Seventieslord's thought exercise on goalie talent

[Doctor No]

Did not claim otherwise. Reasonable short term option.

BTW - comments about POPs?

I have no idea whatsoever what you mean by that acronym, and I'm not logging in often enough to be keeping up with whatever you want me to opine upon.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I have no idea whatsoever what you mean by that acronym, and I'm not logging in often enough to be keeping up with whatever you want me to opine upon.

Fair enough.

POPs = Pass of Pads. Facet of SV% that looks at all aspects touching goalie rebounds. From strategies generating rebounds to the open side to create scoring chances to goalies directing rebounds to areas for easier control and clearing.

Thomas and rebound issues have been raised so it was on point.

Lot of interesting new ideas.

 

[bluesfan94]

So your thinking is that voters for the Vezina trophy (NHL GMs) and post-season All Star Teams (hockey writers I think) were blinded by conventional stats (W, GAA, SPCT) and could not see that this was just a poor goalie benefiting from a team that was built/coached to compensate for his faults? Do you think that's fair/reasonable? Are they that unsophisticated?

And if they are, should we no longer use those trophies when comparing players in the past? Apparently stats don't work. Using trophies doesn't work. What's left to evaluate players of the past, especially those playing prior to television?

 

[Filthy Dangles]

dude turned his back on the play.... . He was definitely unorthodox but completely void of talent I dont buy.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Yeah, he's a mess...that's why you get what should be routine saves turned into adventures...when he doesn't stop them, it looks like this...

 

[Filthy Dangles]

I have no idea whatsoever what you mean by that acronym, and I'm not logging in often enough to be keeping up with whatever you want me to opine upon.

In general, what are your thoughts on Tim Thomas? I know you're the goaile authority on this site. I am not a regular here on HoH so forgive me if your stance on him is widley known or has been posted before. Do you think he's as bad as Mike Farkas thinks? How would you rank him?

 

[Hoser]

No. Not what Mike is saying or doing.

Recognizing and defining talent within the context of the opposition, not clientele. Big difference which I would expect you to understand.

Clientele as you described requires a mutually satisfactory ongoing relationship. Opposition requires an understanding of the adversarial relationship inherent in competition.

Advantage to having a frustrated opponent. No advantage to having a frustrated clientele group.

Decisions about clientele interacting employees are made accordingly as are decisions about competitive hires.

You latched on to a word and missed the point of the analogy entirely.

Mike said: "Goalie talent is not at all ambiguous - it's a competition of skills. What is ambiguous about it? This is how the world functions: on talent evaluation. If you have ever been involved in hiring with your company or with performance evaluations, that's talent evaluation."

If you give your best-performing employee a piss-poor performance evaluation and call him an absolutely talentless hack, you're an idiot. He's obviously not "talentless": he got the best results. You can make the argument that talent and results are not the same thing, which is fine, but to argue the guy with the best results is the guy with the least amount of 'talent' is patently idiotic.

BTW - care to tells us about POPs?

My favourite is either Dr. Pepper or ginger ale, but I'd drink just about any of them. I don't have a preference between Coca-Cola and Pepsi.

 

[Hoser]

I assure you that's not what he's doing.

The more he digs himself in the more likely it seems.

 

[Hoser]

1. Don't be a child. That should be enough there.

Don't make outlandish pronouncements and act incredulous when people call you out on it.

2. Talent and technique have a lot longer road together than not.

Sure, but this goes right back to what I said about "goalie talent" being too ambiguous to qualify. You take it mean "the best, most consistent technique".

3. You're conflating results with talent (including consistency, reliability, sustainability).

Talent and results have a lot longer road together than not.

 

[Michael Farkas]

It's only "outlandish" because you disagree. Again, stop being a child about this. I am not incredulous. I think everyone but two people are taking as an opportunity to learn more (myself included) and having a conversation...two people are mudslinging and/or calling names, you are in that group. Everyone else is acting like adults.

Goalie talent, again, is an amalgamation of various skills. You rate these skills and then combine them and you end up where we're at. It's not some nebulous, intangible thing...it's right there for everyone to see in every game.

Perhaps. But this is a point that's dead against Thomas who only pieced together two relevant seasons in a ~20 year pro career. That's probably not the branch I would stand on if I were you...

