Who had the toughest "Road to the Stanley Cup"?

[Doctor No]

Many of you already know (thanks to my steady drumbeat ) that I've added a few strength of schedule metrics to http://hockeygoalies.org.

The one that I prefer shows the average "strength of opponent", which is simply the average (weighted by minutes) opponent strength. This strength is measured in terms of goals above/below average (so a team with a rating of +1 would be favored by one goal on neutral ice against an average opponent. This is a "simple rating system" (as defined on Hockey Reference). I don't use their method, since it's a black box to me (for instance, their SRS for 2013-14 doesn't appear to take into account the Kings' playoff success, whereas mine does).

I also have different ratings for whether you face a team at home or on the road (since it's harder to play on the road, and I want that reflected in my system).

Suppose that goaltender X plays three games - in the first, he plays 60 minutes versus a team with strength +0.8. In the second, he plays 40 minutes versus a team with strength -0.2. In the third, he plays 50 minutes versus a team with strength +0.4. His shots-weighted strength of schedule would be [(60*0.8 + 40*-0.2 + 50*0.4)]/[60+40+50] = [60]/[150] = 0.40.

An average strength of schedule would be zero in the regular season, and somewhat higher in the playoffs (since the "average" opponent in the playoffs is decidedly above-average).

I describe my process a bit more here:
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1326065

With those formalities out of the way, here is the average opponent strength for each Cup-winning starting goaltender since 1983:

Playoffs | Winning Goaltender | Opp Strength | Losing Goaltender | Opp Strength
1983| Billy Smith |0.69| Andy Moog |0.31
1984| Grant Fuhr |0.04| Billy Smith |0.63
1985| Grant Fuhr |0.36| Pelle Lindbergh |0.40
1986| Patrick Roy |0.36| Mike Vernon |0.26
1987| Grant Fuhr |0.18| Ron Hextall |0.36
1988| Grant Fuhr |0.41| Reggie Lemelin |0.18
1989| Mike Vernon |0.35| Patrick Roy |0.65
1990| Bill Ranford |0.25| Andy Moog |0.32
1991| Tom Barrasso |0.12| Jon Casey |0.50
1992| Tom Barrasso |0.57| Ed Belfour |0.29
1993| Patrick Roy |0.32| Kelly Hrudey |0.49
1994| Mike Richter |0.39| Kirk McLean |0.52
1995| Martin Brodeur |0.52| Mike Vernon |0.15
1996| Patrick Roy |0.62| John Vanbiesbrouck |0.70
1997| Mike Vernon |0.37| Garth Snow |0.13
1998| Chris Osgood |0.41| Olaf Kolzig |0.32
1999| Ed Belfour |0.31| Dominik Hasek |0.58
2000| Martin Brodeur |0.38| Ed Belfour |0.40
2001| Patrick Roy |0.54| Martin Brodeur |0.35
2002| Dominik Hasek |0.38| Arturs Irbe |0.42
2003| Martin Brodeur |0.28| Jean-Sebastien Giguere |0.70
2004| Nikolai Khabibulin |0.35| Miikka Kiprusoff |0.56
2006| Cam Ward |0.23| Dwayne Roloson |0.57
2007| Jean-Sebastien Giguere |0.58| Ray Emery |0.40
2008| Chris Osgood |0.37| Marc-Andre Fleury |0.36
2009| Marc-Andre Fleury |0.37| Chris Osgood |0.24
2010| Antti Niemi |0.35| Michael Leighton |0.24
2011| Tim Thomas |0.31| Roberto Luongo |0.43
2012| Jonathan Quick |0.35| Martin Brodeur |0.21
2013| Corey Crawford |0.24| Tuukka Rask |0.56
2014| Jonathan Quick |0.53| Henrik Lundqvist |0.31

So there you have it - by this measure, Quick's 2014 postseason was harder than any Cup-winner since Giguere in 2007, and one of the hardest since 1983.

Quick's typical playoff opponent was (approximately) half a goal better than average (this is inclusive of Quick playing slightly more than half of his games on the road).

Click to read more...

 

[Doctor No]

To show you what a "hard" playoff schedule looks like, and what an "easy" schedule looks like, here's Billy Smith's 1983 playoffs (the high one) and Grant Fuhr's 1984 playoffs (the low one).

