Even-Strength Goaltender Shot Quality since the Lockout
by Hawerchuk on Oct 10, 2009 3:42 PM EDT
in Shot Quality
Email
Print
Shot Quality is an idea that's been around for quite a while - Alan Ryder's original study is available here (PDF). I found a little bit more data than Alan had originally, so I''ve written about it more over the last couple of years: you can look at the 2007-08 study and 2008-09 study or check out this handy sortable chart for both seasons.
I went through and filled in the goalies for 2005-06 and 2006-07, so we can take a look at how this metric works over a number of years for which we have semi-reliable data. This time, I corrected for arena biases like the ones I described at Madison Square Garden - only Henrik Lundqvist is substantially affected, but it's in there.
So which goaltenders performed the best relative to expectations?
Every goaltender who faced 1000 shots since the lockout is listed in this table. Act refers to a goaltender's actual save percentage, and Exp is his expected save percentage based on the model. The delta is the difference between the two - positive numbers are better.
| Goalie | Δ | Act | Exp | Goalie | Δ | Act | Exp | |
| J. Hiller | 17.0 | 952 | 935 | J. LaBarbera | 0.7 | 939 | 938 | |
| Y. Danis | 14.9 | 951 | 936 | P. Budaj | 0.2 | 941 | 941 | |
| P. Rinne | 12.9 | 949 | 936 | N. Khabibulin | -0.1 | 934 | 934 | |
| T. Vokoun | 12.0 | 950 | 938 | M. Turco | -0.5 | 941 | 942 | |
| D. Hasek | 11.9 | 952 | 940 | A. Auld | -0.9 | 940 | 941 | |
| E. Ersberg | 10.6 | 951 | 940 | D. Roloson | -1.8 | 940 | 942 | |
| C. Huet | 9.6 | 948 | 938 | T. Conklin | -2.2 | 940 | 942 | |
| J. Halak | 9.6 | 945 | 935 | S. Clemmensen | -2.5 | 939 | 941 | |
| H. Lundqvist | 9.0 | 948 | 939 | K. Weekes | -2.5 | 937 | 939 | |
| S. Mason | 8.6 | 947 | 938 | F. Norrena | -3.0 | 939 | 942 | |
| M. Fleury | 8.4 | 948 | 939 | A. Raycroft | -3.1 | 936 | 939 | |
| C. Anderson | 8.4 | 945 | 936 | B. Johnson | -3.1 | 937 | 940 | |
| J. Giguere | 8.3 | 947 | 939 | E. Nabokov | -3.4 | 941 | 944 | |
| W. Dubielewicz | 7.9 | 944 | 936 | M. Biron | -3.5 | 938 | 941 | |
| T. Thomas | 7.7 | 947 | 940 | C. Osgood | -3.6 | 934 | 938 | |
| K. Lehtonen | 7.3 | 945 | 938 | A. Niittymaki | -4.0 | 937 | 941 | |
| C. Price | 7.3 | 946 | 939 | J. Harding | -4.0 | 936 | 940 | |
| R. Luongo | 7.2 | 949 | 942 | O. Kolzig | -4.3 | 937 | 942 | |
| D. Ellis | 5.9 | 943 | 937 | J. MacDonald | -4.7 | 934 | 939 | |
| R. DiPietro | 5.9 | 945 | 939 | J. Theodore | -4.8 | 933 | 938 | |
| N. Backstrom | 5.7 | 950 | 944 | S. Burke | -4.9 | 934 | 939 | |
| M. Kiprusoff | 5.2 | 947 | 941 | D. Aebischer | -5.4 | 934 | 940 | |
| M. Garon | 4.8 | 943 | 938 | D. Sabourin | -6.0 | 931 | 937 | |
| R. Emery | 4.8 | 944 | 940 | K. Ramo | -6.1 | 933 | 939 | |
| C. Ward | 4.5 | 941 | 937 | C. Joseph | -6.7 | 933 | 940 | |
| M. Gerber | 4.1 | 941 | 937 | J. Hedberg | -7.0 | 930 | 937 | |
| R. Miller | 4.0 | 945 | 941 | P. Leclaire | -7.5 | 936 | 943 | |
| J. Quick | 3.9 | 943 | 939 | J. Holmqvist | -7.6 | 932 | 940 | |
| M. Brodeur | 3.5 | 946 | 942 | P. Lalime | -9.2 | 928 | 937 | |
| M. Smith | 3.5 | 944 | 940 | H. Toivonen | -10.6 | 926 | 936 | |
| I. Bryzgalov | 3.5 | 945 | 941 | B. Boucher | -10.8 | 926 | 937 | |
| M. Tellqvist | 3.1 | 943 | 940 | J. Grahame | -13.5 | 926 | 939 | |
| M. Legace | 3.0 | 943 | 940 | J. Aubin | -14.6 | 922 | 937 | |
| M. Fernandez | 2.1 | 944 | 941 | M. Denis | -16.6 | 925 | 942 | |
| C. Sanford | 1.6 | 942 | 941 | J. Markkanen | -17.0 | 925 | 942 | |
| V. Toskala | 1.4 | 941 | 940 | R. Esche | -17.1 | 926 | 943 | |