 

[Canadiens1958]

You latched on to a word and missed the point of the analogy entirely.

Mike said: "Goalie talent is not at all ambiguous - it's a competition of skills. What is ambiguous about it? This is how the world functions: on talent evaluation. If you have ever been involved in hiring with your company or with performance evaluations, that's talent evaluation."

If you give your best-performing employee a piss-poor performance evaluation and call him an absolutely talentless hack, you're an idiot. He's obviously not "talentless": he got the best results. You can make the argument that talent and results are not the same thing, which is fine, but to argue the guy with the best results is the guy with the least amount of 'talent' is patently idiotic.



My favourite is either Dr. Pepper or ginger ale, but I'd drink just about any of them. I don't have a preference between Coca-Cola and Pepsi.

Younger days ran a company that I founded. Upwards of 35 people on staff at times. All my hires,total over 80 during the years.

Hiring process is a challenge. Often comes down to a word or a phrase where the person being interviewed unwillingly reveals why they should or shouldn't get the position.

Soft drinks are not good for you.

 

[FerrisRox]

In 2011, even though he broke a record*, with even faint signs of life out there, GMs flocked to other answers...

Utter nonsense.

GMs flocked to other answers? Rinne and Luongo had tremendous seasons that year and they received some first place votes as well. That is not unusual or surprising. Lundqvist picked up three votes and Carey Price picked up one. Why do you characterize this as GM's "flocking to other answers?"

Five goalies received a first place vote that year. The next season, five goalies received a first place vote. The year after that, five goalies received a first place vote. The season after that, six goalies received a first place vote.

Your point is nonsense. Every year "GM's flock to other answers."

 

[Michael Farkas]

But he was so, so good...no? That season stuck out from all other seasons in the last 15 years from the stat that you are most smitten with...Why such a close raise with Rinne? Maybe they just weren't overly impressed.

You're making my point for me...it goes down statistically as a record breaking* year...but really, it was just like any other year in the eyes of GMs, in what appears to be one of the weaker goaltending windows since the early 1980's when an American high schooler came in and won a Vezina fresh out of the prom...

 

[FerrisRox]

And if they are, should we no longer use those trophies when comparing players in the past? Apparently stats don't work. Using trophies doesn't work. What's left to evaluate players of the past, especially those playing prior to television?

Just ask Mike, he'll tell ya whatever you need to know.

 

[bluesfan94]

My favourite is either Dr. Pepper or ginger ale, but I'd drink just about any of them. I don't have a preference between Coca-Cola and Pepsi.

Those are sodas, dammit.

@Mike Farkas I'm still curious as to how you propose to evaluate goalies from the past if stats don't work and trophies are meaningless.

 

[FerrisRox]

But he was so, so good...no? That season stuck out from all other seasons in the last 15 years from the stat that you are most smitten with...Why such a close raise with Rinne? Maybe they just weren't overly impressed.

It's strange, you keep talking about his "record" something that I never brought up and you keep talking about his save percentage, yet each time you bring it up, you want to pretend that I'm the one that is so caught up in it.

You realize this is a thread and everything that everybody has said is here for everyone to read. You can't just make things up and attribute them to someone else and then pretend that's how it went. Every person here knows that you are the only person that refers to this "record" (as if that somehow matters) and you're the only person that keeps talking about his save percentage.

As I said before, this is all just becoming a little bit sad.

You're making my point for me...it goes down statistically as a record breaking* year...but really, it was just like any other year in the eyes of GMs, in what appears to be one of the weaker goaltending windows since the early 1980's when an American high schooler came in and won a Vezina fresh out of the prom...

Thomas, Luongo and Rinne all had fantastic years and posted great numbers.... how on earth is it a "weaker goaltending window?"

 

[Hoser]

Those are sodas, dammit.

Pfff, says the guy who doesn't know how to pronounce the last letter of the alphabet!

 

[seventieslord]

I don't personally think he was the best. But, it's a defensible position...and look around, everyone was wiped out while Thomas was snacking away in someone's bomb shelter...in 2011, even though he broke a record*, with even faint signs of life out there, GMs flocked to other answers...