Smith in 1983:
Washington (2 of 2 games at home) 39-25-16 record
NY Rangers (3 of 5 games at home) 35-35-10 record
Boston (3 of 6 games at home) 50-20-10 record
Edmonton (2 of 4 games at home) 47-21-12 record

Fuhr in 1984:
Winnipeg (2 of 3 games at home) 31-38-11 record
Calgary (4 of 7 games at home) 32-34-14 record
Minnesota (2 of 3 games at home) 39-31-10 record
NY Islanders (1 of 3 games at home) 50-26-4 record

 

[WarriorOfGandhi]

how much would Roy's 1996 change if you removed the outlier that is the 62-win Wings?

 

[Doctor No]

Good question - here were the weights that build Roy's number:

Vancouver: 80 shots faced at home (strength -0.268), 76 shots faced on the road (strength +0.091)

Chicago: 80 shots faced at home (strength +0.415), 93 shots faced on the road (strength +0.774)

Detroit: 84 shots faced at home (strength +1.286), 92 shots faced on the road (strength +1.645)

Florida: 54 shots faced at home (strength +0.173), 97 shots faced on the road (strength +0.531).

Which composites to 0.626 (I show 0.62 rounded above, which is likely because I rounded the strength values for this hand calculation, but use a greater specificity in my database - always good to check my math ).

Without Detroit in the mix, Roy's average strength of schedule in the 1996 postseason drops to 0.32.

Semi-related note #1: I weight these by shots faced primarily because it's really weighting on the workload (if your team doesn't allow any shots through, then it really doesn't matter how good they are). On the other hand, I could see a minutes-weighting approach being valid for some purposes.

Semi-related note #2: My SRS metric has Roy's Avalanche at +0.921 if you play them at home, and +1.279 if you play them on the road.

 

[Doctor No]

Tangentially related - when I was just doing that calc, I noticed that Roy had a strength of schedule equal to -0.40 in the 1992 playoffs (when he faced the Whalers before bowing out to the Bruins). So I became curious - since 1983, given a reasonable threshold (say 500 minutes) what's the toughest playoff schedule for a goaltender (and what's the easiest)?

Bob Sauve's 1983 run with the Sabres might be the toughest - he went 6-4, sweeping the Canadiens in a best-of-five and then losing to the Bruins in seven. The Canadiens were 42-24-14 and the Bruins were 50-20-10.

I have Montreal at (+0.223 home, +1.079 road) and Boston at (+0.650 home, +1.506 road). Sauve's run composites out to 0.99. And Sauve wore #28, so how cool is that?

Roy's total of -0.40 in 1992 was actually third-worst since 1983, with Greg Millen "topping" him twice. Millen's worst was with the 1986 Blues, going 6-3 with a (seemingly impressive) 91.2% save percentage (league average was 89.4%). Millen played Minnesota (38-33-9), Toronto (25-48-7), and Calgary (40-31-9). Yuck. Overall, Millen's strength of schedule in 1986 works out to -0.53, so perhaps his inflated totals should have been expected after all.

Actually, if you click on the link and view POSTSEASON STATISTICS for Millen, his playoff opposition was largely a joke with the Blues (thank you, Norris Division!). Year-to-year: -0.46, -0.53, -0.58, -0.15, -0.50. (The -0.58 in 1987 was worse than the above, but didn't meet my 500-minute threshold, since Millen and the Blues tanked to a 32-42-6 Maple Leafs squad (Rick Wamsley helped (nested parentheses FTW))).

 

[Brooklanders*]

Great performance against average opponent. His play wasn't phenomenal like a Hasek or Roy and they did it against better competition.

 

[Doctor No]

Great performance against average opponent. His play wasn't phenomenal like a Hasek or Roy and they did it against better competition.

The numbers don't line up to support that conclusion - Quick's competition in 2014 is greater than Hasek's in 2002, and right in the range of Roy's competition for his wins.

Here was Hasek's opposition in 2002:
Vancouver (6 games) 42-30-7-3, strength 0.525
St. Louis (5 games) 43-27-8-4, strength 0.568
Colorado (7 games) 45-28-8-1, strength 0.548
Carolina (5 games) 35-26-16-5, strength 0.003

Which works out to an average strength of 0.38 (Hasek played slightly more at home than on the road).

Here was Quick's opposition in 2014:
San Jose (7 games) 51-22-9, strength 0.554
Anaheim (7 games) 54-20-8, strength 0.624
Chicago (7 games) 46-21-15, strength 0.598
NY Rangers (5 games) 45-31-6, strength 0.301

Which works out to an average strength of 0.53.

Now you may be arguing that, because of the salary cap, teams in general are weaker today than powerhouse teams of yesterday. That may be true; however, to the extent that it is true, Quick's own team suffers from that as well.

