The Roberto Luongo Thread

[Mr. Canucklehead]

Last one was over 1,000. Continue.

Click to read more...

 

[Bleach Clean]

VKW, in 88 games Schneider stopped a higher percentage of shots on the PK. The context was also the same. Yes, one cannot say Schneider was better conclusively over that span... If we didnt also add viewership to the equation.

At some point we have to acknowledge that the context was the same and the performance was not. We don't have to solely base it on SV%... Luckily, the "eye test" and coaches preference was there to back up the data.

 

[Vankiller Whale]

VKW, in 88 games Schneider stopped a higher percentage of shots on the PK. The context was also the same. Yes, one cannot say Schneider was better conclusively over that span... If we didnt also add viewership to the equation.

At some point we have to acknowledge that the context was the same and the performance was not. We don't have to solely base it on SV%... Luckily, the "eye test" and coaches preference was there to back up the data.

I'm not denying the eye test, and I'll agree that Schneider did better on the PK based on what I saw during his time here as well. All I'm saying is that the amount of shots against during that period(455 shots) is equivalent to just a 15 game sample size, which is far from a conclusive sample from which to rely on stats alone.

 

[Bleach Clean]

I'm not denying the eye test, and I'll agree that Schneider did better on the PK based on what I saw during his time here as well. All I'm saying is that the amount of shots against during that period(455 shots) is equivalent to just a 15 game sample size, which is far from a conclusive sample from which to rely on stats alone.

It's enough to point out the percentage of shots saved vs the total. That's all. He saved more shots against, given the same context. He also looked better, if that assuages fears of sample size. I think in this case, its safe to say he did better. Question is, why? Simply luck?

As for conclusive sample, from what I've been reading, 10+ years of shot data would have be required to base any kind of predictive analysis upon. Not realistic given Schneider's playing history.

 

[Vankiller Whale]

It's enough to point out the percentage of shots saved vs the total. That's all. He saved more shots against, given the same context. He also looked better, if that assuages fears of sample size. I think in this case, its safe to say he did better. Question is, why? Simply luck?

As for conclusive sample, from what I've been reading, 10+ years of shot data would have be required to base any kind of predictive analysis upon. Not realistic given Schneider's playing history.

How realistic it is to acquire the necessary sample size does not make it "okay" to make do with less.

Objectively Schneider stopped a greater percentage of shots during his time here. However over 450 shots that's not all that meaningful in determining if he was actually playing better, or if it was simply random variance.

Subjectively one can say Schneider played better. I would agree with that. But once you introduce subjective viewings as the main part of an argument it's hard to convince anyone who thinks otherwise based on their own subjective viewings.

 

[Verviticus]

VKW, in 88 games Schneider stopped a higher percentage of shots on the PK. The context was also the same. Yes, one cannot say Schneider was better conclusively over that span... If we didnt also add viewership to the equation.

At some point we have to acknowledge that the context was the same and the performance was not. We don't have to solely base it on SV%... Luckily, the "eye test" and coaches preference was there to back up the data.

he performed better but this isn't a valuable statement. i dont care if he performed better. i want to know if he will perform better

there's as much value in the comparison between the two on the PK as there is in me just posting splits and game logs and saying "these are objective fact!" and then nodding my head sagely

 

[BB6]

Most overtime wins: Roberto Luongo 49


I just found this out

 

[luongo321]

Most overtime wins: Roberto Luongo 49


I just found this out

Compared to what? I'm a little confused.

 

[Grumbler]

Compared to what? I'm a little confused.

I think he just got this from wikipedia. It just says "most overtime wins: Roberto, Luongo 49".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NHL_records_(individual)#Goaltending.

These stats surprised me though:
Most saves by a goaltender, in a playoff run: Tim Thomas, 798 (2011).
Most saves by a goaltender, in a Stanley Cup finals series: Tim Thomas, 238 (2011). <- We apparently fired the most shots of any team ever before?

 

[Proto]

he performed better but this isn't a valuable statement. i dont care if he performed better. i want to know if he will perform better

there's as much value in the comparison between the two on the PK as there is in me just posting splits and game logs and saying "these are objective fact!" and then nodding my head sagely

Yup. Bleach Clean keeps saying he understands sample sizes and then using absurdly small ones to try to prove points, and then he pretends that he isn't. He'll say they're too small to be "predictive" and then say you can't draw any conclusions from that small of a sample "yet", or whathaveyou.

Beyond that, there have also been a articles published that compare goaltenders to one another at 4v5 after trades between clubs, or back-up performance to starter performance, and the results are so messy and convoluted that the best conclusion anyone was able to make was "the team makes more of a difference than the individual goaltender".