| E. Belfour | 1.4 | 939 | 938 | J. Thibault | -18.8 | 922 | 940 | |
| C. Mason | 0.9 | 940 | 939 | D. Cloutier | -19.0 | 921 | 940 |
It's amazing to see just how well Jonas Hiller has performed so far in his NHL career - this is not to say that he's performed at his actual level of ability; this is merely what we've observed. It's impressive to see a late-career Dominik Hasek at the top of the list, and Tomas Vokoun again shows up as the most unknown star goalie in the NHL (though his $5.3 million salary says someone appreciates him.)
What's most significant about using this many years worth of data is the relative insignificance of shot quality in overall performance. The variance in expected save percentage is so low that 90% of a goalie's observed performance is due to other factors - primarily skill. If you've seen a goalie play for three or four seasons, you can be pretty confident that his actual save percentage is a good measure of his true performance. This is not to say that some goalies, like Nicklas Backstrom or Evgeni Nabokov, haven't benefited from a coach whose defensive system limits quality chances (or Nikolai Khabibulin, who faced more tough shots than expected), but for the vast majority of starting goalies, shot quality has not been a factor in their career performance at even-strength.
8 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Well it passes one sniff test — Dan Cloutier is dead last.
Hiller 1st, Giguere 13th — We’ll probably be missing goaltending coach Francois Allaire pretty soon in Anaheim.
http://www.battleofcali.com/
It looks about right. Vokoun’s an elite goalie and kept Florida afloat last year, so I’m not surprised to see him rank very high.
Looks like the heckling that Carey Price gets in Montreal may not be entirely warranted, but that the suggestions to play Halak instead might not be entirely unwarranted — although I doubt the difference between them in these statistics is all that significant. Huet and Danis both ex-Habs, are up there, too. (Heck, technically Vokoun went through the Habs system, too.)
I thought Toskala would score a bit worse than this, guess a weak Leaf defense is a factor in his performances.
Ottawa may not find Leclaire to be a savior if this list is to be trusted.
If shot percentage is of no major significance, would that tend to indicate that shots against are a very strong measure of a team’s defensive ability?
Two things at play here:
1) Yes, shot volume is usually the best indicator of a team’s defensive play. Now, some coaches will accept more shots if they can push them outside (Lemaire, Hitchcock are the best examples), but that’s a rare exception.
2) Over four years, shooting percentage is not driven by luck. But over a single season, luck is more significant. And “shot quality” – how close the other team is able to get to the net – is part of that luck. So while shot volume is the best predictor of future performance, “shot quality” has value in looking back at what happened.
Oh, and a third thing: goalie careers are short. For most players, their apparent skills come and go very quickly. So if we need four years of consistent performance, we’re unlikely to get it; we may not even be able to get four years of consistent ability.
It’d be interesting to see Kippers actual and expected SV% each season since the lock-out. Im guessing they both drop, but with the former intersecting the latter at some point.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Arctic Ice Hockey
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