Roy's playoff runs were (sorted from lowest to highest) 0.32, 0.36, 0.54, and 0.62 (so Quick's 0.53 fits right in). I'll toss out Patrick Roy's toughest playoff run (numerically), which was 1996 and comes out to a 0.62:

Here was Roy's opposition in 1996:
Vancouver (6 games) 32-35-15, strength -0.088
Chicago (6 games) 40-28-14, strength 0.595
Detroit (6 games) 62-13-7, strength 1.465
Florida (4 games) 41-31-10, strength 0.352

 

[Brooklanders*]

The numbers don't line up to support that conclusion - Quick's competition in 2014 is greater than Hasek's in 2002, and right in the range of Roy's competition for his wins.

Here was Hasek's opposition in 2002:
Vancouver (6 games) 42-30-7-3, strength 0.525
St. Louis (5 games) 43-27-8-4, strength 0.568
Colorado (7 games) 45-28-8-1, strength 0.548
Carolina (5 games) 35-26-16-5, strength 0.003

Which works out to an average strength of 0.38 (Hasek played slightly more at home than on the road).

Here was Quick's opposition in 2014:
San Jose (7 games) 51-22-9, strength 0.554
Anaheim (7 games) 54-20-8, strength 0.624
Chicago (7 games) 46-21-15, strength 0.598
NY Rangers (5 games) 45-31-6, strength 0.301

Which works out to an average strength of 0.53.

Now you may be arguing that, because of the salary cap, teams in general are weaker today than powerhouse teams of yesterday. That may be true; however, to the extent that it is true, Quick's own team suffers from that as well.

Roy's playoff runs were (sorted from lowest to highest) 0.32, 0.36, 0.54, and 0.62 (so Quick's 0.53 fits right in). I'll toss out Patrick Roy's toughest playoff run (numerically), which was 1996 and comes out to a 0.62:

Here was Roy's opposition in 1996:
Vancouver (6 games) 32-35-15, strength -0.088
Chicago (6 games) 40-28-14, strength 0.595
Detroit (6 games) 62-13-7, strength 1.465
Florida (4 games) 41-31-10, strength 0.352

Without Henrik the Rangers had no shot against the PENs.
Quick almost got beaten by a rookie goalie.
These teams today arent built for longtime success.
The salary cap and the amount if teams today has diluted the talent pool. The high salaries paid to players have created a winning isn't the most important thing anymore like it was in Roy and Hasek two of the best ever.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Without Henrik the Rangers had no shot against the PENs.
Quick almost got beaten by a rookie goalie.
These teams today arent built for longtime success.
The salary cap and the amount if teams today has diluted the talent pool. The high salaries paid to players have created a winning isn't the most important thing anymore like it was in Roy and Hasek two of the best ever.

CB has provided number-based analysis on the By The Numbers board to work with a theory.

You've dumped nothing but debatable anecdotal thoughts with little to no support.

Is there a point at all to what you posted other than your usual anti-Quick musings?

 

[Doctor No]

Without Henrik the Rangers had no shot against the PENs.
Quick almost got beaten by a rookie goalie.
These teams today arent built for longtime success.
The salary cap and the amount if teams today has diluted the talent pool. The high salaries paid to players have created a winning isn't the most important thing anymore like it was in Roy and Hasek two of the best ever.

Your opinions on Quick are well-known. If you do your homework, you'll notice that I'm not typically pro-Quick, either.

Having said that, do you have anything other than "back in my day, we walked uphill both ways to school" type anecdotes? Your arguments seem to have nothing to do with the strength of the opponent (unless you somehow want to argue that Lundqvist didn't play against the Kings).

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Have to appreciate how a statistical analysis of the strength of Quick's opponents deteriorates into another showing of inferiority complex from someone who has to interject Lundqvist's name into every goalie discussion. Good job dude.

As for the data, most of us who were following the Kings kept reiterating that the tough matchups in the west and playing the maximum amount of games through three rounds was going to inflate some numbers, like Quick's GAA, but what mattered most was how he performed in critical moments, from elimination games, 3rd periods, and OT. Although he may have faced fewer shots than some of his opponents in net, he still had to make some game saving stops.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

CB Maybe I'm clicking links wrong or something but I see you mentioned in the other thread about trying to correlate save percentage with that strength of schedule as well--have you made any headway there? I'd love to see that too. Obviously it would be very different across eras and probably even harder to draw conclusions from but I would suppose that even if it confirmed what we all theorize to be true ("harder schedule = lower save percentage", I.e. Quick 2012 vs. Quick 2014) it would be nice to see.