Here's a quick article about the year to year sustainability of save percentages at even strength and 4v5: http://www.arcticicehockey.com/2010/3/5/1312360/is-it-possible-to-determine

Money quote:

Basically, Even-Strength save percentage, which is measured over a large number of shots, is a significant predictor of future performance, though it must be heavily-regressed to the mean save percentage. SH save percentage, on the other hand, is essentially random. Your best guess of next year's SH save percentage is the league average. Indeed, last year's even-strength save percentage is a much better predictor of next year's SH save percentage than this year's SH save percentage. No surprises here - lots of shots, even at even-strength, give us a better estimate of a goalie's talent level than a small number at any other strength.

And from the comments, he adds this:

And that even includes goaltenders who play behind PK units that don’t change from year-to-year – be they good

 

[Proto]

Here's an interesting article with a table of career 4v5 SV %'s:

http://www.coppernblue.com/2013/9/6/4696532/short-handed-goaltender-rankings-since-2005-06

Couple takeaways:

- Even if people think Schneider is the best goaltender in the NHL at 4v5 in the Salary Cap era, I don't see any reason to believe he's as good as he has been over a very small sample of games. It's inconceivable that the gap would be that big.

- Look at Luongo's total 4v5 shots versus his starts in comparison to his contemporaries. 33 less starts than Lundqvist, 300 more 4v5 shots. Same number of starts as Miller, 400 less 4v5 shots. That doesn't give you % of shots faced vs total shots, but it's an interesting look at how often the Canucks were short-handed/how many shots they gave up. That's a lot more pressure work mentally/physically, at any rate.

- Good 5v5 goaltenders like Luongo, Lundqvist, Miller, Thomas, Smith, Howard and so on seem to coalesce around 870-890 over these samples once they start to get 1500+ shots at 4v5 (across multiple teams in some instances).
Cory Schneider is the outlier here, and using him as an example when discussing Luongo is not very instructive information.

 

[BB6]

Compared to what? I'm a little confused.

Compared to anyone ever, I figured the most overtime wins would be self explanatory.

According to that site, he is the all time leader.

 

[Scurr]

Cory Schneider is the outlier here, and using him as an example when discussing Luongo is not very instructive information.

He played behind the same PK and managed a much higher PK save percentage. That point needs to be made if you're going to point to our PK like Lu didn't have a chance. Nobody is making a bigger deal of it than that.

We can't measure "true talent" but we can see it. It makes sense that a goalie that has trouble getting post to post is going to have a harder time on the PK. It's not hard to see.

 

[luongo321]

Compared to anyone ever, I figured the most overtime wins would be self explanatory.

According to that site, he is the all time leader.

Just wondering because on Martin Brodeur's official site it says he has 52 all-time OT wins http://www.martinbrodeur30.com/records/ . That is still crazy for Lu to have 49 considering he has played a lot less games than Brodeur.

 

[Proto]

He played behind the same PK and managed a much higher PK save percentage. That point needs to be made if you're going to point to our PK like Lu didn't have a chance. Nobody is making a bigger deal of it than that.

We can't measure "true talent" but we can see it. It makes sense that a goalie that has trouble getting post to post is going to have a harder time on the PK. It's not hard to see.

I think if I went around and made similar statements about other similarly small sample sizes to do with position players, it would look really silly. You're literally arguing that this needs to be "pointed out", despite the fact that it's a statistically insiginificant sample, nobody has ever shown it has any predictive value, all of the information about the topic suggests that PK SV%'s regress significantly to the league average, and league average 4v5 SV% (league average!) is a better predictor than past PK performance by a goaltender.

I honestly have no clue why you guys think this is relevant or worth pointing out. It seems like a few of you want to point at it and admit that it has no value but needs to be pointed out, but you like to imply that it has some value without defending it. I like your posts, but this isn't a very defensible argument.

I just think people need to realize how small these samples are and stop trying to infer much of anything from them. Schneider has a .912 5v5 SV% this year in 300+ shots. I don't take anything from that.

 

[BB6]

Just wondering because on Martin Brodeur's official site it says he has 52 all-time OT wins http://www.martinbrodeur30.com/records/ . That is still crazy for Lu to have 49 considering he has played a lot less games than Brodeur.

maybe martys site includes this year and is updated per game, the wiki might not get updated until the end of the year.

 

[Scurr]

I think if I went around and made similar statements about other similarly small sample sizes to do with position players, it would look really silly.

You can relate it to shooting percentage. Someone that is suffering from an "unlucky" shooting percentage may be just "unlucky" but they may also be hurt or suffering from a lack of confidence. Just because some luck is involved doesn't mean it's all luck.

Ignoring the small sample completely only makes sense if you're a superfan that wants to pump tires.

 

[thepuckmonster]

maybe martys site includes this year and is updated per game, the wiki might not get updated until the end of the year.

Brodeur has also played a significant number of games before they introduced the shootout so he finished games as a tie instead of an OT win or loss.

