession trend this year.

The save percentage discussion has a few things going on. First, we're second in the league in shots allowed, which partially correlates to our possession time as well as quality of D. For everyone actually watching the games, we've seen clear cut breakdowns by the D leading to quality scoring chances, so a low shots against average doesn't automatically = great D. However, this is also why our save percentage is so terrible. Low shots against due mostly to possession time plus defensive breakdowns leading directly to high quality scoring chances equals a bad save percentage.

Could our save percentage be a hell of a lot better? Yes. But the entirety of that stat does not rest entirely on our goaltending. Most of it does, but not all of it. Sometimes your D breaks down and you need your goaltender to make a big save. We haven't seen a lot of that this year from either goalie. I've said for years that I would like teams to start tracking save percentage on high quality scoring chances rather than just shots, because it cuts through a lot of variables that can influence good or bad save percentage as the statistic stands now.

Regardless of all of this, I hope Bernier starts against the Sharks. The Sharks have had good and bad Quick figured out for years.

@robertjftc does this for Jewels From The Crown. Bernier has been better on scoring chances than Quick so far. I don't think he has anything to compare their numbers to across the league though. Quick's SV% on chances was just below .800 and Bernier's was .830, but this was at least a week ago.

 

[tigermask48]

Well, it's weird, and I know anecdotal evidence might not belong in a stats thread, but...

any goalies out there? I think most would agree that it's better to see lots of shots pretty consistently throughout the game than not see any for stretches of 5 minutes then, out of nowhere, get a top-shelfer from the high slot from an NHL player. That seems to be our biggest problem this year--defensive lapses. We rope-a-dope ourselves!

I distinctly remember a stat from a few years ago where we had a positive record when outshot yet were around 500 when we were outshooting the opponent. That's Quickie for ya!

Depends on the goalie really. I know I used to thrive in situations where I faced (or knew I'd face) more shots because it was easier to maintain my concentration and focus while constantly being active. The other goalie on our team though would struggle in those same situations since he would overthink pucks, and get himself out of position if you put sustained pressure on him. But he could make easy saves and was only give up a goal or two in a game with a light workload or games where we outshot opponents.

This holds true to NHL goaltenders as well. I remember a stat from years ago when Luongo was still in Florida. He had something crazy statline like 20 of his 30 wins coming in games where he faced 30+ shots and his save percentage was like ~.910 in games he faced less han 30 shots and ~.950 (or something absurdly high like that) in games he faced 30+. Compare that with someone like Brian Elliot or Mike Smith who you can take off their game pretty easily by just throwing everything at the net or crashing the net hard. Both are solid goalies but you can take them off their games by putting sustained pressure on them.

There is also the factor of some goalies needing to be pushed in certian situations. Look at Luongo's play this year now that he is competing with Schneider. Elliot is pretty similar to that as well as he plays better with Halak pushing him for playing time.

I think Quick is sort of wired a bit of both ways. Plays better when he faces more shots and plays better when he's competing with someone else for starts. This is really the first year in his career where he isn't facing many shots a game and isn't really competing for starts (with his long-term deal in place) with another goalie and he is struggling with it. Another thing with Quick is that he is still prone to giving up bad goals on ocassion, but where as last year (examples; Parise's wrap around in the finals, and the center ice goal in the Phoenix series) it was being masked by his great play the rest of the time, it is being magnified this year because he's struggling in the other areas as well.

My 2 cents on this... But you did ask for a goalie perspective.

 

[DaAnimal]

Why do people ignore the fact that Quick is ONLY GREAT with GOOD defensemans? Don't get me wrong, he's a good goalie, but with good defenders (Mitchell, Greener, and Scuds) he is a prolific goaltender. Yeah he's won the vezina and had the record best save percentage on the kings but that's because a lot of the times hes had good defenders that were in good positions and helped him become better.

I think a lot of people give Quick TOO much credit and with this seasons injury, it's showing. You can say, well he's had a back surgery and that has caused him to regress but if you look at proven examples where a lot of athletes whose had back surgery and come back to have a even more successful/consistent career. (And have you notice, a lot of his goals that he's given up were mainly top shelf?)

To me, this just shows that Quick, like most goaltenders in the NHL rely a lot on their defenders, which MANY of our fans overlook. He's not a big framed goaltender like Rinne. With our top defenders on the ice, I'm willing to bet that Quick will be a top 5 goaltender in the NHL (currently) but without our defenders, he'd be top 15 if lucky.