 

[agentfouser]

This is really interesting, thanks for sharing. Is there a way to translate this strength-of-opponent data into an expected goals against or save percentage (a modifier on his usual numbers, I suppose)? The obvious end would be to assess whether Quick over- or under-performed, but I have no idea how much work that would take.

 

[Doctor No]

Happy to - definitely!

As Brad mentioned above, it's not really a linear correlation between opponent strength and the traditional metrics. I've tried a few things that I'm not happy with yet, but wheels are in motion. (Right now, I'm trying to get the data correct for the 1980-81 and 1981-82 seasons, but eventually I get bored with microfilm research and get back to the math ).

 

[Winger23]

Happy to - definitely!

As Brad mentioned above, it's not really a linear correlation between opponent strength and the traditional metrics. I've tried a few things that I'm not happy with yet, but wheels are in motion. (Right now, I'm trying to get the data correct for the 1980-81 and 1981-82 seasons, but eventually I get bored with microfilm research and get back to the math ).

As mentioned earlier, thanks much for the time you took to do this. It really is neat to see how current goalies have had to stack up vs the goalies of the 80's considering how different the game is now from back then.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Would be interesting to see the same analysis with the losing goalies in the Cup final just as a comparison. Intrigued by how Giguere in 2003 and Hextall in 1987 would rank when compared with the winning goalies' quality of competition.

And again, thanks for the work Chalupa Batman.

 

[Winger23]

Without Henrik the Rangers had no shot against the PENs.
Quick almost got beaten by a rookie goalie.
These teams today arent built for longtime success.
The salary cap and the amount if teams today has diluted the talent pool. The high salaries paid to players have created a winning isn't the most important thing anymore like it was in Roy and Hasek two of the best ever.

Of course Henrik had to be good against the pens. He has to be good in order for the Rangers to win any series.

Quick did almost get beat by a rookie goalie, who by the way had a few better games than even the great lundqvist during the playoffs.

These teams today aren't built for longtime success? Obviously with a comment like that you really don't know anything about Chicago or the Kings. Heck you can even look at the Ducks as a team on the rise and ready to make serious noise.

Just because the Rangers lack of talent and have many overpriced players that don't perform don't mean other teams do. I'd say the talent levels again of Chicago and LA are off the Charts, and are positioned to remain that way for several years. 3rd line players on the Kings alone would be on line 1 in NY.

I'm sorry your anti Kings pro Lundqvist stance is taking a big big hit this postseason. The pain will lessen over time. Perhaps take the time and try to illustrate just how great Hank was in the finals vs quick, start using research instead of childish rants about why Lundqvist is the best and perhaps you'd be taken more seriously.

The OP is proving that Quick's run was one of the toughest in the past 30 years. Where's your data for Lundqvist?

 

[Doctor No]

Thanks, all, for the kind words - it's nice to finally have my page in a database format where I can play around with the underlying data (for those that remember the site well, until about 18 months ago everything you saw on the page was hard-coded HTML, some of it dating back to 1994. Sad but true. ).

I just added Cup-losing goaltenders to the initial list - in all cases, I took the goaltender with the most minutes in the playoffs (so Roloson in 2006, Snow in 1997, et cetera). It can bias the totals if a coach did something unusual (for instance, if Goaltender A plays all of the home games, and Goaltender B plays all of the road games, then Goaltender B's strength of opponent will look tougher - since it actually was tougher).

Vanbiesbrouck and Giguere, lauded for runs to the Finals with lesser teams, look particularly impressive here.

Anyhow, underlying data are all in the links (under POSTSEASON STATISTICS and under NHL GAME LOGS) if anyone wants to hunt or gather.

 

[agentfouser]

Happy to - definitely!

As Brad mentioned above, it's not really a linear correlation between opponent strength and the traditional metrics. I've tried a few things that I'm not happy with yet, but wheels are in motion. (Right now, I'm trying to get the data correct for the 1980-81 and 1981-82 seasons, but eventually I get bored with microfilm research and get back to the math ).

As a professional historian, I totally understand. Microform is no joke, and it's not for the faint of heart.

 

[Brooklanders*]

Your opinions on Quick are well-known. If you do your homework, you'll notice that I'm not typically pro-Quick, either.

Having said that, do you have anything other than "back in my day, we walked uphill both ways to school" type anecdotes? Your arguments seem to have nothing to do with the strength of the opponent (unless you somehow want to argue that Lundqvist didn't play against the Kings).