 

[YouCantYandleThis*]

VKW, in 88 games Schneider stopped a higher percentage of shots on the PK. The context was also the same. Yes, one cannot say Schneider was better conclusively over that span... If we didnt also add viewership to the equation.

At some point we have to acknowledge that the context was the same and the performance was not. We don't have to solely base it on SV%... Luckily, the "eye test" and coaches preference was there to back up the data.

I'm not disagreeing with your post, it was pretty clear that there were times that Schneider was outperforming Luongo.

But, I have to say, it's pretty ****ing frustrating seeing the "eye-test" get pulled out whenever the hell it pleases the person using it. Either endorse the use of statistics and leave the eye-test crap out of it or don't even mention them at all. It's stupid that people just pull it out whenever it seems most useful to them.

The eye-test especially doesn't work when you're physically biased at what you're watching. LOT'S of people around this forum had a hard-on for Schneider and a hate-on for Luongo. You really think they were making the same, fair judgements and conclusions about each goaltender. Right.

Enough of the eye-test. And especially if you're a ******* proponent of statistics.

 

[thepuckmonster]

I'm not disagreeing with your post, it was pretty clear that there were times that Schneider was outperforming Luongo.

But, I have to say, it's pretty ****ing frustrating seeing the "eye-test" get pulled out whenever the hell it pleases the person using it. Either endorse the use of statistics and leave the eye-test crap out of it or don't even mention them at all. It's stupid that people just pull it out whenever it seems most useful to them.

The eye-test especially doesn't work when you're physically biased at what you're watching. LOT'S of people around this forum had a hard-on for Schneider and a hate-on for Luongo. You really think they were making the same, fair judgements and conclusions about each goaltender. Right.

Enough of the eye-test. And especially if you're a ******* proponent of statistics.

Also the eye test means absolutely nothing if you're not someone who can actually qualify what makes a good goaltender or not. So unless someone is a professional goalie coach or has at least played the position at a high level it means sweet **** all.

 

[YouCantYandleThis*]

I think if I went around and made similar statements about other similarly small sample sizes to do with position players, it would look really silly. You're literally arguing that this needs to be "pointed out", despite the fact that it's a statistically insiginificant sample, nobody has ever shown it has any predictive value, all of the information about the topic suggests that PK SV%'s regress significantly to the league average, and league average 4v5 SV% (league average!) is a better predictor than past PK performance by a goaltender.

I honestly have no clue why you guys think this is relevant or worth pointing out. It seems like a few of you want to point at it and admit that it has no value but needs to be pointed out, but you like to imply that it has some value without defending it. I like your posts, but this isn't a very defensible argument.

I just think people need to realize how small these samples are and stop trying to infer much of anything from them. Schneider has a .912 5v5 SV% this year in 300+ shots. I don't take anything from that.

Really? Weird. I was planning to make some grand conclusions that Schneider's lost it (or never had it) based on a pretty tiny statistical sample when looking at a career.

I think it's safe to say that Schneider will never be the goaltender he was with the Canucks, and that all of his success was predicated by our team and system play.

Definitely a fair, non-hyperbolic reaction to a statistical analysis of a position that most of us know absolutely nothing about really.

 

[luongo321]

Brodeur has also played a significant number of games before they introduced the shootout so he finished games as a tie instead of an OT win or loss.

See, this is the question I have: Are shootout wins counted as overtime wins in this statistic or is it just games won in sudden death?

 

[y2kcanucks]

Also the eye test means absolutely nothing if you're not someone who can actually qualify what makes a good goaltender or not. So unless someone is a professional goalie coach or has at least played the position at a high level it means sweet **** all.

This. Not to mention the fact that people dub 95% of the goals Luongo let's in as "bad goals" while those would be blamed on defensive breakdowns for other goalies. Case in point Luongo vs Schneider last year.

 

[mrmyheadhurts]

Was anyone really worried about Luongo in the regular season? I sure as hell was not and I hated the Schneider trade. He's a proven elite starter in this league during the regular season, pretty much always has been.

It's the playoffs that I'll be watching closely; need to see some consistency and have him at least match or exceed his regular season numbers. He's had some of the best goaltending performances of his career in the post season, but he's also had some of his worst.

 

[Zanon]

Was anyone really worried about Luongo in the regular season? I sure as hell was not and I hated the Schneider trade. He's a proven elite starter in this league during the regular season, pretty much always has been.

It's the playoffs that I'll be watching closely; need to see some consistency and have him at least match or exceed his regular season numbers. He's had some of the best goaltending performances of his career in the post season, but he's also had some of his worst.

He was our best player in the games he played against the Kings and Sharks in the playoffs. The team just can't score, and probably will continue to struggle to score goals again if they make the playoffs.