Night #1 of 2011-12 NHL Hockey, and the Stupid already hurts
by Hawerchuk on Oct 6, 2011 11:19 PM EDT
in Opinions
Email
PrintI know I'm nutpicking here, but still...Paraphrasing Mike Milbury on Philadelphia's 2-1 win over Boston: "Yes, this is a game they would have lost last year because of goaltending."
Let's think that through...
Ilya Bryzgalov career save percentage = .916
Michael Leighton career save percentage = .902
Now I've written numerous times here that Leighton sucks, but over the course of his career, he has allowed 1.4 additional goals per 100 shots, or 0.3 per 22 shots, as Bryzgalov faced tonight. If we make a whole bunch of simplistic assumptions - career save percentage represents true talent, shot totals would have been roughly the same regardless of score - Bryzgalov had a 72% likelihood of allowing 0, 1 or 2 goals, while Leighton is at 63%.
The difference between the best goalie in the league and a minor-leaguer simply isn't that large, and the difference between Bryzgalov and Sergei Bobrovsky is even smaller. If Bryzgalov is two wins better than Bobrovsky, I'd be shocked, but even if we say that he is, his impact is barely noticeable over the course of a season.
20 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Paraphrasing Mike Milbury
There’s your problem.
"We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct."
- Niels Bohr
by Frag on Oct 6, 2011 11:30 PM EDT reply actions 3 recs
At this point, Milbury and Cherry aren’t even worth attempting to understand. They think hitting is being taken out of the game because there’s an emphasis on not running guys through the boards when their backs are turned, and on not turning opponents brains into mush. Seriously, Cherry was upset at a call on Luke Schenn tonight because he hit, but didn’t hurt, a guy from behind, and he’s also upset that Scott Steven’s hits today would be outlawed. He even showed the one on Paul Kariya that was absurdly late, but still quite marvelous, as an example of what won’t be allowed anymore, along with his elbow to Lindros’ head.
Follow me on twitter @CoolJ90
yeah he is a moron
that is why the Islanders were in such bad shape,
Any task BIG or small, Do it well or not at all
by Rickfansince76 on Oct 7, 2011 2:45 PM EDT up reply actions
Actually, that hyperbole fits Leighton a lot better than it does Bryzgalov!
Puck Worlds: Chasing Pucks from here to Turku.
For Twitter Updates on Puck Worlds, follow @puckworlds. For updates plus additional witty banter from yours truly, follow @saskhab.
Oh Mike, you so crazy.
Point made… and you’re not even taking into consideration the defenses those two guys played behind.
If the Red Wings don’t (really) care about getting a top goalie then it’s a good tip for the rest of the league.
Fantasy Hockey Scouts: a fantasy hockey blog on SB Nation
I may get hit by a wall of calculators here but I think there is something to be said about the unquantifiable element of a team’s confidence in front of the G.
Seen it a dozen times with the Flames and Kipper. Whoever the back-up has been in the last 5-6 years the team plays with hesitation and less offensive gusto in front of them. Protecting a lead etc. Kipper really only has had a few elite seasons, he has been average at best but the team thinks he is elite and therefore takes offensive risks to score goals because of it. In short they play better in front of him.
Perhaps the same thing is at play here in Philly now, if the team “thinks” they have an elite G in Bryz, they will no longer hesitate to attack.
That Giroux goal last night was sick by the way.
That Giroux goal last night was sick by the way.
No idea, people here don’t really watch the games.
by Simon Lamarche on Oct 7, 2011 12:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Good Call
You are absolutely right. It’s not the GAA or Save %, it’s the fact that the team can be confident in his ability, since he’s a ‘veteran’ #1. The Flyers have not had a legit and ‘elite’ #1 since Hextall.
by Tyler Wilkins on Oct 7, 2011 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions
I thought that too, but I was quickly turned off when I saw the Caps playing “confidently” in front of Varlamov in 09-10 and then apparently not confident in him at all in 10-11, even though his save percentage was on the leaderboard.
Red Line Station and @RedArmyLine, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
I believe in next year.
by red army line on Oct 8, 2011 8:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Since 1993, only 3 teams have won the Stanley cup with a goalie under .920 playoff save percentage: 2010 Chicago, 2009 Pittsburgh, 1998 Detroit. Save percentage is correlated to wins.
A difference of 0.3 goals against per game is pretty big. With quick sloppy math this amounts to a difference of around 15% in wins, or close to 12 points +/- 4.
There are a lot good forwards but much less good goaltenders in the NHL. Their relative value is therefore higher.
2010-11: Tim Thomas, career .922
2009-10: Antti Niemi, career .916
2008-09: Marc-Andre Fleury, career .908
2007-08: Chris Osgood, career .905
2006-07: JS Giguere, career .913
2005-06: Cam Ward, career .909
Only Thomas has a claim to being a top goaltender. You do not need the most-talented goaltender in the league in order to win the cup.
Bryzgalov
he has had great regular seasons but not much in the playoffs, did Leighton help them get pretty far just a few years ago. Bob the Goalie played very well, but seemed to run out of gas at the end of the season, like many young goalies
Any task BIG or small, Do it well or not at all
a game they would have lost last year because of goaltending
Last year, Bobrovksy and Boucher combined for a .915 save percentage. Bryzgalov’s career number is .916, and his career best is .921.
We shouldn’t really expect any improvement over last year. We might have expected a dropoff had they kept Bobrovsky (whose true talent is probably closer to the mean than he showed) and Boucher (whose talent is definitely lower than what he did last year), so adding Bryzgalov does make the goaltending better than it would otherwise have been, but it doesn’t make it better than what they actually got last year.
In other words, I’m on board with “this is a game they might have lost if Bobrovsky were in net this year”, but not with “this is a game they would have lost with Bobrovsky last year”.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
Re-reading, I’m not sure I emphasized the two changes in the last sentence. Both replacing “might” with “would” and “this year” with “last year” are necessary for it to be a statement I’d get on board with.
Your article emphasizes the former; I just wanted to add the latter.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