You are mistaken. Anyone who has followed my posts and I
Suggest you research my comments on Quick as a player knows he is my favorite goalie. No one is a bigger fan of Quick than I and he is the most exciting goalie to watch perform since Hasek who I consider the greatest ever.
Quick IMO is the second best goalie in the league. I believe he is closing the gap on Henrik. Quick is money and the playoffs really count. Ive defended him when people said Millet deserves to represent USA. Ive supported him when people said Rask is better. Ive had him ranked number 2 since even before he won his first cup. I am not a Ranger fan either. I'm anything but Anti-Quick. So let me get the facts straight.
I did not downgrade Quicks play just where it ranks in history based on opponent who had trouble scoring all year long.

 

[Doctor No]

As a professional historian, I totally understand. Microform is no joke, and it's not for the faint of heart.

I lost several degrees of vision while finishing my doctoral dissertation, all (I believe) thanks to the film readers.

 

[Brooklanders*]

Of course Henrik had to be good against the pens. He has to be good in order for the Rangers to win any series.

Quick did almost get beat by a rookie goalie, who by the way had a few better games than even the great lundqvist during the playoffs.

These teams today aren't built for longtime success? Obviously with a comment like that you really don't know anything about Chicago or the Kings. Heck you can even look at the Ducks as a team on the rise and ready to make serious noise.

Just because the Rangers lack of talent and have many overpriced players that don't perform don't mean other teams do. I'd say the talent levels again of Chicago and LA are off the Charts, and are positioned to remain that way for several years. 3rd line players on the Kings alone would be on line 1 in NY.

I'm sorry your anti Kings pro Lundqvist stance is taking a big big hit this postseason. The pain will lessen over time. Perhaps take the time and try to illustrate just how great Hank was in the finals vs quick, start using research instead of childish rants about why Lundqvist is the best and perhaps you'd be taken more seriously.

The OP is proving that Quick's run was one of the toughest in the past 30 years. Where's your data for Lundqvist?

You obviously have no knowledge of my support of Quick. I'm not even a Rangers fan. I've watched both Quick and Henrik plenty and consider them to be the two best. Reading my past comments on threads would easily tell you that. Quick has been my favorite goalie since his rookie year. I did not blast him one bit. I was speaking historically. Nothing would please me more than watching Quick dominate like my favorite goalie of all time. But reality is Quick isn't Hasek. But neither is Henrik.
In fact Broduer to me is also better I'm just not a huge fan of his like I am with Quick. I actually don't even have feelings for Henrik as a player I just appreciate great talent.

 

[agentfouser]

I lost several degrees of vision while finishing my doctoral dissertation, all (I believe) thanks to the film readers.

Totally! Have you ever done wet copies of 19th-century handwriting? That made me long for mircoform, and it got so bad that I simply gave up on what was probably a decent body of sources. I just couldn't read them quickly or clearly enough to make it worth my time.

 

[BigKing]

You obviously have no knowledge of my support of Quick. I'm not even a Rangers fan. I've watched both Quick and Henrik plenty and consider them to be the two best. Reading my past comments on threads would easily tell you that. Quick has been my favorite goalie since his rookie year. I did not blast him one bit. I was speaking historically. Nothing would please me more than watching Quick dominate like my favorite goalie of all time. But reality is Quick isn't Hasek. But neither is Henrik.
In fact Broduer to me is also better I'm just not a huge fan of his like I am with Quick. I actually don't even have feelings for Henrik as a player I just appreciate great talent.

I know you are a Quick fan so I felt that your post was more a knock against the Rangers since I believe you are an Islanders fan.

The issue with what you are saying though is that the Rangers are only 1 out of 4 teams being used to determine the number and, as you can see, they drag Quick's number down to the 0.53 Chalupa has listed.

Rounds 1-3 featured teams that can score: a lot. That is why the run is impressive, even if he didn't look like 2012 Quick.

 

[Brooklanders*]

I know you are a Quick fan so I felt that your post was more a knock against the Rangers since I believe you are an Islanders fan.

The issue with what you are saying though is that the Rangers are only 1 out of 4 teams being used to determine the number and, as you can see, they drag Quick's number down to the 0.53 Chalupa has listed.

Rounds 1-3 featured teams that can score: a lot. That is why the run is impressive, even if he didn't look like 2012 Quick.

You are correct. I have no love for the Rangers but great respect for Henrik. He didn't look like 2012 Quick. I agree his opponents could score but not his last opponent. Same can be said about Henrik. The PENs featured some tremendous skill for instance. Flyers have similar style.