Same thing in 1998 vs 1999 when Hasek broke the record*...just not that interesting of a stat to people in and around the game...not entirely worthless, but I am not sure there is a bigger divide on stat "value" between public and 'hockey people', if you will, than this one...maybe plus/minus...

I guess I'm just a little confused how you can have him bottom of the barrel in terms of talent but at the same time say it's a defensible position that he was the best in the NHL.

Anyway, I don't want to fight with you on Thomas, because any defense I make of him would only be half-assed compared to these other guys. The point was not to fight about Thomas and it certainly wasn't to get you into a fight with other guys about Thomas.

 

[bluesfan94]

I guess I'm just a little confused how you can have him bottom of the barrel in terms of talent but at the same time say it's a defensible position that he was the best in the NHL.

Anyway, I don't want to fight with you on Thomas, because any defense I make of him would only be half-assed compared to these other guys. The point was not to fight about Thomas and it certainly wasn't to get you into a fight with other guys about Thomas.

I think that Thomas has become the focal point because the rest is fairly solid. There might be a player you bump up here and knock down there, but Thomas is the one that really sticks out.

For what it's worth, I also think Elliott should be slightly higher.

 

[FerrisRox]

I think that Thomas has become the focal point because the rest is fairly solid. There might be a player you bump up here and knock down there, but Thomas is the one that really sticks out.

For what it's worth, I also think Elliott should be slightly higher.

I would say that Jose Theodore is also way, way, way too low.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Those are sodas, dammit.

@Mike Farkas I'm still curious as to how you propose to evaluate goalies from the past if stats don't work and trophies are meaningless.

Whoa, whoa, whoa...hold the phone. No one said "meaningless" - why does anything have to be binary? Everything exists on a spectrum in life, this is no exception. We do have film going back to the 1920's and 30's of players, that should provide a strong foundation for player evaluation. Then you filter some relevant statistics as you see fit, as you're never gonna watch all the games nor do you have too (that's over scouting)...

The key is that the game is played first with a certain objective at hand...statistics also trail along and try to provide some comparative gauge of measure...stats don't come first, they don't tell the story...the game is the story, stats follow later. It's important to unpack the order correctly, or else you'll get led into faulty conclusions.

Everything is a piece to a puzzle, some pieces are more important than others in this case..."meaningless" doesn't apply, but you can't be a sucker and fall hook, line and sinker for these low-rent averaging stats as if they're gospel either...otherwise, you end up with a HOF of Tim Thomas, Carter Hutton and Brian Elliott...Cechmanek I guess is HOVG (?)...needs a foundation first, the foundation is poured in the proper talent evaluation piece...we have people in this thread trying to install the doorbell as step one of house building...

 

[Kevs Security]

Anyway, I don't want to fight with you on Thomas, because any defense I make of him would only be half-assed compared to these other guys. The point was not to fight about Thomas and it certainly wasn't to get you into a fight with other guys about Thomas.

I think this has been one of the most interesting discussions in a while. It's refreshing when someone takes a seemingly bold stance (judging by the outrage it caused) and backs it up somehow plausibly. At least it gives new perspectives and takes on subjects that may go dismissed as done deals. I for one have never really questioned Thomas' greatness. While I'm still not convinced he's a talentless scrub who just got lucky, Mike has given a plenty of new information and views on the topic which I really appreciate. And I don't think he's trolling either.

 

[Michael Farkas]

It's strange, you keep talking about his "record" something that I never brought up and you keep talking about his save percentage, yet each time you bring it up, you want to pretend that I'm the one that is so caught up in it.

You realize this is a thread and everything that everybody has said is here for everyone to read. You can't just make things up and attribute them to someone else and then pretend that's how it went. Every person here knows that you are the only person that refers to this "record" (as if that somehow matters) and you're the only person that keeps talking about his save percentage.

As I said before, this is all just becoming a little bit sad.



Thomas, Luongo and Rinne all had fantastic years and posted great numbers.... how on earth is it a "weaker goaltending window?"

This is your second post I believe in the thread, it's the first to cite save pct. figures...

How is that Thomas, that untalented bum had a .938 save percentage and an even 2.00 goals against meanwhile Rask, who you have ranked in in the second tier, oozing with talent, with the exact same team in front of him was only able to get a .918 save percentage and a 2.67 goals against?

Then you go try to ascribe "window" to an individual season...you did get the "five hole" definition right up-thread, which is a good start for you one day joining the discussion...right now, you just can't get out of your own way, I don't even have to say anything, you've negated each and every one of your own points so far in machine-like precision...props.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I guess I'm just a little confused how you can have him bottom of the barrel in terms of talent but at the same time say it's a defensible position that he was the best in the NHL.

Anyway, I don't want to fight with you on Thomas, because any defense I make of him would only be half-assed compared to these other guys. The point was not to fight about Thomas and it certainly wasn't to get you into a fight with other guys about Thomas.

Best season doesn't equal most talented. In the same way that the best skater doesn't always lead the league in points...I mean, Christ, Henrik Sedin won an Art Ross...

People are entitled to value different things in different weight classes. A lot of people put save pct. on a pedestal, I've seen the reasoning, I get it...I can see why you'd think it's good. I don't think it's worthless myself. So if you want to chase the numbers for voting purposes in a 30+ team league, I can't say that I blame you...it's a lot of hockey to watch to make an informed opinion, not only the time but also the knowing-what-the-****-you're-watching quotient (KWTFYW quotient for short)...it's literally not for everyone. Hell, maybe it's not even for me...

I know this wasn't about Thomas...that's low hanging and irrelevant fruit that only hosers will jump on...I entertained the exercise because I know the angle you're coming from and I know the angle I'm coming from and they've never been mixed on this scale before...that's why I even sought outside counsel on it to help shape things even better because I'm curious as to what kind of results may come of it...we may unlock a whole different world or we might walk away from it going "ah, you're useless to me..." - either way, it's the process - not the result - that should drive us to have these conversations...

 

[bluesfan94]

Whoa, whoa, whoa...hold the phone. No one said "meaningless" - why does anything have to be binary? Everything exists on a spectrum in life, this is no exception. We do have film going back to the 1920's and 30's of players, that should provide a strong foundation for player evaluation. Then you filter some relevant statistics as you see fit, as you're never gonna watch all the games nor do you have too (that's over scouting)...

The key is that the game is played first with a certain objective at hand...statistics also trail along and try to provide some comparative gauge of measure...stats don't come first, they don't tell the story...the game is the story, stats follow later. It's important to unpack the order correctly, or else you'll get led into faulty conclusions.

Everything is a piece to a puzzle, some pieces are more important than others in this case..."meaningless" doesn't apply, but you can't be a sucker and fall hook, line and sinker for these low-rent averaging stats as if they're gospel either...otherwise, you end up with a HOF of Tim Thomas, Carter Hutton and Brian Elliott...Cechmanek I guess is HOVG (?)...needs a foundation first, the foundation is poured in the proper talent evaluation piece...we have people in this thread trying to install the doorbell as step one of house building...

Well, I guess meaningless is perhaps too strong, but you're eschewing them in favor of your own subjective opinion. And given that goalkeeping is much much different now, using prior film and trying to mirror your evaluations here to those players seems objectively impossible. It also seems to me that your argument about Thomas' trophies is disingenuous. You're saying he had weak competition and that's why he won those trophies, and yet you rank that weak competition above him.

Yes, that objective is to win, which Thomas certainly did. For goalies more specifically, that goal is to stop pucks from going into your own net, which Thomas certainly did. There's a question of how much statistics and the eye test should be valued. But given that we don't have enough film - or at least I don't believe we have enough film - to have watched every player to have played hockey, then there must be some metric we use. Statistics, you have said, do not allow for ranking. Neither do trophies. Rather, it's this subjective evaluation of talent which is impossible for us to utilize for every player at all times in a consistent manner. Nor do we watch enough film to be consistent and confident in our evaluations. Perhaps I speak too broadly, but I doubt someone is able to claim they watch so much hockey film that they can confidently and consistently compare every player across eras. Hell, I watch a fair amount of hockey now and I don't always feel like I can do that just when comparing current NHL players.

I don't think stats are the end all be all of evaluation, but comparing stats is important, particularly when those stats are put up on the same team. I may have missed it, but that's one of Thomas' arguments that is most compelling - Rask put up substantially worse numbers than Thomas on the same team utilizing the same system, and yet Rask is placed several tiers above Thomas.